CMAK vs. CMBB

[Wengart]

I'm also pretty certain you can't show the Chinese losing. So that may be a problem, especially when your trying to sell a war game.

[Sgt Joch]

You say 1:1 modelling has improved the simulation. I doubt that very much - that'd be the engine, if anything (and actually I don't know if the simulation has or has not been improved)! It has improved the visual representation of the simulation. The simulation takes place in the 'innards' of the engine. What I lament is the focus on the eye-candy rather than the guts of the game: but as you say, the commercial assessment is 'eye-candy sells". And indeed it does. But for those who want a good, broad, deep game NOW for very few £££, CMx1 is it.

I find it funny that more than 2 years after CMSF has come out, you still have people coming out of the "ether" proclaiming "facts" which have been repeatedly disproved in the past. CMSF is much deeper and complex under the hood than CMx1.

1:1 representation is more than just graphical. In CMx1, infantry does not, for all practical purposes, exist in the 3d world. Infantry is treated as in a 2d wargame, an entire infantry unit is seen by the program as just a single point. Your infantry unit interacts with "terrain" as a 2d unit would... so many movement points to enter a road, woods or buildings with a combat modifier for incoming fire depending on what terrain hex it occupies.

It also has the effect that terrain does not really exist for CMx1 infantry. You can have an infantry unit enter any hex, except impassable terrain, by paying a certain number of movement points. Infantry can walk through walls and enter buildings whether there is a door or not and can fire at enemy soldiers through a solid wall.

In CMSF, infantry exists as fully 3d. Each soldier exists in the 3d world as a separate entity, basically a mini-vehicle. This has many effect, for example, soldiers need to go through a "door" to enter a building. They need to look through a "window" to spot enemy soldiers or fire at them, etc.

However I doubt our new friend "egamarl" is interested in a real debate. I always find it suspicious when a "new" member, obviously knowledgeable about CMx1 "suddenly" decides to register on the forum in september 2009.

[egamarl]

However I doubt our new friend "egamarl" is interested in a real debate. I always find it suspicious when a "new" member, obviously knowledgeable about CMx1 "suddenly" decides to register on the forum in september 2009.

What on EARTH has my registation date here got to do with anyhting? (Actually it's a re-registration. If you had actually taken the trouble to rad the thread before seeking to undermine valid argument through scurrilous ad hominem argument, you'd know that I was playing CMx1 3 years ago and had only just picked it up again, after becoming disillusioned quickly with the demo of CM:SF).

Ad hominem attacks tend to weaken the overall arc of an argument, and tend to be used in desperation. They are to be deprecated. Is your paranoia a result of trying to defend a currently weak product (too long in development, currently too underdeveloped, actualization of potential only after more time and much more expense) compared to CMx1, perhaps?

That you see the need to deploy ad hominem argument at all leads me to conclude that - as a beta-tester no doubt having invested countless hours and lots of effort so far - you have let your sensitivity about what I perceive to be the current shortcomings of CMSF vs CMx1 both in gameplay (scope, depth' breadth) and cost (value for money) interfere with your ability to remain objective.

Please read carefully and see where I have used words like "currently". I am not talking about what CM:SF might be in 'n' more years costing $300, but what it is today, costing nearly $100. Your argument appears to be about what CM:SF has "under the hood" that might be available in 'n' years at a cost of several hundred dollars. Apples and oranges. As you say, CM:SF has been out for two years and it's still nowhere near as deap and broad as its predecessor.

[Sgt Joch]

I have a very good idea who you are, both here and at BoB.

please, please keep posting as "egamarl".

[Wengart]

The fact that infantry are now on the map in a 1:1 basis betters the simulation. If even slightly simply because the entire squad is now on the map, thereby increasing fidelity.

Now I will say the CMx1 infantry representation was pretty good. However, you were unable to form certain fighting positions because of the abstractions inherent in the infantry system.

