those bugs/irrealistic things which ruin CMBN...

[slysniper]

Hello,

As I’m reading all messages following my post, I understand than my words are offensive for the developers, programmers and players who love the game.

I apologize for the tone and inflammatory words at this message. I got carried away and wrote things I didn't mean. My post was not intended to offend whoever, but rather intended to list some improvements I dream for CMBN.

Interest, realism and longevity of CMx1 prove that you make serious work and CMBN will have the same life without any doubt.

Of course, this game also offers good points and interesting ideas. But may be I was waiting too much of a new CM opus.

My problem is I can’t help comparing CMBN and CMx1 about playability, richness of informations given by the game (about type of terrain where a unit is, unit’s firing stats) or soldier’s behaviour.

But you are right. Those games are DIFFERENT and I have to disconnect them to understand and appreciate CMBN. Your posts convinced me than I must not give up with this game. On the contrary, I have to give it a chance.

Best regards.

Good reply

You made yourself much clearer.

I just would like to point out to you that another thing that is frustrating between CMX1 and CMX2 for many that have not liked the change is how one approaches the game. You will need to learn how to use your tactics within the game all over again. If you try to play units the same way you did in CMX1, you will find yourself in bad situations.

I know for myself I had to change my style of play in many areas to be successful in the new game. But in many ways I am just doing things more like I would in real life and I feel seeing the game reflect things more like it would happen in real life.

Ambushes and stealth are much more important, movement is also much more important. I engage, then move and re-engage all the time now with most every unit. Where as in the old games, I would hardly ever break contact, I would just try for fire supremacy all the time. Now I find hit and run tactics, bring temporary supremacy to any unit, then its time to get out of dodge and do it all again. Anyway, there is many little changes that can be found within how one plays the game.

So keep in mind you will need to craft your skills even better than you did before, not that they were wrong, but I find that you have to add more detail into how you use your units.

Good Luck

[The_Capt]

Been awhile since I have posted out here but this thread is a nice example of things going right and a positive dicsussion as a result.

CMBN should come with a warning label in my opinion. It is a hard game, a very hard game sometimes. I think the look of 3D graphics throws some people off as 3D and hard often do not roll well together. A lot of modern games play out like puzzles and have scripted outcomes. CMBN simply provides a realistic environment and then releases the hounds at you.

Arty, is damned realistic. Maybe a little tight in the CEPs, it has been brought up and will probably be tweaked some but for the most part mortars are spot on. I have run test and shown that the lethal and danger radii are accurate for frag. The ROFs are accurate, keep in mind these guys are not firing on a range but in cbt where speed will save your life. If you let them fire quick they will. Stand still too long and you will die.

You need to employ some pretty solid tactics in this game. Dedicate a lot of your force to recon and for gawds sake...keep moving!!

Some may simply drop away, not their cup of tea but if you stick with it, the game can provide some simply outstanding gameplay.

[A Canadian Cat]

I just would like to point out to you that another thing that is frustrating between CMX1 and CMX2 for many that have not liked the change is how one approaches the game. You will need to learn how to use your tactics within the game all over again. If you try to play units the same way you did in CMX1, you will find yourself in bad situations.

Agreed. I have one PBEM friend that has temporarily giving up CMBN. He is strapped for time right now due to RL and found that he could not just jump in and play CMBN like he was playing CMBB. So he wants to go dark for a while and play against the AI when his time frees up so he can figure out the new game.

[YankeeDog]

War might be hell, but a videogame should not be... This is probably one of the main reasons why this game has never really caught on with a big audience...

But i don't have much problems with user created maps i downloaded, the ones made by the developers are a absolute b*tch to finish.

Honestly (and I intend no offence by this), it sounds like you're looking for a different game from a different publisher. There are plenty of publishers out there that do more casual war sims of varying flavors (FPS, RTS, turn-based, etc.), and there's certainly no shame in preferring a more casual game. Heck, there are all sorts of causal games I play and enjoy when I'm not feeling up to the mental challenge of a CM match.

While CMx2 certainly isn't a "maximum realism" DoD command simulator, it's definitely much further over towards the "realistic simulation" end of the spectrum than most mainstream gamers probably like to play. It has a high learning curve, punishes mistakes extremely harshly, and as in "Real War", random bad luck can easily send a well thought out, competent battle plan spiraling into defeat.

All this is a deliberate choice by the publisher. Steve, Charles & Co. at BFC made a decision well over a decade ago to leave the mainstream computer game publishing world and found BFC (at the time, BTS), so they could the games *they* wanted to make, and not to work on games where the goal was to sell the most copies (though they certainly have no objection to making money).

