Metacritic reviews

[Michael Emrys]

Yeah, after all this approach has worked so well for so many industries. That's why British shipbuilding, American auto manufacturing and the PC industry bestride the world.

If you'll excuse me, I'm off out to hunt. The wife managed to find some tubers but we're all still on the edge of starvation and I need to run down an antelope.

What is that supposed to mean? Are you suggesting that anybody who does not agree with you in all details is somehow against improvements in the game? That would be laughably untrue. Why waste your time and ours with such comments?

Michael

[Other Means]

What it's supposed to mean is if it ain't broke, still improve it.

No where do I say or imply that you have to believe everything I wrote - a long winded response to your query, by the way Michael, that you didn't have the manners to respond to.

[A Canadian Cat]

The real fun of this game is that it's Kriegspiel - you've got to extrapolate the enemies plans from what you can see, BUT you don't see much.

That I agree with figuring out the enemy's plans with incomplete information is loads of fun.

the firepower of the infantry formation selected

What does that even mean? You want some kind of number next to the icon? When I select a unit and see the weapons in the list I an idea of the fire power available to the unit. Five rifles has more fire power than a unit with only two but less than one with and LMG and four rifles. Are you just saying you want some indication from looking at the icon? The other problem is firepower vs what? Other infantry that's one thing. Against armour that is quite another. So how does a bazooka factor into the fire power? My point is this is contextual as in, right now I am trying to deal with an enemy tank which infantry unit(s) should I be considering. Some fire power number is not going to help me and frankly might be more intimidating for a new gamer than helpful.

the exposure of your men vs. enemies they can see

Again what does that even mean? You want some number next to the icon again? What will that number be? If most of my men (but not all) are behind a wall with regard to one enemy contact but not another (flanked) what number should I see? You are much better off looking at things from that unit's perspective and see if the men in the squad are in cover or not.

the current morale state

That is visible when you select the unit. Are you asking for this to be displayed next to the unit icon?

range of weapons - just the targeting line fading out is simple and gets the info over - a line from every man rather than the current composite one maybe?

I like the idea of the fading line but I am not sure about the line from every man. I worry that the line from ever man would be to cluttered. It is the only way to make the fading with range work because you need a different fade distance for the SMG, squad LMG and rifles.

the penetration chance of a gun selected vs. armour under the mouse cursor

This had been discussed before and it just not reasonable information to have. No soldier or squad leader could know this. The might have some vague idea of if their weapon had any chance of killing the enemy vehicle but no percentage chance.

the type of terrain going in to

Ah, look where they are standing - note that a large number of instances your squad is *not* standing in one type of terrain.

the path a unit is going to take - why can't we set a waypoint and have the suggested path drawn in real-time?

That would be awesome. I really wish we could get this. That way we could avoid the "surprise your tank cannot fit between those two obstacles and therefore the TacAI is going to drive off in this ridiculous direction and get everyone killed" problem. I would even be happy to have this happen only on request and not for every way point.

the distance from, direction to and strength of command (command lines were brilliant for this)

Yuck those command lines were just too much clutter.

contextual spotting - "Tank Sargent!", "Enemy at 2 o'clock!"

Sounds cool. We do have audio notices that things are spotted and it is useful when you hear you men say "enemy armour spotted". I am not sure if the direction information needs to be in the audio.

[A Canadian Cat]

An awful lot of this stuff isn't present - it results from the physics in the engine. It was in CM1, the sim was powered from it, for CM2 (now) it's not there but for new users to understand how interesting it is, it will need to be approximated.

I am sorry to say but this really seems more focused towards "please bring back what CM1x had" and not "here are some ideas to make introducing the game easier"

I have a friend I am currently working with to get him up to speed in playing CM2x. He was a regular player of ASL and CM1x. He is having real problems getting into CM2x. But honestly his problems would not be solved by anything on your list. Not one. His problems are around how do I maneuver my men so that they don't get spotted first. How do I find the enemy? If I ever do find them how do I overpower and kill them? In short his tactics were not really where he thought they were because the spotting and firing mechanism in CM1x were so much simpler and less realistic.