Such as a fighting crest position--or whatever its called when you position your troops on the crest of the hill-- and several other ways you can now use the terrain. Even if that terrain isn't solid cover, like a tree or woods, but rather the smaller undulations in it.

And of course you are right, you got much more bang for your buck with the CMx1 games. Now whether the amount of work BF.c put into CM:BB compared to what you payed for it is another matter. And of course it really comes down to how much you like CMx2's style, and a lot to do with whether you find modern assymetrical warfare fun.

But, really your first two points come down to how BFC makes money. They saw that with an incremental module system they greatly increase their income. And I can't really fault them for it. However, it does have its bright spots.

Multiple games/modules can now be developed concurrently, and when a game is released it isn't just done. In other words because of the module system that family of games will be able to have incremental engine updates that were not possible before. (just let me know if your not familiar with CMx2's naming system, and I can explain it in greater detail)

And, unfortunately CM:SF will probably never see a new and improved QB system, unless NATO sells particularly well. Normandy's QB system however, should be on par with CMx1's.

I also wanted to say that the discussion thus far has been civil, and I see no problem with Egamarl's overall stance. Its his personal belief that CM:SF is currently a "weak product" just as it is my personal belief that CM:SF is pretty damned good.

Now a CM:Pacific front game I would purchase, but I think the main reason for BF.c not wanting to go there is the nature of the fighting. Very little tank warfare, and from what I heard it was just an interminable slog against dug in enemy troops,excluding some fighting in Burma, again not that I wouldn't buy it. Although my personal favorite settings to visit are Vietnam and a hypothetical Cold War gone hot.

Now to go away from CM for a moment, and recommend any of Bethesda's Elder Scrolls games if you enjoyed Fallout 3.

And now to return to this threads original topic. If you enjoy the demos then you'll enjoy the main game. And I whole heartedly endorse both CM:BB and CM:AK

[Redwolf]

The fact that infantry are now on the map in a 1:1 basis betters the simulation. If even slightly simply because the entire squad is now on the map, thereby increasing fidelity.

Now I will say the CMx1 infantry representation was pretty good. However, you were unable to form certain fighting positions because of the abstractions inherent in the infantry system.

Have you even played CMSF? You can't put those dude any more into formation than the CMx1 ones.

[Cuirassier]

Not to mention that the 1:1 representation results in some silly situations at times. For example, a squad in sight of a tank but the AT guy will not fire because he does not have LOS. Or a whole squad pancaking onto an action spot resulting in the death of every soldier thanks to a HE shell. Personally I prefer the more acbstracted CMx1 system. Not a fun to watch, but I feel it produces more realistic results.

[Wengart]

Have you even played CMSF? You can't put those dude any more into formation than the CMx1 ones.

No, no you misunderstood me. I mean like you can line your men up on a crest of a hill for cover, or a small dip in the ground. Not like complex squad formations.

A better way to put might be that you can better utilize cover naturally present in the terrain.

Or a whole squad pancaking onto an action spot resulting in the death of every soldier thanks to a HE shell. Personally I prefer the more acbstracted CMx1 system. Not a fun to watch, but I feel it produces more realistic results.

I've personally never seen it happen. But I understand what your saying, and im not saying there isn't lots of room for improvement. But, I'll personally go with the CMx2 style squad system, even with its quirks. When ever I go back to CM:AK I just find it hard to reconcile what I am seeing with anything meaningful. I just flat out don't care about what happens to my infantry.

[egamarl]

I have a very good idea who you are, both here and at BoB.

I'm sure you know exactly who I am (or at least you should), since I told the fellow who runs BoB (and one otehr BoBber) some days ago: I have made no secret of it. Sorry to prick your bubble but knowing who I am when I've told your chums is not THAT significant an achievement.

Ad hominem from you again though: not terribly edifying. Perhaps you find the substance of argument much harder than making mischief.

[egamarl]

Now to go away from CM for a moment, and recommend any of Bethesda's Elder Scrolls games if you enjoyed Fallout 3.

