CMBN vs. APOS, and the future of CMx2(?).

[buzzPC]

Been following this thread and just had to jump in and give my support to what noxnoctum and some others have argued. I've been playing CM since CMBO and the most enjoyable and fun experiences have been CMx1 using WEGO TCP/IP (for me). I would argue as well that poor MP capability is the single greatest hurdle to the expansion of this game beyond its hardcore fanbase. No matter the game playing against a human provides more tension, thrill and I'd argue enjoyment than dealing with any AI.

While PBEM works fine currently; though serious improvements could be made, the WEGO TCP option really allowed the game to shine. While with CMx2 you can play PBEM using DB and H2H in near realtime the fact remains you need to exchange turns , whereas using WEGO TCP the orders phases were being completed simultaneously a) saving a substantial amount of time, allowing scenarios or QBs to be completed in only a few hours at most never having to exit the game again saving significant amounts of time.

For me personally, and I have children and a professional career as well, setting aside a couple of hours a week to virtually meet-up to play a wargame is no different than what many of us did in wargaming clubs before the advent of computerized wargaming. So the argument that for this cadre of gamers PBEM is really all we need doesnt hold much water for me and I think it detracts immensely from attracting people who might be potentially interested in trying out a more "serious" wargame.

If I were being asked (which I'm not of course) I'd say (re-) implementation of WEGO TCP with a ingame MP lobby is the single most critical update BFC can make to the game at this point. But hey that is just one man's opinion and I definitely respect the other opinions that have been expressed on the subject in this and many previous threads.

Just continuing to make my voice heard and hoping this gets added to the game in the not too distant future.

By the way Happy New Year to everyone.

[Erwin]

CM1 was simple compared to CM2. My standard turnaround times for tcp-ip in CMBO were approx:

300 points - 5 minutes (per turn)

600 points - 10 minutes

1000 points - 15 minutes

1500 points - 20 minutes

Set-ups for any of the above took much longer.

Above 1500 points tcp became impractical.

Now, I very seldom play CM1 games under Battalion size with a company or two of AFV's/APC's. PBEM is the only practical way to play the large-huge scenarios than many of us prefer.

Re CM2 vs the AI, I find my typical CM2 turn on an average-sized scenario (1-2 Companies + support) is anything from 30 mins to 60+ mins.

And typical set-up times for an average sized scenario is anything from 1 to 2 hours.

I play almost only Campaigns (scenarios only when I run out of campaigns) as I believe the purest, most "realistic" way to play any CM2 game is to win with minimum friendly casualties and economy of ammo expenditure. I love the logistical challenges of having to win while surviving to fight another day.

My conclusion is that I suspect we're talking about a completely different style of play and seriousness of play approach. To me, CM2 is very largely about learning the art of being very patient, and minimising friendly costs. tcp is an anathema to that philosophy of play.

I have nothing against tcp but it only works for a very narrow set of parameters. And I would hate BFC to waste time on this feature when there are so many other things that need work on. Most of us who've been playing CM for over 10 years prefer the more thoughtful approach that inspired CM in the first place.

[LJFHutch]

... I'd be more worried about the RT that BFC has introduced, rather than some online element.

Why do so many people run around sprouting so such hate for RT? You'd think it killed half your family members or something.

You're playing exactly the same game in WeGo and RT in [almost] exactly the same way and literally the only way it can become a "click-fest" is if you're playing with too many units, which in many situations would be venturing a fair way into tedium if played WeGo anyway. Besides which, if you don't like it, don't play it. Nobody is forcing you or making any changes to dumb the game down - I defy anyone to claim CMx2 is more "gamey" or simplistic than x1.

[buzzPC]

Well I am not sure that simply because larger scenarios require more time to play or setup means that Tcp WEGO should not be implemented. It would just require longer or a larger number of play sessions. I don't argue that PBEM should be removed- in fact I would argue it should be enhanced as well. I imagine a system where you have a "Words with Friends" type of system- popup messages out of game, turns handled all in game, etc.

I don't agree that those of us who enjoy or want to see Tcp WEGO return are into a less "serious" form of game play. Perhaps we favor smaller sized scenarios tht could be completed against another player would be the main difference.

