Metacritic reviews

[Michael Emrys]

My opinion is that it would have been better to make a CMETO game and have all of the modules from Italy to Normandy to the Rhine in it.

Well, if we're gonna argue semantics, Italy was not in the ETO but the MTO. So there!

Michael

[Destraex1]

I am sure it is, however some of the problems might be on CM's side and not yours. We've been banging our heads as to why some high end video cards seemingly work worse than lower end ones. We identified a change in how the cards work that probably didn't matter for most 3D games but did for CM big time. It was pretty tricky to address it but preliminary testing is... well.. let's just say we should chat again after the next patch

And if you have an ATI card DEFINITELY turn off the mouse click option in Settings. We default it to OFF now, but it's possible that you still have it set to ON.

Steve

Thank you for the responses. I will keep my eyes peeled for the patch. However I have a Nvidia card. But like I said CPU core is at 100%. I have tried setting affinity to a free core. I do think that helped a little but need to experiment some more.

I am surprised Michael Emrys that WEGO presents a problem with the mouse because everything is paused. No calcs being done. I find my frame rate recovers if I pause. But again need to do more testing.

I am very surprised by the gents saying the run the game on highest settings and it is ultra smooth. I WANT THAT!! (obviously )

I own

All CMSF modules and base game

CM Normandy and the paid patch

CM Market Garden - Was hoping the latest one might help my problems (problems with the game that is )

CM fortress italy (but not the addon yet. Probably wait until I figure out what's wrong). I really appreciate that this theatre was done!! I crave this sort of thing.

At the moment it's love hate. Love the features and the way they work. Not such a fan of the UI camera and selection while having FPS and smoothness issues on the BEST settings.

As a result I keep buying them but rarely play! Where something like close combat I used to play constantly.

Just for the record my particular rig runs all my other games including rome2 at ultra.

Only one I have to be careful with is arma3 but I last played that in alpha. SES Jutland works well at the highest settings as does cliffs of dover also.

For the record here is my system summary. Only 8gig currently as the other 8gig module is faulty and has been removed.

The disks are going to look wierd as I have an intel 128gig SSD tethered to a 1gig mechanical in cache mode. This means that the two drives are treated as one in a special intel RAID (rapid storage) array. This means any game I run gets cached to the SSD. Second time I run it things happen almost instantly. My typical windows boot is literally 10 or 15 seconds.

[system Summary]

Item Value

OS Name Microsoft Windows 7 Professional

Version 6.1.7601 Service Pack 1 Build 7601

Other OS Description Not Available

OS Manufacturer Microsoft Corporation

System Name IRONDUKE-PC

System Manufacturer System manufacturer

System Model System Product Name

System Type x64-based PC

Processor Intel® Core i5-3570K CPU @ 3.40GHz, 3401 Mhz, 4 Core(s), 4 Logical Processor(s)

BIOS Version/Date American Megatrends Inc. 1408, 9/11/2012

SMBIOS Version 2.7

Windows Directory C:\Windows

System Directory C:\Windows\system32

Boot Device \Device\HarddiskVolume2

Locale Australia

Hardware Abstraction Layer Version = "6.1.7601.17514"

User Name IronDuke-PC\IronDuke

Time Zone AUS Eastern Daylight Time

Installed Physical Memory (RAM) 8.00 GB

Total Physical Memory 7.95 GB

Available Physical Memory 5.76 GB

Total Virtual Memory 15.9 GB

Available Virtual Memory 13.2 GB

Page File Space 7.95 GB

Page File C:\pagefile.sys

[Display]

Item Value

Name NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670

PNP Device ID PCI\VEN_10DE&DEV_1189&SUBSYS_35421458&REV_A1\4&BAB4994&0&0008

Adapter Type GeForce GTX 670, NVIDIA compatible

Adapter Description NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670

Adapter RAM (2,147,483,648) bytes

Installed Drivers nvd3dumx.dll,nvwgf2umx.dll,nvwgf2umx.dll,nvd3dum,nvwgf2um,nvwgf2um

Driver Version 9.18.13.3158

INF File oem53.inf (Section089 section)

