Decision time

[herr_oberst]

Thanks for all the replies, the real selling point, for me, is the repeated use of the word challenge, like a good little Lutheran I will suffer the ordeal of CM2, for the good of my gaming soul.

In that case, by all means buy CMBN, and launch the "Courage and Fortitude" campaign right off the bat, no training mission, no practice battles, nada. Just dive into the thick of it.

Maybe challenge isn't the word for it... perhaps scourged instead.

[Apa]

For me the biggest problem is that scenarios which have more than two platoons (plus support) of troops are not fun. When you have a company+ of troops then there is simply too much needed micromanagement. I really don't like that you need to check individual doors of houses when you are in command of a company. Not for me.

However, the small scenarios are really funny. At that scale the game works beautifully. Unfortunately most of the campaigns deal with way too many units for my taste.

[Pak40]

No, I suggest the "Road to Mountbourg" Campaign. It's easier to learn and sharpen your skills, although it is much longer. "Courage and Fortitude" can even kick a veteran's ass.

[xian]

For me the biggest problem is that scenarios which have more than two platoons (plus support) of troops are not fun. When you have a company+ of troops then there is simply too much needed micromanagement. I really don't like that you need to check individual doors of houses when you are in command of a company. Not for me.

However, the small scenarios are really funny. At that scale the game works beautifully. Unfortunately most of the campaigns deal with way too many units for my taste.

I am hoping that this is a problem that will be easily solved in future with additional floating information that the player can choose to toggle on and off.

[MengJiaoRedux]

For me the biggest problem is that scenarios which have more than two platoons (plus support) of troops are not fun. When you have a company+ of troops then there is simply too much needed micromanagement. I really don't like that you need to check individual doors of houses when you are in command of a company. Not for me.

However, the small scenarios are really funny. At that scale the game works beautifully. Unfortunately most of the campaigns deal with way too many units for my taste.

I'm getting back to this game after about six months. As I recall, it is the first case of a game that convincingly represents the US Army in the Summer of 1944 PLUS you get to see every single participant at the front edge of a battle PLUS you can edit things and build your own landscape and scenarios.

PLUS it looks cool and the battles can be pretty interesting.

On the Challenge side: when I stopped playing in August, I was happily running scenarios with roughly 2 reinforced battalions on each side. Now I'm working on dealing with a reinforced company on each side. There's definitely a lot going on in the game and it takes a while to get comfortable (again) with just how much is happening.

[Apa]

I know different people prefer different scales. I prefer small scale battles. They are fun and you can really concentrate on the details. I just wish there will be more small one or two, maximum of three platoon battles. I like playing for an hour and finishing the battle in that time.

[Agua]

I know different people prefer different scales. I prefer small scale battles. They are fun and you can really concentrate on the details. I just wish there will be more small one or two, maximum of three platoon battles. I like playing for an hour and finishing the battle in that time.

Same. Just different strokes. A company with attached units is about as much as I care to micromanage.

[Macisle]

Same. Just different strokes. A company with attached units is about as much as I care to micromanage.

I'm like you and Apa. I like to micromanage and a company plus change is usually the maximum I enjoy working with. But like Apa, I also find that the sweet spot for me is a really about two platoons.

The micro-events in game can be so engaging and realistic--like when you have to get your bazooka ammo carrier back to retrieve the bazooka for the final shot that wins the game. Last week, I had one of those situations happen. Zook man taken out, ammo guy carrier makes it away. After four aborted attempts (too hot) at getting the zook, he finally does. Then he takes out an assault HT. The whole crew survives though and jumps out. I'm thinking he's a gonner, but a rifle team arrives just in time to decimate the crew--except for one guy that escapes into the trees. That man manages to keep several of my units occupied for awhile, and later finds and kills my heroic zook man. Finally, two of my guys spot the "hunter" HT crewman from their upper level building observation point and nail him.

The rest of the battle was quite fun, but I barely remember it. However, the above drama was like watching (and directing!) a good movie and ended up being the juiciest part of the battle.

Stuff like that happens all the time. I finally got around to playing the Devil's Descent campaign and am enjoying the scale so far. I just finished the second battle. I took no casualties on the first scenario and only had one man incapacitated on the second until the last few minutes. Then I got sleepy and broke SOP on recon. It cost me two dead (of course, one was a +2 squad leader!). Worrying about every man--and ammo (it's getting low!) --really adds something.

