First impression

[owenjones]

Exactly my experience Ken. For this reason I keep a stash of 1st and 2nd turn saves, if I'm feeling lazy I fire one of them up. Admittedly I've already fought the battle, but if enough time has passed I can't quite remember where all the enemy forces were disposed and I try a different approach.

Glad to know I'm not the only one who, dog and girlfriend asleep, sometimes sit down to some CMBN and instead of playing just reads a book as I realize I have no battles in progress and the thought of starting a new one is too daunting.

[BigAlMoho2]

I am enjoying CMBN and will probably buy CMFI at some point...

I was always opposed the RealTime aspect of CM2 as I never had any intention of playing RealTime... It still feels like WeGo pasted on top of RealTime rather than being optimized for WeGo right from the core... All in all, a pretty fine game, that still manages to irritate me every time I fire it up...

[Battlefront.com]

Sorry, but in my opinion CMBN is the edition of missed opportunities.

When a customer says this I listen. But when a customer claims CM doesn't have what it factually has, then claims it is because of something that's also not true... well... I start to lose interest. I mean, what's the point of placing value on a customer's opinion when there's actually no value in it to be had?

Two cases in point:

CMX2 pretended to be much more advanced, graphic- and simulation wise,

Er... right. CMx2 is vastly more advanced vs CMx1 in every single technical and simulation aspect. Every single one. And in many cases not by a small margin, but by huge leaps and bounds. Now, one can say that it isn't as fun to play, because that's a personal opinion, but facts should never be confused with opinion. Which is why I don't watch a certain US news network.

Clearly developers have tried to appease the real time playing masses, but this hybrid version has many short comings when it comes to turn play.

I have heard this claim many times since CMSF came out. I've always asked people what the WeGo "short comings" are. There have been three identifiable downsides:

1. No "Blue Bar" turn number crunching in the first couple of point releases of Shock Force. Since then there's the beloved Blue Bar, so it's not been an issue for about 6 years.

2. No ability to play TCP/IP WeGo. True, though it's a minority used feature and therefore it very correctly hasn't been high up on our ToDo List. Though that will change soon. Though regrettably not with the ability to replay the previous turn's combat as you can in PBEM.

So the inability for people who like to play H2H TCP/IP WeGo with replay is the only sacrifice I can think of that resulted from making the game engine inherently RealTime.

Of course there are a ton of advantages CMx2 WeGo being based on RealTime compared to CMx1, but obviously someone who can get so many fundamental facts wrong isn't likely going to notice them. Or even acknowledge them when I (yet again) detail them.

1. True shot vectors. No more hitting tanks behind buildings because LOF was established a few seconds before when the tank was out in the open.

2. No more artillery rounds impacting after 60 seconds were up because the system had to resolve all incoming rounds before the turn ended, even if they hadn't hit the ground yet.

3. Endless numbers of other features that are in CMx2 that aren't in CMx1 because CMx1's inherent WeGo architecture was such a problem that we didn't even try to overcome it.

As for battle size and computer "hangs", I play on a 7 year old Mac laptop and have no difficulties playing any of the monster scenarios GeorgeMc and PaperTiger crank out. And that was even before the v2.11 speed improvements. So I shudder to think how old McAuliffe's system is if it can only handle a company sized force without hanging. I wasn't aware that a Pentium III system could even handle CMx2

I'm sure what I just said won't change McAuliffe's mind because someone who still bases his opinions on such easily proven factually flawed nonsense probably isn't very interested in being corrected. For some facts are merely things to be changed to support an opinion, not the other way around.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I was always opposed the RealTime aspect of CM2 as I never had any intention of playing RealTime... It still feels like WeGo pasted on top of RealTime rather than being optimized for WeGo right from the core...

I still don't get this. What exactly is it that makes you feel like WeGo is being hampered by RT? Besides what I mentioned above, I can't see anything WeGo related that's being held back by RealTime. In fact, I think if anything it's the opposite. There's a factual case to make that the inherent realtime nature of the game engine actually makes WeGo better.

