those bugs/irrealistic things which ruin CMBN...

[JC-CM]

Gentlemen from Battlefront,

When i heard about Combat Mission Battle for Normandy, i was expecting great things with this new opus. A few games after, like many veterans of the Combat Mission series, i feel something like a bad felling about this game. A feeling of deception, of mess-up. Why ?

Because of many bugs and irrealistic things that ruin the interest of the game. Here is a list :

- Artillery (even light mortars) is too powerful. 2 rounds of an artillery barrage are enough to destroy half an army or at least, reduce drastically a platoon to a few men harmless group. With this problem, it is difficult to manage a strategy or having a real fight with guns, AT, etc. Everything is destroyed after a barrage. Artillery power must be decreased for at least 30 % of its current efficiency (and accuracy in the same way). The artillery problem is the main problem of this list.

- Path-finding is poor and players have to manage units one by one to obtain proper movements.

- No possibility to select armour cover arc or infantry arc as we could in CMx1.

- Unexpected point of impact on armoured vehicles (for example, hit on left flank when the shooting enemy is on the right side…)

- A.P. shells kills infantry as easily as H.E. shells. I hope it is a bug. For example, a 57mm caliber American A.T. gun shot against a building with men in it. 4 of them died with one shot!!! I thought A. P. had no explosive ability…

- No delay to execute an order whatever the unit’s level is. So, why should we spend points to buy crack or veteran unit? No matter with CMBN.

- units are sometimes very difficult to place on terrain at some strategic points or to give them the best concealment as possible (for example behind sandbags).

- Troops covered in buildings are too much vulnerable under enemy fire (light or armoured).

- Same icon when an enemy is spotted. No matter if it is a tank or a soldier. I mean than soldiers should be able to identify at least if there is a tank or men in front of them. But when the enemy is spotted, we know immediately what kind of unit it is. Is it a new "fog of war" style ?

- Armoured vehicle’s shots and gun‘s shots are too accurate à too many “one shot, one kill”

- During assault against a building, friendly units continue firing on building to cover, with a risk of casualties on assaulting troops.

- What exactly soldiers do with the order "to hide"? Where do they hide? Does this order really mean something?

- A.I. manages troop’s behaviour in a strange way and not with appropriate action. Sometimes, they fire with their gun on a tank, sometimes they did not shot with their bazooka on a tank, and more other stupid things like this.

- Armoured spot enemy infantry too easily.

Of course, there are probably other problems, but those are enough to make me stop playing this game. Unless a patch fix these problems, there is no chance than i continue playing it or i than i buy the adding modules. I think i will continue Combat Mission x1. This one, at least, has been programmed seriously. CMBN is the perfect example of a game which has been thinking only for graphics effects. No matter with realism or playability.

Regards.

JC-CM

[A Canadian Cat]

Sorry to see that you are disappointed but please hang in there. There are many things that are different but the game is lots of fun to play. However it *is* different from CM1 (which are also still fun to play).

- Artillery (even light mortars) is too powerful. 2 rounds of an artillery barrage are enough to destroy half an army or at least, reduce drastically a platoon to a few men harmless group. With this problem, it is difficult to manage a strategy or having a real fight with guns, AT, etc. Everything is destroyed after a barrage. Artillery power must be decreased for at least 30 % of its current efficiency (and accuracy in the same way). The artillery problem is the main problem of this list.

Yeah artillery is nasty and mortars are really nasty used in direct fire. This has been discussed a lot and the consensus IMHO is that they have it pretty much correct both in terms of accuracy and effect. The only thing that might be done to make it better would be to have the AI spread out squads a bit more than they are now. Bottom line if your guys are under an artillery barrage they will die fast. Conversely if you can get the other guys troops under your artillery barrage they will die fast too.

- Path-finding is poor and players have to manage units one by one to obtain proper movements.

I agree there are some issues here but you can learn how to get the game to do what you want without the unexpected surprises. Here are a few instances that cause confusion and some suggestions.