Finally, MP RT in its current form holds no attraction for me personally , I can't speak for others. No pause, no replay makes for a game that to me doesn't play like CM. I would love a Rt option with pauses and a 30-60 sec rewind option.

[DMS]

Personally I always play RT. Turn-based mode seems a bit not realistic and too long for me. If there would be unit formations in CMBN, controlling many units would be easier. One click instead of 4-6 for a platoon.

[Erwin]

"you're playing with too many units..."

This is the crux of the different POV between audiences here. I have yet to see a CMBN scenario that has "too many units."

I miss the Regimental-size combined arms scenarios and campaigns that were easy to run in CM1. I am not a fan of the smaller and more inf-centric CMBN scenarios.

I suspect that I preferred CMSF due to the large numbers of vehicles and mobile nature of most of CMSF's battles. (I also liked the urban inf heavy scenarios like JOKER 3 as CM2 is outstanding depicting MOUT.) I have been playing CMBN avidly since it came out, but keep getting that "je ne sais quoi" missing...

Although I was originally a big fan of tcp, once I started on the larger more complex scenarios, I realied that PBEM was the only way to go, as ithey required a LOT more thought... 30 mins to over an hour per turn sometimes.

So, there is nothing wrong with players preferring to play small scenarios in RT, and good luck to you. Just be aware that there is a large audience out there that wants to play larger scenarios and in a more thoughtful way - because ammo and personnel conservation is important and playing like "there is no tomorrow" for our pixeltruppen is no longer fun.

I have half a dozen RT type wargames/RTS games sitting around brand new and unopened as I just can't get into that style of play any more. It's probably an age thing.

[Ranger33]

Erwin, I don't think it's really fair to say that if someone doesn't take an hour each turn deciding on orders that they aren't playing in a "thoughtful" manner or don't play with a serious strategy in mind. I never play CMBN like I would regular RTS games, in terms of unit preservation and movements. At the same time, I don't go overboard with checking LOS of every single unit and such. I think you move into "gamey" territory when you spend five minutes deciding what a single team of infantry should be doing for the next 60 seconds. It isn't realistic at all after a certain point, unless you play from the point of view that you are simultaneously every single soldier on the battlefield, and not simply the battalion or company commander. (when I say "you" above I'm just speaking in general)

Anyway, after many PBEM games I find that I too enjoy playing things at the larger end of the spectrum, since overall strategic decisions become more important and luck becomes less of a factor. However, I feel like a could play anything up to a battalion sized engagement in tcp/ip wego (not RT) and only need 15 minutes or so for orders each turn. This assumes of course at least 30+ minutes for the initial setup. Having a hard limit on how much time you have for orders would be more immersive and realistic IMO, since as a commander in the field you would not have the luxury to sit back and ponder every move. Anyone who wants to play like that already has the option of PBEM. Everyone here is just wanting another option that allows us to play a match in one sitting, but not using the frantic mess that is RT at anything above a few platoons.

[ShiftZ]

I have half a dozen RT type wargames/RTS games sitting around brand new and unopened as I just can't get into that style of play any more. It's probably an age thing.

I enjoy mutliplayer on a particular sim I own and RT is the only way to play when 20 + people are involved; in fact the only way to play the thing is RT either solo against AI or MP. I can't do turn based games anymore, to slow, one person is always taking way to freakin' long.

FYI I'm 47 so I don't think it's an age thing, I think it's an "over thinking the solution" thing.

[noxnoctum]

CM1 was simple compared to CM2. My standard turnaround times for tcp-ip in CMBO were approx:

300 points - 5 minutes (per turn)

600 points - 10 minutes

1000 points - 15 minutes

1500 points - 20 minutes

Set-ups for any of the above took much longer.

Above 1500 points tcp became impractical.

Now, I very seldom play CM1 games under Battalion size with a company or two of AFV's/APC's. PBEM is the only practical way to play the large-huge scenarios than many of us prefer.

Re CM2 vs the AI, I find my typical CM2 turn on an average-sized scenario (1-2 Companies + support) is anything from 30 mins to 60+ mins.

And typical set-up times for an average sized scenario is anything from 1 to 2 hours.

