Redwolf Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 What? Line-of-sight is pretty simplistic, favoring the spotter too much. C2 is pretty simple as well, the most complex thing is getting that radio-less units in voice contact (1 action spot?) get the benefit of having the radio, which isn't reflected in their C2 display AFAIK. Not if the man actually on the heavy weapon got an unlucky draw in the team's distribution. C2 isn't simple. Tell that to my on-map gun test that has guns, all in the same plain spot, being randomly in contact or not with a variety of HQs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Balboa Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 This. If nothing else, CMx1 was one thing: a very efficient game. You could express your plan in a very efficient manner and you spent a comparably high percentage of your play time thinking about tactics and planning. Now you need a PhD in action spot mechanics, you needs to nudge everything according to crazy out-of-contact and LOS rules, and half of your people wander off, and you always have to worry about cover and even if you have cover whether your people use it. The closer you get to realism the more you realize, there are some things a commander doesn't have control of, such as how efficiently your troops use the terrain to their advantage. I think what you are describing is the difference between a simulation (CMx2) and a game (CMx1). The balance BF is trying to achieve to to be more a simulation while at the same time keeping the fun and and enjoyment of being a game. Its a very fine line to walk and obviously the decisions they make wont appeal to some. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 War is chaos but that doesn't make everything that is random in a game a good simulation. I don't think that anybody can look at a cluster of guns set up spaced like a battery would in reality and some of them being in contact and some of them not with a battalion HQ in LOS and declare that to be realistic. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 I already have CMAK but didn't play it very much and didn't notice the difference in penetration values between CMAK and CMBO. I'll fire it up and check it out. First thing I'll try is to see if the W version Sherman can take even one frontal hit by a Pz IV without blowing up. Did you notice if the effectiveness of the shreck and the faust were toned down in CMAK? No idea about the Schreck and the Faust. I'm not aware that they were toned down in CMBN either, aside from not being allowed to fire them from buildings :mad: As for Pz IV vs. Sherman in CMAK: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=45255 Similar discussions: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=48048 http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=46238 http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=83798 http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=47806 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 Not if the man actually on the heavy weapon got an unlucky draw in the team's distribution. ? C2 isn't simple. Tell that to my on-map gun test that has guns, all in the same plain spot, being randomly in contact or not with a variety of HQs. I've never had that happen, but I only use mortars on-map, clustered around their section or platoon leader for radio contact purposes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Balboa Posted January 18, 2013 Share Posted January 18, 2013 War is chaos but that doesn't make everything that is random in a game a good simulation. I don't think that anybody can look at a cluster of guns set up spaced like a battery would in reality and some of them being in contact and some of them not with a battalion HQ in LOS and declare that to be realistic. Assume the scenario where every gun is automatically/magically in CC in every situation, would that be more or less realistic? I'm not going to say that understanding how C2 works in CMx2 is simple but neither is CC in RL and especially so during this time frame. I do know that maintaining C2 in CMSF for the blue force is pretty straight forward while much more of a mystery for the red force. Are their bugs in the C2 routines in CMx2 or are they working as intended? Only BF knows for sure. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgie Posted January 18, 2013 Author Share Posted January 18, 2013 No idea about the Schreck and the Faust. I'm not aware that they were toned down in CMBN either, aside from not being allowed to fire them from buildings :mad: As for Pz IV vs. Sherman in CMAK: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=45255 Similar discussions: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=48048 http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=46238 http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=83798 http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=47806 Thanks Vanir, very informative reading. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 Ahh when I was young, you had real cars! Not these plastic pieces of junk. Ours were made of steel! And men were stronger, cigarette smoke didn't bother us then, not like the wimpy men of today. And we played war games with cardboard and had to do our OWN calculations! And the sun was warmer!!! Damned place is too cold today. The good old days, when men were men and sheep were nervous! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukeFF Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Hate to think that Battlefront would scrap something that still had some profit to offer for probably very little effort. How do you know it would require little effort? