Why is it........?

[Ch53dVet]

I have every Combat Mission game starting with "Barbarossa to Berlin" and ending with "Final Blitzkrieg". I am thankful  to the computer gaming magazine media, many of which have forever faded away from the magazine rack, for providing me with the means to acquaint myself with the "Battlefront" gaming experience where grognards go to chase their own Drag(o)ons. Inside one of the magazines was an included cd-rom complete with upcoming game demo's inside was the demo for Combat Mission the install started my Drag(o)on chasing and I purchased  "Barbarossa to Berlin".  I had to anxiously await for the mailman to deliver it and when it arrived my eyes feasted on that, heavy, soft- covered, 264 page manual, nightly. The fix was in, I was\still hooked today.

 Basically, over the times, I started playing less and less till I eventually stopped, if a major game patch came along, new game or an add-on came out I would re-immerse myself.  But, then again, as usual, I'd get so damned frustrated and put them away after hearing the game engine limitation excuse over and over again and now after game engine 4.0 comes out the same game engine limitation problems are still here. Just after buying the 4.0 game engine upgrades for all the versions I own and immersing myself once again, I'm just about ready to once again retire them, I'll probably hold off till my CMFI upgrade comes out to see if I can keep myself from walking away from it once and for all.

The funny thing about all this is after not playing for a long, long time you can't remember what it was that made you give up the ghost. After a while you reach a point long after your absence to give it a try again, because, once again, you can't place your finger on one game annoyance that would totally dissuade you from giving it one more try, right? After all, they just released Game Engine 4.0, right? Heck, maybe those game engine limitations have been corrected, right?

 Well...., while I await the CMFI 4.0 download and start having pessimistic thoughts of a software's journey to shelf heaven, I think I'll make a list to include as a readme file and place it in the game folders. I can read the answer to the re-occurring question, it's a lot easier than diving into the pit of frustration to find out again.

                                                                                                                                            Why is it?

1) in player  vs.  A.I.  turn based games (W.E.G.O.) the player appears to be the only one bound to the turn based rules? Many times I've watched the A.I. counter my moves during the turn instead of the following one, when I'm the attacker and they are the defender. Enemy troops that panic and flee are quickly turned around and rejoin the fight, while I have to wait a minute and reverse mine after they have traveled halfway across the map, or, roll up their armor as I try to outflank them in the same timed turn, yet, as they outflank me I have to sit there for 1 whole minute as they target and decimate mine.

2) after placing a movement order that ends with a clear L.O.S. and targeted enemy command my unit, after arriving and jostling itself around,  just sits there and doesn't fire? After the round is over the target command is still in place, after canceling the target command and drawing a new one I'm now told they can see the target but they have no clear line of sight to engage them, nor do they have the skills to move about to get a clear line of fire, yet, strangely, the enemy has a clear line of fire on them and usually decimates them while my unit lets them do it.

3) after an enemy unit has been attacked and retreats popping smoke into the walled in alley between 2 houses my two tanks can't fire into the alley with area fire because the L.O.S. between my tanks and the ground in front of the smoke is obscured by the rubble of a demolished house, I don't want to shoot the ground in front of the smoke I want to shoot into the smoke between the two houses but for some stupid reason my tank commanders can't target the smoke only the ground in front of the smoke, when the smoke clears my two tanks are burning hulks.

4) Suppression doesn't exist in this game world for the A.I.? Example, a 3 storied stone house contains a 3 man grenade launcher team on the first floor, they are outflanked by 2 P4j tanks on the houses ESE flank and 2 complete Zug's on the WSW flank. I need to maneuver one of my 2 Zug's to the south in order to assault and enter the building. I order my 2 tanks and 1 Zug to suppress the occupied house in order for the remaining Zug to get into position, hopefully un-noticed. After the 1 minute free fire zone is over the tally is 2 dead and 5 severely wounded core units, the enemy suffered no casualties or wounds requiring band-aids. Not once did the enemy, within, ever curl up in a ball, they stood in the windows launching  their rifle-grenades into my troops, all the while under a hail of rifle, machinegun, rifle launched grenades, 75mm HE rounds and tank mounted machinegun rounds. The stone house had numerous pock marks all over it, yet, no holes from the many 75mm tank rounds that rocked it, the only units suppressed that day was my entire Zug trying to position itself to the south flank. I cease fired after the ridiculous fanfare of fireworks and heavy smoke to see what type of fanatical US troops I was engaging, lo and behold I had taken on a 3 member grenade launching  team that was out of their HQ loop, the senior member had a leadership modifier of -2 and they were green recruits.