Color Planes Not Available

Color Table Entries 4294967296

Resolution 1920 x 1200 x 59 hertz

Bits/Pixel 32

Memory Address 0xF6000000-0xF70FFFFF

Memory Address 0xE8000000-0xF1FFFFFF

Memory Address 0xF0000000-0xF1FFFFFF

I/O Port 0x0000E000-0x0000EFFF

IRQ Channel IRQ 16

I/O Port 0x000003B0-0x000003BB

I/O Port 0x000003C0-0x000003DF

Memory Address 0xA0000-0xBFFFF

Driver c:\windows\system32\drivers\nvlddmkm.sys (9.18.13.3158, 11.96 MB (12,537,632 bytes), 23/10/2013 6:11 PM)

[Disks]

Item Value

Description Disk drive

Manufacturer (Standard disk drives)

Model DWW-ACRT0A00086

Bytes/Sector 512

Media Loaded Yes

Media Type Fixed hard disk

Partitions 1

SCSI Bus 0

SCSI Logical Unit 0

SCSI Port 0

SCSI Target ID 1

Sectors/Track 63

Size 931.51 GB (1,000,202,273,280 bytes)

Total Cylinders 121,601

Total Sectors 1,953,520,065

Total Tracks 31,008,255

Tracks/Cylinder 255

Partition Disk #1, Partition #0

Partition Size 931.51 GB (1,000,202,043,392 bytes)

Partition Starting Offset 1,048,576 bytes

Description Disk drive

Manufacturer (Standard disk drives)

Model Volume_0000

Bytes/Sector 512

Media Loaded Yes

Media Type Fixed hard disk

Partitions 1

SCSI Bus 0

SCSI Logical Unit 0

SCSI Port 0

SCSI Target ID 0

Sectors/Track 63

Size 47.79 GB (51,309,296,640 bytes)

Total Cylinders 6,238

Total Sectors 100,213,470

Total Tracks 1,590,690

Tracks/Cylinder 255

Partition Disk #0, Partition #0

Partition Size 47.79 GB (51,311,017,984 bytes)

Partition Starting Offset 1,048,576 bytes

[Battlefront.com]

My point is I don't actually have a point, you can make games as slow or as fast as you want and you can re-define your products as often as you like.

We're certainly not ones to be wedded to things that we find don't work, nor are we shy about trying new things that we think will work better. Probably the reason why we're still around more than anything else.

Shortly after CMSF shipped we had hoped to have 1-2 Base Games and 3-4 Modules a year. That was our goal at least.

Despite making major improvements to our release timeframes (see above) we realized that Modules wound up looking more like Base Games instead of being true addons. At least in terms of the volume of work. So we came up with the Pack concept to help strike a better balance between release times and content volume.

I'm cool with all of it and while I'm looking forward to the next Eastern front game I'm not in a hurry to see it rushed out. Do it when it's done.

That's our thinking too.

My opinion is that it would have been better to make a CMETO game and have all of the modules from Italy to Normandy to the Rhine in it. No pratting around with differing versions, more guys may have bought into all of it, me for one and possible more money overall for BF.

There's not enough overlap between the two to make that viable for us. The Italian Front is *NOT* the same as the NW European Front. There's far more differences than there are similarities. It makes no sense for us to combine the two together because they weren't together in real life either.

Note that I don't mind if someone, like you, doesn't appreciate the differences enough to want to purchase Italy. That's fine as we knew this would be the case as it was for CMAK. But the fact is that from a development standpoint they really do need to be separate if we're going to maintain our overall goals of quality and customer flexibility. You'll argue the latter point, but we'd have to start making Module purchases dependent upon each other to make the Italian content work. And that means less choice.

Only one game to patch and update makes more sense to me seeing that they are essentially the same games set in different areas of the same continent.

But that's just it... they aren't the same areas and they aren't the same content. The same underlying game engine is true, of course, but that's going to be true when we have Eastern Front and Modern in the mix.

Yes I've played the demo and it's just not different enough to warrant a purchase from me but I probably would have sprung for a couple of modules. Same goes for the bulge game! I won't be buying it as it will be more of the same but I would have bought a bulge module as opposed to a new game covering essentially the same theatre...

