xian Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 I was reading through my old CMBO manual the other day and a few things amused me: at the time BFC were highly critical of real-time play for battalion level tactical wargaming. They also stated that squad level smoke wasn't included because there was no good historical evidence that it was used other than for signalling. Funny how times change. But, the one thing that was clear from the CMBO manual was how much detail BFC had put into the realism behind the game engine. The manual proudly reveals (or refers to) many of the wonders 'under the hood'. Now - is this kind of realism REALLY in CMBN? Or are BFC being intentional vague about the mechanics behind CMBN because they don't quite exist as we might imagine? BTW - This is a question and not a criticism. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASL Veteran Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Steve has posted on numerous occasions (more numerous than I can count) that CMBN is miles ahead of CMBO in terms of 'realism'. Whether you agree with that or not is for you to decide. We can all sit around here in this thread and compare and contrast CMBO and CMBN but if you are a committed CMx1 type then I'm going to surmise that we would all be wasting our time. Just download the demo and try it yourself because that's the best way to answer your question in terms that will have meaning for you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xian Posted March 18, 2012 Author Share Posted March 18, 2012 Okay - I must have missed Steve's posts. I'll search them out. I have been playing CMBN for a while (probably too much)... and I love it. Sadly I can only compare CMBN to my memory of CMx1 (I have a Mac), so it might be a case of rose tinted specs. But whilst going through the old CMBO manual I kept saying to myself - "oh yeah - that was cool." I do think that CMBN is far superior to CMBO but there are a lot of small details where the player isn't provided with info or feedback... and you end up asking yourself -"are they actually modelling that or not?" You say they probably are... so that answers my question. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vark Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Why are CMBN casualty rates so different to CMBO, which seemed to have very realistic figures of dead and wounded? I remember Jason predicting this would be the case when comparing the merits of the differing design philosophies in the run up to the release of CMBN. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASL Veteran Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Why are CMBN casualty rates so different to CMBO, which seemed to have very realistic figures of dead and wounded? I remember Jason predicting this would be the case when comparing the merits of the differing design philosophies in the run up to the release of CMBN. I've already addressed your question in the wounded and killed thread which you will find if you just scroll down a bit. Here is the link in case it drops off the first page http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=103302&page=2 Feel free to address my points there 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Now - is this kind of realism REALLY in CMBN? Yes. Steve saying CMBN is "miles ahead" is putting it very, very mildly. Or are BFC being intentional vague about the mechanics behind CMBN because they don't quite exist as we might imagine? Unless you've built a 3D simulation of a battlespace or are aware of the complexities of same, they very likely go light-years beyond what the average user might imagine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 But, the one thing that was clear from the CMBO manual was how much detail BFC had put into the realism behind the game engine. The manual proudly reveals (or refers to) many of the wonders 'under the hood'. It's noteworthy that CMBO was the least realistic game of the entire series, both where it came to tank and infantry combat. Lorrin "Rexford" Bird's research was utilized starting from CMBB, and at that time infantry combat was also heavily changed. That doesn't mean that CMBO wasn't a realistic game compared to the offerings at the time (Steel Panthers, Close Combat), but a decade is a long time in game development. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xian Posted March 19, 2012 Author Share Posted March 19, 2012 Yeah - I guess I started badly with the original post: 1) Don't read 10 year old manuals of much loved games with rose tinted specs. 2) Try and avoid making questions sound like criticisms. I mean, I can clearly see that CMBN is far in advance of CMBO on many levels. I guess I was just referring to those little details like 'Shot Shatter' etc.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Yeah - I guess I started badly with the original post: 1) Don't read 10 year old manuals of much loved games with rose tinted specs. 2) Try and avoid making questions sound like criticisms. I mean, I can clearly see that CMBN is far in advance of CMBO on many levels. I guess I was just referring to those little details like 'Shot Shatter' etc.. I thought your original post was quite clear about not being a criticism. And I was attempting, at least, to answer that original nice, clear question: absolutely. This kind of realism *really* is in CMBN. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xian Posted March 19, 2012 Author Share Posted March 19, 2012 Good to know... Thanks Phil. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.