Vehicles in convoy:

Yikes this is still a pain but give space between vehicles (more then you thing you need) and use pauses to make sure they stay separate. To avoid vehicle bunches and the inevitable "you first", "no you", "no you first", "oh never mind I'll just go around you" keystone cops routine that follows I start out my convoy with lots of space. Then in each command phase when I see vehicles getting too close I issue pause orders to the following vehicle and all subsequent vehicles. I religiously manage this turn after turn to prevent the bunching.

Also you can / should drive convoys in packets of vehicles. In real life this is how it is done anyway groups of 3, 4 or 5 vehicles form a packet and the whole convoy is made up of a number of packets. Each vehicle in a packet stays together relatively close like normal driving and they keep an eye on each other slowing down so stragglers can stay close etc. The separation between packets is larger and more varied. In the game this means that you have some extra space between groups of vehicles and you never have more then 5 vehicles that can get into one of those keystone cops moments.

Bridges:

Make sure you have a way point on one side of the bridge and another one on the other side of the bridge. And make sure you do not have a vehicle bunch up that happens near a bridge (see previous).

Bocage:

For infantry to prevent long surprising trips I also usually place a way point near the gap one side and the next way point on the other side of the bocage near the gap I want the guys to go though.

For vehicles off road:

Check that the terrain between way points is passable. You can do this as you place way points by moving slowly along the direction you want to go and watch for the ghost buster symbol. After a while you get better at recognizing terrain.

- No possibility to select armour cover arc or infantry arc as we could in CMx1.

That would be great and is one of the most requested features around here.

- Unexpected point of impact on armoured vehicles (for example, hit on left flank when the shooting enemy is on the right side…)

Not sure about what you are seeing here - no comment.

- A.P. shells kills infantry as easily as H.E. shells. I hope it is a bug. For example, a 57mm caliber American A.T. gun shot against a building with men in it. 4 of them died with one shot!!! I thought A. P. had no explosive ability…

Well first off are you sure it was not an HE shell? Also my understanding is that some AP shells did have some HE inside them. Plus buildings seem to be shrapnel generators which would explain a lot in this example.

- No delay to execute an order whatever the unit’s level is. So, why should we spend points to buy crack or veteran unit? No matter with CMBN.

Oh, there is a difference big time. The troops have their own AI that responds to what is happening on the battle field. Green troops will break, cower and run back much sooner than crack or veterans will. Trust me after playing this game for a while you *will* notice a difference. You will learn to pay more attention to CC issues with your green troops. You will also learn to make sure you do *not* ask crack troops to perform a suicide charge because there is a good chance they will try it.

- units are sometimes very difficult to place on terrain at some strategic points or to give them the best concealment as possible (for example behind sandbags).

Yep this can be a bit of a pain. The face command is your friend. If you move your guys to the action square where the cover is and issue a face command towards the enemy then the guys do a pretty good job of setting up using the sandbags etc.

- Troops covered in buildings are too much vulnerable under enemy fire (light or armoured).

Yeah, lots of debate on this one. Lots. Again IMHO the consensus is that unfortified buildings *are* more dangerous to be in and that churches do not offer enough protection. This has led to requests to make the churches stronger and offer a fortification that could be applied to houses to make them offer more protection. It has also lead to some scenario designers to add walls around the first floor of buildings to make them offer more protection.

- Same icon when an enemy is spotted. No matter if it is a tank or a soldier. I mean than soldiers should be able to identify at least if there is a tank or men in front of them. But when the enemy is spotted, we know immediately what kind of unit it is. Is it a new "fog of war" style ?

Yeah, also and issue. This one has not been debated very much but suggestions have been made. Who knows what will happen.

- Armoured vehicle’s shots and gun‘s shots are too accurate à too many “one shot, one kill”

Yep, CMBN gets this right. After much debate the consensus is that is how it was. If you saw the other tank first, you hit the other tank first, you kill the other tank first. Having said that if you play this game enough you will see lots of misses too. They do happen from time to time. And tanks do sometimes shrug off hits - even Shermans. So hang in there and you will see some amazing things. For example here is a PzIV and a Sherman killing each other:

- During assault against a building, friendly units continue firing on building to cover, with a risk of casualties on assaulting troops.