5) sending a squad on any type of movement command like "Hunt" Northward, parallel to the fence you're next to, causes half the squad to jump over it and zig into the open roadway then zag back and jump back over the fence, numerous times, all the way to your objective? Also, why jump over a barbed wire fence when all militaries educate their recruits, exhaustively, in the correct, how-to, procedure for sliding underneath it?    

 I could make the list longer with weird tales of visibilities and invisibilities, A.T guns firing 3-4-5 times a minute at multiple targets crewed by a sole survivor, decimated units of ordinary values that lack self preservation and attack with the last man standing (until or unless, we ever get a CM game for Island hopping in the Pacific against the Japanese), or, multiple "TRP's" that every artillery piece can fire at continuously throughout the game, regardless if the "on-map-arty" has been moved or if both on and off map arty had been re-designated targets of opportunity from "FO's" and "HQ" units, the only exception would be for any of the larger permanently mounted artillery pieces that are hard mounted to a concrete slab or bolted into the bedrock, there the gun commander can rotate the barrel to numerous marked points on the arty carriages pivot\compass ring, then all he had to do was check his notes for the Elevation\Azimuth and the appropriate powder charge needed to reach the necessary "TRP".

  Side note, I don't know why the game can't place a temporary "TRP" marker after every "FO" or "HQ" unit called "fire for effect", that way, if he wants to hit the same target area again he wouldn't  waste precious rounds re-registering the same target. Provided, that is, that it's the same "FO" or "HQ" unit that called in the original mission with the original artillery battery and number of guns and the battery and number of guns have not been fired after the original mission. However, if any one of the requirement is not true then temp "TRP" marker would be forever removed, only to be replaced anew after repeating the procedure. Also, it would add realism to the map if the "Invisible to enemy "TRP" markers" came with visible impact craters that were, of course, made by registering the batteries. However, the "TRP" impact craters will only become visible when reconnoitered primarily by enemy scouts  or other units capable of passing the info through the c2 command line link, thus,  giving the savvy  player some insight to a possible and completely avoidable artillery "TRP" "Murder Hole" ambush.

[MikeyD]

Pick ANY topic - Baseball, poker, girl-chasing, computer games, pizzas, movies. Your approach to any activity at age 45 will be different than it was at 25. Its not that baseball or girl chasing or pizzas have changed fundamentally. Its you who have done the changing. You're getting older. If you're no longer able to eat cold 3 day old pizza out of the fridge at 3am like you used to don't go criticizing the pizza parlor over it.

[Erwin]

"Also, why jump over a barbed wire fence when all militaries educate their recruits, exhaustively, in the correct, how-to, procedure for sliding underneath it?"

Definitely a deal breaker for most of us as well!

" Side note, I don't know why the game can't place a temporary "TRP" marker after every "FO" or "HQ" unit called "fire for effect", that way, if he wants to hit the same target area again he wouldn't  waste precious rounds re-registering the same target. Provided, that is, that it's the same "FO" or "HQ" unit that called in the original mission with the original artillery battery and number of guns and the battery and number of guns have not been fired after the original mission. "

Actually, that's an interesting idea.

Edited February 15, 2017 by Erwin

[A Canadian Cat]

There is a chance, a small one, that I will regret doing this but I'll bite since some of what you have written is just so far off base that I would hate to have someone read it and think that there was any kind of agreement. I should start by saying, clearly you are frustrated and clearly things are not going well for you when you play. I hear your frustration. In my opinion your experience has more to do with being frustrated by not being able to be successful rather than the game. I am well aware that you will not like to hear this but: this game is hard, the AI and any human opponent is trying its best to kill your guys, this game is unforgiving, the fog of war causes confusion even with our god's eye view and things like relative spotting and realistic spotting can be very hard to understand (and sometimes take). Give your self a break it is hard. Having said that you have to learn to play better and get better at killing the other guys men.