Different weather, different terrain, different units, different nations, different weaponry... I don't see the argument that it's the same any more than someone saying a chocolate chip cookie is the same as a shortbread biscuit.

I'm sure someone with more business sense than I have worked it all out years ago though.

Business and technical sense, yes

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Thank you for the responses. I will keep my eyes peeled for the patch. However I have a Nvidia card.

Hard to say what your experience with the patch will be, but I'm sure it will be better than it is now. If it isn't significantly better then we should probably have another chat to try and figure out what's going wrong with you. Likely something specific to your setup, but that doesn't mean there isn't a work around!

Steve

[MikeyD]

I do wonder why people who don't comprehend the historical differences in equipment over time, or the variations in terrain across theaters, or the tactical effect of changes in TO&E are even visiting the chat board. What's left to talk about besides that?

[GSX]

I do wonder why people who don't comprehend the historical differences in equipment over time, or the variations in terrain across theaters, or the tactical effect of changes in TO&E are even visiting the chat board. What's left to talk about besides that?

Of course I understand the historical differences over time, imp not saying here that a WW1 game would play out the same as a WW2 game and that equipment doesn't change over time.

But surely even you can understand that from Jun 44 to May 45 is 11 months of war that was essentially fought with the same equipment and TOE. You can arbitrarily choose the Bulge as a cut off point to somehow redefine equipment and tactics all you want but at the time it wasn't noted by anyone as a significant change. Both the allied and German armies remained essentially the same throughout the whole period.

The main tanks were still the Sherman and the PzIV,Stug and Panther. Yes there were other vehicles, some extremely rare but nothing that mattered one fig to the fighting power of either side.

Allied infantry formations may have been tweaked slightly but in reality it still came down to the few grunts at the tip of the spear that pretty much fought the same way they did for that 11 months.

I just can't see your argument about things changing in such a small space of time holding water. Terrain wise, well I have travelled over the battlefields and lived in various parts in my time and while terrain is different is that something that cannot be modelled without a new game? There's not any significant terrain changes on the German border! or Belgium that would need a whole new game to model. If you can point some out I'd be very grateful.

So what's left to talk about? Plenty I think. Here's my list of hopes for CM:

Infantry formations

CM models individual soldiers but does not track them or treat them for game purposes as individual. The game also models and tracks individual rounds. The combination of the two leads to a less than perfect infantry fight because there has to be a fudge between how accurate the game is and how inaccurate the individuals are portrayed. Soldiers in CM bunch up and real soldiers almost often don't because if they did they would all die when that MG42 opens up.

So I'd still like to see a state where soldiers are true individuals that are part of their section and are able to adopt at least 3 formations. Line, column, extended line and a V echelon would be nice. I could then move my infantry as infantry really move and not at the present where I have to micro manage them to get any real simulation out of them.

Cover

I don't understand it and at times am wondering if it even exists for infantry at all or if it's another fudge. I can never trust any cover to really protect my troops and there's times when they do a lot better just being in the open.

Understanding fire power/suppression

Although I roughly know what a British squad is capable of pumping out against that enemy there are times when I don't understand how or why the enemy could possible shoot back. This inability to suppress has often lead to failures in tactics as my flanking forces has been spotted far too easily and shot up, which doesn't happen too often in real life in these situations.

Armour accuracy and experience

Still too great in my opinion and I still get the wonderful moments of a tank concentrating on another target to the front, suddenly turning on my bazooka team and killing it when it was to the rear. I've also had far too many instances of tank crews killing other tanks when they have appeared fleetingly off to a side arc for literally a few seconds. Real life instances iof this are very rare, even in modern tanks. I still feel like I'm playing CMSF in some instances.

Spotting

I just don't understand this and get really inconsistent results. Some times as above I can spot for miles and kill for miles and others I've had a tank hunter team sit about ten yards from a panzer and they can't see it! it's been very inconsistent for me.

So to answer your questions, there are certainly loads to talk about in the game and the way that it works other than talking about something which apart from snow we can make with a current game and certainly if a few more modules were released could easily be made into a Bulge game. Steve's already explained to me why that won't happen and it makes financial sense for hi. But a bulge Module and various packs could easily have brought CMBN into Bulge as the differences are minute, not huge.

