Dissapointed by CMBN

[RockinHarry]

I played the demo, figured most the reported issues myself (beside some more unreported) and nevertheless purchased CMN just few days ago.

Having played (and still playing) CMX1 series for a couple of years, I know that CMN will evolve to an equally great WW2 game series alike. CMN is a bit like the normandy campaign itself. It has its "Gold"..., and "Utah" beaches, as well as some "Omaha", which most complainers are currently focusing on. But the landing as a whole was successful and with oncoming patches, the bridgehead surely will be greatly expanded, finally leading to "Cobra" and "V Day" with oncoming modules at the latest. I have full trust and belief in BFC, as well as the Beta testers, which are parts of the most experienced and respected CM players/designers around.

...so while waiting for BFC to finish patches, I´ll be very busy making maps and scenarios, as well as some minor modding stuff.

[WineCape]

SO as I understand it the fire on move has been tweaked and is/is not to be tweaked again?

Again, Charles did tweak the shoot-on-the-move parameters (Hit% = less) when CMBN was in development.

After this tweak, and after running a limited test (n=350) during Beta pre-release as indicated earlier in this thread, the (limited) observation showed roughly 1 in 10 odds (range: 5-15% for both nationalities) of a moving firer scoring a hit on a stationery tank target at 800m, on ideal surface (even/paved), ideal weather, regular quality, head-on for both enemy tanks.

If somebody wants to repeat said tests (test scenario I can provide) with both tankers moving on MOVE orders head-on, and show cause that this test has a higher hit% then when just one tanker is moving, please feel free to run 350+ tests to do a comparison. I venture to say the odds will be less on 1-10 hits, ceteris paribus, if you do run a "both firers moving test."

If anything else, I doubt that running different test with different parameters for now, with n<350, is going to convince Charles to change anything (for now) on the fly, or prioritise said issue (for now) above other patch issues. On the other hand, he might look at it again and decide otherwise.

It may well be that CMBN needs a further dialing down of single/few % points for scoring hits when one/both gunners are on the move given an extensive test with same parameters. The fact that you see several hits at 800m while on the move does not yet warrant the conclusion that this occurence is NOT an outlier result and thus the norm. Then you have to range the distance further out, to 1,000m and beyond and re-test to see if, all else being equal, there are some median results for a limited conclusion that at these various x-distances, we have a "Houston-we-have-a-problem" scenario. But accuracy is only be part of the problem. AKD has highlighted earlier it is not just accuracy that has to be factored in.

But it will not come to a change in code just because we have various forumites posting observed results, anecdotal or otherwise, from a few tests, or observed from a few games played, or from a relative smallish sample. Even my sample of 350 tests are rather small, but I only have so much time.

[Doug Williams]

Tanks do seem too accurate getting too many first rd hits around 1000 meters although my panzers are stationary. And I've never tried the highest 2 skill levels either.

Someone will correct me if I am wrong, but, as I understand it, the skill levels do not affect the accuracy of tanks (or infantry) at all. The skill levels mostly affect Fog of War and how fast you can call in artillery strikes. At the lower skill levels, artillery will arrive faster than it realistically should.

[womble]

Someone will correct me if I am wrong, but, as I understand it, the skill levels do not affect the accuracy of tanks (or infantry) at all. The skill levels mostly affect Fog of War and how fast you can call in artillery strikes. At the lower skill levels, artillery will arrive faster than it realistically should.

Absolutely. Calling them 'skill levels' is a misnomer, since they give the same advantages to the AI as to the human. They are FoW levels, as you say.

[Oddball_E8]

Someone will correct me if I am wrong, but, as I understand it, the skill levels do not affect the accuracy of tanks (or infantry) at all. The skill levels mostly affect Fog of War and how fast you can call in artillery strikes. At the lower skill levels, artillery will arrive faster than it realistically should.

i do believe you are talking about two different things.

i think he is referring to the skill of the soldiers/crew (conscript, green, regular, veteran, crack or elite) whilst you are referring to the difficulty level of the game (basic training, warrior, veteran, elite and iron).

two completely different things...

[Doug Williams]

Ah, you could be right. He may have been talking about Crack or Elite tank crews. My bad.

i do believe you are talking about two different things.

i think he is referring to the skill of the soldiers/crew (conscript, green, regular, veteran, crack or elite) whilst you are referring to the difficulty level of the game (basic training, warrior, veteran, elite and iron).

two completely different things...

[WineCape]

On the other hand, he might look at it again and decide otherwise.... It may well be that CMBN needs a further dialing down of single/few % points for scoring hits when one/both gunners are on the move given an extensive test with same parameters.

Charles just recently looked at the issue(s). Changes have been made.

[Sportsguy64]

So many negatives thoughts about CMBN...very exciting and think battlefront did a helluva job considering the resources they have...Good thing the germans ran out of russian prisoners of war, old men and teenagers to throw at us.

[Childress]

I played the demo, figured most the reported issues myself (beside some more unreported) and nevertheless purchased CMN just few days ago.