I'll comment on each of you points - but heavily clipped just so people can orient themselves to your original post but not need to re-read it.

16 hours ago, Ch53dVet said:

...After all, they just released Game Engine 4.0, right? Heck, maybe those game engine limitations have been corrected, right?

 Well...., while I await the CMFI 4.0 download and start having pessimistic thoughts of a software's journey to shelf heaven, ...

Expectation setting here: CMFI v4 upgrade is delayed but is going to be the same game engine as the others. If there end up being some additional fixes they will be bugs not whole sale redesign. So, don't think that CMFI v4 will play differently, be easier, be more forgiving.

 

16 hours ago, Ch53dVet said:

1) in player  vs.  A.I.  turn based games (W.E.G.O.) the player appears to be the only one bound to the turn based rules? Many times I've watched the A.I. counter my moves during the turn instead of the following one,

That is absolutely *not* true. The AI is bound by the same 1 minute turns just like you are. You can see this if you play in scenario author mode you can actually watch the orders that the AI gives to its troops - just like you.

What you are seeing is the Tac AI which controls the men during each minute of WEGO (and during the execution of orders in RT). That Tac AI, which is the same AI that is controlling your men does react to what happens. Sometimes orders are even abandoned. So, in summary you give your orders, the AI gives its orders and then the Tac AI controls all the troops as they execute those orders during the nest minute. Your orders get the same treatment as the AI's. During the turn your men can react, interdict the enemy, fail to execute, abandon orders just as likely as the AI's troops. There is no AI advantage. None.

If you think you are seeing an advantage its because you are perceiving things incorrectly - frequently called observation bias. We tend to remember when bad stuff happens to our orders and fail to appreciate the times they went right or the times our guys got the better of the enemy with equal weight. Or the other possibility is our orders suck We have all made bad choices and given poorly thought out orders - and paid the price.

Summary: not even real.

 

16 hours ago, Ch53dVet said:

2) after placing a movement order that ends with a clear L.O.S. and targeted enemy command my unit, after arriving and jostling itself around,  just sits there and doesn't fire? After the round is over the target command is still in place, after canceling the target command and drawing a new one I'm now told they can see the target but they have no clear line of sight to engage them, nor do they have the skills to move about to get a clear line of fire, yet, strangely, the enemy has a clear line of fire on them and usually decimates them while my unit lets them do it.

Yeah, that can happen occasionally. I have to admit that I have see that happen but I play a lot (5-6 PBEM turns per day plus testing vs the AI) and this happens once a month or so. When it does I take responsibility to adjust things. I have a couple of additional thoughts:

On not being able to see what you thought you could: Yeah that is a game limitation. What is happening is the target tool shows what your unit can see from the selected way point based on the stance of your unit now and based on a summary of what can possibly be seen from the centre of the action square. For example, if you have a unit that is currently hiding in a tall grass field they are currently prone. If you then plot a way point across a field to a wall and then test what they can target from there you will find they can see nothing. Once they complete that move they will likely take up kneeling positions behind the wall and be able to see and target into the next field even though the target tool said you had no LOS. Or in more complex terrain once your men actually pick their locations in the action square they might not be able to see a target that they could have seen if they picked a different spot. This is the kind of thing that can result in what you are seeing. I now you think that is bad but really choices have made and that is the design. Over the years people have cooked up various proposals for controlling the source height of the LOS too and the target height of the LOS tool but the problem is it makes things to complex and creates a UI that is hard to manage. When you play you have to be aware of this kind of stuff and learn the times it is more or less likely and learn how to tweak orders to get what you want.

On not automatically adjusting position to achieve LOF to the enemy: LOL if our units automatically moved even 8m from where we told them to let along further there would the cries of the game is broken. OMG my men exposed themselves to enemy fire when I didn't want them to.

Summary: limitation. The micromanagement and UI manipulation requirements to make this "better" are way out of proportion to the benefit for such a rarely encountered problem. Also not going to change.

 

16 hours ago, Ch53dVet said:

3) after an enemy unit has been attacked and retreats popping smoke into the walled in alley between 2 houses my two tanks can't fire into the alley with area fire because the L.O.S. between my tanks and the ground in front of the smoke is obscured by the rubble of a demolished house, I don't want to shoot the ground in front of the smoke I want to shoot into the smoke between the two houses but for some stupid reason my tank commanders can't target the smoke only the ground in front of the smoke, when the smoke clears my two tanks are burning hulks.