Cheers

[AttorneyAtWar]

Of course I understand the historical differences over time, imp not saying here that a WW1 game would play out the same as a WW2 game and that equipment doesn't change over time.

But surely even you can understand that from Jun 44 to May 45 is 11 months of war that was essentially fought with the same equipment and TOE. You can arbitrarily choose the Bulge as a cut off point to somehow redefine equipment and tactics all you want but at the time it wasn't noted by anyone as a significant change. Both the allied and German armies remained essentially the same throughout the whole period.

The main tanks were still the Sherman and the PzIV,Stug and Panther. Yes there were other vehicles, some extremely rare but nothing that mattered one fig to the fighting power of either side.

Allied infantry formations may have been tweaked slightly but in reality it still came down to the few grunts at the tip of the spear that pretty much fought the same way they did for that 11 months.

I just can't see your argument about things changing in such a small space of time holding water. Terrain wise, well I have travelled over the battlefields and lived in various parts in my time and while terrain is different is that something that cannot be modelled without a new game? There's not any significant terrain changes on the German border! or Belgium that would need a whole new game to model. If you can point some out I'd be very grateful.

So what's left to talk about? Plenty I think. Here's my list of hopes for CM:

Infantry formations

CM models individual soldiers but does not track them or treat them for game purposes as individual. The game also models and tracks individual rounds. The combination of the two leads to a less than perfect infantry fight because there has to be a fudge between how accurate the game is and how inaccurate the individuals are portrayed. Soldiers in CM bunch up and real soldiers almost often don't because if they did they would all die when that MG42 opens up.

So I'd still like to see a state where soldiers are true individuals that are part of their section and are able to adopt at least 3 formations. Line, column, extended line and a V echelon would be nice. I could then move my infantry as infantry really move and not at the present where I have to micro manage them to get any real simulation out of them.

Cover

I don't understand it and at times am wondering if it even exists for infantry at all or if it's another fudge. I can never trust any cover to really protect my troops and there's times when they do a lot better just being in the open.

Understanding fire power/suppression

Although I roughly know what a British squad is capable of pumping out against that enemy there are times when I don't understand how or why the enemy could possible shoot back. This inability to suppress has often lead to failures in tactics as my flanking forces has been spotted far too easily and shot up, which doesn't happen too often in real life in these situations.

Armour accuracy and experience

Still too great in my opinion and I still get the wonderful moments of a tank concentrating on another target to the front, suddenly turning on my bazooka team and killing it when it was to the rear. I've also had far too many instances of tank crews killing other tanks when they have appeared fleetingly off to a side arc for literally a few seconds. Real life instances iof this are very rare, even in modern tanks. I still feel like I'm playing CMSF in some instances.

Spotting

I just don't understand this and get really inconsistent results. Some times as above I can spot for miles and kill for miles and others I've had a tank hunter team sit about ten yards from a panzer and they can't see it! it's been very inconsistent for me.

So to answer your questions, there are certainly loads to talk about in the game and the way that it works other than talking about something which apart from snow we can make with a current game and certainly if a few more modules were released could easily be made into a Bulge game. Steve's already explained to me why that won't happen and it makes financial sense for hi. But a bulge Module and various packs could easily have brought CMBN into Bulge as the differences are minute, not huge.

Cheers

I agree that soldiers bunch up way to much, and some formations would definitely be useful instead of how we do it now.

However, breaking down the squads does allow a bit more of what you are talking about. I would definitely like to see it implemented though!

[Childress]

So I'd still like to see a state where soldiers are true individuals that are part of their section and are able to adopt at least 3 formations. Line, column, extended line and a V echelon would be nice. I could then move my infantry as infantry really move and not at the present where I have to micro manage them to get any real simulation out of them.

As infantry really moved? Please furnish an example of a WW2 squad assuming a formation under actual combat conditions. A photo or link will do.

[LongLeftFlank]

By "actual combat conditions", do you mean "once the unit is directly under fire" or "manoeuvring or advancing to contact within the battlespace typically represented by a CM scenario?" Nobody can seriously argue that such things did not exist, and were not used to control advancing troops, maintain spacing and command frontages, at least until all hell broke lose.