It is OK only .50 cal and up can cause Blue on Blue casualties. But it is a good idea to manage your targeting to avoid wasting ammo and especially for the big stuff - which can cause casualties. I know just this morning in the Huzzar scenario I had a tank coming from one direction and a squad from another. The tank put a HE round towards the target and missed. Then the round landed in the trees right in the middle of the squad. It killed five or six guys.

- What exactly soldiers do with the order "to hide"? Where do they hide? Does this order really mean something?

Take advantage of what ever terrain is there to hide behind and keep their heads down. They do not spot. The do not respond to sounds close by - they just hide. Be careful with this command.

- A.I. manages troop’s behaviour in a strange way and not with appropriate action. Sometimes, they fire with their gun on a tank, sometimes they did not shot with their bazooka on a tank, and more other stupid things like this.

Well people do stupid things some times so do the pixel troops. Firing on open tanks to close them up is as expected. The consensus is that some of this needs tweaking like sniper assistants showing their position by firing SMGs early. Or team hunter teams using rifles when they should be holding their fire until the tank gets closer.

- Armoured spot enemy infantry too easily.

Yeah, that was tweaked in the patch. Lots of people thing it needs to be lowered some more. It is not clear if this is planned or not.

[Guest]

Hi JC - ian's post covers the basics of your questions. (Thanks ian.)

Right now I'd like to head off the inevitable discussion of the tone of your post, though. Nearly the entirety of your first and last paragraphs are either false, inflammatory, or both. Please leave that sort of thing out in future. I understand that you're frustrated, but an attitude like that only devalues the rest of your post, which frankly deserves better - as do we, but that's just my opinion. I certainly feel less like chatting with you about your problems when you accuse BFC of deception and not taking our work seriously, among other things.

[Holien]

JC while lots of people share the same frustrations there is plenty still in the game to enjoy.... Well for me anyway...

If not for you then NP and I hope you give the game some time to grow on you... I know of none better despite these annoyances....

But if you know of something better let me know.

[flamingknives]

I'll address "Hide" and "Buildings are too weak" together.

Briefly, "Hide" makes your troops lie down. Building wall (excepting some barns) are impervious to small arms fire.

It's something I've done some tests on and have found that troops in buildings are more vulnerable, but not for the commonly believed reasons.

If you "hide" troops in building, they duck under the level of the windows and are completely covered by the walls. In this situation, they are invulnerable to small arms fire. It cannot penetrate most buildings.

When they stand up (to fire, for example) they are exposed in the windows and they tend to bunch. As such they are concentrated in one position with little protection so they get hit through the windows more. Try spreading your men out over more buildings.

No command delay, but veterans are faster to respond, better shots, harder to kill, spot better and pass info around better.

[A Canadian Cat]

flamingknives

Interesting experiment with buildings, very interesting indeed. I like your explanation of the difference between Veteran and green troops better too.

[Wodin]

Hi JC - ian's post covers the basics of your questions. (Thanks ian.)

Right now I'd like to head off the inevitable discussion of the tone of your post, though. Nearly the entirety of your first and last paragraphs are either false, inflammatory, or both. Please leave that sort of thing out in future. I understand that you're frustrated, but an attitude like that only devalues the rest of your post, which frankly deserves better - as do we, but that's just my opinion. I certainly feel less like chatting with you about your problems when you accuse BFC of deception and not taking our work seriously, among other things.

Well said...it seems one every other week we get a post like this. Drives me nuts. it's all about wording and also he went into the game with a "Bad feeling"...fair enough so why not try the demo? All those who seem to refuse to let go of CMx1 and leave it at the doorstep when they first start to play CMx2 it seems end up coming on here with posts like this.

Listen the game\sim is the best tactical wargame out there. If you know of any better go and play them, oh and tell me what they are as I want them. it isn't perfect but no wargame I've played has been, ever. However during Shock force and the modules the game got better and better and will improve with each module and new base game thats released for WW2.

I also wish people would search forums to see if the preceived problems they have have been discussed previously and another good idea is to check for tips on how to play. I play WEGO (which means for me a few features are missing that would help loads however I can deal with it, hopefully they will come but even if they didn't I still find the game far better than anything else) and there are some fantastic tips on here and the CMSF forum on how to manage your men.

