DavidFields

Battlefront: "This is a matter of personal preference. I find it VERY F'N ANNOYING when I'm trying to move a unit near another unit and the system thinks I want to switch units." "Honestly, it never ceases to amaze me how much time people can put into suggestion lists and how little time they put into thinking through the implications of their suggestions. I know that customers shouldn't be expected to be as thorough in their thinking as we developers MUST be, but c'mon... at least try One reason why game designers are so annoying to talk with about feature improvements is we can't afford to daydream. We have to think through everything VERY HARD before we even try to implement something. Have to. Otherwise we wind up wasting time on a bad idea and then wasting more time fixing the bad idea. Good game designers do "tire kicking" as second nature, bad game designers are out of a job because they don't. Customers can afford the illusion of infallibility and therefore don't tend to double check their ideas because they're assumed to be "perfect"." Hey, I think this is a great game/simulation. But: 1. Are we really going to have Battlefront posts shouting obscenities? and 2. As a physician, I find that patients have the same groundless worries and suggestions time after time. But I don't express my frustrations to them (and try not to vent on my family.....I....kill things in CM2). The last sentence I am quoting above sounds as though someone should take a few days off. I find the UI does a good job. But I chuckle everytime a CM game comes out with the "alt" key commands--sort of has the "legacy" feel of a DOS prompt> Maybe it seems like whining, or being unappreciative, but I think the customers are trying to help. If I pulled my 21 year old over to my computer to look at CMBN, I think he would react to the UI with a "What the....?" You may never get the WOW crowd, but if you want to get more of the teens/20s guys interested in tactical warfare, like we were in the Squad Leader days, a UI overhaul is likely needed. But you probably know that. It is probably on the drawing board. Customers, however, can be an impatient group.

On the other hand, on the enhancing side, snipers no longer have just 10 bullets.

Agree, nice write-up by User38. And good stuff by the, clearly, very experienced Renaud. Would you agree, Renaud (I am setting you up with a friendly question), that one of the keys to the tactical kingdom is this?: You "take" a position by being able to put overwhelming fire on it. (one also defends a position with the same principle). People new to these simulations are often tricked, by the victory conditions, on rushing to sit on a place. (or defending it by sitting on a place), when that is often the thing one wants to do only at the very end, after clearing everthing around it first. In this scenario, the bocage to the Allied left, prior to the farmhouse, can project firepower across the whole left flank--for infantry, mortar spotter, and the tanks can even risk shooting through the bocage gap (from 10s of meters back from the gap), like a bishop or rook in chess. Of course it is nice when a scenario gives you enough time and ammo so one can be patient and methodical in the attack.

Vanir Ausf B, I was hoping someone would bring up the issue of the binoculars. Indeed, I was wondering if they spotted in game "as if" they had binoculars--but was trying not to ask too many game-technical questions. My point was almost a suspicion that they had been tactically weakened because of over use in CM1. But CMSF was in the intervening of CM1 and CMBN, so perhaps there was no "reaction" but just a by-product of the game engine changes.

Wow. That table gets printed, and the page tucked into the manual. Even though it is for only a few weapons, it at least gives me a much better concept of what is occuring.

"opfor" is short for, I assume, "opposing forces". I had also never seen the term "C2" until the manual for the game. The sniper I got in a QB was in the chain of command, but with the relative spotting it is now, legitimately, less enticing than in CM1 to push the sniper way off into no-mans land. Though, of course, there still is the quirk that you might find something. But one might forget to click on the sniper frequently to obtain the information, and the sniper info could not be used for other's targeting. Again, all good improvements from CM1.

I see that snipers have, legitimately, likely been removed from just being scouts, as they often were in CM1: they don't have binoculars, and without being in the chain of command radius it matters less as to what they see. So, what is the best way to utilize them now, particularly on offense? Just plinking at stuff that is spotted?--are they more likely to target officers?

I am looking forward to blasting through walls in a Stalingrad tractor factory. But I am having a hard time imagining WW 2 demo charges being used in buildings in this way. My guess is that this was well, well, researched, or....ported over from CMSF because the functionality was there?

