Childress

Once one grokked the dynamics CMBB could be very rewarding. Carrying a position with infantry felt like an accomplishment. But some of us could never go back to the bobble-heads.

I think you're right. 'Punitive' was perhaps the wrong word, maybe 'challenging'. Actually, I seem to recall that CMBO sold the best of the three. CMBB, though superior, suffered from the absence of Americans.

No. The joy of swearing depends on its social unacceptability. Cussing's fun 'cause it's taboo. There's a brouhaha going on over the new Lincoln flic. The F words, it seems, makes several appearances though not from the mouth of the President. I believe the screenwriters confused swearing with blaspheming which was the preferred release valve in the 19 cent. http://movies.yahoo.com/news/lincoln-cussing-f-050000268.html EDIT: Just got on Drudge and learned about the massacre. Good lord.

Of course not. But I doubt you see a wholesale rejiggerring of all the factors mentioned in this thread until CM 3.0. Too much work. Or the posters are wrong. Or BF is in denial (which I doubt). Or they want a more user friendly, less arduous simulation. Bu the punitive morale system in CMBB didn't appear to inhibit sales. The scope of that game plus the sheer coolness of the setting and the vehicles overwhelmed the initial frustration. At least no one's complaining about the armor model. They seem to have nailed that.

You guys do realize that if BF: 1- Increased the lethality and suppressive powers of MGs. 2- Reduced the morale of infantry to porcelain fragility. 3- Cut back on the power and/or flexibility of mortars. -they'd have to reconfigure all the scenarios that game with CMFI and CMBN. Because all three adjustments give a synergistic boost to the defending side. Right?

Yes. One problem may lie in the elevated experience- and morale- level of your typical soldier. One suspects the bulk of Allied troops (except Airborne), for example, should be designated Green until late '44. The screwy U.S. "Repple Depple" system was in part to blame. I'm seeing scenarios where most of the forces are Veteran and up. Very improbable. BF implemented the fragile, quick to go to ground infantryman concept in CMBB. Everybody complained at the time; it was akin to herding chickens. Now it's considered brilliant.

It's interesting that, in this lengthy thread, no one has mentioned the efficacy of rifle fire. I submit that it's somewhat overpowered producing too many Kills, especially at medium to long range. This is reflected in the lopsided Kill to Wounded ratio even while taking into account unrecorded minor wounds and the 'Point of the Spear' character of the the typical CM battle. It renders the rifle squad unduly competitive with the MG team. One speculates that if MG fire is a bit under modeled then rifle fire is over modeled.

When I first loaded 2.0 I experienced some graphical anomalies. Kampgruppe Engel, for example. Looked like, well, an expiring video card. And some corrupted movement buttons. But on the 2nd load and since everything seems fine.

Hey! That hurt!

Here's the sequence: 1 The Heavy MG team jogs to the bocage, no Deploy order. 2- The following turn the team is given an in situ Deploy order. Hit the button. Two soldiers, led by the gunner, begin moving backwards. 3- The rest of the team catches up and they all congregate at a previous waypoint (I think) facing the camera. But they're Deployed! The Good: Setup delays are now enforced. The Bad: er.... The aberrant behavior applies to all weapons teams but does not afflict CMFI.

Apparently. This cannot be reproduced in CMFI in any case. Got to be frustrating for Battlefront. The Deploy routine must pose some tricking coding challenges.

Can you say Hotfix?

Mortars, too.

Unfortunately, deployment appears bugged. Move, say a MG team, to a location and do not Deploy. On the following turn give them a Deploy order and they'll scamper back to their previous position. Most odd, that. Also getting the occasional graphic corruption.

Haha. Where do you come up with this stuff, B88?

SPOILER Tried it. We overcame the German position with light casualties. This scenario provides a vivid demonstration of the current deficiencies of MGs in CM2.

Good question. In the past BF has made tweaks that drastically alter the balance in some scenarios, notably CMSF (they say). Their philosophy appears to be let the chips lie... If they're even listening. Re: enhancing MG effectiveness: some find the Kill tally- the carnage- in CM2 is already over the top. Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps more suppression and fewer casualties are needed?

No, I didn't.

Even on Turn 1?

Yes, something to look into. If that's the case, you'd chalk it up to defective design because it should be apparent in the arty option screen. You don't impose restrictions on the player, even if realistic, without his knowledge. I'm no grog, but it seems plausible that mortars could carry out a linear mission on the opening turn given enough prep. Even in the pre-computer, WW2 era. However, I seem to recall from desultory readings that mortars didn't actually walk fire down a line but were lined up in a pattern, or a square, and essentially produced the desired effect out of formation. Someone like JasonC would be more knowledgeable than on this subject than I.

@Gerry Isn't all the carping and b*tching a back-handed tribute to Battlefront's success, their preeminence in this niche? After all, they made us care. And they're oh-so-close.

Agreed on both points. Also, diminishing the versatility of artillery. For example, should on map mortars, once they've moved, be able to perform such sophisticated missions as linear fire? One doubts it. This ability grants a boost to the attacking side in a similar way that allegedly ineffective MG fire hinders the defender. Some doing PBEMs are reporting a bias favoring the attacking side in CM2. OTOH, threads complaining about armor ballistics and behavior, a constant source of anguish in CM1, seem to have declined on the new boards.

Maybe. I remember CMBB. Mortars may enjoy excessive flexibility in CM2 but in CM1 they were wimps, nerfed to the point of being present in a cameo role at best. And the supermen SMG squads which were the mandatory choice in H2H QBs. Not mentioning other modelling deficiencies that have been corrected since. You may be looking at the older series through sentimental lens.

I believe you're referencing CMBN 1.0. Many have noted that this behavior has been modified with a subsequent patch.

Having read both books I heartily disagree. The first seemed to wallow in the psychodramas of the Allied commanders and the perfidy of the French. Combat operations got short sheeted. Why did you prefer it?