Having played (and still playing) CMX1 series for a couple of years, I know that CMN will evolve to an equally great WW2 game series alike. CMN is a bit like the normandy campaign itself. It has its "Gold"..., and "Utah" beaches, as well as some "Omaha", which most complainers are currently focusing on. But the landing as a whole was successful and with oncoming patches, the bridgehead surely will be greatly expanded, finally leading to "Cobra" and "V Day" with oncoming modules at the latest. I have full trust and belief in BFC, as well as the Beta testers, which are parts of the most experienced and respected CM players/designers around.

Eloquent post, RH. Totally agree.

[sburke]

Charles just recently looked at the issue(s). Changes have been made.

You have about as much chance of seeing a damn unicorn in your back yard as getting a strait answer from BF on the patch. I think in 10 years of reading these boards, the question has been answered satisfactorily about 3 times.

There goes another damn Unicorn, I really should stop drinking.

[LeadMeister]

Charles just recently looked at the issue(s). Changes have been made.

... But it will not come to a change in code just because we have various forumites posting observed results, anecdotal or otherwise, from a few tests, or observed from a few games played, or from a relative smallish sample. Even my sample of 350 tests are rather small, but I only have so much time.

I'm not trying to stir the pot, but I'm just a little confused. If changes "have" been made then was it based on a new series official BF tests, or is it the result of "various forumites posting observed results, anecdotal or otherwise"? Also, if those "changes" were justified by new BF testing then did those test results support the assertions of the so-called "forumites"?

Just curious ...

[WineCape]

If changes "have" been made then was it based on a new series official BF tests, or is it the result of "various forumites posting observed results, anecdotal or otherwise".

I cannot speak for Charles/Phil, but I venture the following possibilities since the tweaking of Beta 29:

(1) They were happy with the (initial) tweaking of the "Mover shooting the stationery target" and vice versa test (PS: I did not present them with a sample of "mover vs mover" firing test, but other testers might have;

(2) Since the above game mechanics cascades further onto the game code of a "mover shooting a mover" scenario, they might have felt the latter scenario was not tweaked enough %-wise, given what was presented to him by Beta testers, and/or drawn to his attention due to forumites expressing such concern;

(3) Charles & Phil made a judgement call as to the % hits that should be achieved on a mover vs mover scenario, despite not looking at either the Beta testers or forumites actual tests, but deciding that an average 10% hit chance in (1) presented earlier in Beta should even be far lower than in (2) when originally envisioned/tweaked ......... due to the noise/bleatings here from the forumites and therefor the testers carrying said noise over to him.

You tell me which above has more relevance? A combination of all the above?

EDIT REASON: Forgetting the "First Second Programmer". Apologies Phil.

[Guest]

Absolutely no changes are ever made based solely on anything - testing, anecdotes, shouting - from the outer forums. None. Everything is scrutinized on multiple levels.

If something is fixed, it's because we found something that wasn't working properly. That is not always precisely what people have been complaining about, very often it's something only tangentially related - which is what I was talking about when I said a "list of fixes" wouldn't be all that useful. It's a complex game. Even with the code sometimes the root cause of an apparent problem isn't easy to spot.

So no. We don't change things that way.

[WineCape]

There you go LeadMeister; the answer. Thanks Phil.

[rkyfat]

As a new CM player and not a military expert for me its absoloutely fan bl$%dy tastic. Bugged yes, but show me any new release that is'nt bugged on release day and I will bbq the dog for breakfast. And as far as the bugs go has anyone played the ARMA series on release! now they were seriously bugged. Seems to me from what I have read that for the team responsible for this masterpiece it is a true labour of love and I am sure it will evolve to be the masterpiece that some think it falls short of at the moment.

[rkyfat]

and by the way, I would rather have a detailed patch that really does address the issues than a rushed one released just to appease the screaming masses! They are the experts, let them get on with it and like the guys say, when its ready its ready

[Apocalypse 31]

As much as I love CC, and I really do - whether you're talking CCIII or CCV it's campaign-system is pretty terrible and overly gamey, I see no reason to have anything like it in this game. Force pool? I'd rather just get the whole battalion on an extra-large field..

It IS a game after all. I thought the campaign system was good. Tactically, it gave you options as to where you wanted to attack - and overall let you decide the direction of your campaign.

[Gen Von Television]

Also, try out Barkmanns Corner and tell me how well your super-shermans hold out.

Ahehm!

I'm not testing much of anything at the mo', since I have just fun, but I just finished this battle with a total victory (not boasting at all, err):

################################################

SPOILER AHED (so don't read it if you've not yet played it!)

################################################

so here is another anecdote that may prove nothing but here is what happened to my foxy Shermans; observing the map at set up phase, I noticed there were some possible corridors of advance on the extreme sides of the map, and decided to try them out and check if there was a passage to exploit them; sure enough I wasn't going to advance down the road in a file astern, so I deployed the tanks on a broad line abreast instead, leap frogging them to advance; three of them advanced through the plugged field on the left I deemed covered by the hedgerows and trees, as I expected the Panther lurking somewhere on my right.