What he needs is good tactical tutorials that combine instructions on how to use the game commands to execute those good tactics. I personally think that something like what Bill is working on is a great starting point: http://battledrill.blogspot.ca/2013/08/combat-mission-tactical-problems-cmtp.html

If there were several of these included with the game that would help but even better would be an automated system in the game itself to guide the user through what commands to use to accomplish a task.

Yes, following the tutorials in the manual help. To ease the introduction of new players though these need to be "in game" tutorials. I think that if there were even one or two in game automatic guided tutorials and two or three of the independent study problems like what Bill has produced included with the game that would go a long long way to helping new users get into the game without being put off.

That is where any effort to improve the experience for new players should be spent IMHO.

[Michael Emrys]

What he needs is good tactical tutorials that combine instructions on how to use the game commands to execute those good tactics. I personally think that something like what Bill is working on is a great starting point: http://battledrill.blogspot.ca/2013/08/combat-mission-tactical-problems-cmtp.html

If there were several of these included with the game that would help but even better would be an automated system in the game itself to guide the user through what commands to use to accomplish a task.

Yes, following the tutorials in the manual help. To ease the introduction of new players though these need to be "in game" tutorials. I think that if there were even one or two in game automatic guided tutorials and two or three of the independent study problems like what Bill has produced included with the game that would go a long long way to helping new users get into the game without being put off.

That is where any effort to improve the experience for new players should be spent IMHO.

This is the kind of thing I had in mind when I said that the learning curve should be made less steep for new players. I think that Ian has put the case very well. Perhaps rather than putting the tutorials on the disk or in the download, if space is a problem, why not just include a link to Bil's or a similar site?

Michael

[togi]

I have reviewed , now point is 5.9

Common men we have to carry over 7.0

[Erwin]

"Ah, look where they are standing - note that a large number of instances your squad is *not* standing in one type of terrain."

This is one item where I do feel we need more help. I like playing at level one or two and I do try to study what cover my guys are in. But, it's often harder to figure that out than what it would be in RL if I were in the squad.

For example, a very common situation is that I see a tree set apart from other trees. If I order my squad to that tree, does that mean that then entire squad is now trying to take cover behind a single tree? ie really crappy cover for most of them and therefore suicide. Or, is there enuff cover that the men are in comparative safety? In RL you would immediately know the answer. In the game it's unclear...

[A Canadian Cat]

This is the kind of thing I had in mind when I said that the learning curve should be made less steep for new players. I think that Ian has put the case very well.

Yes, I agree with you focusing on the learning curve and finding ways to help people along it.

Perhaps rather than putting the tutorials on the disk or in the download, if space is a problem, why not just include a link to Bil's or a similar site?

Any of those ideas are steps in the right direction and a good thing. In my opinion though, to really help, there needs to be a tutorial that leads people by the hand through a simple scenario as part of the demo. You want people to download the game and spend some time going though the tutorial and then playing a scenario. There can be more tutorial content in the shipping game and on sites like Bill's too - more is good.

[Placebo]

Otherwise, you get Metacritic scores like we have now and a small (shrinking? I don't know) population of players, simply because the joy of the game can't be grasped without playing it for a while.

Well this thread has inspired me to go and score this game highly on metacritic

Sounds like a very negative view that the BFC fan base is shrinking, are all the fans over the hill and on borrowed time!! I hope it is increasing as the games develop more and more. I started playing CM1 so i must admit if i came to CMBN now it could be a more frustrating game initially as there is less feedback as to what is going on compared to CM1 IMO. But the game looks great, plays great and i am sure there are lots of new players getting over the learning curve and sticking with it.

