An astounding plan for Battlefront

[LukeFF]

Yes, all efforts to CMx2 and another five years should see it as good as CMx1 with better graphics.

Five years? What game(s) have you been playing? As much fun as I had with CMx1, CMx2 is far and away the better title.

[altipueri]

Five years? What game(s) have you been playing? As much fun as I had with CMx1, CMx2 is far and away the better title.

Battles from the Bulge by Panther Games, and AGEOD's various offerings including WW1. Plus CMx1. Occasionally CMx2 but it just a tedious drag compared to the delight of CMx1.

[Barkhorn1x]

Battles from the Bulge by Panther Games, and AGEOD's various offerings including WW1. Plus CMx1. Occasionally CMx2 but it just a tedious drag compared to the delight of CMx1.

So you like "beer & pretzels" and not "Grog" play? To each his own I say.

Now, why is this thread even in this forum and not in the CM1x forum? Take the pipe dream speculation over there please.

[dieseltaylor]

So you like "beer & pretzels" and not "Grog" play? To each his own I say.

Now, why is this thread even in this forum and not in the CM1x forum? Take the pipe dream speculation over there please.

Commenting here makes sense as it gets more readers. There are plenty who own CMx2 titles but prefer the scale of CMX1. And the ease and apparent simplicity of play.

As for grogdom a real grog realises the deeper you go into representing what can happen on an individual basis the more you realise that plain luck can make or break small battles that we play*. Trying to simulate it all is a hiding to nothing as the game becomes more and more a lottery. Sometimes playing a game with average effects can be , at the end, more realistic.

* Tiger commander killed outright by an ATR bullet to a vision block.

** A confused battle where a Tiger fires on another and misses three times. Sights not aligned with gun.

*** Three Tigers embedding their gun barrels going over a rail embankment

Trying to factor all of these into a game may eventually be possible but would anybody wish to play a game where all plans are destroyed by "real life" possibilities.

[akd]

but would anybody wish to play a game where all plans are destroyed by "real life" possibilities.

WTF? That sounds like some sort of "war game" or something.

[slysniper]

As for grogdom a real grog realises the deeper you go into representing what can happen on an individual basis the more you realise that plain luck can make or break small battles that we play*. Trying to simulate it all is a hiding to nothing as the game becomes more and more a lottery. Sometimes playing a game with average effects can be , at the end, more realistic.

* Tiger commander killed outright by an ATR bullet to a vision block.

** A confused battle where a Tiger fires on another and misses three times. Sights not aligned with gun.

*** Three Tigers embedding their gun barrels going over a rail embankment

Trying to factor all of these into a game may eventually be possible but would anybody wish to play a game where all plans are destroyed by "real life" possibilities.

Maybe, but even with all the randomness, for some funny reason. I feel as a good player I am rewarded more consistantly in CMX2 than I was ever rewarded in CMX1. Maybe because it had all its aspects that would never show up in any real battle field. Like Borg spotting or when spotting a enemy squads. You see them all, you can kill them all. Thats a game, nothing to do with Real life.

At least now, when you ambush a unit, you better make sure they are all in the open before you open up, or many of them might slither away.

In the old. System, my win ratio was 65-70 percent. Now I run close to 80 percent and feel I can do many more aspects of what I feel to be good tactics.

So when I hear something like this post. I think, some want a game they can master, others of us want a sim we can master - even with all the inconsistancies that will come.

[Sgt Joch]

It don't see why it has to be an either/or proposition. CMx1 and CMx2 are both good systems. Each has its own strengths/weaknesses. You can like/play either or both. There is more than enough room in the CM tent for both CMx1 and CMx2 players.

[Georgie]

It don't see why it has to be an either/or proposition. CMx1 and CMx2 are both good systems. Each has its own strengths/weaknesses. You can like/play either or both. There is more than enough room in the CM tent for both CMx1 and CMx2 players.

Well put Sgt Joch. I agree 100 percent. Maybe some day BF will come to the same conclusion and realize that there are basic game play differences between CMX1 and 2 and that CMX 2 is not, in some peoples opinion, just a new and better CMX1 but an excellent new game in its own right and that a new game modeled after CMX1 might just be a good investment.

[altipueri]

So you like "beer & pretzels" and not "Grog" play?

Champagne (as long as it is non-vintage) or port, but certainly not pretzels.

As for Grognard (rather than Grog) I am the very definition of a Grognard - an old grumbler.

Nobody likes us, but we don't care.

Actually of course Napoleon felt rather affectionate towards Les Grognards.