I play almost only Campaigns (scenarios only when I run out of campaigns) as I believe the purest, most "realistic" way to play any CM2 game is to win with minimum friendly casualties and economy of ammo expenditure. I love the logistical challenges of having to win while surviving to fight another day.

My conclusion is that I suspect we're talking about a completely different style of play and seriousness of play approach. To me, CM2 is very largely about learning the art of being very patient, and minimising friendly costs. tcp is an anathema to that philosophy of play.

I have nothing against tcp but it only works for a very narrow set of parameters. And I would hate BFC to waste time on this feature when there are so many other things that need work on. Most of us who've been playing CM for over 10 years prefer the more thoughtful approach that inspired CM in the first place.

Maybe I just have more free time than you. And you're wrong about there being "less seriousness of play approach". You're making a huge assumption there.

Most of the people at WAW play mostly tcp-ip and I've done so for some large (3000+) point battles there. Usually over a couple saves, and it takes hours, but it works fine. Not everyone there is some spastic who rushes his turns... I would (and I guess most of the people there as well) just prefer to set aside a few hours one day a week when I have the time, to play a significant chunk of the battle rather than 20 minutes every day for 2 months. The latter's a lot less exciting to me.

But I agree with you there's no such thing as "too many units". The bigger the better.

A MP lobby and putting a feature back in the game that was in the series a decade ago is a must. BFC could get a lot more customers just by having a lobby.

And I don't like RT LJHutch because it's much harder to have the time to look at the terrain, and makes zooming in to watch the battle closely impossible if you want to have any kind of situational awareness. I played mostly RT for CMSF, just because modern weapons were so deadly that I preferred to give up some SA for the ability to instant pause, but going back to CMBN with wego has been a great return. It's fine if you're playing with a platoon. With a company or more though you're just not going to be able to enjoy the game as much IMO.

[LJFHutch]

Oh no, I definitely agree, I myself play both. I was referring to the strange antagonism toward real-time.

[Wodin]

Listen if the tac Ai was as good as a humans decisions I'd play in real time, it isn't and has to be very carefully guided and I find the more time I spend guiding it the more it will behave in a more realistic and human way.

Thats why I find it odd when WEGO is described in the terms of gamey and unrealistic.

However each to their own. The great thing is we have a choice. Which is great for the game and it's popularity.

[Stagler]

Well, I've been rocking CMBN hard this december. It still tastes a little sour to me, but I still enjoy it.

A few days ago I bought Achtung Panzer: Operation Star (because it had two types of Marder II!! ).

So, just playing that for a while, I wish there was a hybrid between CM and AP.

The damage model in AP is way better, at least visually. It actually has physics, which is standard in 2011. And decals! If a tank explodes, bits and pieces fall off (tracks, track guards, stowage, etc.)

While CMBN is superior in some effects (explotions), infantry combat and unit control, I find it less immersive.

Like this situation I had last night in APOS:

I had a Tiger providing overwatch over a gully which had an objective in a crossroad at the bottom of it. Then I spotted a KV1S rolling across the gully at a range of approximately 450-500 meters. It started driving up the hill on the other side of the gully, exposing it's side to my Tiger. It was an easy target, moving slowly up the steep hill. First shot ripped off the rear track guard. Second shot hit it in the fuel tanks. Crew bailed out, tank started burning very slowly and started to roll back down the hill. Out of the shellhole in the side, a jet of flame shot out and set the brush alight. A trail of fire followed the tracks of the KV1 down the hill. How awesome is that!?

CMBN doesn't have that.

I really wish there was more physics and eye candy in CMBN. It's almost 2012, so stop it with the single core 32x stuff. In the very least decals should be there.

I still find CMBN somewhat superior to APOS. Probably because of the artillery and infantry combat. I do enjoy me some small unit action.

So where does it go from CMBN? Anyone got an idea?

I've spammed my facebook with screenies I took in CMBN, just to spark interest. But the game is too archaic for my friends. No MP (PBEM doesn't count, nor does the RT. It just sucks.), no physics, no AI (it has no real AI. **** you if you think it has.), poor optimisation, not modder friendly (changing skins doesn't count. BFC is all about the DLC now.), etc.