[altipueri]

I think BFC should give the game engine away with a tutorial scenario and one short scenario. Then sell scenario packs. A variation on the free razor but you pay for the blades, although perhaps these days cheap printer and pay for the ink refills is a better analogy.

I'm disappointed at the low interest seen by younger people in "serious" wargames, yet these are the kids that are being recruited to fly drones and in the UK - Apache helicopters. Perhaps too much real history games might make them realise what happens on the screen is actually happening on the ground when they blow up another wedding party or a couple of Reuters journalists.

[Battlefront.com]

I guess I should chime in

Metacritic type systems are always skewed towards "lowest common denominator". They generally don't do well at rating niche market products. Whether that's video games, movies, music, books... you name it. Some of the best movies I have ever seen are rated fairly poorly because the movies are quirky or work on too many levels for the average movie goer. Because the movie was, apparently, aimed at my tastes I find it to be a lot better than the average.

Then there are the people that pile on the hate because it isn't what they wanted. The dedicated, hardcore CM haters that spend (it seems) more energy hating CM than liking something else, is not unique to CM or games. It's like a musical group changing their sound. Some love the new sound even better than the old one, and some don't. The more niche the group is, the more this happens. Why? Because there are less alternatives and so they resent losing something that can't be easily replaced.

If there were 10 games out there like CMx1 there would not be a dedicated CMx2 hate group. They are bitter, resentful, spiteful people because they had something they loved and we, literally, denied them more opportunities like it because nobody else picked up where we left off.

I can sympathize because I've got very niche music tastes and I've had bands go off in directions I can't follow. But I've also recognized there's bands I love albums 3, 4, 5, and 6 but don't like 1, 2, 7, and 8. So I am happy that the band evolved into something I liked for a while and mourn that it evolved again into something I don't like. The difference is I don't go around trying to piss all over the band's other works because I personally don't like it. That disrespects them and, In my view, makes me unworthy of enjoying the middle portion of the band's released. But I'm not mentally unstable, so it's easy for me to say that

Steve

[Redwolf]

Well this thread has inspired me to go and score this game highly on metacritic

Sounds like a very negative view that the BFC fan base is shrinking, are all the fans over the hill and on borrowed time!! I hope it is increasing as the games develop more and more. I started playing CM1 so i must admit if i came to CMBN now it could be a more frustrating game initially as there is less feedback as to what is going on compared to CM1 IMO. But the game looks great, plays great and i am sure there are lots of new players getting over the learning curve and sticking with it.

I don't think the learning curve as such is responsible. The interface is the major problem. The only reason why most here do OK with it is that there is either little exposure to other games (so you don't know what an efficient interface is like) or that people played so heavily that muscle memory took over and it indeed doesn't matter anymore.

Of course then there is other side of the coin, which is that many actually mainstream titles move like the bands that Steve just mentioned and take their interfaces to where I cannot follow, namely a console interface on a PC game. That's easier to "understand" but it is still an inefficient interface, you can't get the stuff done you want done in a timely manner.

Efficient interfaces are a must for games that have a lot of complexity that you can (and usually need to) control, unless you want to limit your audience to people who either develop muscle memory or stockholm syndrome.

Games like TacOps and CMx1 had very efficient interfaces, and I think it was a major contribution to both their success in their time and the continued worship they enjoy to this day.

[Childress]

If there were 10 games out there like CMx1 there would not be a dedicated CMx2 hate group.

That group definitely exists.You even run into some of 'em on Amazon. I'm expecting a scathing review of the MG module inside the next HMO newsletter. These range in tone from jilted lover venom to the regretful, damn-it-with-faint-praise approach perfected by you know who- apparently a niche speciality.

The closest analogy that comes to mind was, I've heard, the transition from Civ4 to Civ5. The developers eliminated the 'Stack-of-Doom'. Sounds like an upgrade to me but howls of treason arose from the Steam forums. But Sid Meier and the suits from Firaxis maintain a diplomatic absence from the trenches. They operate through surrogates.