I think if we released CMx2 v3.0 without RealTime that WeGoer's would suddenly say "NOW we have true WeGo! Thanks Battlefront!". Even though all that happened was removing a menu option to select RealTime. In other words, I think the mere fact that there is a RealTime option is what's driving this sort of thinking rather than than a factual basis.

Steve

[BigAlMoho2]

I still don't get this. What exactly is it that makes you feel like WeGo is being hampered by RT? Besides what I mentioned above, I can't see anything WeGo related that's being held back by RealTime. In fact, I think if anything it's the opposite. There's a factual case to make that the inherent realtime nature of the game engine actually makes WeGo better.

I think if we released CMx2 v3.0 without RealTime that WeGoer's would suddenly say "NOW we have true WeGo! Thanks Battlefront!". Even though all that happened was removing a menu option to select RealTime. In other words, I think the mere fact that there is a RealTime option is what's driving this sort of thinking rather than than a factual basis.

Steve

Well, I just recently purchased the game and I am not able to be much more specific at this time... It just feels unnatural, somehow... (Targeting "action spots" instead of WYSIWYG is visually wrong, for instance)...

I understand that you "can't see anything WeGo that's being held back by RealTime"... and, I grant you that there may be RealTime features that improve WeGo... At the same time, I would hope that you would be able to grant that there may be aspects of RealTime that have the opposite effect on WeGo...

(Regarding your second paragraph, I can't believe that you really think that WeGoer's are that shallow and if you do, it might be time for a long, hard look in the mirror...)

Either way, I am starting to get into the game some, and I am enjoying the editor quite a bit...

[JonS]

(Targeting "action spots" instead of WYSIWYG is visually wrong, for instance)

Wait ... what? What on earth does that have to do with RT and WEGO?

[womble]

I still don't get this. What exactly is it that makes you feel like WeGo is being hampered by RT? Besides what I mentioned above, I can't see anything WeGo related that's being held back by RealTime. In fact, I think if anything it's the opposite. There's a factual case to make that the inherent realtime nature of the game engine actually makes WeGo better.

The only features I can see that make RT a sticking-point for WeGo are those very few commands which only act "now" rather than at a waypoint (Bail, dismount... I'm sure there are one or two more, but the caffiene hasn't reached my brain yet). Meaning that since the "now" that's accessible to the WeGo player is the orders phase, there are some arguably clunky interactions. Terribly minor, but nice if it could change some day so that the orders could be applied to waypoints. Historically, too, the relative keybind model was, IIRC, touted as being best/fastest for RT play, and came as the default.

It's good to hear an explanation of the "under the hood" things that the RT model affects beneficially.

Well, I just recently purchased the game and I am not able to be much more specific at this time... It just feels unnatural, somehow... (Targeting "action spots" instead of WYSIWYG is visually wrong, for instance)...

CMx1 didn't target the ground in a WYSIWYG way either. It might have looked that way, but you were, IIRC, firing at a 20m box, not the exact point you thought you were. Area fire in x2 is much closer to WYSIWYG, I'd argue, not least because you see the exact path of the bullets fired, and you see that area fire is sprayed around the AS either side of the one you've picked as the target (assuming there's LOF), even if the drawn aim point becomes the centre of the AS. I also remember reading somewhere on here that your men are actually aiming at the point you selected, not the centre of the AS, though that could be old/incorrect/misremembered.

I understand that you "can't see anything WeGo that's being held back by RealTime"... and, I grant you that there may be RealTime features that improve WeGo... At the same time, I would hope that you would be able to grant that there may be aspects of RealTime that have the opposite effect on WeGo...

Sure, but until someone can put a finger on any of those things and say "this spoils it", there's not much can be done about it is there? With a fair few hours under my belt, I can't see anything but those "order phase only" commands that's not fully supportive of WeGo.