Yeah so. This is our god's eye view making us think we should be able to things that just would not happen. Sure there probably were times when tanks and MGs fired into smoke but how effective would that have really been. This is just such small potatoes and again really does not happen game very often. Not to mention think about the real life orders the tank commanders would be giving. Their gunners cannot see anything, they never saw the retreating enemy even before the smoke arrived so the TC has to give them something to aim relative to. Not that easy really when there is smoke around. You are doing it wrong - don't stick around to see what KO's your tanks. Get them to take a better position while the smoke clears - they they will be the ones doing the killing once the smoke clears.

Summary: is this even a real problem - don't think so. Sorry

 

16 hours ago, Ch53dVet said:

4) Suppression doesn't exist in this game world for the A.I.? ....<sad story snipped>

Yes it does. I have run into the same type of story you describe. I have found that applying HE to enemy positions is devastating. Forget suppression I usually kill the enemy.

Summary: you must be doing it wrong - yeah more apologies

 

16 hours ago, Ch53dVet said:

5) sending a squad on any type of movement command like "Hunt" Northward, parallel to the fence you're next to, causes half the squad to jump over it and zig into the open roadway then zag back and jump back over the fence, numerous times, all the way to your objective?

Multi team squads spread out. They do. If you don't want them to you have to split them up. Teams look for the path of least resistance so will sometimes come out of the woods, ditch etc. head into the field and then back at the end. Here is what you do: split the squad. Give them move orders that are short and follow one side of the fence, ditch etc. then they will not wonder off (the odd guy might jump the fence here and there - meh).

Summary: its how the game works - you can control it if you use different orders. Not going to change - you have to.

 

16 hours ago, Ch53dVet said:

 I could make the list longer with weird tales of visibilities and invisibilities, A.T guns firing 3-4-5 times a minute at multiple targets crewed by a sole survivor, decimated units of ordinary values that lack self preservation and attack with the last man standing (until or unless, we ever get a CM game for Island hopping in the Pacific against the Japanese),

LOL I wish my AT gun crews would do that when they get down to one crew member. Sure, it can theoretically happen and clearly does occasionally. This is not average behaviour. This is *not* happening to you every time. Heck it is not happening to you even remotely regularly.

Summary: not even real

 

16 hours ago, Ch53dVet said:

or, multiple "TRP's" that every artillery piece can fire at continuously throughout the game, regardless if the "on-map-arty" has been moved or if both on and off map arty had been re-designated targets of opportunity from "FO's" and "HQ" units, the only exception would be for any of the larger permanently mounted artillery pieces that are hard mounted to a concrete slab or bolted into the bedrock, there the gun commander can rotate the barrel to numerous marked points on the arty carriages pivot\compass ring, then all he had to do was check his notes for the Elevation\Azimuth and the appropriate powder charge needed to reach the necessary "TRP".

Right. This is the way the game is designed. Sorry it bugs you so much.

Summary: long standing way it is built not likely to change.

 

16 hours ago, Ch53dVet said:

  Side note, I don't know why the game can't place a temporary "TRP" marker after every "FO" or "HQ" unit called "fire for effect", that way, if he wants to hit the same target area again ...

Yeah that would be awesome. This has been requested before. One of the problems of course is that since TRPs are magically available for all firers and all callers. Adding this would be much to powerful. Which means it would need to come after a total rework of the artillery system to address your issues mentioned above.

Summary: maybe some day. But don't hold your breath - because you might die

[Warts 'n' all]

I think IanL has nailed this right on the head.

[Ch53dVet]

18 hours ago, MikeyD said:

Pick ANY topic - Baseball, poker, girl-chasing, computer games, pizzas, movies. Your approach to any activity at age 45 will be different than it was at 25. Its not that baseball or girl chasing or pizzas have changed fundamentally. Its you who have done the changing. You're getting older. If you're no longer able to eat cold 3 day old pizza out of the fridge at 3am like you used to don't go criticizing the pizza parlor over it.

You've got your "Fanboy" logic way off course in trying to label the original poster as a, feeble-minded and cynical old man.