Anyway your attitude stinks, you wne tinto the game thinking it would be rubbish and hey ho you found it rubbish. Should have tried the demo. Either stay around and try and find out abit more and get help where you need it and give the game a chance or go back to CMx1.

If the game was as bad as you make out, no one would be here. Where a fickle lot you know us wargamers. Seriously if it was as unrealistic as you say I repeat no one would be here. Then again I forgot CMx1 was uber realistic a rather abstract infantry mechanic. Also you mention graphics, seriously if it had all been about graphics it would have looked alot better than this.

[para]

Well said...it seems one every other week we get a post like this. Drives me nuts. it's all about wording and also he went into the game with a "Bad feeling"...fair enough so why not try the demo? All those who seem to refuse to let go of CMx1 and leave it at the doorstep when they first start to play CMx2 it seems end up coming on here with posts like this.

Listen the game\sim is the best tactical wargame out there. If you know of any better go and play them, oh and tell me what they are as I want them. it isn't perfect but no wargame I've played has been, ever. However during Shock force and the modules the game got better and better and will improve with each module and new base game thats released for WW2.

I also wish people would search forums to see if the preceived problems they have have been discussed previously and another good idea is to check for tips on how to play. I play WEGO (which means for me a few features are missing that would help loads however I can deal with it, hopefully they will come but even if they didn't I still find the game far better than anything else) and there are some fantastic tips on here and the CMSF forum on how to manage your men.

Anyway your attitude stinks, you wne tinto the game thinking it would be rubbish and hey ho you found it rubbish. Should have tried the demo. Either stay around and try and find out abit more and get help where you need it and give the game a chance or go back to CMx1.

If the game was as bad as you make out, no one would be here. Where a fickle lot you know us wargamers. Seriously if it was as unrealistic as you say I repeat no one would be here. Then again I forgot CMx1 was uber realistic a rather abstract infantry mechanic. Also you mention graphics, seriously if it had all been about graphics it would have looked alot better than this.

As our Americans cousins would say....Word

[GreenAsJade]

And... three cheers for Phil for the way in which he's dealing with these. Breath of fresh air!

GaJ

[Guest]

Thanks guys. I think we can fairly say that the tone issue has been addressed now, if not entirely dealt with. If the OP chooses to respond to that, we can continue that discussion.

In the meantime, I think ian and flamingknives have done a pretty great job of addressing the original poster's game-relevant questions as well, but input from other folks could help further the discussion. It's a pretty broad smorgasbord of requests for insight, which I know you guys can variously contribute to.

[DavidFields]

I sort of agree with the OP, but not in tone. As a practical matter, I have gone to just lurking the forums, to see how this series develops. BFC may get my money for the new modules--really a tiny money commitment--and I am not interested in making threats.

That these types of OP threads occur fairly regularly, often from seemingly dedicated, possibly decades long war game buff types, should not, I think, be ignored.

The artillery and AFV accuracy thing is being made out to be "CMBN got it right, and everyone before them was wrong." I am flummoxed by this issue.

The more subtle issue for me is how the "follow every projectile path"--probably the biggest specialty of BFC--interacts with the 1:1 infantry model. The infantry seems too vulnerable? For example, Moving and then stopping has your men kneeling, I believe, this seems to make your men vulnerable. But Moving and then Hiding at the end of each move, in addition to being tedious, seems to blind you. There should be a prone-but-looking--around stance? And maybe no computer can imitate the will to hide and live of a soldier in the battlefield--in every rut, behind every stone and tree.

A potential solution for this would be to make the infantry harder to kill--essentially fake armor. While unrealistic, if it brought about a more realistic total simulation....not quite back to the "force field" protection of CM1, but similar.

It will be interesting to see where this series goes. Will it look the same by the time it reaches the East Front? Or will there be changes such that CMBN will be seen in retrospect as a necessary intermediate. Thus far, the only indication I see is that they think they have it "right". Does anyone see any BFC doubts?

[akd]

The artillery and AFV accuracy thing is being made out to be "CMBN got it right, and everyone before them was wrong." I am flummoxed by this issue.