For people like me, that like a more realistic, high learning-curve game, it's great that BFC is doing what they're doing, because there aren't many games like this out there. But it is a small audience they're catering to. And if you find yourself not a part of this group, the good news is that there are many other game publishers (and games) out there.

[LJFHutch]

You may be seeing C&C in action, rather than spotting. Did you notice that sometimes soldiers will fire at an enemy you cannot see? That's because they're out of contact and you, the player (and the commander) only get the info with a delay. But the TacAI sees (and acts) independently of that.

You sure?

I just did a test using a battalion of conscript americans with low fitness, ammo etc, the lot, poorest soldiers I could find. I then picked the lowest of the chain of command, a single team (AT team) from one of the infantry companies.

This team was separated by about 3.5km and two large mountains from other units and had no radio. The battalion HQ was isolated as well: shunned and sitting in the grass a few hundred meters from the rest. I then placed an entire panzer battalion facing away (opposite end of the map) and the single AT team mentioned previously behind them hiding in the grass (~100m) and then again right behind them (10-20m). Played on Iron of course. Two things happened:

• At 100m almost immediately they called out (audio) that they had spotted the enemy units and the enemy units appeared on screen at the exact same time. No info delay.
  
  
• At 10-20m they were spotted by the guys in the halftracks (HTs were facing away remember) and fired upon almost immediately. My guys didn't spot anything for a good 3-5 seconds or so, just before they were mercilessly gunned down. They all died so fast I couldn't tell.
  

It seems odd that there would be an information delay to the player. Why would there not be a command delay as well? And that begs the question, who am I? Am I the battalion commander or am I the spirit of the army? If I'm the btn commander why am I sitting in the clouds and if I'm the spirit of the army why do I have to wait for information that I should already know?

To be totally honest I prefer the "spirit of the army" approach far more. To remain "CM" the btn commander approach requires serious realism cherry-picking.

So, the game would make me wait for information to flow up and down the chain of command but wouldn't take issue with me flying around the battlefield like some wargamer-deity and micromanaging my forces down to the level of the individual team? If you're trying to simulate being a battalion commander that seems like a far greater hurdle to both immersion and realism and much of the problem such a delay was meant to fix remains anyway.

[LukeFF]

Poor Old Spike keeps adding to a huge thread with WW2 photos on the Gamesquad CM forum. Here are two examples showing infantry in action. Spacing looks CM-like.

And then there's this:

[Ranger33]

Wow, I've been off to the side (like 10 yards) and slightly in front of a rifle firing, and the shockwave will still slap you in the face. That close I don't see how he could get off an accurate shot between the noise and concussive effects. Nevermind your ears ringing!

As a side note, did soldiers in WW2 have ear plugs or any protection at all? I have to imagine that a lot of them came home with hearing damage if not. I know the one time I went shooting my AR-15 and forgot the earmuffs my hearing was muffled for a couple of days. Scared me into never forgetting them again!

[akd]

You sure?

I just did a test using a battalion of conscript americans with low fitness, ammo etc, the lot, poorest soldiers I could find. I then picked the lowest of the chain of command, a single team (AT team) from one of the infantry companies.

This team was separated by about 3.5km and two large mountains from other units and had no radio. The battalion HQ was isolated as well: shunned and sitting in the grass a few hundred meters from the rest. I then placed an entire panzer battalion facing away (opposite end of the map) and the single AT team mentioned previously behind them hiding in the grass (~100m) and then again right behind them (10-20m). Played on Iron of course. Two things happened:

• At 100m almost immediately they called out (audio) that they had spotted the enemy units and the enemy units appeared on screen at the exact same time. No info delay.
  
  
• At 10-20m they were spotted by the guys in the halftracks (HTs were facing away remember) and fired upon almost immediately. My guys didn't spot anything for a good 3-5 seconds or so, just before they were mercilessly gunned down. They all died so fast I couldn't tell.
  

It seems odd that there would be an information delay to the player. Why would there not be a command delay as well? And that begs the question, who am I? Am I the battalion commander or am I the spirit of the army? If I'm the btn commander why am I sitting in the clouds and if I'm the spirit of the army why do I have to wait for information that I should already know?

To be totally honest I prefer the "spirit of the army" approach far more. To remain "CM" the btn commander approach requires serious realism cherry-picking.