[sburke]

They operate through surrogates.

Send in the flying monkeys!!

[womble]

I don't think the learning curve as such is responsible. The interface is the major problem. The only reason why most here do OK with it is that there is either little exposure to other games (so you don't know what an efficient interface is like) or that people played so heavily that muscle memory took over and it indeed doesn't matter anymore.

Muscle memory has almost nothing to do with WeGo play. Perhaps it's the prejudice against turnbased games that's helping people fail to get in touch with the game.

Games like TacOps and CMx1 had very efficient interfaces, and I think it was a major contribution to both their success in their time and the continued worship they enjoy to this day.

CMx1 had an "efficient" interface? Regardless of how valuable such a thing is in a turnbased game (and how CMx2's interface might compare, in WeGo, given that it has a much more involved and detailed environment to depict and facilitate manipulation of), I think that's thoroughly arguable.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the CM interface, and some tutorial on how to get the best out of it (which, AFAIAC, involves having a multibutton mouse and a custom hotkeys file) would make many peoples' complaints about the interface significantly less strident. But I reckon you could make a strong argument that CMx3 has a very efficient interface. Some points in its favour:

• What you see is what you get. Mostly. Doesn't get much more efficient than that (in video display land), once you can interpret what you're actually seeing. Judging whether a given building is solid enough to stop small arms or not, or whether a particular screen depiction of foliage is enough to hide your troops, yet allow them to peek out from the shadows: should (could?) that be better and more explicitly stated? Perhaps. But that applies equally to Interface v1.0, the Mark 1 eyeball.
  
• One keypress per command. If you don't use "relative" keymappings, direct keymaps let you have a hotkey for most things you want to do frequently and no keymap for the things you don't want to do accidentally. More potential keymaps would be great, preferably customisable, but it's no less "efficient", given that the environment is more complex by a couple of orders of magnitude, than the keystroke assignments in RTSs like StarCraft (which, by the way, I've probably played as many hours of as CMx2).
  
• Command range is efficiently shown by simple icon colour changes, without cluttery lines.
  
• There are plenty of ways of grouping units for mass treatments. Yeah, the keybound groups have been buggy, and fail to persist, which has made them next to useless outside RT, but that's gotta be a bug and will eventually get stomped.
  
• The precision of the interface mostly matches the precision that you, as the player need. So you can't tell whether a given team is in sight/voice or sight-voice C2 with their PltHQ just from looking at where the "bright" icons are relative to each other. You can sure have a good idea that they'll be in some sort of C2 (or not) though, and given all the other variables being applied to the elements of that platoon, that's really "good enough". More precise indications (fading/dashed/dotted lines for every element) would be nugatory and largely wasteful of both processing power and player cognition.
  

[A Canadian Cat]

But I reckon you could make a strong argument that CMx3 has a very efficient interface. Some points in its favour:

Hey no fair. You cannot make an argument that CM3x has an efficient interface with out at least letting us see what is looks like. You must be the only out side of BFC that is playing with CM3x.

[DavidFields]

Muscle memory has almost nothing to do with WeGo play. Perhaps it's the prejudice against turnbased games that's helping people fail to get in touch with the game.

• 
  
  
• One keypress per command. If you don't use "relative" keymappings, direct keymaps let you have a hotkey for most things you want to do frequently and no keymap for the things you don't want to do accidentally. More potential keymaps would be great, preferably customisable, but it's no less "efficient", given that the environment is more complex by a couple of orders of magnitude, than the keystroke assignments in RTSs like StarCraft (which, by the way, I've probably played as many hours of as CMx2).
  
• Command range is efficiently shown by simple icon colour changes, without cluttery lines.
  
• There are plenty of ways of grouping units for mass treatments. Yeah, the keybound groups have been buggy, and fail to persist, which has made them next to useless outside RT, but that's gotta be a bug and will eventually get stomped.
  
