Navigator37

Is it surprising or merely self-explanitory that beta testers seem to be the least tolerant of critiques of this game?

I think that Lt Bull's original post, though a bit strident, is spot on, as are the above comments from Erwin.

I think that Erwin and Rankorian are on to something important here. Like them, I was a huge Panzerblitz fan but was turned off by Squad Leader. Like them, I was a huge fan of CM1, but can't seem to warm up to CMBN even though I really want to. Even though the annoyance of multiple-multiple die rolls of SL/ASL are internalized in the CMBN game mechanics, the uber-complexity of the game still manifests itself in ways that may make it more realistic (I'm not sure I concede the point) but that also make it less intuitive, less playable, less fun. (ie What is this squad shooting at? Depends, could be any number of several targets. How do I know? You don't!). I think it comes down to the question of complexity, and where CM2 falls on the continuum between a 'game' and a 'simulation'. For me, it's gone too far in the direction of simulation at the expense of playability: sure the foliage looks great, but I have to keep the trees turned off to find my units; artillery spotting is so exquisitely realistic/complex, I've just about given up on it. In fact, I'm beginning to wonder how artillery was ever used at all in WWII. I know this is subjective and that BattleFront will never please everyone. But it's vital for the survival of the game that they get it right for most people. I am enthusiastically rooting that they do.

Same thing happens to me. If my PC goes into screensaver, I lose everything in the game that has not been saved, and cannot even reopen the game unless I do a system shutdown. Very frustrating.

I agree completely and, I would further emphasize, the extreme difficulty of seeing selected units, bases, and icons in trees.

MickeyD - Why the dismissive, snarky response? Lt Bull makes a legitimate point - if you have some insights, share them; otherwise, withold the sarcasm. As a beta tester you have a greater responsibility to foster a healthy dialogue on this forum than some anonymous commentor.

GaJ - Well said. Your comments exactly mirror my experience with this game.

Fascinating discussion. This is the first time I‘ve ever written in this forum, though I’ve followed it daily for months. I was first turned on to PC war games with the Close Combat series. Then came Combat Mission, and I thought I had died and gone to heaven. I was hooked, and spent countless hours immersed in the CMx1 experience. After that I drifted, sampling ToW and CMSF among others, but none of them grabbed me, and I reverted to board games for a decade. Needless to say, I the arrival of CMx2 was anticipatedwith great excitement – I checked the website constantly, pre-ordered, and counted the days until it was released. Now that it’s here and I’ve played for a while, I’d have to say that I like it, but don’t love it. Whereas I couldn’t get enough of CMx1 and played it every free moment, I can go for weeks without playing CMx2. Somehow it’s...just…not the same. Of course it’s not the same game, that’s not what I mean - it’s not the same experience, it doesn’t create the same feeling, the same excitement – it’s not as fun. [Note: I always play WEGO against the AI – just like I did CMx1.] I don’t mind that CMx2 is different than CMx1 – what disappoints me is that in important ways it’s not as good. Things that should be easy – that were easy in CMx1 - are difficult (or impossible) in the new game: it should be easy to read terrain, to see the contours of the land, to tell the difference between a shrub and an impenetrable hedge row; it should be easy to find friendly units on the map, to alter their paths, to know what they are shooting at, and what their status is; it should be easy to pick out and occupy a sturdy Norman farm, knowing its stone walls will provide cover. In CMx2, things are hard that don’t have to be: ambushing a tank with a bazooka team; making a squad fire through upper floor windows; having a spotter with a line of sight call in an artillery strike; moving a tank to a hull-down position. Paradoxically, aspects of CMx2 that are improvements over CMx1 make it less playable, less enjoyable than the older game: the lush, dense foliage makes it very difficult to find friendly units, so I play with trees turned off; the more realistic spotting rules make it harder to know who’s been seen, who can see what, and what they are firing at, if anything; calling in indirect fire is so exquisitely realistic and complex that I’ve just about given up on it. I don’t mind learning new key strokes; I don’t mind that the camera commands are different; I like that the game is more challenging, that the AI beats me sometimes. What I don’t like is that the system itself is often an impediment to game play, it gets in its own way (and mine), inducing frustration and making CMx2 less fun than the original. The arguments that I’ve seen on this forum that “it’s waaay better than TOW because…”, or “we’ve already dealt with this issue in the CMSF thread...” are meaningless to me: I never played those games because I didn’t like them. I do like this game, I appreciate the creativity & support provided by Battlefront, and I plan on buying all the expansions to fill my steel box. I’m rooting for Battlefront’s success - no one does WWII tactical war games better than they do. I just expected CMx2 to be better than it is.