You left out the prayer "Forgive him lord for he knows not of the things he has posted".

Your way of trying to stifle the written perception of the poster for pointing out anomalies he has witnessed on more than one occasion is akin to criticizing a rape victim for the clothes she was wearing.

So.... to set the logic straight it goes like this.

When you're younger, you know everything, can do anything, can't be told anything, rush head first into anything and throw out anything you have leftover after eating.

As you get older you strive to, read, study and analyze every factual thing you thought you knew, you try harder to not give up the things that are harder to do, you actually listen to and take the advise of others when you realize your way is not always the correct one. fools rush in where, aged, wise men know better than to attempt\enter, the aged know left over Italian food always tastes better when the herbs and seasonings have the correct amount of time\days to fully permeate the meal.

When you read my post you had several options available.

1) disagreed and said nothing

2) disagreed and try to help me or show me what was actually happening

3) sympathized and related your experiences

4) added more to the list

Instead you decided to attack and try to discredit the author because any views or criticisms unlike your own must not be tolerated.

[Warts 'n' all]

I do wish people would stop calling anyone who tries to explain how this game works as "fanboys". I can't speak for Mikey D, but this is what happened the last time someone said it to me. 

[Pak40]

1 hour ago, Ch53dVet said:

Instead you decided to attack and try to discredit the author because any views or criticisms unlike your own must not be tolerated.

Wow, I'm not sure why you think this was an attack on "the poster", which was you. BTW, why are you talking about yourself in the 3rd person? Odd.

Anyway, he's just trying to say that people's tastes change as they age. Maybe you don't play as much because you're different than you used to be. It's certainly true of me. I don't think he was trying to be rude or try to give excuses as to why the game has these limitations.

And, btw, we're all well aware of these game limitations or unrealistic aspects of the game. But, answer me this: Is there a more realistic tactical game on the market? NO. So that's why we play Combat Mission.

[Ch53dVet]

1 hour ago, Warts 'n' all said:

I do wish people would stop calling anyone who tries to explain how this game works as "fanboys". I can't speak for Mikey D, but this is what happened the last time someone said it to me.

Show me where MikeyD tried to explain to me how this game works.

21 hours ago, MikeyD said:

Pick ANY topic - Baseball, poker, girl-chasing, computer games, pizzas, movies. Your approach to any activity at age 45 will be different than it was at 25. Its not that baseball or girl chasing or pizzas have changed fundamentally. Its you who have done the changing. You're getting older. If you're no longer able to eat cold 3 day old pizza out of the fridge at 3am like you used to don't go criticizing the pizza parlor over it.

He doesn't comment on anything relevant to my post.

He insults me by indirectly implying that all my complaints are from being feeble-minded through growing older.

That doesn't bother you, yet, when I label him as a "dyed in the wool", "there is nothing wrong with this game", "ideologue" you have the audacity to threaten me with a severed head?

Next time if you don't have anything relevant to say do yourself a favor and say nothing at all.

[Ch53dVet]

50 minutes ago, Pak40 said:

Wow, I'm not sure why you think this was an attack on "the poster", which was you. BTW, why are you talking about yourself in the 3rd person? Odd.

Really?  you don't see anything remotely implied to a certain character flaw from getting older? Just like you don't think I don't see the same kind of character attack by you questioning the 3rd party remark?  Look, if you don't have any constructive criticism or helpful advise to counter the zany idiosyncrasies that my units do at all the wrong times then please leave me be. I didn't come here for fight night, just friendly conversation and relevant answers to the occasion questions I might have. Good day to you too.

[sburke]

On 2/14/2017 at 4:02 PM, Ch53dVet said:

I'd get so damned frustrated and put them away after hearing the game engine limitation excuse over and over again and now after game engine 4.0 comes out the same game engine limitation problems are still here.

Not to offend, but you didn't come here for a conversation.  You came here to vent your frustration.  I can appreciate that and am sorry your enjoyment of the game is impaired, but your perceptions on many things as IanL noted are just completely wrong.  I don't know how to convince you of something that is absolutely true and Steve can confirm, but you don't want to believe.  You've convinced yourself the game has different rules for the AI (suppression etc) which it absolutely does not.  That tells me that you are allowing your frustrations to alter your perceptions.