So far, I've avoided the large scenarios. Like others have said, I wish there were a lot more scenarios built around a max of one company plus support units. One of the most enjoyable scenarios I've played was Hornet's Nest. My initial troops got about half of the map covered before the Germans came at them. Then, the battle fell into a line of mini battles. All my troops were in teams, spread out across a long meandering line. Each little clump of trees was like an island. Attrition in men and ammo was keeping the suspense up, but my guys held out until the cavalry arrived (The HT's alone were enough to win the day).

There too, individual men did important things that I probably would not have paid attention to in a large scale battle.

Oh, and the other day, I did a quick battle of four Panzer IVs vs. Four M10s. First contact cost my two PIVs. Then a flanking attempt cost me one. I was ready to give up and go to bed then, but managed to take out one M10. Well, to make a long story short, I ended up playing for another hour, but took out the three remaining M10s one by one with smoke, maneuver and spotting by everyone on foot. I even had a crew mount an abandoned HT and tear-ass across the map to get in a spotting position (and later to mop up some enemy crews).

Anyhoo...the point is that the micro level of the game is GREAT and I don't miss or need the large scale. Over time, you might find yourself feeling the same. But even if you don't, I can't image that the OP would genuinely feel like his money was wasted. The combo would be like what, two meals at a decent restaurant? That's two or three hours of enjoyment vs. what will be many more at the minimum.

Macisle

[Vark]

The emphasis on the importance of the squad leaders (with individual ratings) was a factor sorely missing in CM1. You could rationalise that the HQ might reflect them but why did the squad then loose the benefits when it was out of C2. All this talk of CM2 being a different scale is interesting, because many posters, over the years, said that it, CM1, was only really designed to represent reinforced company actions. I certainly felt anything larger seemed out of place, given Battalion HQ's were just super units with a, hoover up all strays, ability. How does CM2 handle higher echelon command units?

[MengJiaoRedux]

Same. Just different strokes. A company with attached units is about as much as I care to micromanage.

At the moment, I feel the same way. However, once I get back up to speed I'll probably get back to doing what I did when I had larger forces which was to find the spot where things seemed to be happening in an interesting way and micomanage that part. Since I usually leave the battle running (continuous mode? I've forgotten the term), this leads to several layers of immersion: in a small fight, inside a larger fight inside an environment.

[xian]

I find that I miss out on all the wonderful fine detail that exists in CMBN if I don't micromanage - which is why I find RT games always somewhat unsatisfactory. Personally, I like to check out each of my units - their morale, experience, ammo levels etc.. this is when CMBN is at its most fun.

To me CMBN has a slightly confused development direction.

Perhaps I need to clarify a little:

For me, Realtime mode seems more like an experimental add-on rather than a fully fledged game mode. I believe that it still needs a fair bit of development before it really shines in its own right.

I think that quite a few players of games such as CMBN enjoy the minutia of wargaming (which is why I still mourn the loss of armour penetration tables from Cmx1) and I think that Realtime mode currently lacks the depth of involvement that players enjoy in WeGo mode.

[A Canadian Cat]

<snip>what I did when I had larger forces which was to find the spot where things seemed to be happening in an interesting way and micomanage that part. Since I usually leave the battle running (continuous mode? I've forgotten the term), this leads to several layers of immersion: in a small fight, inside a larger fight inside an environment.

I do the same. I often watch the turn from on high (level 5 or 6) to get an idea of where things are happening. Then I watch the turn zoomed in to level 2 or 3 in the areas where stuff is happening. When giving orders I focus on what each company's job is one at a time. You can even save the game and come back to a turn if it is taking too long. I find that a 4, 5 or 6 company game works really well when you think of the two or three avenues of advance one at a time.

While initial setup and planning can take quite a while once the battle gets going you will find that you don't have to mess with the orders for everyone every turn.

Very enjoyable!

[Lt Belenko]

I bought it at pre-order and probably played 5-10 games total between then and the start of the new year. I continued CMBB with my Panzer Blitz buddy (yes from the late 70's) all along. He came over about a month ago and I did the lan thingy with 2 machines and we played the demo. Band of Brothers playing on the TV in the background. A real beer and pretzel day. That convinced me to jump into CMBN deeper. I now have 4 H2H games going and I realize how great this game is. I've got CW on pre-order too.

I still can't convince my friend to buy the combo pack CMBN and CW. But I'm refusing to play CMBB.

[Apa]

My intention was not telling you all that large scenarios suck, or that CMBN can't handle them. My point is that I like small scenarios, and I can't handle the large ones. Maybe I could handle mutlibatallion scenarios if I used a lot more time per game. But for me it is load CMBN, play for an hour and hopefully finish the scenario in that time.