[MikeyD]

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. If someone were to simply playthe game without worrying about the game mechanics they'd have a rip-roaring time. But the foreknowledge that there's are such things as 'action squares' coded-up that make the seemingly impossible possible ruins it for them. Like that audience member at a magic act sitting with his arms folded loudly complaining "That didn't really disappear, it was just a trick!" OF COUSE it was just a trick, everybody knows it was just a trick. And a darned clever one too!

[Tank Hunter]

Glad to know I'm not the only one who, dog and girlfriend asleep, sometimes sit down to some CMBN and instead of playing just reads a book as I realize I have no battles in progress and the thought of starting a new one is too daunting.

Agree, the curve is too steep atm for entering a battle or campaign. Biggest issue that I have is related to the initial deployment phase, loading a battle and seeing 1/4th of the map covered with your units makes it daunting to plan and execute.

It's been proposed before but I'd like to have all units off the map during the deployment phase. A TO&E window from which you could drag and drop formations. This window could also be used for quick navigation between the formations during the battle, it could also show current state of the unit (suppressed, engaged, taking casualties etc.) This would provide a better situational awareness for the player making the game more user friendly.

A step further would be to include a "strategic" map that you could use for planning and overview of the battle. Something that you could zoom out to and see top view where your formations are, their status and how they relate to known enemy formations. You could have simple paint functionality for setting objectives for formations. This would then serve as your general plan that you can review during the battle and adjust as you see fit. With such tool even if you don't play a particular scenario or battle for few days or weeks you come back quickly into the battle by just reviewing the strategic map and your original plans.

[Wodin]

As Mickey advises I tend not to think about the code and just play the game.It's fantastic;)

[Tim1966]

I took a few years to buy CM2 after playing CM1 to death. I downloaded the demo when CMBN came out but didn't buy as it was quite 'hard' to win and also I wanted British and Commonwealth forces. I found the video tutorials mentioned earlier in this thread and real help. Started using those tactics and suddenly the game changed completely.

I also found starting with small battles easier but I'm now about 7 battles into the Nijmegen campaign. Its brilliant because it starts with smaller battles and even the bigger ones aren't uncontrollable. Fortunately my wife has just discovered Breaking Bad and has 6 series to catch up. "Do you mind if I watch Breaking bad again tonight darling?", "Oh ok - suppose I'll just fire up the old computer then...";)

No game will ever be perfect and having been involved in making games I can only marvel how well this one plays out. If I ever spot anything that is 'unrealistic' (virtually nothing so far) I put it down to the chaos of battle.

[Alchenar]

I think there's something to be said for the argument that the closer you get to 1:1 simulation, the more obvious the differences between the simulation and reality get whereas previously those differences would have been naturally accepted as part of the abstraction of the design.

Thus the better your game gets, issues arise that always existed latently but which people wouldn't have thought to raise earlier: see the ATG discussion currently going on.

[Kuderian]

Hi skellhell,

I played PBEM CMBB & CMAK for donkeys years until the first new game using the CMx2 engine arrived , namely CMSF.

I have never looked back! 1:1 modelling, far less abstractions etc.

There was no tutorial in those days and the manual was considerably less than perfect and the engine had more bugs in it than my cat's ears!

But I persevered with the steep learning curve and donkey's years later, I am still playing happily and still getting thrashed by my opponents regularly

[Michael Emrys]

It just feels unnatural, somehow... (Targeting "action spots" instead of WYSIWYG is visually wrong, for instance)...

I don't understand this statement. You do know that it is possible to directly target spotted units don't you? I take it you are talking about something else, but what?

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

It's been proposed before but I'd like to have all units off the map during the deployment phase. A TO&E window from which you could drag and drop formations. This window could also be used for quick navigation between the formations during the battle, it could also show current state of the unit (suppressed, engaged, taking casualties etc.) This would provide a better situational awareness for the player making the game more user friendly.