I quoted the above because I have heard it fairly frequently.  It never goes anywhere positive because you have two polar opposites.  Those who realize there is only so much that can be packed into the code and those who don't.  If you don't you will expect BF to create crawling under a barbed wire fence.  If you do you realize it isn't a "barbed wire fence"  It is a "wall object" with it's own specific characteristics.  Adding crawling under it isn't just a matter of telling your guys to crawl, it means coding the "wall object" to allow that behavior.  I'd also like guys to climb into ground floor windows.  I'd like them to not come out onto a balcony and leave the protection of a building just because there is a balcony.  I'd really love the TAC AI to be smarter about some stuff, but TAC AI is incredibly difficult.  That the game performs as well as it does is a minor miracle.

You already know it is a computer game which is bound to have limitations because well it is a computer game.  If you aren't going to accept that it is gonna have limitations I'd suggest shelving and not coming back. You are only going to end up getting frustrated again.  That is not meant to be insulting.  I have played games that hit me the same way.  I just never go back to them.

I was testing a scenario for JonS for the battlepack one day.  The Germans were occupying a group of houses facing out over a field. I had a group of men (British Paras) in separate teams approach the row from a blind side.  I then had a unit open fire on the houses from the field.  All the Germans ran to the front of the houses.  I breached the first house and had my other teams roll up the houses from the rear eliminating some 18 Germans without a loss.  It was probably my best single turn ever in CM. The execution by my pixeltruppen was perfect and the cinema moment was so cool I just watched it over and over.  I'll probably never be able to repeat it.  To Pak40's point that is why I play CM, there simply isn't anything else like it.

I'm older than when I started playing CMBO . . . a lot older.  There isn't anything wrong with changes in behavior due to age. Interests change, patience levels change.  You have to get up to go to the bathroom more often.  However I have more money and a more comfortable place to play CM and I can afford Depends.  .  It all evens out.  Now get off my lawn hippy. 

[Michael Emrys]

2 hours ago, Ch53dVet said:

you don't see anything remotely implied to a certain character flaw from getting older?

Nope, and it's revealing that you do. All he was saying was that as we age our tastes in many things are apt to undergo changes. Full stop. Anything else that you read into it is purely of your own creation.

Also, calling anyone here a "fanboy" is IMO a nasty bitch trick, implying that the other person's opinion on any subject is spurious and can be automatically dismissed. The people who were generous enough with their time to reply to you were trying to be helpful. How much help their advice might actually be can be another matter, we all know that. But they were trying, see? And they deserve a more gracious response than you gave.

Michael

[Pak40]

3 hours ago, Ch53dVet said:

Really?  you don't see anything remotely implied to a certain character flaw from getting older? Just like you don't think I don't see the same kind of character attack by you questioning the 3rd party remark?  Look, if you don't have any constructive criticism or helpful advise to counter the zany idiosyncrasies that my units do at all the wrong times then please leave me be. I didn't come here for fight night, just friendly conversation and relevant answers to the occasion questions I might have. Good day to you too.

No, how is getting older a character flaw? You're reading way too much into his post and mine. I just found it odd that you're referring to yourself in the 3rd person, now I'm pretty sure you're a troll looking for his next meal. You didn't come for a fight but you're the only person here picking one. Every person here that's responded to you has been helping players for YEARS on this forum, especially MikeyD who is a beta tester. We've all been on the forums that long. You're here one day and you're picking a fight. You could have simply said "no, it's not my change in taste as I'm getting older", but instead you directly insult him and ASSUME that he is attacking you and trying to discredit you.

[Warts 'n' all]

"you have the audacity to threaten me with a severed head?"..... I've never threatened anybody. I just signed the death warrant. Joking aside, please try to get a sense of humour, stop calling the regulars "fanboys", and take on board the advice given by people like IanL, and then you'll enjoy both the game and your visits to the forum more.

[Jock Tamson]

9 hours ago, sburke said:

  Those who realize there is only so much that can be packed into the code and those who don't. 

With respect, and speaking as someone who works in this environment, the decisions as to what appears in a given version of the game engine have got far more to do with available programming resource, desired release dates and business decisions relating to worthwhile features, than what can be "packed into the code" - a phrase that doesn't really have any technical meaning.  Most people have systems with an additional three CPU cores doing no work while CM is running.  Re-engineering CM to make more use of these would be a huge undertaking, but it is a resource and business limitation, not a technical one.  Different 3d engine offering improved terrain and building deformation? - business decision, not a technical limitation.