Well then, bring on the cows. Though perhaps more for concealment than comver. (though that guy trying to hide himself in the goats in Hurt Locker didn't succeed very well)

I have set up a tiny QB with random forces: and just looking and thinking about the units I got (mortar HT, mobile artillery, sniper, engineering squad) and the map with the rolling hill outside a town ....... I don't even have to move a unit and still I had a blast all day thinking about the tactical possibilites. The QB could be totally unwinnable for me with the forces allocated, and I think I would have a lot of fun moving the units around. So, CMBN is so good that even not playing it, and losing while playing it, could be thrilling.

To be entirely practical (even to a somewhat silly thread), putting cows in would tax the computer system more--need every calculation to be for something important.

Now maybe I will learn something more about Operations: if you lose that mission, does anyone know if that means it take you along a different path of scenarios? In other words, can it be an Operation is designed so that one would highly likely to lose one battle, so as to increase the variety of missions played?

Yes, I remember playing some CMBO paratroop drop scenarios where it was recommended that on play from ground level view only--and how difficult it made it. I had forgotten that RT has the pause button--since I have only done WEGO. I was trying to imagine a non-paused H2H RT battle at the higher levels, and the decisions one would have to quickly make as to how much time to take to "look around".

What do people do with regard to the relative spotting. For the WEGO people, do you check each HQ each turn? (which is sort of what I do) Check each spotter? (someone at the top of a building...often still an HQ because of mortar spotting) Technically, I guess a peripheral squad with poor C2 could be spotting a tank, which would only be seen by clicking on each squad. But are most WEGO players clicking on every squad every turn? (I am not) But the real question is for real-time players: this puts a very practical element into play. In a 30 minute scenario, playing head to head at Iron Man level (never tried it--it has got to be intense), there has to be some "conservation of clicks" to optimize play--looking around means one is not giving orders. What are some strategies?

Clicking one HQ and seeing an open field. Clicking another HQ, and there is a german tank sitting right in the middle of the field. Granted, one has still "god-like" powers to do that. But sending in an allied tank to take out the german one there is the added suspense of "when will my tank spot it"--realism and immersion element leaps.

I agree it is a want, not a need. But for certain people the numbers were fun....just to see. And to see them evolve during the war. In my opinion, this game engine, and Battlefront, is really going to be pushed hard when we get to the East Front. People will be wanting huge maps, with near battalion force sides (or bigger!) (which is one reason I was worried about the increased splitness of the squads--a lot of computing power being used for sub-squad issues). At 1000 meters, it will be nice to have a better idea what chance my T-34 has against a Stug. And when the module comes out where green infantry is attacking, with ampoulets, backed by T-26s, with someone lugging up a Maxim, it will become clearer that the beginning of WW2 was almost 1/2 way in time between Faluja and Bull Run. By that time there will be...dozens and dozens of different AFVs. My guess is that the UI will adapt and be more (for those who desire it) detailed.

Interesting, Wodin, how one can have different experiences with the same campaign. My experience was that the first one was easiest: but I deviated from the manual by moving everything up the left flank, instead of fighting through hedgerow country. Yes, I think the LOS with the HQ in the building problem threw me off, and made me take a different tack (These are "training" scenarios, so in essence I missed out on training to fight through hedgerow. I found the second scenario a near thing. The third I am just finishing. Yes it is a romp, but a fun romp. I will probably need 45 minutes to clobber everthing, but I am moving very deliberatively, with almost no casualties, and trying out things--like blasting through hedgerow. I am playing on Warrior. The relative spotting is just simply brilliant. Well done. Well executed. I did not play CMSF, but even if I did, I think I would still be amazed at seeing the results in a WW2 tactical situation that I am so familiar with. And the "mortars of death".....wow, given that I bet Battlefront looked at this issue of their effectiveness closely, I am much more respectful of that weapon now.

Ideas like those of Fetchez la Vache, if thought to be realistic, can be programmed. I seem to remember in CM1 some squads, (if conscripts?) could not split. And only the Russians, as I recall, had the wave attack. The point is not to teach bad tactics, it is trying to simulate the various conditions the local commanders had to deal with, which were non-optimal. Poor "overwatch" assets for the British in North Africa (dearth of HE throwing tanks). Poor artillery coordination for the Russians, early war. All making things less generic. For CM:BN, the question is just this: did the combatants generally have the practical capability to split their squads in 3 pieces? If not, which units could do it? And, no, I don't want to get hung up on terminology, but often these simulations have manuals and other "atmospherics" of the relevant time frame.