I've noticed that criticism isn't taken lightly here, but I don't care. Just be honest, and share the hopes for the future of CM.

Agreed. Gameplay of CM series, graphics of something like world in conflict. Perfect game right there. Immersive gameplay, immersive visuals, jobs a gooden.

I also agree on AI. The AI needs to be able to come up with a plan itself. Identify key pieces of terrain, split its forces up, and occupy them. Thats the simplest plan the AI could possibly do besides just move forces toward you and hope for the best. Even if that is implemented so the AI works things out differently every time, and is dynamic enough to do this on user maps. I would be happy.

It would just be done even by simply making the AI pick a list of key terrain features based on the contents of a square 100m of terrain, those with buildings, cover, or more height would obviously be the places to go.

I also only play realtime, because it seems more immersive and thats what I am used to when it comes to playing strategy games. Turn based is good and all but it just doesnt cut it for me. I like to have to react fast to friction.

[Erwin]

Like I said, I don't want to stop anyone playing in any way they like. But, I do worry about BFC's limited resources when there are serious problems with the game to solve before one gets to "how" one wants to play it.

[HintJ]

Operation Star looks very good! I watched an AAR on Youtube, and the UI looks much better. I wish I had more time to play games lately. I'll probably get it.

I have the the first Achtung Panzer. Excellent game.

It appears in Op Star that the player can now control units from the zoomed-out tactical map, and saving in-game is now possible; can anyone with Op Star verify this?

[Erwin]

The demos of AP are always very impressive. ( I played the demo but couldn't understand how to play well - maybe the full game with a manual would be easier to learn.)

Initially I was again very excited by this link when the guy was showing the operational map and how it related to the tactical map. It was what many of us dreamed we would have for CM. Plus all the detailed orders etc. Great stuff.

But, what made him choose a night scenario? When he started playing, it turned into a mass of icons on a black BG with snowflakes. All he was doing in this RT game was rushing around a mass of icons like it was a medieval mob game. There didn't seem to be time for tactics or any thought. Just grab a bunch of units and throw em in a direction and keep em moving till they rolled over the enemy rabble - or whatever there was out there since one couldn't see anything. The amazing graphics were a waste of time since he rarely had time to zoom in to actually see any of the graphics. I had little idea of what was going on or why this guy was even enjoying himself. He sounded like wrist-twitcher.

Here's another demo in daylight:

Yes, it's all very pretty. But, it's utter chaos. Maybe that make it more realistic than CM?!! But, I don;t see how one can have fun controlling anything. AP, like Company of Heroes and all similar RT games is designed for a completely different mindset than CM.

This examples probably do a disservice as to the content of AP games. They show AP as a non-stop wrist-twitch action with no time to breathe - just like the other RPS games, Red Orchestra, Arma and COD4 games I have sitting around here. If you liked watching these demos and it inspires you to get AP, then CM is almost certainly not the game for you. So, please go play AP and let's NOT keep trying to make CM more like AP.

[Sybma]

No need overreacting Erwin. I'm playing both and like them both. I play CMN in realtime and as CMN one can play APOS the same way: pausing, cover arcs, defence, the whole package. But indeed different than CMN, but I also don't eat beans every day ;-)

[HintJ]

Yes, it's all very pretty. But, it's utter chaos. Maybe that make it more realistic than CM?!! But, I don;t see how one can have fun controlling anything. AP, like Company of Heroes and all similar RT games is designed for a completely different mindset than CM.

This examples probably do a disservice as to the content of AP games. They show AP as a non-stop wrist-twitch action with no time to breathe - just like the other RPS games, Red Orchestra, Arma and COD4 games I have sitting around here. If you liked watching these demos and it inspires you to get AP, then CM is almost certainly not the game for you. So, please go play AP and let's NOT keep trying to make CM more like AP.

As I play real time in CM, I play AP also often paused. There is a wealth of info in the AP games as well as CM. IF someone wants to play AP like Red Alert, that's fine by me. For me, AP is far from a "non-stop wrist-twitch action with no time to breathe." If it is true that AP saves the progress now in the tactical mode, a simply 2 hour battle can last over many sessions now!