FWIW, I'd like to see tactical formations too -- for men and vehicles -- someday, as a timesaver, even though it's not at the very top of my own wish list.

[Oddball_E8]

As infantry really moved? Please furnish an example of a WW2 squad assuming a formation under actual combat conditions. A photo or link will do.

I have no idea what he might mean, but 90% of the time when my infantry move, they move in a column...

Not exactly ideal in all conditions

[ASL Veteran]

I do wonder why people who don't comprehend the historical differences in equipment over time, or the variations in terrain across theaters, or the tactical effect of changes in TO&E are even visiting the chat board. What's left to talk about besides that?

You are wasting your time because he is a 'feature' guy. The only thing that matters to him are new features. He would happily continue playing the CMBN base game without any additional scenarios, campaigns, nations, formations, terrain, or weather conditions as long as he continued to get new features because none of the other stuff counts as 'value' to him. Fortunately, the way things are structured now he now has the option to simply play the CMBN base game and just buy the upgrades when they become available and patch his game as the patches are released. With this strategy he won't have to feel ripped off when he actually has to pay for scenarios, new TO&E, or a couple of bridges and windmills since he can just opt out and stick with the CMBN base game.

[Childress]

By "actual combat conditions", do you mean "once the unit is directly under fire" or "manoeuvring or advancing to contact within the battlespace typically represented by a CM scenario?"

Yes. There's no photographic or documentary proof that this happened on the squad level outside training grounds. Perhaps- maybe- Line Abreast (for Vets) but nothing more complex. There's no evidence. Battles are chaotic and frightening, every pair of eyes is searching for cover. You do, however, read of battalions and companies advancing in formation- even the Arrowhead.

Please back up your assertions. Preferably with an archival photo- there are thousands of them. This one proved to be bogus:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=108670&page=16&highlight=line+abreast

[LongLeftFlank]

Oh, I get it now. This has been a hot topic for some time I see. Interesting.

Well for infantry in the pre-assault rifle era, I won't argue for arrowhead, echelon left/right or even tactical column. But I am pretty sure a skirmish line command (or simply advance abreast not in column) command is both useful and was widely practiced in combat. Just common sense, really, more than a 'drill'... you're less likely to shoot your buddies.

I guess I need to look through some photo collections for shots of infantry advancing dispersed abreast, but one that comes ready to hand is footage from Dien Bien Phu. Not WWII but same tactical era and comparable weapons. A French para squad storms a bunker (no identifiable formation per se), ducks under fire, then forms up raggedly abreast and charges forward (behind smoke grenades?) before being checked again. Watch the clip a few times.

Good eye, John, well done. The THC/TMC documentary doesn't include anything factually new, and as you observe, it basically lifts footage from the Vietnamese documentary. The producers are more concerned with a rapid fire series of action-packed images that supports the dramatic narration than with strict authenticity, so this kind of "evidence" needs to be carefully sifted. A snip of the film clip in question is displayed from 19:23-19:26. I'd guess those explosions in the foreground are smoke grenades -- if you look at the still, it looks like at least one figure is throwing a grenade as they come over the crest.

A slightly longer clip (still broken into bits) goes from 45:15-45:34 of the

It shows

(1) The French first scrambling around in plain view of bo doi (!) for several seconds on the blockhouse (?), then rapidly ducking under some incoming rounds -- they vanish in a split second, amazing to watch! My best guess is that they've just stormed the blockhouse after ascending the forward slope.

(3) then charging in a broad skirmish line over the crest (per the famous still above) -- those white puffs are definitely smoke grenades, not counterfire -- a continuation shown here. Their skirmish line enters enfilade of the VM in the foreground

(4) then going to ground under heavy fire and finally retreating in the haze (you can dimly see figures running backwards in the last second).

[GSX]

You are wasting your time because he is a 'feature' guy. The only thing that matters to him are new features. He would happily continue playing the CMBN base game without any additional scenarios, campaigns, nations, formations, terrain, or weather conditions as long as he continued to get new features because none of the other stuff counts as 'value' to him. Fortunately, the way things are structured now he now has the option to simply play the CMBN base game and just buy the upgrades when they become available and patch his game as the patches are released. With this strategy he won't have to feel ripped off when he actually has to pay for scenarios, new TO&E, or a couple of bridges and windmills since he can just opt out and stick with the CMBN base game.