For the mortar: I put my HQ in the rough patch on the other side of the road. It was able to see enough to allow me to indirect on the german HMG. I agree with Soylent green, I needed to move my MG to the right in order for it to see the german trenches.

First training scenario with a total victory on Warrior, first try. I know, I know.....the morale of the enemy was not high. But...awesome. The mortar was impressive. The MG was an interesting exercise in learning the difference in CM1 to CM2. Just.... A beautiful..... Simulation....

I am not really arguing here, but, Normal Dude: Doesn't the language in "Conduct of Attack" almost sound, as a bit of hyperbole, like Chaucer? I note that Battlefront did not use it for the manual. Do you see the terms "overwatch", or "fire base" in that description of attack? I am not saying the concepts were not there: the double envelopment is as old as the Romans. But I think the "attack with overwhelming firepower and with minimal losses" evolved between Pickett's charge, WW1, WW2 and now. For the grogs: What is the single day largest casualty count for a European or American power since 1945? The US in WW2 means 1944, unless you count Torch--and there is a lot of embarassment if one includes that campaign. (Ok, Sicily--better). Let's be friendly. Can we agree that WW2 is not Iraq or Afghanistan--the troops, terrain...well...how soldiers ended up being the soldiers.....a lot of things are different?

As an American, when I used to travel to Europe (usually Suisse), the first day my mind would be filled with "the cars are like American cars except....", "the supermarche is like a supermarket except....", and similar, until at some point my mind "switched over"--and realized the place was not "like" anything. Things in Europe were just the way they were supposed to be, European. It was not a case of better or worse. There was no reason for comparison. It was at that point I felt I had stepped across from being a tourist to more being a local. My guess is that a similar thing will happen with my CM2 transition. My mind will crave to make a connection to something familiar to CM1, as a way of guiding me as to what to do. But at some point I will finally let go--it's not CM1. It is CM2. The great thing on these boards is that CM:BN seems to be considered playable, and excellent to play. That is markedly different from the launches of other games I have seen--my guess there are people at Battlefront who could be traumatized by re-reading the early postings after CMSF came out. I will only mention something in passing, not as a criticism--but as an observation to be kept in mind when further developing CM2 WW games. The tutorial felt to me like CMSF, or modern tactics, dropped into a WW2 game--With its "overwatch", and "fire base" terminology. CM:BN is not CM1, but it is also not Iraq. What percent of WW2 small-arms units could pull off, and how many WW2 militaries understood, a overwatch-suppression-flanking-assault maneuver (as opposed to the more primitive "fire a bunch of innacurate artillery, and attack")? Effectively use A-B-C squad teams? We are generally losing our WW2 veterans, and I don't know how many are employed at Battlefront, but I hope we can retain the feel of desperate, but poorly trained, drafted, infantry, unlinked from effective communication from their artillery, having to keep together or else some of the soldiers would sneak off to take a smoke or look into a farm house for food, sick, wet, not having heard from home for months, told to attack a machine gun nest. They might be the "maneuver group", but I am not sure that was how the fighting was descibed to them at that time.

We could do this in CMBN: A scenario where some Finns who moved to the Mid-West of the US meet a captured KV-2 tank in Normandy......and.....and....I guess it was not snowing in June....and...um....I guess their country is on the other side....um...beat the tank with reindeer horns until the poor morale troops bail. Sound like a good scenario? And....why doesn't Battlefront model reindeer horn beating of armor correctly!

Where are the Finns? I don't mean to upset Battlefront, and I know they have a lot to do. But I think we might be able to keep a thread alive until.....maybe several years from now...the module finally arrives where those Giants from Finland ride their Reindeer into that Winter War against KV-1s.

This game has ruined my life, but I am smiling while I write that. I was just going to download it....then I was going to just do a training scenario....or two. Oh my gosh, where did the time go. Small grumble.........I still like early Eastern Front better. Even back to CC and its derivatives, I just find the Americans too...homogenous. Not there fault. But a healthy platoon or 2, with a mortar and a Sherman.........the usual.........Where are the Finns?