  

I play WEGO, and I understand the "muscle memory" part as being significant. I one is moving a company or two of infantry, even in WEGO, knowing what is where makes the process much more rapid--and bearable.

As far as the list, I don't even understand the first point above, because I prefer to use the mouse for everything--"relative" "direct" are unclear to me.

"Command range" is shown by icon change? I thought it just showed what are subordinate units. BTW, stumbling into even that was a marvelous revelation for me--as long as I did not double click on the HQ, then try to move it--forgetting that I am moving all its units--tell me you have not done that.

I have never used the "mass treatment" groupings--maybe I knew they existed, but, practically, that seems not very useful given the intense need to micromanage.

I am typing as a fan of CM2. Great to hear that Battlefront is doing so well. Fine. Continue.

And when are we getting to the Ost Front?

[Redwolf]

I play WEGO, and I understand the "muscle memory" part as being significant. I one is moving a company or two of infantry, even in WEGO, knowing what is where makes the process much more rapid--and bearable.

Yeah I don't understand at all why womble thinks that efficiency matters less if you have more time.

Inefficient user interfaces are bad because much of the brainpower you want to spend on "the point" (of the game, or whatever it is you are using) is diverted toward dealing with semantics. The second problem is that a lot of mental functions have very short half-live (famous 7-second rule is just one example) and that waiting for longer than a certain time decreases performance. If you don't spend the wasted time waiting but instead have to divert brainpower things become bad.

In a game there is no need for users to go through this and they just play something else.

If on the other hand you are dedicated enough and slug through until muscle memory kicks in then you don't notice a thing. That is why pretty much everybody on this forum is unqualified to judge this issue.

[lordhedgwich]

2nd on the ost front you guys have milked western front to death. I wouldnt be upset if you never made another west front game . Eastern front is where its all at anyway

[sburke]

That is why pretty much everybody on this forum is unqualified to judge this issue.

I can. I don't use hot keys to bind some special sequence that "feels" right or muscle memory. I do know I have to be in the move window to use "I" for quick but most of the time I simply click the button for quick. Really it isn't that hard and unless you are in some kind of godawful hurry- (late for work again?) where is the "wasted" time and lack of efficiency getting to be so extreme? Heck it's not like in the time that I might save that I am going to find the cure to cancer. Folks are acting like somehow the UI is making the game take 3-4x as long to play.

Most of my time playing is not eaten up by some laborious process of issuing commands, but rather watching the turn over and over again to see how the TAC AI is behaving.

And I do play other games.. though not anywhere near as much.

[Battlefront.com]

Anybody who thinks CM isn't wildly popular because of it's UI is dead wrong. Wargaming is a niche. Always has been, always will be. Wargaming will never, ever, in a billion years get to be a widespread genre. It is something that appeals to a very select type of gamer. Period. End of story.

The arguments that it can be different are tired, week, and unfounded. They've been around since before I got into this biz and they've still never borne fruit. Even the supposed "successes" weren't from a business side of things or were luckily timed and not repeatable.

Could CM's UI be better? Sure, as we ourselves prove as we improve it over time. But will it open some sort of floodgate of sales? Sadly, no. If it could do that we would spend all our time in UI coding and artwork. Which, of course, would cause all kinds of complaints from people already playing the game. First because people don't like radical change and second because the game itself would remain unchanged or even harmed. It's a lose lose strategy which, fortunately for you, we're not stupid enough to try.

Given all this one might think I'm saying we'll never improve CM's UI. That's wrong and our track record shows it to be. What I'm saying is that we make improvements based on what we know will make our actual customers happy, not based on a wasteful attempt to appeal to those who don't want it.