Seriously? What makes you think that? I could easily say that your view lacks realism or that what you call a feature is pretty much integral to the way infantry for example actually carry out their business.

You can be classed as a 'eye candy' guy then, someone who doesnt care about any realistic features but only wants nice things to look at.

In truth Id rather have a functioning infantry formation than a nice looking Windmill.

[GSX]

As infantry really moved? Please furnish an example of a WW2 squad assuming a formation under actual combat conditions. A photo or link will do.

You are pulling my leg, right?

You can start here if you like:

http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/Tactics/Formations/rifle_squad.htm

What do you think soldiers learn in basic training and practice constantly throughout their careers? How to look good in green?

[Childress]

You are pulling my leg, right?

You can start here if you like:

http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/Tactics/Formations/rifle_squad.htm

What do you think soldiers learn in basic training and practice constantly throughout their careers? How to look good in green?

This is long. Can you give us the Cliff Notes version? Remember, theories, training manuals, parade grounds and DoW bulletins don't count. Anecdotes, photos and films do. We need flying bullets.

Edit: I ran into this useful post from Michael Emrys buried in the thread cited above:

Oh, the teamwork was there, but from what I can recall after looking at hundreds of photos over the years of infantrymen in combat is that the formations were pretty amorphous most of the time. That is, men placed themselves wherever there was cover and/or they could get a shot at the enemy, and all that was determined by terrain. An exception being when they were moving through terrain that forced them to move in single file, like when following a jungle trail or confined mountainous terrain. In an open field, they might shake out into a loose skirmish line, but I wouldn't expect them to be evenly spaced or equally advanced. In wooded country, their formations would best be described as "blobs" with each man trying to keep within visual range of at least two or three of his squad mates. In urban fighting, two or three guys were usually very close together, but with spacing between such groups dependent on the tactical situation.

All this is for troops with some combat experience. Green troops tended to bunch up more except for stragglers.

[akd]

You are pulling my leg, right?

You can start here if you like:

http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/Tactics/Formations/rifle_squad.htm

What do you think soldiers learn in basic training and practice constantly throughout their careers? How to look good in green?

Many of the basic formations are intended to prevent masking of fire in the most likely direction of contact. Soldiers within a CM squad do not mask eachother's fire, so many squad-level formations are mostly irrelevant.

Regardless, much of what is discussed in the link is already in the player's power. Also seems you skipped right over the most important part of that text:

In the advance to the start line for an assault, there was room for the more formal interpretations of movement, but once in action terrain and enemy fire became the primary factors.

[GSX]

This is long. Can you give us the Cliff Notes version? Remember, theories, training manuals, parade grounds and DoW bulletins don't count. Anecdotes, photos and films do. We need flying bullets.

Edit: I ran into this useful post from Michael Emrys buried in the thread cited above:

Oh, the teamwork was there, but from what I can recall after looking at hundreds of photos over the years of infantrymen in combat is that the formations were pretty amorphous most of the time. That is, men placed themselves wherever there was cover and/or they could get a shot at the enemy, and all that was determined by terrain. An exception being when they were moving through terrain that forced them to move in single file, like when following a jungle trail or confined mountainous terrain. In an open field, they might shake out into a loose skirmish line, but I wouldn't expect them to be evenly spaced or equally advanced. In wooded country, their formations would best be described as "blobs" with each man trying to keep within visual range of at least two or three of his squad mates. In urban fighting, two or three guys were usually very close together, but with spacing between such groups dependent on the tactical situation.

All this is for troops with some combat experience. Green troops tended to bunch up more except for stragglers.

Of course they dont count, in your world, they certainly count in mine. No decent infantry would ever advance to contact in a bunch. It is plain common sense and no matter how you try and dismiss me to prove otherwise it is and has been the truth for a lot longer than the last few years.

Infantry formations are proven to work and are used and have been used in battle for a lot of years.