So my wish is simple: more interesting small scenarios! Even better: campaigns which concentrate on one, maybe two platoons. You might get one or two more as support troops.

[Fenris]

CMBN is yet to put the hook in me.

Have been playing CMBB though. The CW module inspired me to pickup CMAK and mod it to ETO. Am enjoying that.

Am thinking that I will eventually enjoy CM2, hopefully by then a number of modules will be out so the scope of the game will be more appealing to me.

If you've played a lot of CM1 it will take some adjustment. I think that's the hardest part.

Play the demo see if it grabs. If not I suspect it's just a matter of sticking with it until the comfort level lets you get into the new titles. Advice I've yet to undertake. Which is fine as I like to be a year or so off the boil. Saves me waiting with baited breath for expansions, patches etc as they're usually all out by that time.

Anyway, that's my take. Have fun.

[Stingray]

I also like tiny/small scenarios - 1 hour. Platoon to Company level. I find it more personal and interesting. I can watch all the action and zoom in during replays to see all the great animation.

I like to be the platoon leader-(coy leader at most).

Small-Short and Violent scenarios for me.

[Warmachine113]

I like small scenario too..

Unfortunatly my system can run all newest games on highest settings but CMBN doesnt support quad cores...(I can play maxed out no lag 96 players ARMA II Domination games)..or bf3 maxed..

AAANNND I really like defence scenario..wher you can ambush enemies and all..

[MikeyD]

If you're just wondering about the game engine and not theater-specific may I suggest you grab all the demos for CMSF and CM:Afghanistan. My favorite (for personal reasons) is the CMSF Brit module demo scenario. There are of course gameplay differences (no ATGMs in Normandy) but with all three titles you tell your units to walk or run or fire in pretty much the same way. A lot of initial 'complaints' are just unfamiliarity. Use the demos to teach yourself how to pop smoke, use terrain masking features, and call in artillery strike, then have fun with the full game.

[Warmachine113]

I have cmbo cmbb cmak,cmbn cm:afghanistan csmf+marines and cmbn..lol thanks tho I might buy nato

[Warmachine113]

I like csmf but Ive played it maybe an hour...its by far the slowest of the bunch on ym system

Acer Aspire 5552G

6,00 Go ram

64 bits system

Processor number :4

Gaphic card:

ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5650

3837 Mo

Dedicated gaphic mem.: 1024 Mo

Shared system memory2813 Mo

drivers: 8.930.0.0

Native resolution 1366x768

Direct x 10

[Doug Williams]

As so many have already pointed out, CMBN "feels" better than CMx1 for smaller sized battles, and infantry matter more in CMBN. On board mortars, a mere nuisance in CMx1, are deadly in CMBN.

When I first purchased CMBN, there was a steep learning curve for me, but after I got past that and became, um, less incompetent with the UI and game mechanics, I discovered a very enjoyable game, enough so that I finally deleted all the CMx1 games off my hard drive.

CMBN is more "work" to play than CMx1, especially the larger battles, which can be quite a chore. When I play H2H, I usually stick to the smaller battles, and play the larger ones vs the AI. That way, I can take my time with the turns without feeling pressured.

[Childress]

I think in my own case the biggest hurdle was accepting the fact that CM2 is not just CM1 with fancier graphics: It is a new game, but much better in most ways, IMHO.

Not that it is perfect - far from it. Lots of things need to be improved. And some CM1 elements should be brought into CM2 - cover armor arcs, for instance.

Re: Armor Cover Arcs. As posted elsewhere ACAs in CM1 amounted to a user cheat in single player as the AI was never programmed to use it. The real test of the game's target selection algorhythms will occur in the upcoming module where armor engagements will be MUCH more plentiful. Villers-Bocage? Goodwood? I've actually been impressed in the base game by the situational smarts of tanks in an armor heavy (rare) environment. Even when bazookas/schreck teams open up on infantry their choices seemed appropriate in retrospect- most of the time.

[Vark]

Do armoured units respond to the greatest threat? I used to love the CM1 tanks that would engage a halftrack but ignore an anti-tank gun. Or rotate the turret to continue engaging the fleeing Platoon HQ but avoid engaging the pioneer running toward it or the tank hunter advancing!

[stikkypixie]

Do armoured units respond to the greatest threat? I used to love the CM1 tanks that would engage a halftrack but ignore an anti-tank gun. Or rotate the turret to continue engaging the fleeing Platoon HQ but avoid engaging the pioneer running toward it or the tank hunter advancing!

I feel it's more improved.

[Warmachine113]

llol but you may remember how fast the enemy tanks were to take out flame throwers..lol