As for the dedicated CM haters... they never have, and never will, enter into our development strategy. They bitch, complain, deliberately misinform, and all that... but do nothing to harm us. In fact, some would say they help us because of that age old marketing saying that "there is no such thing as bad PR". That and many of them still buy our games. You know, just to be sure they still hate it

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

2nd on the ost front you guys have milked western front to death. I wouldnt be upset if you never made another west front game . Eastern front is where its all at anyway

For about 75% of our total audience, perhaps. As anybody whose frequented these Forums over the last 13 years will know... Eastern Front is my favorite topic, but I'm not blind to the reality that the Western Front is where the sales are at. I bet if we put out an all inclusive 1941-1945 Eastern Front game it would be outsold by a Battle of the Bulge game.

Argue all you like, but if you haven't been on the sales and development side of gaming then kindly keep in mind that you don't know what you're talking about

Where Eastern Front shines, from a sales standpoint, is it's predictability. The Eastern Front is HUGE and offers us tons of game opportunities. Each one is almost as likely as any other to sell strong. Not fantastic, but strong. Which means we are more willing to develop Eastern Front games because we are confident they aren't risky. Provided we scale our development costs to the effort it's a win-win for everybody. It's why we have waited so long to do Eastern Front, in fact. We had Modern and Western Front "fund" the game engine we now have. Which means we don't need to plow huge resources into the game portion of the Eastern Front since it's already (mostly) developed. If it wasn't I can assure you we wouldn't have an Eastern Front game already well under way.

Steve

[Buzz]

"….That and many of them still buy our games. You know, just to be sure they still hate it."

Steve

Maybe it is not actual "hate" more like a thorn in one's flesh kinda experience … that prickliy tickle that they might be WORNG that keeps them loathing CM so much they buy $ it .. just to make sure

[Redwolf]

Anybody who thinks CM isn't wildly popular because of it's UI is dead wrong. Wargaming is a niche. Always has been, always will be. Wargaming will never, ever, in a billion years get to be a widespread genre. It is something that appeals to a very select type of gamer. Period. End of story.

Well, staying in the metacritics world CMx2 still scores lower than other wargames - including your own. And it doesn't look like people who hate CMx2 because they are CMx1 fainbois have any influence on that. There isn't much noise from them in the general public. It really looks like reviewers got the point of CMx1 but don't get the point of CMx2.

So question is - why?

The general gaming world is bigger now but also more dumbed down. A number of people should appreciate more engaging games increasingly more. If the development in user acceptable goes down instead something is wrong.

And just in this thread we have a good number of CMx2 regular saying they don't play much else. No room to grow?

[Battlefront.com]

Well, staying in the metacritics world CMx2 still scores lower than other wargames - including your own. And it doesn't look like people who hate CMx2 because they are CMx1 fainbois have any influence on that. There isn't much noise from them in the general public. It really looks like reviewers got the point of CMx1 but don't get the point of CMx2.

Uhm... there are 25 total reviews posted. Do you really think a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of 1% of our customer base is a statistically relevant sampling? c'mon... you might not be the most unbiased guy, but surely you're not mathematically challenged enough to understand how utterly irrelevant that score is. And if not, would you still be willing to say the score is relevant if I asked this Forum to go over there and post a review?

So question is - why?

Because a couple of cranks putting in extremely low scores can really skew a small sampling. And I checked... not surprisingly I recognize a couple of the people posting negative comments. Some of it was worth a chuckle, but not of value beyond that.

The general gaming world is bigger now but also more dumbed down. A number of people should appreciate more engaging games increasingly more. If the development in user acceptable goes down instead something is wrong.

Indeed, so it's a good thing that's not happening to us Or do you have some scientifically/statistically relevant data on hand to trump our internal sales numbers?

And just in this thread we have a good number of CMx2 regular saying they don't play much else. No room to grow?

We have more than play other games. Most of our testers do, that's for sure. But that's because wargamers have always been more willing to play other games than the other way around. I actually enjoyed playing Risk more than Panzer Leader. Partly because I could find 5 people to play Risk without much of a problem but struggled to find 1 person to play Panzer Leader. So I guess Panzer Leader sucked?

Steve