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASL Veteran Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 How do you know it would require little effort? He knows it would require very little effort because he wants BFC to drop everything and do it for him. By saying it would take very little effort he thinks that his chances of it coming to pass will be increased, thus it would take very little effort. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgie Posted January 20, 2013 Author Share Posted January 20, 2013 He knows it would require very little effort because he wants BFC to drop everything and do it for him. By saying it would take very little effort he thinks that his chances of it coming to pass will be increased, thus it would take very little effort. With stead fast Veterans such as yourself around trolling the forum, er I mean patrolling the forum, and explaining other peoples posts there is not much chance of BFC dropping everything now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASL Veteran Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 With stead fast Veterans such as yourself around trolling the forum, er I mean patrolling the forum, and explaining other peoples posts there is not much chance of BFC dropping everything now. I'm happy to be of assistance. I guess the ball is now firmly in your court. Perhaps you can explain for yourself the process by which you arrived at the conclusion that it would take very little effort on the part of BFC to perform the tasks you feel they should perform? We can all then judge whether your explanation or my explanation is the more accurate one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgie Posted January 20, 2013 Author Share Posted January 20, 2013 I'm happy to be of assistance. I guess the ball is now firmly in your court. Perhaps you can explain for yourself the process by which you arrived at the conclusion that it would take very little effort on the part of BFC to perform the tasks you feel they should perform? We can all then judge whether your explanation or my explanation is the more accurate one. Sorry Vet but I won't bite. Continue trolling. I mean lurking er patrolling. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgie Posted January 20, 2013 Author Share Posted January 20, 2013 How do you know it would require little effort? Hello LukeFF. I don'k know that it would require little effort that's why I said "probably very little effort." Hopefully BF feels that it would be worth the effort. Long shot, of course. I said probably because they "probably" wouldn't have to write new code, just change some of the values in the existing code. I "probably" opened myself up with that one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Upgrading CMx1 is like Ford upgrading the Edsel. After you're finished its still a hopelessly outdated platform. It would be simpler to redo CMx1 scenarios in CMBN. I was just playing a 3rd party download of the classic 'Chance Encounter' redone for CMBN and had great fun with it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altipueri Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 No, CMSF was the Edsel. CMx1 is the T or Mustang or maybe a Jeep to switch manufacturers. Why do you need a Hummer or Humvee or whatever, when you can have a Toyota pick up with an HMG? And talking about HMGs 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paper Tiger Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 'Never say never again'. BFC released a patch, for a fee, to allow the CMx1 series of games to be played on Vista not all that long ago so it's not utterly beyond the realms of all possibility that they might do something more with it. Personally, I very much doubt that they will but if enough of you guys can persuade them that there's money in it for them, you never know. (as in, more money than they're likely to earn developing titles/modules/packs for the CMx2 series) And as for 'why don't they sell it on to someone else to develop', well, it's the result of years of extremely hard work on their part. And they're still earning from it. I don't understand why anyone should expect them to sell on the code to another developer so that they could make and sell games that would compete with BFC in such a niche market. Really!? Given the love and the continued loyalty that some have for the CMx1 series of games, BFC'd likely lose a significant number of their existing customer base to the new developer. That would be extremely foolish and a very, VERY bad business decision on BFC's part so why ask them to do it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Upgrading CMx1 is like Ford upgrading the Edsel. After you're finished its still a hopelessly outdated platform. It would be simpler to redo CMx1 scenarios in CMBN. I was just playing a 3rd party download of the classic 'Chance Encounter' redone for CMBN and had great fun with it. Georgie never talked about modernizing CMx1. He wants some values adjusted and bugs fixed (e.g. my favorite the fortification victory points bug) and says he'd pay for it. You are changing the topic to where it would matter that it is "outdated". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgie Posted January 21, 2013 Author Share Posted January 21, 2013 CMBN, when it came out the graphics were " out dated". But that doesn't stop it from being an excellent game and fun to play. Same goes for the CMX1 games. In my opinion they are not so much out dated as they are "different" from the CMX 2 games. Strategic computer war games are not "out dated" simply because they aren't 1 to 1. I like them all and if an updated CMX1 game ever appears then I will certainly buy it. That is after all what a large proportion of CMX1 players were expecting and ready to buy when Shock Force came out. With all the success BF is having with its new business model they may hire a couple more programmers and artists and come up with a new version of the CMX1 games complete with the little 3 man squads, updated graphics, updated weapon effectiveness, updated armour protection...modules ,you know the whole banana. Maybe thats what Steve meant when he said that there would be a "surprise" coming our way. May as well dream big if your gonna dream at all. Costs the same. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgie Posted January 21, 2013 Author Share Posted January 21, 2013 Georgie never talked about modernizing CMx1. He wants some values adjusted and bugs fixed (e.g. my favorite the fortification victory points bug) and says he'd pay for it. You are changing the topic to where it would matter that it is "outdated". Your correct Redwolf and your post got me to dreaming and I came up with the preceding post. Been awhile since this subject has been broached but things have changed with BF and it seems to me that they just might have the capability to pull it off. If, of course, they ever decide that they want to. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slysniper Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Well,I must agree. In the wargaming market, things work alittle different than other game markets. To say that a new CMX1 type game would not sale, you would be crazy. I just saw that the close combat series was putting out a new version of the same old game which is much older than CMX1 and its still marketable. And even with the new release, it still has nothing to do with catching up to what is possible with software now. I smiled because it is the first time its been upgraded to 32 bit graphics. But you know what, I am tempted to buy it. I really enjoyed those games until they were not compatable with my computers and I was tired of having to override the AI path control in it, more the what I had to do in the CM games. plus you were limited with the maps, where as in CM it was easy to create your own. Anyway, I will let BF decide how they will make money and make a living. I will decide if I like their product and am willing to buy and support it. So far, I am not bothered by their path in the least. Have they gve me everything I ever dreamed of, no. really in some areas, they have taken things away. but they still have provided me more enjoyment than anything else has. So I appreciate their efforts and talents and professional skills. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfhand Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 I don't want modifying CMx1 games taking development time from CMx2 games; I have moved on. Had this thread been posted in the CMx1 forums I wouldn't have shared an opinion on it (where it belongs? I mean, really, there is a whole forum devoted to CMx1 games, why post this here? Because more people read this forum? Well, that should be a clue about which of their games the vast majority of people want to see BF develop further.). So, a resounding 'no' to using any resources to continue development of a ~12 year old game instead of using those hours developing CMx2. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George MC Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 I don't want modifying CMx1 games taking development time from CMx2 games; I have moved on. Had this thread been posted in the CMx1 forums I wouldn't have shared an opinion on it (where it belongs? I mean, really, there is a whole forum devoted to CMx1 games, why post this here? Because more people read this forum? Well, that should be a clue about which of their games the vast majority of people want to see BF develop further.). So, a resounding 'no' to using any resources to continue development of a ~12 year old game instead of using those hours developing CMx2. +1 - CMX1 was a great game for it's time. But now...? It's gaming history. Id like BFC's full attention directed to CMX2. I spent a lot of time doing scenarios for CMX1 but I am more than happy to be doing the same for a far better game engine in every respect. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altipueri Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 CMx2 to CMx1 is like New Coke to Classic Coke. Hey, we've finally introduced moveable way points. Oops, had those in CMx1. Yes, all efforts to CMx2 and another five years should see it as good as CMx1 with better graphics. Still way to go though for easy UI. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgie Posted January 21, 2013 Author Share Posted January 21, 2013 Several posters have expressed concern that BF resources would be diverted from CM2 to work on a re-do for CM1. I'm sure that BF will manage their resources to do what they want to get done. As we know CM1 is more to the strategic side than CM2 and with its demise it will leave a void that CM2 does not in my opinion fill. CM2 is in my opinion an excellent game. I play it, I make maps for it, etc etc. and will buy all future iterations of it. With the new engine we could play WW2 regiment size battles on a 6k sq map if a game similar to CM1 was made, something that no other game does in 3d. With BFs new business model this could happen...growth growth. Have faith and dream. 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.