If someone has better data and can set up a test in game to prove that game deviates significantly from this data, they should put it forward. Unfortunately nobody seems willing to do this. All that is ever brought forward is:

1. It doesn't feel right. Change it to the way I think feels right. Lets have a forum poll about how it feels and if 5 people agree, it has to be changed.

2. X game did/does it this way.

3. On June 10, 1944 Sergeant Doe missed a Tiger at 500m! Tanks should be missing at 500m!

I think the ballistics are fine, as is the basic interaction between experience setting and these ballistics. I think error due to psychological factors could be increased, but obviously enters into very subjective territory.

For example, Moving and then stopping has your men kneeling, I believe, this seems to make your men vulnerable. But Moving and then Hiding at the end of each move, in addition to being tedious, seems to blind you. There should be a prone-but-looking--around stance? And maybe no computer can imitate the will to hide and live of a soldier in the battlefield--in every rut, behind every stone and tree.

This is incorrect. Stance can change dynamically based on movement type, threat and best observation position. Generally, soldiers not moving are more likely to be prone.

[LJFHutch]

- No delay to execute an order whatever the unit’s level is. So, why should we spend points to buy crack or veteran unit? No matter with CMBN.

Sorry I had to take issue with this, as I understand it the reason there is no command delay is that you are every - it's in my sig - single unit. You are not the company or battalion commander, you are the company or the battalion. It would be like playing a first person shooter with a command delay.

I agree with many of your other points (although as stated, not the tone in which they were made), but they hardly "ruin" the game.

[black_prince]

That these types of OP threads occur fairly regularly, often from seemingly dedicated, possibly decades long war game buff types, should not, I think, be ignored.

I agree that people's views shouldn't be ignored (so long as they are politely presented) but I would suggest that one of the reasons that these threads tend to occur fairly regularly is that people don't make much of an effort to look up what has already been discussed. Topics such as the effectiveness of artillery, buildings as cover and tank accuracy have all been discussed quite extensively and to my mind, addressed quite satisfactorily for the most part. It's true there are things which could do with being improved and tweaked but it is a bit irritating to hear about the same tired old topics again and again because some people's first instinct is to launch into a rant when things don't match up with their pre-concieved notions of how they should be rather than reflecting on wether their assumptions were correct or not.

[Wreck]

If someone has better data and can set up a test in game to prove that game deviates significantly from this data, they should put it forward. Unfortunately nobody seems willing to do this.

Well, I tested artillery not a week ago. And it is not right. At least, 120mm mortars are, quite definitely, wrong.

In CMBN, German 120mm have a CEP of about 16m, apparently at all ranges. Modern 120mm (using dumb ammo) have CEP of 136m at the limit of their range (7km). We can assume that WWII 120mm was not more accurate than modern 120mm. If one assumes that CEP increases linearly with range, and we handwave the range, assuming our CMBN 120mm are 2km back from our board-edge, expected CEP at game distances (of 0-1 more km forward), should range from 39m to 58m.

That is, with these assumptions, CMBN 120mm mortars are about 10x as accurate as they ought to be. Boom. And I tend to doubt that there has been zero improvement in accuracy since 1944.

I could not find solid CEP data on the web for any other mortar, although there is a nonpartisan suggestion of 130mm for (modern) American 81mm mortars. That would also suggest 81mm in CMBN are way too accurate.

I don't know if perhaps I ought to shout about it more? I kind of thought that BFC are reading even when they do not comment.

In case you missed it:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=102070&page=2

[Wreck]

About the tone of the OP: let's cut him a break. He's clearly not a native English speaker, and getting the nuance of tone in a foreign language is hard.

I think most of his points are at least arguable. Any difference from CMx1 is quite noticeable. And it raises the question: why is it different? Are buildings good or bad cover? (I certainly did not know that hiding in buildings is helpful -- will have to test this.) Another example: what does BFC know now about WWII tank accuracy that they didn't know then? Given that this thing was based on CMx2 which was designed for modern tanks, it is very easy to suspect that BFC adopted a targeting model that has built-in assumptions that are inappropriate in 1944.

