womble Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 All in all CMBO more fun than CMBN and it plays on my laptop and notebook. Oh shoo, old chap. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanzfeld Posted May 3, 2012 Author Share Posted May 3, 2012 I might just go and fire up CMBB for a spell to quench this thirst. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bradley Dick Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Though the new system may be flawed and somewhat incomplete, you're all delusional, and nostalgic, fools if you think CMx2 doth CMx1 beat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoex Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Though the new system may be flawed and somewhat incomplete, you're all delusional, and nostalgic, fools if you think CMx2 doth CMx1 beat. Don't you mean that the other way 'round, BD? I am firmly in the CMx2 camp myself. To me it is clearly the better game in many ways. More options, finer control, better graphics, and HECK I CAN PLAY IT IN REAL TIME!!! Plus it's still growing and being improved, while CMx1 is...well...history, like the catapult or the sword. It was good then, but has been superseded and made redundant by newer developments. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Don't you mean that the other way 'round, BD? I am firmly in the CMx2 camp myself. To me it is clearly the better game in many ways. More options, finer control, better graphics, and HECK I CAN PLAY IT IN REAL TIME!!! Plus it's still growing and being improved, while CMx1 is...well...history, like the catapult or the sword. It was good then, but has been superseded and made redundant by newer developments. LOL nah Shakespearean English always sounds bass ackward. As to Cmx1, I think I recall that but I deleted it a while back. Even though I prefer WW2 gaming over modern, CMSF spoiled me for what CM could look like. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanzfeld Posted May 4, 2012 Author Share Posted May 4, 2012 Though the new system may be flawed and somewhat incomplete, you're all delusional, and nostalgic, fools if you think CMx2 doth CMx1 beat. Well if you read the first sentence of my OP then you see that I know that CMBN is the better game. Still, as exampled by all the posts above, there are things that CMx1 does wayyyyyyyyyyy better than CMx2. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 wayyyyyyyyyyy Ah, that's the sound I heard - the wambulance siren 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanzfeld Posted May 4, 2012 Author Share Posted May 4, 2012 JonS, Please don't post anymore. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 Well if you read the first sentence of my OP then you see that I know that CMBN is the better game. Still, as exampled by all the posts above, there are things that CMx1 does wayyyyyyyyyyy better than CMx2. In yee olden days we had card board cut out pieces and mapboards. If you decided the rules were incorrect on something you could just change them. If you wanted fire you could just pull out a lighter If you wanted a different eras units, all you needed was a printer. Would you ever consider going back to ASL? Looking back is a waste of time. Keep your eyes on the horizon soldier. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holman Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 One thing I miss from CMx1 are the command delays. You know: "Give an order and wait 20-40 seconds (or whatever) for the unit to start moving." Units with less experience or poor morale took longer to process their orders. It wasn't perfect, but it took away some of the precision control that can seem gamey in CMx2. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Placebo Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 One more for the list - the attacker being able to select one of several victory locations, without the defender knowing so he must try to defend them all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 One thing I miss from CMx1 are the command delays. You know: "Give an order and wait 20-40 seconds (or whatever) for the unit to start moving." Units with less experience or poor morale took longer to process their orders. It wasn't perfect, but it took away some of the precision control that can seem gamey in CMx2. No, it was far from perfect. It led to people plotting massive convoluted orders of chained objectives so they only had to suffer the "command delay" once, rather than every turn if they plotted a minute's activity (roughly) at a time. If you watch your pTruppen in CMx2, you'll see that they impose their own delays, since they have to "regroup" at each waypoint, and the amount of straggling varies a lot depending on what the last movement leg had them do. You can reduce the variability of the delay at each waypoint by plotting short movement legs, but then you'll have lots of shorter, more even delays which will slow you down, overall. Even a change of fire direction will often be delayed as the individually modelled pTruppen displace within their action spot to obtain (good, covered) firing positions for the new target. Vehicles overrun their waypoints when travelling fast, and turning their hulls drags their gun off-target, so can often result in half the number of shots you were expecting in a given time. It's not command delay, but it's plenty of imprecision. I think you'll probably find that most people play with a troop experience level that offers a high degree of reliability. Green troops take longer to do stuff (spot, aim) and are more likely to go out of your control, but I get the feeling that people like to use Regulars and Veterans. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 No, it was far from perfect. It led to ... Yep, and it was also counter-intuitive in that easy to explain things (in the Real World) - like, 'walk to that hill via the copse' - often took many waypoints and therefore incurred a significant delay, while very complex actions - like, 'assault that house' - could only take a single order and incur practically no delay. The concept was neat in theory, but flawed in practice, as BFC acknowledged on a number of occasions. And some folk just flat out hated it. In the end BFC figured it wasn't worth the bother. Besides, as womble pointed out, there is plenty of delay built into movement now, but it's structured differently. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 11. FLEXIBLE UNIT / VEHICLE LOADOUTS 12. FLEXIBLE ORDER OF BATTLE Nice ideas that have been raised a number of times, but I believe this thread is supposed to be about pining for the past rather than looking positively to the future. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanzfeld Posted May 4, 2012 Author Share Posted May 4, 2012 Well by looking to the past we can see what was good and what was not and, hopefully, make the future product better. Plus I just wanted to put it down in writing to bash your perfect game and make you squirm. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baneman Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 Nice ideas that have been raised a number of times, but I believe this thread is supposed to be about pining for the past rather than looking positively to the future. Actually I thought it was about how CMBN could be improved with the addition of a couple of things that we remember from the past ( even if implemented somewhat differently ). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 I just wanted to bash your perfect game rofl padding 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 After all, if we can't learn the lessons of history, we're doomed to repeat them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkelried Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 After all, if we can't learn the lessons of history, we're doomed to repeat them. the lessons or history? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 Though the new system may be flawed and somewhat incomplete, you're all delusional, and nostalgic, fools if you think CMx2 doth CMx1 beat. Who the hell said that? One guy? The point of the thread was to get some of what was best about CMx1 into CMx2. My list is pretty short...most of the lists are pretty short. And some of what's being requested would surely make CMX2 even better. Nice ideas that have been raised a number of times, but I believe this thread is supposed to be about pining for the past rather than looking positively to the future. What's with all the hostility, guys? Nobody's pining for the past. Who wants to go back to abstracted bobble heads, 20X20 tiles, Borg spotting and all that? Adding some of the cool features of CMx1 into CMx2 IS looking positively to the future. Why else would they have finally given us detailed hits and Kill Lists? Those were two specific things that were awesome in CMX1 that have made CMx2 even MORE fun once they were reintroduced. Far as I am concerned there's only a handful of old stuff that I'd like to see added back in and after that everything else is a bonus. So, C'mon play nice...we all want the same thing in the end, a better game and it wasn't like anybody was being disrespectful and rude towards BFC. Lanzfeld was being particularly friendly in his opening post. No need to stir a pot that wasn't boiling. Mord. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 Who the hell said that? One guy? And I do believe there's a typo in BD's post anyway. He mocks as nostalgaic those he's directing his comment at, but CMx2 is not the past, so I think BD's fingers got the 1 and 2 the opposite way round to how his brain wanted them to. What's with all the hostility, guys? Nobody's pining for the past. Some are. But they're a distinct minority. Adding some of the cool features of CMx1 into CMx2 IS looking positively to the future. Oh, definitely. I'd like to see more detailed unit information, like you used to get if you pressed Enter in CMx1. I don't care if it does look like turning the game into a giant spreadsheet. The info's there for the engine, it "just" [Ha ha - Ed] needs a display layer... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 And I do believe there's a typo in BD's post anyway. He mocks as nostalgaic those he's directing his comment at, but CMx2 is not the past, so I think BD's fingers got the 1 and 2 the opposite way round to how his brain wanted them to. I got what he meant...he was saying you're nuts if you think CMX1 is better than CMX2...I only saw one guy who did. I think everybody here pretty much agrees the pros of the new engine outweigh the old. Some are. But they're a distinct minority. I seriously didn't see anybody asking for CMX2 to be turned into CMX1...all I gathered was they thought some features would be better if they were put in CMBN. A lot of those can be argued into submission...Command Delays being one. But I think we could all at least agree that fire and AA is something that was super cool in CMX1 and would be even cooler in CMBN! Oh, definitely. I'd like to see more detailed unit information, like you used to get if you pressed Enter in CMx1. I don't care if it does look like turning the game into a giant spreadsheet. The info's there for the engine, it "just" [Ha ha - Ed] needs a display layer... That would be neat...even neater would be something like Steel Panthers had. But kinda like the argument for the little picture that tells you what kind of ground you are occupying, I can figure that stuff out by using what's already in the game. Mord. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 There's no problem with looking and asking for feature additions in CM, there isn't a product out there of any type that doesn't get requests for additions or changes. It's the nature of producing a product and getting feedback. Hell at some point in time someone had to say, these bronze swords don't hold an edge too well, you got anything better? When we had stone tipped spears we didn't have to spend so much time worrying about it getting dull. My problem is the original premise is flawed. We are comparing apples and oranges and wishing we could still make apple pie with our blood oranges. There has to be some recognition that the game is fundamentally different and because of that implementation of some things is forever changed and there is no going back. CMx1 did nothing "better" than CMx2. It however does everything different and therefore did some things CMx2 does not...yet. That may sound like semantics, but it is a not so subtle recognition that certain things worked because frankly the TAC AI was a LOT less sophisticated. For example the building (both movement to and assaulting) issues in CMx2 are more tied to TAC AI pathing and the 1:1 ratio of the game. I think the OP was clear they don't want to go back, but at the same time looking at how CMx1 handled these doesn't really help. They just aren't comparable unless you are simply going to ignore they are fundamentally different. That being said as to feature additions I would like. gun jamming, lol I hadn't thought about that one until this thread and if you look at Broadsword's comic screenshot it actually uses that idea as to why they missed my landser. I can just see the snap decision to assault a hedgerow if you think from the drop off in fire that the enemy MG just jammed. Would it create a s**tstorm if they included it with dozens of threads about it happening too often/not often enough/wasn't right for the types of weapons/they unjam too quickly/too slowly etc etc probably. But it could still be cool. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 FOG OF WAR: Totally agree. The player is given excessive information when clicking on enemy icons. An enemy mortar ammo bearer, eh, thanks! And from section three, to boot. Cool! They really need to address this. Spread out landsers, we know the British have a least three 3" mortars! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Belenko Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 I really miss the Dance of Death. Where a squad woud get caught in the open, get to the routed/ broken state, and run back and forth until exhausted and the finally wiped out. God I hated that. But I sure miss it happening to my enemy. 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.