IF I play AP like Red Alert, then I'd miss getting down close to the action, where AP shines.

In AP, I have seen some of the most visceral action: I once had a T-34 decide he had enough and start running closer to other friendly units. Later, as the Germans got closer, I swear I saw a crew member of of the T-34 jump out of the tank and start running away only to be gunned down by another FRIENDLY tank. It isn't WEGO, so no replay. I was like "Did I just see that?!" Maybe it was just my imagination, but I'm pretty sure of what I saw.

I once knocked off a track on an enemy Panzer IV, but I had a T-34 almost 2 KM away. So while the Panzer IV was repairing the track, My T-34 was racing to the area to get a good rear shot. It was a nail-biting few minutes.

I've also chased down tanks with tanks! I'd try to get within a good firing range at a fleeing tank, stop, fire, and then have to start running after him again.

With the HUGE maps it is hard to make a good defensive position. The AI often bypasses me and comes in an unanticipated direction, so I have to be very flexible. Maybe this will change if AP is patched to allow for more units in the map.

Watching infantry squads ambush half-tracks at night is truly nightmarish! I love seeing a half-track running around with dead members in the back. Wow!

I'm not really comparing CM to AP, but would I like to see these kind of things (like massive maps and strategic movements) in CM? Of course. Would I like to see some of the things in CM in AP (like WEGO and a better UI)? Of course.

Oh, and the tracers look great in AP!

[ShiftZ]

Maybe I'm getting off topic here considering the OP but RT is the only style of play that can be made if a

participant in a combat simulation is looking for immersion and realism.

You make basic tactical and logistical decisions in the set up/deployment phase based on the equipment given and

type of mission. Once that the initial placement has taken place and routes laid down you hit the green button and

find out if your battle plan is going to hold up. As the scenario unfolds you make changes to your plan based on

predictions. A players success is obviously related to experience using tactics that should be adaptable to changes

that can happen in an instant; as it does in RL.

What is understood doesn't need to be discussed so it goes without saying that anyone that does this type of thing

for a living for his/her country will be better at it then people who don't. Real time play is preferable, for me

anyway.

The following is a smart ass comment:

I don't think armies currently deployed hand out pause buttons or turn orders.

When someone first starts out playing CMBN and are completely green to this type of sim then turn based pause action

style is a good idea until these individuals get better at the sim and begin to understand why things are done the

way countless books tell us all how to lay it out. After this take the training wheels off and race down that hill

and right into the parked car at the bottom.

I've never played APOS or whatever it's called and probably never will. I can't compare one sim to another because

each sim is striving to achieve different levels of realism. Some simulations are training aids meant to help

students learn and understand whats being taught in a classroom,(but can none the less can be played for fun) while

others want you to look at graphics and taste the dust in your mouth. I guess that as more and more developers out

there get into this type of simulation the more it will promote quality in these types Sims.

BF recently celebrated it's tenth anniversary of combat mission. I'm betting that they will make a leap into 3D

somewhere over the next ten years.

[Ranger33]

@ShiftZ

I think you are a bit off the mark with pausing in RT breaking immersion or realism. Let's say you were a company commander in real life. You would give orders to your platoon commanders, and then they would filter the orders down through their subordinates. The company as a whole is under your command, but you don't give orders to each individual squad, much less telling 3-4 man teams exactly where to move. In CM, you do have to give exact orders to every single unit on the field, so the pause/wego creates some wiggle room to allow you to assume direct leadership of everyone in the battle. If the CM strategic AI was a bit more autonomous, as in you could give a platoon leader and order and then he would move his squads, that would be much closer to reality and be FAR more manageable in full real time gameplay. As it is, the pause is needed in any large battle, because any units you aren't directly commanding will simply sit in their current location and never consider doing anything at all on their own.

[ShiftZ]

In CM, you do have to give exact orders to every single unit on the field, so the pause/wego creates some wiggle room to allow you to assume direct leadership of everyone in the battle. If the CM strategic AI was a bit more autonomous, as in you could give a platoon leader and order and then he would move his squads, that would be much closer to reality and be FAR more manageable in full real time gameplay. As it is, the pause is needed in any large battle, because any units you aren't directly commanding will simply sit in their current location and never consider doing anything at all on their own.