Ahhh .. [rant] the one bit I didn't enjoy THAT much about Fallout 3 were (some of the) the 'quests' that had you apparently aimlessly going from one place to another place to talk to this person then back to the first person who - inexplicably - wasn't where they last were and had to be found by aimlessly running around again ..... only to be sent to talk to someone else of unknown whereabouts in a building of unnecessarily complex layout! That and the constraints of the dialogue choices and uncertainly about the consequences of them (you had to know how the programmer understands and uses the English language plus his/her intentions for each variation) added unpredicatibale randmoness that I wasn't comfortable with. [/rant]

The concept of the 'quest' forcing you to explore parts of the map you might not otherwise have visited is good, but I was frustrated by the impenetrability of the interactions and the fact that several of them could only be solved by a shotgun blast to the head, no matter which path you took! I fear I'd be frustrated in the Elder Scrolls world too, given that I use the English language in a very particular manner (ie literally, sometimes verging on the autistically so)!

I might see if there's a demo knocking around, thanks for the tip!

[egamarl]

. When ever I go back to CM:AK I just find it hard to reconcile what I am seeing with anything meaningful. I just flat out don't care about what happens to my infantry.

Ahh .. you invest too little emotional capital in the fate of your pixeltruppen just because they don't LOOK that human.

You will make a great general!

Seriously though, this is my main issue with CM:SF (and - who knows - CM:Normandy): some folks privilege CMx2-like visual fidelity (which I patronisingly dismiss as eye-candy, and which has nothing to do with improving the simulation, just the representation of it) and some folks privilege the CMx1-like mechanics of combat and depth and breadth of the possible scenarios which can be constructed now and for the next several years, not to say value for money.

Although my imagination is not terribly vivid, I am the latter camp and am happy with - I think - all of the abstractions in CMx1.

I make a lousy general because I do care about my pixletruppen, even if I can't watch them dance around a bit before getting onto their APVS or replay movies from all different angles to see them killing nasty foreign people in techicolourdolbypanavision.

Nope, in the debate of style (CMx2 as is) vs. Substance (CMx1 as is) I am firmly in favour of substance - but that is not the way of the modern world ....

[Redwolf]

No, no you misunderstood me. I mean like you can line your men up on a crest of a hill for cover, or a small dip in the ground. Not like complex squad formations.

A better way to put might be that you can better utilize cover naturally present in the terrain.

Unfortunately I haven't seen that in CM:SF either.

In fact, it works much better for the point-like CMx1 squads, where cover and LOS is decided on the point you place, as in you the player. In CMSF I always had some individuals walk where a real soldier with self-preservation instincts wouldn't go.

I ask again, did you play CM:SF?

You sound like people who don't understand programming all sounded before CMSF was released. Some fantasy about the magical correct placements of individual unit parts outside player control.

[Wengart]

I've been playing since the 1.11 patch.

Anyway I have a feeling that we are playing different games, or at least my luck has been extraordinary.

But there are problems with the 1:1 representation of infantry. This usually surfaces during movement, and more specifically movement in combat. However, if you the crest of a hill and have a squad move to that crest, and then tell them to face a direction they line up on it nearly perfectly.

I am not saying that a squad under fire will magically find the "best spots". But what I am saying, is that with proper player input, a movement command followed by a facing command, your troops will use existing cover that exists because of differences in terrain height.

I would show you a picture, but my internet is entirely too crappy to upload anything.

[egamarl]

But what I am saying, is that with proper player input, a movement command followed by a facing command, your troops will use existing cover that exists because of differences in terrain height.

Well, that might be a wonderful improvement worth waiting and paying for, but for my part I can't see it being worth the $300 it might cost me to get a set of 'releases' (modules, titles, whatever) that might replicate the breadth and depth of CMx1.

Nope, for those who value substance, CMx2 really is currently (and, according to Sgt Joch even after TWO years and several patches and enhancements) a disappointment. Of course, gameplayers are - I imagine - far from BFs main source of income and so it doesn't really matter to them, they dance to a different tune, it's just a disappointment. We should be thankful that CMx1 runs on Vista and apparently will run on Win7.