So, the game would make me wait for information to flow up and down the chain of command but wouldn't take issue with me flying around the battlefield like some wargamer-deity and micromanaging my forces down to the level of the individual team? If you're trying to simulate being a battalion commander that seems like a far greater hurdle to both immersion and realism and much of the problem such a delay was meant to fix remains anyway.

IF you have the top HQ selected (or any intermediate), what Moon said is true. You will see the the information as it arrives up the chain of command, not as it appears to each individual unit in realtime. The HQ will have either no information or severely delayed information on contacts made by subordinates out of C2, and will consequently not be able to pass this information down to other subordinates in a timely manner.

However, if you have no unit currently selected, you will see all contacts of all units, whether they are in command or not.

[LJFHutch]

IF you have the top HQ selected, what Moon said is true. You will see the the information as it arrives up the chain of command. The HQ will have either no information or severely delayed information on contacts made by subordinates out of C2, and will consequently not be able to pass this information down to other subordinates in a timely manner.

However, if you have no unit currently selected, you will see all contacts of all units, whether they are in command or not.

Oh yes, there is a delay to the units themselves, but I'm pretty sure Moon was referring to the player independent of the units. The reason units will fire at things you can't see is not because [from my experience anyway] info hasn't passed to the player, but because info hasn't passed to that unit. As stated: the TacAI will act independently and on it's own information, not necessarily the same information the player has access to.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Been awhile since I have posted out here but this thread is a nice example of things going right and a positive dicsussion as a result.

CMBN should come with a warning label in my opinion. It is a hard game, a very hard game sometimes. I think the look of 3D graphics throws some people off as 3D and hard often do not roll well together. A lot of modern games play out like puzzles and have scripted outcomes. CMBN simply provides a realistic environment and then releases the hounds at you.

Arty, is damned realistic. Maybe a little tight in the CEPs, it has been brought up and will probably be tweaked some but for the most part mortars are spot on. I have run test and shown that the lethal and danger radii are accurate for frag. The ROFs are accurate, keep in mind these guys are not firing on a range but in cbt where speed will save your life. If you let them fire quick they will. Stand still too long and you will die.

You need to employ some pretty solid tactics in this game. Dedicate a lot of your force to recon and for gawds sake...keep moving!!

Some may simply drop away, not their cup of tea but if you stick with it, the game can provide some simply outstanding gameplay.

Also you need to use fire and manouvre tactics to pin down enemy units and suppress their firepower. You need to figure out how to use combined arms ttactics using the capabilities availablee to you in the scenario and in the army of which you are a part.

[wombat_of_war]

im wondering if the BN artillery uses pretty much the same accuracy stats as shockforce. has anyone compared the two?

[Ranger33]

im wondering if the BN artillery uses pretty much the same accuracy stats as shockforce. has anyone compared the two?

I have not tried testing it, but it certainly "feels" the same. The strafing runs of the WW2 fighters are also rather similar to the A-10. I've looked at some WW2 guncam videos to compare and while the number of shots is roughly the same, the hits are way too accurate. In most videos of real attacks the aim goes left and right a lot, and stretches over a longer distance. The runs in CMBN are always perfect lines and dead on. All of this doesn't bother me nearly as much as the fact that they simply copy and pasted the artillery and air support radio chatter over from CMSF. That was just lazy.

During my "research" I stumbled upon this wonderful documentary of D-Day, I think you will all enjoy it!

[Guest]

Every weapon in CM is modeled after its real world equivalent. That includes artillery pieces. So... no, BN artillery does not use the same stats as SF. Nothing has the "same stats" as SF, unless there's some piece of equipment that is literally shared by the two (i.e., if Red had access to the Kar98K in SF). Everything is historically researched and recreated. The amount of research that goes into *one* module is astounding.

You guys knew that, though, right? I mean, we haven't been meticulously recreating the data for each piece of equipment used by both sides while you guys assume that Shermans are just Abrams with a different 3D model, right?

[Redwolf]

War is hell, my friend.

(This is from the Wikipedia article on the Omaha Beach landings, but it's a well known incident and not at all an uncommon situation)

That would never happen in CMBN because neither protection from terrain nor concealment for the defending MGs are what they were in 1944. If any form of heavy weapon is available to the attacker they are toast in CMBN.

Failing heavy weapons the game still doesn't reflect the above situation. We've had many threads showing how pretty small forces of infantry with no support can simply overrun defending HMGs even if they are in trenches, because the HMG never switches to a mode where it blasts away with highly increased ammo expenditure because they are about to be overrun anyway.