Maybe I'm wrong but don't you set up the units for play based on the leadership units? Highlight the unit commander and give the order which in turn is issued to all of the units under that commander? That's what I'm doing in CMBN, guess I'm fubar. I organize everything according to the command structure of the units involved. I end up with maybe a dozen or so single command units to manage. As long as I'm using the terrain correctly it works out fine.

[HintJ]

The following is a smart ass comment:

I don't think armies currently deployed hand out pause buttons or turn orders.

I don't think that's a smart-ass comment. I think it is the truth, but I'm not in the any army, and I'm playing it as a game.

Pause, zoom out, think, plan, issue orders, get down low in a critical spot for a good perspective, start the action, watch for a few moments, pause and start over.

I love it that way.

Because AP has both a message system and a mini-map, it actually works better than CM for this style of playing real time. I guess CM would also do well with these features.

[Ranger33]

Maybe I'm wrong but don't you set up the units for play based on the leadership units? Highlight the unit commander and give the order which in turn is issued to all of the units under that commander? That's what I'm doing in CMBN, guess I'm fubar. I organize everything according to the command structure of the units involved. I end up with maybe a dozen or so single command units to manage. As long as I'm using the terrain correctly it works out fine.

You play the whole scenario like that? That's what I do right at the beginning, if it's a large map I move platoons as a whole into general areas. Once the shooting actually starts though, I can't see that being a viable play style. Half of your units would either be too far back to see anything, or out in the open getting slaughtered.

What I'm talking about is, you give the platoon leader an order to move his squads into an area. They move there and take up positions on their own, according to the terrain. I haven't played APOS, but I have the first Achtung Panzer and you can give a squad a "take defensive positions" command and they will automatically find the best cover at their location.

[ShiftZ]

I haven't had any problems yet. It all depends whats on the board. If it's all infantry then it can get stupid but whatever problems I'm having so is my opponent.

I try to stay as mobile as possible with everything and support each element that is moving to various positions with the right unit type for the current action - overwatch. I'm not getting caught in the open anywhere unless it's what I have to do to take a point on the map highlighted by the mission.

Again I'm going to support those troops and attempt to suppress the opponent trying to stop me, I don't have to obliterate my opponent just make him take cover and hopefully demoralize those troops in the process. CMBN demands a certain level of realizing that I have to lose some to gain some.

[AslakH]

I've noticed that Erwin has some issues/grief with RT.

I haven't played WEGO since CMAK, and I can't understand the hatred for real time. It doesn't get confusing, and I can always order my troops to stop if they make contact/run through a hole in the bocage, before the entire squad is annihalated.

Since I started skulking on these forums in the CMAK-days, I've heard these arguments against RT (just some examples):

It's not realistic (this one is just... wrong).

It's confusing.

You don't get to see any of the pretty graphics.

Because WEGO was the standard for my father and his father before him! It has been like this for generations!

I also can't relate to your statements about APOS. It's not C&C or Starcraft. It's RT, and that would be reason enough to hate it?

Shall I make my list about why slow WEGO-fanatics suck? Us young wrist-twitchers are the future! Out of our way, gramps!

But, no.

Most people play it tactically. It's a bad thing to lose units - they won't come back. You'll be reminded every time you fight there and see the burned out vehicles strewn across the battlefield (not to mention the dead bodies).

Still, the truth is that it has a lot of features that people would like to see in CMBN.

You can dislike it as much as you want, but CMBO was ten years ago.

You should try APOS, but only if you've not made your mind up beforehand.

APOS won't steal any customers from BFC, if anything, CMBN will steal them from GT.

But we can have both. People can enjoy both. I like brunettes AND blondes (no redheads).

If someone says they like RT best, there will ALWAYS be like ten dudes raging and thrusting their E-peens at the screen.

Also, RT vs. WEGO wasn't really even in the topic. There have been lots of threads on that already. Remember: CMBN has both!

[noxnoctum]

Ya I still think Erwin you're confusing tcp-ip play with RT when they are nothing alike.