Try this one, prove to me they arent used and werent used.

Cheers:)

[GSX]

Many of the basic formations are intended to prevent masking of fire in the most likely direction of contact. Soldiers within a CM squad do not mask eachother's fire, so many squad-level formations are mostly irrelevant.

Regardless, much of what is discussed in the link is already in the player's power. Also seems you skipped right over the most important part of that text:

This is why I dont tend to post here and many posters just plain give up. In your world and many others here, anyone who has anything to say against the game is instantly ganged up on by a few select posters who then hound the original poster to the point where they just give up.

Please explain to me how the infantry abstraction system works then so that I do not need to have a formation?

Surely if my troops are travelling in a big bunch and they take fire from the front, then all of the tracked bullets are hitting a smaller target? Why wouldn't they benefit from being in an extended line??

Or are you saying that the game automatically abstracts both incoming and outgoing fire to compensate. Because thats not what Im seeing.

Im not getting into an endless debate about formations as Ive been there before and Steve was kind enough to explain why it wouldnt happen.

I mentioned some things Id like to see and I would still like to see realistic infantry formations. I believe it would add to the games realism.

Cheers

[Michael Emrys]

CM models individual soldiers but does not track them or treat them for game purposes as individual.

I think this is rooted in design philosophy as much as technical limitations on how much data our computers can handle in a reasonable amount of time during a turn. And that is that CM is geared toward showing how tactics worked at this level, not on individual heroics or lack of same. Now people who get their knowledge and images of the war primarily from movies are strongly biased in the opposite direction, because individual heroics make a better story, one that our human minds are geared to follow naturally. But to tell the truth, wars are not fought and won by individuals. You could take Sergeant York and Audie Murphy, along with all the MOH, VC, CdG, KC, and HSU winners out of the war and the final outcome would remain substantially the same. That's because while individuals may not win battles (most of the time), organizations do. Platoons, companies, battalions and larger organizations do. When you go to the East Front, you almost have to have an army in order to have any sort of critical impact.

One of the first things an army does in training recruits, is to force them to dissolve their previous self identity and merge with the corporate identity of their squad and platoon. It is one of the many odious aspects of war, but it is a big part of what can win one. I guess this is one reason why I have shied away from spending much of my reading time on the East Front. All the millions of individuals who fought there simply vanish into its vastness. And conversely it is why I find North Africa endlessly fascinating. The forces committed there were small enough that some individuals at least retain some identifiable characteristics and are able to impose their personalities on their fates—even if only in limited ways.

So if you would like to track individual soldiers, that's fine, it is a valid desire taken abstractly (the technical problems still remain, but I think you know that). But I have a different set of desires, and for the present it looks like the makers of CM are more apt to cater to mine than yours.

Michael

Oh, and BTW, you are mistaken about the German army not changing during the last months of the war. The Volksgrenadiers, the Panzer Brigades, and finally, desperately, the Volksturm, were all departures from what had existed before. And there were other less dramatic ones as well.

[Childress]

... anyone who has anything to say against the game is instantly ganged up on by a few select posters who then hound the original poster to the point where they just give up.

And vice versa. Here's an idea: divide a US squads into its three constituent parts and send them on their way. Voila! You have a Flying Wedge.

Please explain to me how the infantry abstraction system works then so that I do not need to have a formation?

Use Hunt and they'll spread. Or judicious pauses when Quick moving.

My problem with Quick is that after a few dozens meters they the men begin to form a Conga line divided by, in the case of US squads, their three organic teams. They do start out in a usefully ragged manner. This could be improved. The Italians are the worst.

Cheers.

[ASL Veteran]

Seriously? What makes you think that?

You did say this didn't you?

But surely even you can understand that from Jun 44 to May 45 is 11 months of war that was essentially fought with the same equipment and TOE. You can arbitrarily choose the Bulge as a cut off point to somehow redefine equipment and tactics all you want but at the time it wasn't noted by anyone as a significant change. Both the allied and German armies remained essentially the same throughout the whole period.

The main tanks were still the Sherman and the PzIV,Stug and Panther. Yes there were other vehicles, some extremely rare but nothing that mattered one fig to the fighting power of either side.