[Sailor Malan2]

Wow, I've been off to the side (like 10 yards) and slightly in front of a rifle firing, and the shockwave will still slap you in the face. That close I don't see how he could get off an accurate shot between the noise and concussive effects. Nevermind your ears ringing!

As a side note, did soldiers in WW2 have ear plugs or any protection at all? I have to imagine that a lot of them came home with hearing damage if not. I know the one time I went shooting my AR-15 and forgot the earmuffs my hearing was muffled for a couple of days. Scared me into never forgetting them again!

Can't speak for WW2, but my Dad joined the British Army in 1952. He saw no active service (unless you count NI) but now has a disabilty element on his pension for hearing loss. I dont think hearing protection became common til the 1970's. Certainly wasn't about in the 50's (and thus before),

BTW, that picture does not look like a squad in action to me. They are a few hundred meters back, looking down the village street. I guess the engaged units are claring the village ahead of them and thus they are mosly staying concealed, not in a firing position. The section leader (or whoever it is standing) looks like he is marshalling troops or looking for instructions not particulalry worried about what is in front)

[LongLeftFlank]

That would never happen in CMBN because neither protection from terrain nor concealment for the defending MGs are what they were in 1944. If any form of heavy weapon is available to the attacker they are toast in CMBN.

I agree that "neither terrain nor concealment" are quite right in the game yet -- my careful study of this leads me to believe that it has to do with:

(a) entrenchments and fortifications being far too readily spotted (they seem to be treated as a form of vehicle) relative to unentrenched infantry, even when in concealment terrain.

( entrenched infantry "taking a knee" and exposing nearly half their bodies rather than fighting semi-prone behind the berm/wall/bank as they would really do. And once those big HMG teams begin losing men, they lose their ammo loads and morale too.

On the other hand, I don't what you're defining as "any form of heavy weapon", but in the real deal, reducing a stubborn fortification was often indeed a matter of bringing a heavy weapon to bear -- particularly a HE chucker, but a HMG would also do.

If your game map is well made though (e.g. doesn't have hilltops offering commanding overwatch from end to end of the map, including right through "forests"), manhandling said weapon into position isn't necessarily straightforward or risk-free, especially if the German mortars are as good as they were in RL.

I've learned a huge amount about siting German defenses from this game, and the tactics that work most effectively in game are absolutely the same things they did in RL.

It isn't just digging mutually covering MGs and snipers into the corners of bocage fields, mining gaps and having reserve squads and lots of mortar FOs positioned, although those are important.

It's "fading" as much of your MLR away from roads so that the Yanks can't just wheel up Shermans and blast away, and doing your best to render the roads themselves deadly and impassable with StuGs, ATGs, shrecks, whatever. It's keeping a careful eye out for points like hilltops and building attics that might offer enemy spotters or HW ranged overwatch into your positions and blasting them early and often.

It's making use of drainage ditches, small streams or patches of dense woods that create natural antitank barriers and infiltration routes (you can mine them or put weapons in defilade to stop the attacker from using them).

I sound like a broken record here, but it's quality map design that makes this game sing, and the absence of it that makes things seem out of whack.

[YankeeDog]

That would never happen in CMBN because neither protection from terrain nor concealment for the defending MGs are what they were in 1944. If any form of heavy weapon is available to the attacker they are toast in CMBN.

Failing heavy weapons the game still doesn't reflect the above situation. We've had many threads showing how pretty small forces of infantry with no support can simply overrun defending HMGs even if they are in trenches, because the HMG never switches to a mode where it blasts away with highly increased ammo expenditure because they are about to be overrun anyway.

Er... you are aware that I posted this anecdote in response to someone who was complaining that exactly this did happen to them in CMBN, and that they felt it was unrealistic and/or undesirable gameplay?

As a side note, part of the reason why just a few German MG positions armed with only MGs were able to stop the 5th Ranger Bn.'s inital pushes inland on June 6 was that the Ranger had absolutely no heavy weapons of any kind; just small arms. The 5th Ranger Battalion had also already been through a lot that day, having been one of the units that charged over the seawall and onto the crest of the bluffs overlooking Dog White, breaching the beach defenses there. It's therefore not all the surprising that later in the day, after they had moved some 6km inland, it didn't take all that much to stop them...

[Redwolf]

Er... you are aware that I posted this anecdote in response to someone who was complaining that exactly this did happen to them in CMBN, and that they felt it was unrealistic and/or undesirable gameplay?