[Battlefront.com]

Guys, if you want to talk about CM:SF exclusively please go to the CM:SF area. You'll have a much better discussion there, especially for those of you who are working off of information that is extremely inaccurate. Whether you like CM:SF, or its underlying game engine, or not is immaterial to us. But it would be nice for people to not like it for real reasons instead of imagined ones

Egamarl... I also want to issue you a warning. If you persist with your aggressive, and completely uncalled for, attitude here you will find your reappearance on this Forum extremely short. Technically I should ban you now because you are using a second account while the first one is still active. A big no-no here. However, it appears you might have lost your login information to your first one since it's been dormant since 2007. I have therefore locked down your original one to keep things as they should be.

Steve

[egamarl]

If you persist with your aggressive, and completely uncalled for, attitude

*I* am being ggressive and uncalled for? But the ad hominem attack was on me! I believe I have focussed cogently on the differences between CMx1 and x2 as experienced by the game player.

My rational argument (in the sense of "discussion" and not as some will interpret it: "quarrel") did not deserve some scurrilous attempt to attack my integrity, and for that attack to go unmarked or unrebuked by 'admin' .

Well, that's fine - you have to protect your own, and I suppose I shouldn't expect anything else.

[[hirr]Leto]

*I* am being ggressive and uncalled for? But the ad hominem attack was on me! I believe I have focussed cogently on the differences between CMx1 and x2 as experienced by the game player.

My rational argument (in the sense of "discussion" and not as some will interpret it: "quarrel") did not deserve some scurrilous attempt to attack my integrity, and for that attack to go unmarked or unrebuked by 'admin' .

Well, that's fine - you have to protect your own, and I suppose I shouldn't expect anything else.

Don't feel bad. Anyone who speaks out about not liking CMSF on these boards is usually set upon by people who do like it. I would advise that you do not continue posting here.

Feel free to email me and I will point you to several other wargaming clubs that specialize in CMBB (and all other CMx1 games). You can express your opinions freely at these clubs.

Cheers!

Leto

[Patrocles]

*I* am being ggressive and uncalled for? But the ad hominem attack was on me! I believe I have focussed cogently on the differences between CMx1 and x2 as experienced by the game player.

My rational argument (in the sense of "discussion" and not as some will interpret it: "quarrel") did not deserve some scurrilous attempt to attack my integrity, and for that attack to go unmarked or unrebuked by 'admin' .

Well, that's fine - you have to protect your own, and I suppose I shouldn't expect anything else.

I agree! Mr. Egamarl posts have been interesting and though-provoking....certainly not aggressive and uncalled for. maybe BF is focusing too much on his having two active accounts?

[[hirr]Leto]

Just an amendment to my previous post: I do not advise that you stop posting here compehensively. Just with respect to voicing your opinions about CMSF. There are a lot of great people that still come here to post about CMx1 and I encourage you to continue down that vein if you are so inclined.

I also agree that you have not done anything uncalled for outside of voicing your displeasure with the game that seems to bring out the gremlins: both for and against the new CM2 engines general desirability and direction.

Cheers!

Leto

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Egamarl... I also want to issue you a warning. If you persist with your aggressive, and completely uncalled for, attitude here you will find your reappearance on this Forum extremely short.

Steve

Bloody hell! Speaking of uncalled for. Steve, if you could perhaps highlight what parts of egamarls posts were "aggressive" I would very much like to see it.

Also, if your definition of a "completely uncalled for attitude" simply translates to criticism of the CMSF game then I guess you may have a point. Otherwise, I get the distinct impression that there is one rule for a certain clique and another for all the rest. Your message board and all but sheeesh!

Regards

KR

[egamarl]

maybe BF is focusing too much on his having two active accounts?