I was actually able to move Fast and Quick one tank of these three on the extreme left border of the map, unobserved: it looks as a very narrow passage with the tall hedgerow on its right, and behind that hedgerow is the farm close to the Barkmanns Corner; I believe it was around turn four or five (I have them recorded anyway) when suddenly this Sherman turned the hedgerow corner to discover you know what and explode it into flames I believe with a single shot and still moving!

This may prove nothing, since they were no more than ten meters apart, and it got it right on the side (no survivors): a lucky decision on my side to take that path, and another luck for the extremely precise and fast shot, but makes me think...:confused:

The rest of the battle was a stroll: I haven't lost one single tank, HT or man!

I never saw something like it in CMX1, but war is cahos, and from cahos creativity is born (Aristotle).

Cheers

[StellarRat]

Ahehm!

I'm not testing much of anything at the mo', since I have just fun, but I just finished this battle with a total victory (not boasting at all, err):

################################################

SPOILER AHED (so don't read it if you've not yet played it!)

################################################

so here is another anecdote that may prove nothing but here is what happened to my foxy Shermans; observing the map at set up phase, I noticed there were some possible corridors of advance on the extreme sides of the map, and decided to try them out and check if there was a passage to exploit them; sure enough I wasn't going to advance down the road in a file astern, so I deployed the tanks on a broad line abreast instead, leap frogging them to advance; three of them advanced through the plugged field on the left I deemed covered by the hedgerows and trees, as I expected the Panther lurking somewhere on my right.

I was actually able to move Fast and Quick one tank of these three on the extreme left border of the map, unobserved: it looks as a very narrow passage with the tall hedgerow on its right, and behind that hedgerow is the farm close to the Barkmanns Corner; I believe it was around turn four or five (I have them recorded anyway) when suddenly this Sherman turned the hedgerow corner to discover you know what and explode it into flames I believe with a single shot and still moving!

This may prove nothing, since they were no more than ten meters apart, and it got it right on the side (no survivors): a lucky decision on my side to take that path, and another luck for the extremely precise and fast shot, but makes me think...:confused:

The rest of the battle was a stroll: I haven't lost one single tank, HT or man!

I never saw something like it in CMX1, but war is cahos, and from cahos creativity is born (Aristotle).

Cheers

Using map edge is gamey. :-) (I would never do something like that, nudge, nudge, wink, wink...)

[LemuelG]

It IS a game after all. I thought the campaign system was good. Tactically, it gave you options as to where you wanted to attack - and overall let you decide the direction of your campaign.

Fair cop - I did say I loved CC, it was awesome to fight repeatedly over the same stretch of ground with all the craters, hulks and bodies from previous battles

Head-to-head campaigns in the GJS and Stalingrad mods remain as my fondest wargaming memories. The problem always was, and still is, that AI is horrible at making well-judged military decisions.

[Apocalypse 31]

Fair cop - I did say I loved CC, it was awesome to fight repeatedly over the same stretch of ground with all the craters, hulks and bodies from previous battles

Head-to-head campaigns in the GJS and Stalingrad mods remain as my fondest wargaming memories.

I still have some proud moments in CC IV, holding off the initial German offensive with a handful of squads and an M1 57mm AT Gun.

"The armor is too thick!"

Path finding in that game was always weak, and amazingly got even worse as the series progressed. I played CC Modern Tactics, and you couldn't even move your squad 100m without them getting lost, and a member or two falling out.

[LemuelG]

I guess my objection is that the CC model of strictly company-sized engagements in arena-like battlefields was fun, but this game is capable of much more.

I remember the very simplistic online campaigns for CCIII - they were little more than crude QB generators and/or match-making service, but you got to use the same battle-group from battle to battle, and if you did well you'd have plenty of points to deck your company out however you liked (within the limits time-frame of the campaign you're in). Something like this might be quite cool, maybe even possible if BFC got in on it. Can't imagine the coding would be overly demanding - think of it like automatically choosing a random QB map and then importing the carried-over forces of each player to duke it out.

Sometimes you'd end up with epically-experienced guys who'd killed hundreds and knocked out dozens of tanks. Losing such a hero was genuinely traumatic. This would actually be really awesome, you convinced me Cpt

[Guest]

Path finding in that game was always weak, and amazingly got even worse as the series progressed. I played CC Modern Tactics, and you couldn't even move your squad 100m without them getting lost, and a member or two falling out.

Yeah, I truly loved the CC games but I always limited my troops' "opportunities" for pathfinding. Long movements == dead troops in CC.

Strangely CC:Marines (the military version - which was a modified CC5, right?) had very good pathfinding as I remember it.

[womble]

Using map edge is gamey. :-) (I would never do something like that, nudge, nudge, wink, wink...)

I thought that once. Til the AI did it to me...

[Gen Von Television]

hehehehe

What map edge? It's not arcade if the passage exists... I won an honest total Victory and Barkmann is dead!

So have we now found a bug in the terrain design? Seriously I thought that with the hedgerow so close to the edge of the map there was no possibility to use that path: was it left intentionally? I still have to load that map in the Editor, and see if this has something to do with the hedgerow square marker positioned on that column while it doesn't prevent a tank to pass, or if there is another column on its left... This may be a problem for scenario designers who cannot prevent movements on the map edges... but not for the players (Humans or AI)!