I didn't want to play favorites on anybody

[Paper Tiger]

That would never happen in CMBN because neither protection from terrain nor concealment for the defending MGs are what they were in 1944. If any form of heavy weapon is available to the attacker they are toast in CMBN.

Agreed. A single 60mm mortar is usually enough to do the trick.

I sound like a broken record here, but it's quality map design that makes this game sing, and the absence of it that makes things seem out of whack

<Ahem>. Yes on the 'broken record' thing . I very much hope that we can encourage new designers getting started making maps and missions without having too much pressure put on them. IMO, the scenario designing community is what make this game sing and some people want battles that are fun to play, if not realistic. (Count me in this category. If it's not fun to play, I won't play it.) You do your work very well and you are to be commended for it, but not everybody is going to want to devote as much time to making maps as you appear willing to do.

[wombat_of_war]

Every weapon in CM is modeled after its real world equivalent. That includes artillery pieces. So... no, BN artillery does not use the same stats as SF. Nothing has the "same stats" as SF, unless there's some piece of equipment that is literally shared by the two (i.e., if Red had access to the Kar98K in SF). Everything is historically researched and recreated. The amount of research that goes into *one* module is astounding.

You guys knew that, though, right? I mean, we haven't been meticulously recreating the data for each piece of equipment used by both sides while you guys assume that Shermans are just Abrams with a different 3D model, right?

just a thought and thank you for confirming it was wrong. much appreciated phil

[BadgerDog]

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

In my opinion only having qualified as a Sherman M4 Group 3 class gunner, this is the worst design flaw I've seen which suspends realism and makes CMBN a little too "gamey" at present ...

Laying a Sherman gun through the sighting telescope, estimating range by guess and then getting first round hits virtuall all the time (many of them while moving), is simply not possible.

I've noticed that this same game design spills over into German tanks, although I have no first hand real life experience that I can comment on with them, as I've never fired one.

Regards,

Doug

[akd]

No offense, but opinions don't matter much. Data matters. Do you have some that can be compared against the game?

[Guest]

In my opinion only having qualified as a Sherman M4 Group 3 class gunner, this is the worst design flaw I've seen which suspends realism and makes CMBN a little too "gamey" at present ...

Laying a Sherman gun through the sighting telescope, estimating range by guess and then getting first round hits virtuall all the time (many of them while moving), is simply not possible.

I've noticed that this same game design spills over into German tanks, although I have no first hand real life experience that I can comment on with them, as I've never fired one.

Regards,

Doug

Doug... hyperbole doesn't help us identify and fix problems. If you could offer your expert opinion on data, from CM, with specific ranges and hit statistics involved, that would be helpful.

I know I personally have not seen first round hits anywhere near "all the time" from either Allied or German tanks, nor do the reports I have from various sources (players and testers) aggregate to anything like that.

[BadgerDog]

No offense, but opinions don't matter much. Data matters. Do you have some that can be compared against the game?

... sorry, I don't ...

Just my experience as a Sherman M4A2E8 gunner with hundreds of rounds fired stationary and moving at ranges from 500 to 3500 yards over 4 years.

I'd count on one hand the number of first round hits achieved and with optics that were identical, but perhaps bit better quality (early 50's) than what would have been available in the war. You do know that all range finding was by pure Kentucky windage guess and without the aid of any modern range finding?

Added to it, some of my closest friends who were my Crew Commanders from the 1st Hussars who fought and landed at Juno on D-Day would confirm that.

First rounds hits for me within the game are virtually all the time with a bracketing "over and under" sequence nonexistent, or at least I've never seen one. This was far more common than ever occurs in the game with second round hits the next most common. First round hits were so rare, they often caused a cheer to be raised across the range with instructors tipping their berets and a free round in the mess afterwards ...

I'll drop the subject as I don't want to disturb the fan club's view of reality ..

Having said that, I do enjoy CMBN as a game, which is all it is .... but a very good one that has kept a 65 year old veteran enjoying it for many years and assuming good health, I hope for many more years to come.

Regards,

Doug

[akd]

I tested Brit QF 75mm at 800m against side-on Panthers. Crews were regular-normal. Daylight, clear and no wind. 10 lanes with the test repeated 3 times (30 total).

First round hits 3 out of 30 - 10% chance to hit

Second round hits (if first was a miss) 14 out of 27 - 52% chance to hit

I have a scan a December 1944 report giving the range for a 50% chance of a first round hit against a stationary hull up tank for the QF 75mm (with range errors occurring) as 800m.

800m was also the average engagement range for tanks in the ETO. Normandy was certainly less, and in game is probably even less than that.