[ASL Veteran]

I don't know if perhaps I ought to shout about it more? I kind of thought that BFC are reading even when they do not comment.

In case you missed it:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=102070&page=2

It probably doesn't hurt to bring it up every once in a while, but I'm pretty confident that it's discussed internally as well. I think there are a few beta testers who are either current or former artillerymen and I'm sure they would like the artillery system to be improved. It's probably more a matter of resources than anything else. It probably works 'well enough' so that a revamp gets pushed towards the lower half of the 'to do' list.

[akd]

Well, I tested artillery not a week ago. And it is not right. At least, 120mm mortars are, quite definitely, wrong.

In CMBN, German 120mm have a CEP of about 16m, apparently at all ranges. Modern 120mm (using dumb ammo) have CEP of 136m at the limit of their range (7km). We can assume that WWII 120mm was not more accurate than modern 120mm. If one assumes that CEP increases linearly with range, and we handwave the range, assuming our CMBN 120mm are 2km back from our board-edge, expected CEP at game distances (of 0-1 more km forward), should range from 39m to 58m.

That is, with these assumptions, CMBN 120mm mortars are about 10x as accurate as they ought to be. Boom. And I tend to doubt that there has been zero improvement in accuracy since 1944.

Sorry, that is just speculation, not actual data. For example, probable error (range) for modern US 120mm is 25m at 4500m. Might very well be wrong in game, but we're not getting there that way. And from that other thread:

I once got to lead fire. My experience (shooting with 120mm mortars) was that the error in range was less than 10m at the range of around 1000m, and there was virtually no angular error. On the other hand, spotting the right distance is _really_ hard.

You are not likely to find much data on CEP for mortars, especially older systems. You are much more likely to find probable errors for range and deflection. Here is some data on the post-war M29 81mm mortar:

M29 81mm Mortar firing HE (charge 4):

@1000m…Range Probable Error = 7m…. Deflection Probable Error=4m

50% Zone = 14m x 8m…. 100% zone = 56m x 32m

@1500m…Range Probable Error = 9m…. Deflection Probable Error=4m

50% Zone = 18m x 8m…. 100% zone = 72m x 32

"Dispersion rectangles" for French pre-war mortar:

Accuracy of the 81mm Mle1937/31 mortar :

• 8m x 17m square at 460m range

• 9m x 32m square at 995m range

• 17m x 35m square at 1730m range

• 32m x 42m square at 2060m range

[HarryB]

As far as unit spotting goes I agree that it could be better. The fact that once a vehicle is spotted you know exactly what it is just isn't realistic. If you listen to some of the old veterans talk, they seem to think every German tank is a Tiger. I think it would be great if there were different levels of awareness about what kind of vehicle you were facing; starting with a generic 'vehicle', proceeding to 'halftrack', 'armored car', 'assault gun' or 'tank', and then on to the exact type of vehicle.

I would think this could be based on how long the vehicle is in the line of sight as well as how many men can see it. This could be modified by the experience level of the men seeing the vehicle as well as a certain level of randomness to factor in knowledge differences between individual soldiers.

I'm also a little surprised that you get to see exactly what type of infantry you are facing. Do you really think our soldiers would be able to tell the difference between a fusilier and a panzergrenadier? I don't think so. I play on the Iron setting and still get the full level of information. I think it would be more realistic if you would just get a generic 'infantry' indicator, and if your troops get a good look, possibly what type of weapon he is carrying. Obviously, if he fires you should be able to tell if he has a rifle, a machine pistol, an mg42 or a panzerschreck, etc.

[slysniper]

OK, not a problem to point out short comings in the game design.

But is a problem when same someone has not tried to work with the game or read up on what others have discovered in the last 8 months and then make comments which are outdated and un-informed. Nice that someone answered back nicely to all of them.

My pet peeve is when they start preaching how CMX1 was so right and now CMX2 is so wrong. Neither is perfect. In many ways because of design differences, they will not ever simulate things similar to each other. Either you like it or you dont. but stop trying to make it like the other because it will never happen.

Now I would like tweaks that make things seem more realistic also. So comments that point out that ARTY is OFF, or building cover might need to be re-thought out is fine.