I have suggested/urged this feature more than once, so I quite agree. Furthermore, I would very much like the units to be arranged in the window in a way that the organization/command relationships are completely clear without having to cycle through them one by one.

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

Well, I just recently purchased the game and I am not able to be much more specific at this time... It just feels unnatural, somehow... (Targeting "action spots" instead of WYSIWYG is visually wrong, for instance)...

As JonS already pointed out... this has absolutely nothing at all to do with RealTime. This has to do with a vastly more detailed terrain environment. If there were no RealTime mode we'd still have Action Spots. Therefore, WeGo or RealTime isn't a factor one way or the other.

I understand that you "can't see anything WeGo that's being held back by RealTime"... and, I grant you that there may be RealTime features that improve WeGo... At the same time, I would hope that you would be able to grant that there may be aspects of RealTime that have the opposite effect on WeGo...

Sure, but remember you're coming into this debate 7 years after it started I've heard the charge that WeGo is being held back because of RealTime many times over the years, yet I still haven't heard a single reason for such a conclusion other than the inability for TCP/IP WeGo games to have the replay function. And even that we could theoretically add, but it's simply not worth the effort given the totality of what people want and how few of them care about TCP/IP WeGo relative to everything else.

(Regarding your second paragraph, I can't believe that you really think that WeGoer's are that shallow and if you do, it might be time for a long, hard look in the mirror...)

Let me ask you this. If over a long period of time you see people take a position and utterly fail to defend it, even a little bit, what conclusion would you draw from this? That the position is valid? I hardly think so. Which means either such customers are voicing an emotional opinion, not based on fact, or they have as much smarts as a bag of rocks. Given the two choices I think the better assumption to make is that it's an emotional thing and not an intelligence thing. Because so far it's not been shown to be a rational thing. After 7 years I think if there was a rational case to be made it would have been made a long time ago.

Either way, I am starting to get into the game some, and I am enjoying the editor quite a bit...

Believe me when I say that I'm glad to hear this. I think MikeyD's suggestion to not think too hard about the game mechanics and just enjoy the ride it provides is a good one. There's little point in diminishing your own enjoyment of a game (any game) by over thinking it.

The only features I can see that make RT a sticking-point for WeGo are those very few commands which only act "now" rather than at a waypoint (Bail, dismount... I'm sure there are one or two more, but the caffiene hasn't reached my brain yet).

For sure there are inherent differences in play between RT and WeGo. RT isn't able to benefit from replays, WeGo isn't able to "act in the moment". But that doesn't mean WeGo is being held back by RealTime... it's just that they are different beasts.

Meaning that since the "now" that's accessible to the WeGo player is the orders phase, there are some arguably clunky interactions. Terribly minor, but nice if it could change some day so that the orders could be applied to waypoints.

CMx1 was WeGo and it didn't have this. Since there was no RealTime in CMx1 then it's obvious that this has absolutely nothing to do with RealTime, yes? So what you're pointing out is that CMx2's WeGo UI could be improved upon over what it is now and what it was in CMx1. Since no game is ever perfect, I'd certainly not argue against what you're saying. I just need to point out that it doesn't have anything to do with CMx2's RealTime engine.

Historically, too, the relative keybind model was, IIRC, touted as being best/fastest for RT play, and came as the default.

RealTime players didn't like the key binding arrangement any more than WeGoers. In fact, I'd say they probably disliked it even more

It's good to hear an explanation of the "under the hood" things that the RT model affects beneficially.

A turn based game engine is inherently less easy to work with and more prone to "failure" in terms of realism. IGOYOUGO being the worst example, but even WEGO has it's fair share of problems. Since WeGo is inherently paused realtime then there is, in theory, no downside for WeGo if the engine is RealTime.

