lowflyer

Great tips. I'll give them a try next go-around. I don't play real time. I do feel a lack of patience at times, especially when having to go through the process of moving large numbers of units across the map. I feel I have to micro-manage their movements since the computer's ability to do so seems poor. In the last year I have put a lot of time into Empire, World at War. I have gotten used to a bit more of the strategic view, in which there is a lot less micro-management, and a faster scale of play. I guess I have to work on slowing down and dropping into a lower gear.

Thanks for the feedback. Most of the scenarios I have played over and over. I usually find that, eventually, I stumble upon a more successful approach, though by that time I usually know where all the enemy units are located. I have a decent grasp of basic tactics. guess that's not sufficient. I'll have to find some references that might help me develop better approaches and see if the game feels less one-sided.

Some time back I read the threads re. the targeting system. If I recall correctly, it's that you can't target anything unless you have a direct LOS to it's base on the map. That means that you may have sighted enemy positions, but if there is anything between the object's base and your LOS, you can't fire at them, even if they are in plain sight.. For example, a 2-story building stands behind a hedgerow. It's upper elevations are completely in view. You have discovered an enemy element positioned in the building, upper floor, observing your approach and positions. None of your units have the ability to fire on the building unless they find access that allows LOS to the building's base. I understand why there must be these limitations in the game's design, but it sure eliminates a lot of tactical options. It's enlightening to find out the AI has the same targeting limitations I do, In which case I would surmise that the scenario designers must find such tiny holes to shoot through, perhaps only a few pixels in area, that it is highly unlikely I will ever uncover them from across a map. The Allied forces I have been playing so far sure seem to have little ability to do so. In fact, their moral and resiliancy seem more like those you would have found in N. Africa in 1942, rather than the more seasoned troops that might have existed by the time of Normandy. Usually, one hit and they are scurrying in a mad dash for cover far to the rear. Their firepower at the squad level is pathetic, making them just about useless in most firefights, unless paired with multiple other squads. Let's not even talk about the armored units that move as though mired in molasses, and seem to be driven by six-yr-olds who can not yet reach the pedals or see out the viewports. I can't count the times I have waited on the edge of my seat, for a precious Sherman to do a simple 60 degree turn and move a few feet before a Panzer 4 all the way across the map strikes a deadly blow. In the heavy weapons platoons, only the mortars seem to be of much use. In many hours of play I have rarely been able to figure out how to advance an MG crew into a position where they can set up and fire on a spotted opponent. They can advance only until the first set of enemy eyes is on them and then they are wiped out. I suppose if I were playing a defensive position I would have an endless amount of time to discover those tiny holes through the objects and terrain that would allow me the same advantage the AI has been using against me. I don't object to taking a week to get through a scenario, but the idea of a single individual taking a couple weeks hunting down tiny holes and openings in order to triumph, or just to make a series of moves, is ludicrous. I have a real life too. As repeat player and fan of many years, of the V1 versions of CM, ever since they hit the market, I must admit that these later versions (I upgraded to V2 of the game engine to see if it was better- nope) are rather disappointing with their fantastic and tempting graphics and animations that are quickly spoiled by game mechanics which are no more interesting or entertaining than the old versions. It's kinda like the old Microprose sub sim, Red Storm Rising, for the Commodore 64. With only 64 KBs of headroom the designers created an engaging game play that I believe, to this day, has never been exceeded by the flashiest of sub sims. I still occasionally boot it up and am amazed at how well it has stood the test of time. It ain't just all about graphics folks. It's about engaging your brain at a level that lets you forget it IS only a game. CMBN is failing pitifully for me in that regard, though I keep coming back, hoping to change my mind.

Why do you feel the AI has less advantage? I find it extremely frustrating that the unrealistic targeting system prevents me from shooting vast numbers of the opposition whose positions are fully known and visible. The opposition seems to have no problem targeting (and demolishing) my forces. Trying to advance to closer proximity rarely works. I am dead long before I can get to any position that allows targeting. That alone seems to level the field for the AI. For me, it also ruins the game most of the time.

My habit so far has been to use the N key to give movement orders. If I require a reverse order, I have usually used the mouse to click on that selection. It's rather moot in the setup phase anyway, as I have never, so far, willingly issued a reverse order on the opening turn. It's quite a sight when it happens. They act as though they were given a reverse order...sort of...but, they first rotate 180° BEFORE reversing! I just upgraded my version to V2. Will see if it continues to happen.