But please dont start asking for something broken to be like it was, which was broken even worst. Tank targeting for example, yes it is too accurate at long range now, but dont suggest cmX1 had it right, That model would have a tank miss another tank at a 100 yards three times in a row. I much prefer that fact that I do not see many misses at short range anymore, but they do happen once in awhile which is a big downer but it feels right. If you play it enough, you see that in general they miss more than you think at longer ranges. But No question it is not perfect either. TAnks aim and fire too quickly and hardly ever misgage range even when firing long distances.

But CMX2 has it more realistic than CMX1, So youi best just learn to adjust to that.

[SlowMotion]

Some months ago there was a long discussion about CMBN's arty accuracy in another forum. One of the participants posted this link which seems to contain more data than speculation. It contains lots of very detailed info and many people probably won't read the whole thing. But you may want to start reading from the last chapter

"AFTER WORLD WAR 2"

http://nigelef.tripod.com/errorsmistakes.htm

[Cuirassier]

I think the original poster makes some fair points. I haven't played CMBN all that much admittedly (Shock Force I have), but from what I've seen armor is overpowered and infantry underpowered. That is, armor spots infantry in cover and concealed far too easily. For example, I'm playing a PBEM right now and had an enemy Sherman spot a two man German infantry team behind a hedge and in a forest within 15 seconds of cresting a hill 150m away. That is a little ridiculous.

HE is also overpowered. Because of the action spot system, infantry bunch up far too much and don't take advantage of natural cover as real infantrymen would. As a result they get nuked by HE rounds. I remember a Shock Force game where one Abrams shell killed 7 Syrian soldiers and wounded the other two in a house (yes, I know its not CMBN but CMBN seems to suffer a similar problem).

That is not to say CMBN hasn't improved over CM1 in other areas, Snipers, C2, relative spotting, ammo sharing, tracking of different ammo types etc are all big, welcome improvements. However, I think CM1 did better over all with regards to the infantry-armor relationship. Infantry in CM2 is spotted too easily in heavy terrain and is then killed far too easily by any form of HE thrown at it. CM1's "suppression" based model is better than the current "shoot till dead" model in CM2 games.

[Pak40]

With exception of the Vehicle covered arc and infantry firing on buttoned tanks, I pretty much disagree with everything you've posted. Ian posted some the answers but I feel I have to chime in because I don't quite agree with everything he says also.

- Artillery (even light mortars) is too powerful. 2 rounds of an artillery barrage are enough to destroy half an army or at least, reduce drastically a platoon to a few men harmless group. With this problem, it is difficult to manage a strategy or having a real fight with guns, AT, etc. Everything is destroyed after a barrage. Artillery power must be decreased for at least 30 % of its current efficiency (and accuracy in the same way). The artillery problem is the main problem of this list.

I can't disagree with you more. Artillery in this game is modeled very well. It's lethality is exactly what it needs to be. My only beef is the reality of accuracy when requesting a "line" barrage. This just seems too easy to do IMO.

In any case, How you and I "feel" artillery should be modeled is immaterial. It is well documented that artillery is by far the main killer on the battlefield and this is the case in all of the CM games.

- Path-finding is poor and players have to manage units one by one to obtain proper movements.

I have not had many issues with path-finding at all. My only beef has been the "wide" blown breeches in hedgerows. Vehicles don't always go through them like they should.

- No possibility to select armour cover arc or infantry arc as we could in CMx1.

I agree but BFC has stated that they are looking in to adding this. Nobody is sure if it's going to be in the Commonwealth module yet.

- Unexpected point of impact on armoured vehicles (for example, hit on left flank when the shooting enemy is on the right side…)

I've never seen this and I've never seen anyone else complain of this. However, someone has pointed out that there may be an issue with the subsystem damage system. For example, a round hits the rear hull and damages the optics system. Hopefully BFC is looking into this.

- A.P. shells kills infantry as easily as H.E. shells. I hope it is a bug. For example, a 57mm caliber American A.T. gun shot against a building with men in it. 4 of them died with one shot!!! I thought A. P. had no explosive ability…

Haven't had AP rounds taking out lots of infantry. However, the situation you mention it seems logical to me that an AP round would penetrate and have the ability to cause mass casualties of infantry behind a wall. These rounds could easily blow a hole in a wall causing lots of lethal projectiles.