Note that this did NOT used to be the case. Back when computers were barely able to run RealTime games in 3D a ton of things were not possible due to hardware limitations. Many of those things were possible in turn based games. Which is why CMx1 was WeGo and not RealTime. But today's computing power is sufficient to give us better fidelity and features than CMx1 *and* have it be in RealTime.

CMx1 didn't target the ground in a WYSIWYG way either. It might have looked that way, but you were, IIRC, firing at a 20m box, not the exact point you thought you were. Area fire in x2 is much closer to WYSIWYG, I'd argue, not least because you see the exact path of the bullets fired, and you see that area fire is sprayed around the AS either side of the one you've picked as the target (assuming there's LOF), even if the drawn aim point becomes the centre of the AS. I also remember reading somewhere on here that your men are actually aiming at the point you selected, not the centre of the AS, though that could be old/incorrect/misremembered.

An easier way to think of it is that CMx1 was abstracted to such a degree that "aiming" was not very precise because nothing was precise. In CMx2 it's exactly the opposite. From a practical standpoint there's probably no actual difference in the concept of Area Fire. In either game when you do Area Fire you're saying "engage anything that happens to be in this area". From a simulation of shooting and cover standpoint CMx1 is a crude approximation whereas CMx2 is a far more literal treatment.

Sure, but until someone can put a finger on any of those things and say "this spoils it", there's not much can be done about it is there? With a fair few hours under my belt, I can't see anything but those "order phase only" commands that's not fully supportive of WeGo.

Yup. I've heard plenty of arguments as to why someone might feel that CMx1 is more "fun" than CMx2, but not why WeGo is harmed by RealTime. They are two entirely different things. The first is inherently opinion, the second is inherently factual.

I think there's something to be said for the argument that the closer you get to 1:1 simulation, the more obvious the differences between the simulation and reality get whereas previously those differences would have been naturally accepted as part of the abstraction of the design.

Thus the better your game gets, issues arise that always existed latently but which people wouldn't have thought to raise earlier: see the ATG discussion currently going on.

Yup, that's certainly true. Though abstractions produce their own flavor of argument because game effects are ultimately what people care about. As something becomes less abstract so too do the discussions of gameplay related issues. Opinion becomes less important than science because abstractions are, inherently, more akin to opinion and simulations more akin to science.

Steve

[mjkerner]

I don't understand this statement. You do know that it is possible to directly target spotted units don't you? I take it you are talking about something else, but what?

Michael

It might be that when you click the target on the pixeltruppen or the icon, the target line snaps to the center of the nearest action square, making it look like it's not targeting the individual troops/weapon....

[sfhand]

I took a few years to buy CM2 after playing CM1 to death. I downloaded the demo when CMBN came out but didn't buy as it was quite 'hard' to win and also I wanted British and Commonwealth forces. I found the video tutorials mentioned earlier in this thread and real help. Started using those tactics and suddenly the game changed completely.

I also found starting with small battles easier but I'm now about 7 battles into the Nijmegen campaign. Its brilliant because it starts with smaller battles and even the bigger ones aren't uncontrollable. Fortunately my wife has just discovered Breaking Bad and has 6 series to catch up. "Do you mind if I watch Breaking bad again tonight darling?", "Oh ok - suppose I'll just fire up the old computer then...";)

No game will ever be perfect and having been involved in making games I can only marvel how well this one plays out. If I ever spot anything that is 'unrealistic' (virtually nothing so far) I put it down to the chaos of battle.

As much as I love CMx2, IMHO, you are making a huge mistake... Breaking Bad is amazing. I'm not saying it's better than CM - it's apples and oranges, but for me there was plenty of time for both.

[womble]

It might be that when you click the target on the pixeltruppen or the icon, the target line snaps to the center of the nearest action square, making it look like it's not targeting the individual troops/weapon....