Thnx for the suggestions. Have had a devil of a time with making sure I have deselected a unit or group of units before issuing orders to the next group. I continuously discover errant paths added unintentionally, which I then must back out of, because I didn't double-click out of the previous selection completely. A very cumbersome part of this series' interface. I will have to pay more attention next time out, but as far as I can recall, I would typically double-click and highlight a small group of, say, 4 tanks, which I had placed somewhere during setup, facing into the map center, then hit the Move Key and set a destination. They will all show a proper movement track, but when activated, they start to jockey wildly around in an insane traffic jam, eventually turning 180° and then backing dutifully along their set tracks, asses to the enemy, after which they are soon toast. Of course, If I have not set a save point just before running the sequence, my tanks are demolished and I have to accept the losses and continue, or back up, reset everything, and try again.

Can anyone explain why my Shermans, when given an order to move ahead in their facing direction, all take the time to spin around backwards and advance ass-first straight into the enemy?

My post was not intended to trounce the game. Just giving early impressions in hopes that some might chime in, as you guys have, to point out how my opinions might change if I stick with it. I have been a gamer since the C64 days of wire frame flight sims, and have spent the last few decades constantly rebuilding my hardware, usually to pump up my systems enough to play some new title I coveted. There were always budget restraints to add to the challenge. Thus I have been around the game block many times. I tend to see titles in two phases. One is the initial experience...the freshness of surprise and exploration, which relies heavily on an effective immersion experience. One is also usually involved with learning the software at this stage, so petty complaints are generally reserved for later,especially if the designers have been able to capture my attention and hold it in these early stages. The second phase for me usually involves having become very familiar with the software and it's flaws and limitations, and taking up the simple, but engaging challenge of trying to overcome the obvious and work with the game structure as it is to achieve success, even though the immersion factor may rarely be extant at that point. In other words, just finding ways to beat the system. I can get a lot of additional mileage out of that. I didn't get very far into CMBN before the immersion began to fall away, largely because of the kludgy interface and the unexpected movement issues due to AI limitations on a hard-to-navigate map base. I harbor no illusions. No game is perfect. And It's doubly hard for an intelligent adult to stay engaged. I always judge heavily by game play and not the eye candy. Games like Microprose's Red Storm Rising, from the C64 era are good examples. There really was no eye candy, just crude 2D depictions, cut scenes really, that showed a ship sinking or a sub taking a torpedo. The action took place on a simple flat screen marked with weapon tracks and color-coded ocean layer depictions. Yet, with only 64 kb available the designers built an experience that still holds up today if you can run the software. Not giving up yet. There's too much meat on this bone to abandon it this soon. I guess being old and experienced doesn't allow something as simple as engaging graphics to hold my interest for long. there has to be something underneath.