- No delay to execute an order whatever the unit’s level is. So, why should we spend points to buy crack or veteran unit? No matter with CMBN.

Wow, did you really play the CMx1 games??? No offense but you sound like a novice. The main reason to choose better units is that they are better soldiers. They are more accurate shooters, less likely to cower and be routed, more likely to recover when they do, and are generally better disciplined when setting ambushes.

- units are sometimes very difficult to place on terrain at some strategic points or to give them the best concealment as possible (for example behind sandbags).

I guess I have to agree with this. I'm not a big fan of the action spot system but the enemy has the same issues, so it's not like it's a handicap.

- Troops covered in buildings are too much vulnerable under enemy fire (light or armoured).

This has been debated quite a bit. Small buildings are considered light(wood) buildings and do not offer much cover. This would be accurate since it is well documented that rifle bullets can easily penetrate several inches of wood. However, it seems to me that the majority of buildings in Normandy were made of stone and should offer quite a bit more cover than they actually do.

Another issue is that the so called "light" buildings often have a stone texture graphic which is misleading to both the designer and the player.

- Same icon when an enemy is spotted. No matter if it is a tank or a soldier. I mean than soldiers should be able to identify at least if there is a tank or men in front of them. But when the enemy is spotted, we know immediately what kind of unit it is. Is it a new "fog of war" style ?

I'm not sure what you're talking about. When my men spot a tank, it shows an armored icon. Are you talking about a ? icon?

- Armoured vehicle’s shots and gun‘s shots are too accurate à too many “one shot, one kill”

Almost every map I've played has been a bocage map where the longest possible engagement ranges have been maybe 500m but often much closer. I would expect one shot hits in many of these cases. I am not seeing to many one-shot one kills. I've had many cases where there are penetrations that did little to no damage and often do some damage or injure to crew.

- During assault against a building, friendly units continue firing on building to cover, with a risk of casualties on assaulting troops.

There is no risk of friendly fire with small arms. You will need to be careful of gun HE fire though.

- What exactly soldiers do with the order "to hide"? Where do they hide? Does this order really mean something?

Use this if you want to set an ambush. the unit will be hard to spot and will not spot too well themselves. It will restrict the unit from firing and giving away it's position. It's good to use in conjunction with the arc command.

- A.I. manages troop’s behaviour in a strange way and not with appropriate action. Sometimes, they fire with their gun on a tank, sometimes they did not shot with their bazooka on a tank, and more other stupid things like this.

Like I said above, the infantry firing on buttoned tanks is an issue but I think it's being looked into. I've not had much of an issue getting bazookas to fire on tanks when within range.

- Armoured spot enemy infantry too easily.

I have not had this issue. I've tested certain circumstances dealing with this and not seen any abnormal spotting issues. However, others have sworn that it should be impossible for their bazooka team to be spotted by a tank before their zook gets a round off.

[flamingknives]

I'll repeat it because the commonly held fallacy has cropped up again.

Most, if not all, buildings are impervious to small arms fire. The lethality issue is due to men bunching up in the windows.

[c3k]

Re: artillery potency.

My understanding of the system is as follows: infantry are too bunched up in the game. This has a little to do with the 8m action spot system, as well as just plain old playability. If you have a 12 man US squad, and each man is 5 meters from his nearest mate, you'd have a squad snaking over 50m of terrain. Toss a few companies down on the map and playability goes out the window.

This un-natural bunching up is a problem when it comes to HE lethality (primarily). Therefore, most HE has been "nerfed" to a degree.

So, you may think artillery is too accurate. That is subject to (lively) debate. It may be too responsive. However, when it hits, it is being modeled to take into account the bunching up of the infantry.

Now, all the above is purely how I understand it to work. Feel free to disabuse me of errors.

Buildings: just like flamingknives just said. How about some tests? Put equal units at the windows and hiding under the windows. Spray 'em down with MG fire and let us know if there is any difference in casualty rates.

Ken