Well, hardly two ACTIVE accounts: apparently an account last used in 2007 was still 'active' in "here". Who knew? Not me. That was 2 PCs and a couple of brain-farts ago .... It's not as if I made a secret of having 're-registered' here in a post above ... I can't remember much of last week, let alone 2-odd years ago.

Anyway, thanks for helping me keep my head together - I didn't think I'd been aggressive or said anything uncalled for, and I'm really grateful to see that other folks think the same. I find it very confusing when folks (especially those with power) criticise what I write when I simply can't see what they are referring to. It messes with what's left of a once-fine brain.

It strikes me as odd that one can be criticised for being aggressive (except perhaps following an ad hominem* attack) in a forum devoted to war games (war is surely the ultimate act of aggression, whereas highlighting shortcomings in someone's argument or style of argument is ... errr .... part and parcel of debate. Consider the origin of the word 'forum' - "a public meeting or assembly for open discussion"). Hmmm .....

It's all the more incongruous to be criticised for being 'aggressive' when discussing a 'title' which provides movie playback in ever-higher fidelity of the means of wreaking death upon ones foes ....

But there we are: objectivity is often the first casualty of sensitisation ...

*ad hominem, in case you're not familiar with the term means - to use a football or rugby metaphor - "going for the man, not the ball": something which the laws of those games expressly forbid. It means attacking the person not the person's argument. It is generally deprecated and regarded as the last resort of a beaten scoundrel (or, sadly, the first resort of the same beaten scoundrel with a specific agenda or intent to make mischief and not argue cogently the point of substance ....).

[Patrocles]

Well, hardly two ACTIVE accounts: apparently an account last used in 2007 was still 'active' in "here". Who knew? Not me. That was 2 PCs and a couple of brain-farts ago .... It's not as if I made a secret of having 're-registered' here in a post above ... I can't remember much of last week, let alone 2-odd years ago.

copy that! In that case I, too, have/had two accounts. I had a memory lapse and lost my info for one account and created another - then I found my info for the first account and stuck with this it. I have not touched my other "active" account in >5-6 years!

Hey, didn't BF say that they deleted the inactive accounts? I remember some posts where folks were asking if the member#s for these inactive accounts would be available. Some of us wanted to try and get a much coveted 2-digit or 3-digit member#.

[egamarl]

I believe I have focussed cogently on the differences between CMx1 and x2 as experienced by the game player.

Ahhh ... I've just been pointed at a forum (I imagine posting a link to it is a bannable offence, so I daren't) wherein lies the explanation for what I have "done wrong"!

Of course, being rebuked by 'admin' had nothing at all to do with being aggressive or having a "completely uncalled for attitude" - it's because I dared to mention that the emperor is, in fact, unadorned by any kind of garment. Thankfully I now know I'm not going completely bonkers ....

I read therein that here one is not allowed to compare CM:SF unfavourably to CMx1, and it seems, even praising CMx1 in BFs own forum is nowadays somewhat risky in this Orwellian world.

I didn't realise I was poking at a very painful open wound in this way - I'd only just returned to the forum after finding CM:SF to be ... errr ... not to my taste, and I didn't know of the Stalinist purges and the relentless patrolling of the Thought Police.

Now I do. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

[GenSplatton]

Ahhh ... I've just been pointed at a forum (I imagine posting a link to it is a bannable offence, so I daren't) wherein lies the explanation for what I have "done wrong"!

.... edited for brevity ....

Now I do. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

I was with the others in thinking the criticism of your posts was totally unwarranted. Now I think you're poking the hornet's next with a stick. If that's your intention, by all means, continue. If not, duck.

[egamarl]

I was with the others in thinking the criticism of your posts was totally unwarranted. Now I think you're poking the hornet's next with a stick. If that's your intention, by all means, continue. If not, duck.

Well, things move on, I suppose - at one time I simply did not understand what was being criticised and why, now I understand a little more, and I don't like what I see. I just have a natural aversion to the abuse of power, and can't help looking around for a stick, I guess ....

Besides which clarity is always better than obfuscation, although it might not be anywhere near as comfortable!