After a few more hours of play I've developed some impressions: Kudos to the designers for the immersive graphics. The CMx1 graphics were crude, even for their day, and a sense of immersion was hard to find. Less enthusiastic about the control functions and the game mechanics. I halted attempts to use the QB function, as suggested, as it seemed incapable of generating a reasonable equipment and play balance, unlike the CMx1 series which has entertained me for years with this mode. I started to play through the Battles. Spent several hours on the farm scenario. Didn't allow myself to examine landscape details around the objective, so as not to ruin FOW. However, an annoying limitation of the map mechanics soon became apparent. The Bocage is, in essence, a series of walls that are too obviously used to funnel game flow. In some cases, units seem able to fire through the Bocage, but in most segments the Bocage apppears impenetrable (is that realistic? The only Bocage I have seen was from a fast moving train). Other than a laborious process of moving to the Bocage and attempting to target through it, there is no way to determine where units can fire through, other than the few obvious larger holes. It would have made play less tedious if the designers had, say, used differing color values to indicate a level of possible penetration for each segment. Because some units seemed to be able to fire through, I was lead to advance through the Bocage rows on the map right, thinking supporting fire would make a stepped advance possible. I soon discovered that most of my units were unable to fire through, though that didn't seem to be the case for the enemy. I also sometimes found it impossible to align my units up so they would be able to fire directly through the obvious openings. I was now swept up in the tedium of running all my units around the row ends or through the few breaks provided. Of course, without covering fire it was most often suicidal. The designers cleverly draw you in by offering the multiple rows of Bocage as an alternative to advancing across endless open fields in the face of enemy fire on the left. There is also the implication, in the scenario notes, that the farm is a secondary objective, so I would guess that many, like myself, would plan to take the crossroad first. Going straight down the center road is obviously not an option, due to the faultless and devastating marksmanship of the AT gun, which seems to be set imperviously at the far end. It is virtually impossible to find cover for a mortar or observer on that road, that allows for targeting the gun long enough to take it out. After continuing to slog my way successfully through the Bocage rows, and feeling rather good about myself, I pop out into the last empty row before the crossroads only to find that I am enfiladed from the left, with no place to escape to, and all my units are mowed down. It is at this point that the map revealed itself. It had been designed so that every critical point was perfectly hemmed in by obstacles and set within a deadly crossfire. I understand that finding these sorts of situations to set up in as a defender is part of the challenge and part of the fun, but this was too perfectly "constructed." A cheap trick that was so obvious it ruined the gameplay for me. OK I got it. The scenario cannot be won by rolling up the right side. At least I got an education about the Bocage characteristics. In other battle scenarios I discovered the difficulty of trying to make units move around or through the Bocage in a controlled manner. I would try to initiate a flow in one direction. The AI would decide I couldn't get through in that direction, and I would have units running wildly all over the map as they tried to reach a destination, oftentimes straight into the path of the enemy. I also again discovered the problem of the game hexes not matching up with the graphic constructs. Trying to place units precisely into exact positions was often impossible. As often as not units intended to be utilizing cover would end up in the open instead. I also got a taste of what one reviewer described as feeling like he was battling a bunch of "question marks." One battle was fought for the most part against these question marks. Even when they were adjacent to my units they still were only represented as question marks. Clicking on one would sometimes reveal it, but as soon as I clicked away it returned to a question mark (a bug perhaps?). The well known targeting issues are bothersome. Yes, I do understand the reasons for them, but they were not so apparent in CMx1, and more time spent on map development might have lessened the perceived effect. And I agree with those who find the interface to be cumbersome and unintuitive, unless one takes the time to remap keys to more easily remembered letters. I ended up using the mouse, which was tedious. At this early stage I must confess I find this generation not to be the worthy upgrade I was hoping for, for many reasons. In essence I find the entertaining graphic improvements do not make up for the kludgy game mechanics and artificial feeling map terrain. The Bocage becomes a very obvious artifice for funneling play flow. They might as well have used brick walls. Perhaps later add-ons avoid this feeling. Will it entertain me for years, as the CMx1 series has? I am not optimistic, but am willing to invest more time to be sure.

These QBs only serving as learning and familiarization tools at this point. I am not really playing them through with any commitment. I have been playing the early generation series of games since they first appeared, so the concepts and format are not really new to me. It's just the interface and the details I have to learn anew. I did watch the six-part series by Jeffrey Paulding of Armchair General magazine. Great ops info

Thanks about the barbed wire. That's one piece of logic I didn't explore, the analogy is akin to placing a magnet next to a nail. I'll play with it next time. My problem with unit placement in that scenario mostly had to do with the fact that all the colors used on the map grounds, except for grasses, were in a color spectrum using reds and yellows, not the blue/gray or whatever the setup area colors usually seem to be, which usually gives an indication of play flow direction. Adding to the confusion (and the suggestion that enemy could come from any angle)was the fact that certain units seemed to be restricted to a central locale and could not be moved around the map. They would only display a future move-to line when I tried to re-deploy them to the small map's perimeter. I also thought it odd that no infantry elements were included in the computer's mix. It was, essentially, all AT guns, with no capability for defense at close range. It seemed as though the AI generated a scenario that wanted me to set up so that anything coming at me would have to be taken out as it approached from the map edges early on. If I failed to successfully cover every avenue of approach with at least one gun, the attackers would soon be on me and I would have only the small weapons of the loaders and the HQ units for up-close defense. I suppose that could provide for an interesting challenge, but it did seem like an odd (and unrealistic) mix for the computer to come up with. Of course, this could all be mostly due to my unfamiliarity and "noobness" with this generation of CM.

Howdy fellow Grognards. Been a long time player of the old CM versions. Just installed this later iteration. Looks good so far but the learning curve is much steeper. Have been setting up QBs to learn with. Encountered a curious situation in one which left me a bit stumped. I was to defend a small village with German forces. No infantry, all AT guns, A few Panzerschrecks, and an unarmored carrier....and a bunch of barbed wire units. Two problems occurred: The terrain allowed me to setup pretty much anywhere on the map??? I presumed this meant that the enemy could appear from any direction (unlike maps I am accustomed to, which have the typical two-zone setup areas). Is this the case? I was also frustrated when trying to place the barbed wire. I could determine no method for orienting the wire's direction when placing it. No amount of manual searching turned up any clues. Help appreciated, thanks.