Not in any of the versions I've played. It only snaps to the centre of the AS if you're shooting area fire (i.e. at no spotted target) or at a target that occupies an area. If it's a single vehicle the target line points at the target; where should it point when you're targetting a group of soldiers? Should it assume that if you click on a specific soldier from a group that you want to target that one first (even if it's not the one you've got the best chance of dropping)?

[Tank Hunter]

As much as I love CMx2, IMHO, you are making a huge mistake... Breaking Bad is amazing. I'm not saying it's better than CM - it's apples and oranges, but for me there was plenty of time for both.

Yeah Breaking Bad is amazing. I'm holding it as one of the best TV shows I've ever watched. After the first season it really takes off and you just want more. I actually wanted it to end just so they would not ruin it.

[Tank Hunter]

Not in any of the versions I've played. It only snaps to the centre of the AS if you're shooting area fire (i.e. at no spotted target) or at a target that occupies an area. If it's a single vehicle the target line points at the target; where should it point when you're targetting a group of soldiers? Should it assume that if you click on a specific soldier from a group that you want to target that one first (even if it's not the one you've got the best chance of dropping)?

One thing that bugs me is when you know the enemy is behind the wall but you can't area target the wall since you can't see the center of the action spot.

[Quintus Sertorius]

I've heard the charge that WeGo is being held back because of RealTime many times over the years, yet I still haven't heard a single reason for such a conclusion other than the inability for TCP/IP WeGo games to have the replay function.

There's room for much greater control complexity if you dump real-time. The existence of RT puts a hard ceiling on the number and types of commands you can issue without overloading the physical limitations of the human player.

FWIW, I had the same experience some others have mentioned concerning the camera. It turned me off the first couple of times I tried it, but once I figured out a way to use it that worked for me, it made all the difference.

[mjkerner]

Not in any of the versions I've played. It only snaps to the centre of the AS if you're shooting area fire (i.e. at no spotted target) or at a target that occupies an area. If it's a single vehicle the target line points at the target; where should it point when you're targetting a group of soldiers? Should it assume that if you click on a specific soldier from a group that you want to target that one first (even if it's not the one you've got the best chance of dropping)?

Why the hostility, man? I was pointing out that it happens...you are correct, only during area fire, as far as I am aware. I was positing a possible reason for the OP's question. That was all. I don't see and didn't intend a complaint anywhere in my post. Chill out, and a Happy Thanksgiving to you, too.

Sheeeez....

[Battlefront.com]

There's room for much greater control complexity if you dump real-time. The existence of RT puts a hard ceiling on the number and types of commands you can issue without overloading the physical limitations of the human player.

Not true. The number and variety of commands have practical limitations for WeGo as well. That's because few people want to be confronted with a spreadsheet's worth of Commands. I know some people have no problems with quantity and variety, but any experienced game publisher will tell you from experience the number of such people is quite small.

When we agonize over Commands and Command behaviors we never, ever, even for a split second think of WeGo or RealTime. We only think "is it REALLY necessary to have something new, or can we somehow utilize something we already have?". We try very hard to say NO to the first question simply to avoid the game becoming Combat Mission: A Command Too Far

So this is yet another example of an imagined WeGo limitation that I can say, without hesitation, has absolutely nothing to do with CM's core engine being RealTime.

I'm not sure, because I haven't counted, but I think CMx2 has more Commands than CMx1 had Orders. If not, they're not too far apart.

FWIW, I had the same experience some others have mentioned concerning the camera. It turned me off the first couple of times I tried it, but once I figured out a way to use it that worked for me, it made all the difference.

Yup, and we had the same issues with CMx1 when it first came out. People, by and large, didn't like the camera controls then either. That's not surprising to us because CM's needs, be it CMx1 or CMx2, are very different from other games. Gamers tend to not like learning new UI.

Steve

[Doug Williams]

Hey guys, have any of you noticed that this thread is now eight pages long, and the OP (skellhell) has not responded one single time? I think he should receive some sort of award for the longest thread with the least effort.