That seems pretty clear that you don't really care about new TO&E or terrain or did I misunderstand? Soviets, Heer, SS, Fallschirmjager, American, British, Italian ..... they are all basically the same thing. A hill is just a hill and a tree is just a tree.

I could easily say that your view lacks realism

I suppose you could, but then I never made any indication one way or another as to what I consider value did I? I'm also not the one taking a position in this thread about what I consider worthy of a purchase - you are the one doing that.

or that what you call a feature is pretty much integral to the way infantry for example actually carry out their business.

Okay, so you consider 'features' to be integral to the way infantry carry out their business - so what. That doesn't contradict anything that either you or I posted. If the CMBN base game was the perfect infantry simulator in every concievable way and that was your sole source of value for the product then why would you need to purchase any other module, pack, or base game?

You can be classed as a 'eye candy' guy then, someone who doesnt care about any realistic features but only wants nice things to look at.

Wow, that's a pretty broad definition for eye candy. So as far as you are concerned new TO&E, scenarios, campaigns, terrain, nations, weather conditions, etc .... basically everything that isn't a core engine improvement ... is classified as 'eye candy'. That's a very interesting perspective you have there.

In truth Id rather have a functioning infantry formation than a nice looking Windmill.

So if I'm understanding you correctly then, everything that is in the game that has nothing to do with the game's actual mechanics is all just a bunch of eye candy. Scenarios are eye candy. Campaigns are eye candy. TO&E is eye candy. Terrain is eye candy.

I can see where someone would have that viewpoint. I don't know how you play and enjoy the game, but I guess if you played nothing but Quick Battles and you had already figured out to the last point what your perfect Quick Battle force was and you selected the same force every time you play then yeah, nothing but features would matter to a player like that.

[GSX]

Y

So if I'm understanding you correctly then, everything that is in the game that has nothing to do with the game's actual mechanics is all just a bunch of eye candy. Scenarios are eye candy. Campaigns are eye candy. TO&E is eye candy. Terrain is eye candy.

I can see where someone would have that viewpoint. I don't know how you play and enjoy the game, but I guess if you played nothing but Quick Battles and you had already figured out to the last point what your perfect Quick Battle force was and you selected the same force every time you play then yeah, nothing but features would matter to a player like that.

I actually didnt say any of that, but if thats what you read, then I apologise for not getting my point across as well as you have.

I will try and simplify it.

I was asked a specific question and answered it specifically by stating that there is plenty to talk about. You made it into some crusade against any new additions to a game which I did not.

Simply put my thoughts were that the Bulge could be a simple Module for CMBB as it didnt really add anything different from CMBN and that the cut of was not recognised back then.

Your premise is something different and I dont really understand where your coming from with it.

As for infantry formations, I was simply stating that it was one of the features Id like to see added and was something worth talking about.

Im sorry for spoiling your day by asking questions about a game I like which can still be improved a lot in my opinion.

As usual, some folks here cant take any discussions on this subject without labelling the poster as some sort of looney malcontent hell bent on trashing CMBN.

Anything that improves realism over 'eye candy' in my book is better and I never said new formations were eye candy, I did say a windmill was though.

Ill leave this thread to the guys who seem to want to claim it as their own now or the circle will just continue....

Cheers

[Michael Emrys]

GSX, if I may make an observation in a way that i hope will come across as friendly, because that is how I mean it: I think part of the problem you are having communicating is that either

1) You haven't thought through the implications of what you are asking for, or

2) You have but don't know how to express your thoughts in ways that can be understood as you mean them to be.

This occurs to me because your tone seems to become increasingly defensive and you blame the problem on others who may in fact not be entirely blameless, but blaming them won't help to communicate. My opinion? I think you need to spend more time trying to get a handle on what it is at bottom that you really want. I think that if you do that honestly and completely, it will become clear what you need to say or not say about it here. At least it works that way for me.

Michael

[Destraex1]

With regard to individual soldier I thought every bullet from every soldier was tracked?

If not it makes a lot of sense because I see a fair few poi t blank clip unloads by one soldier into another at point blank range that do nothing. Previously I just thought this was due more to Los and terrain mechanics.