I don't share the OP's criticisms, most of them are flat out wrong, however as someone who only plays single player and has bought pretty much everything that has come out, I do share his experience of upgrading over the years and then slowly going off the boil as I come up against familiar let downs in single player particularly.

Edited February 16, 2017 by Jock Tamson

[sonar]

On 15/02/2017 at 0:02 AM, Ch53dVet said:

why jump over a barbed wire fence when all militaries educate their recruits, exhaustively, in the correct, how-to, procedure for sliding underneath it?    

I would love to see evidence of the 'exhaustive education' in how to slide beneath a string of wire. "Right lads, listen in. Your real training begins now. for the next two weeks you will undertake intensive sliding under wire fence training, followed by a short refresher course on bootlace tying"  Unless under fire, men are not crawling under wire fences with Bergen's, radio sets, weapons etc in any army. Sorry pal for having a wee dig, but hey lighten up the tone a little bit eh, reads like your just moaning.

[Ales Dvorak]

15 hours ago, Warts 'n' all said:

I do wish people would stop calling anyone who tries to explain how this game works as "fanboys". I can't speak for Mikey D, but this is what happened the last time someone said it to me. 

[MOS:96B2P]

1 hour ago, sonar said:

<Snip>  Unless under fire, men are not crawling under wire fences with Bergen's, radio sets, weapons etc in any army. <Snip> 

This. 

[Warts 'n' all]

@ Ales.... Hahahahahahahaha

[A Canadian Cat]

3 hours ago, Ales Dvorak said:

I would not want to be standing around watching - just in case someone wants to complete the spare.

[sburke]

6 hours ago, Jock Tamson said:

With respect, and speaking as someone who works in this environment, the decisions as to what appears in a given version of the game engine have got far more to do with available programming resource, desired release dates and business decisions relating to worthwhile features, than what can be "packed into the code" - a phrase that doesn't really have any technical meaning.  Most people have systems with an additional three CPU cores doing no work while CM is running.  Re-engineering CM to make more use of these would be a huge undertaking, but it is a resource and business limitation, not a technical one.  Different 3d engine offering improved terrain and building deformation? - business decision, not a technical limitation.

I don't share the OP's criticisms, most of them are flat out wrong, however as someone who only plays single player and has bought pretty much everything that has come out, I do share his experience of upgrading over the years and then slowly going off the boil as I come up against familiar let downs in single player particularly.

yes and no- the way CM works from what I have seen from Steve's statements (that originate form Charles programming) they can not simply pass off much of it to other cores.  Some they can (and have).  Also BF isn't exactly overflowing with programmers- to say there has been no progress is way over blown - compare CMSF to CMFB. Is it as much as you'd like (or any of us would like) no, but there has absolutely been huge progress.

[J Bennett]

If they gave grammy awards for wargames, I think both generations  CMx1  and CMx2 should have gotten one.

 I'm pretty sure they have gotten some awards from the Computer gaming media. Sorry I have not kept up on that.

But I am a fanboy of this game, not ashamed of that at all.

[Michael Emrys]

1 hour ago, J Bennett said:

I'm pretty sure they have gotten some awards from the Computer gaming media.

I haven't kept up on that for a while, so I don't know what is out there at present, but between 2009 and 2012 there was a Charles S. Roberts award for best 20th. century wargame. Regrettably, CM didn't win one.

Michael

[Myles Keogh]

1 hour ago, Michael Emrys said:

I haven't kept up on that for a while, so I don't know what is out there at present, but between 2009 and 2012 there was a Charles S. Roberts award for best 20th. century wargame. Regrettably, CM didn't win one.

Michael

CMBN won the 2011 Charles S. Roberts Award for "Best 20th Century Era - Modern Computer Wargame."

[Michael Emrys]

8 minutes ago, Myles Keogh said:

CMBN won the 2011 Charles S. Roberts Award for "Best 20th Century Era - Modern Computer Wargame."

So it did. I looked over their lists for the years but missed that. Apologies all around.

 

Michael