Jump to content

Is CMRT a more mature gaming experience?


Recommended Posts

Does the engine seems cleaner? faster? That said, the units SEEM to not do as many DUMB things (path'ing).. sadly tho, we still get one-shot wonder "Heinz" with his 88mm Pak 41/43 penetrating an IS-2 at 4k M, but I digress..

 

I was trying to explain how hard it can be to modify an existing game engine and move it up to higher and higher fidelities today with another friend of mine in software development.  It's not easy, and I think we see this quite clearly with CMRT vs. CMBN. Not to say that CMBN isn't fun, it's just that when I play CMRT I have a much better experience with larger maps, cleaner color palette, etc. (I know you can make large maps in CMBN, but the speed and fidelity aren't there IMO).

 

I wonder what other people think?  I mean, I am a Ost Front fan boy, but still, I enjoy the challenge of Normandy and the different TO&E in that game (as well as it's lost cousin CMFI), but i'm left wondering if the game experience isn't as good as when I play H2H on CMRT.. which I love to do and it seems to have a far better outcome game wise..

 

Do others agree? I mean, how hard is it to add tank riders to CMBN? I would think NOT hard, but clearly hard enough that it wasn't added.. and it wasn't because of military doctrine..it was because the bits and bytes don't play nice together I'm sure.. I mean, add it in in CMRT and not in CMBN? 

 

Not trolling.. rather curious if others think the game experience in CMRT is better than the other titles in the CMx2 engine?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the game experience is mostly determined by one's own interest in that theater / TO&E / history. With the engine updates pretty much across all titles, the programming is almost equivalent at this point. Tank riders would be great, but it isn't important enough to the overall tactical decisions for me to knock a title without them. 

 

I started with CMBN because that was the theater I knew most about. I didn't know very much about the Eastern or Mediterranean fronts. 

 

Having played FI and RT, I find that Fortress Italy is the most challenging theater (and most fun to play). The TO&E is unique, and the terrain is the most challenging of the three. 

 

CMBN can sometimes feel like solving a bocage puzzle (spot enemy - find flank to bocage - kill enemy in open ground - repeat) which probably very accurately reflects the nature of combat in that environment. 

 

I never had a big interest in Eastern front history. I picked up Red Thunder to "complete the collection" and because it is a great game, but I probably play it the fewest of all three. A big part of that is probably my own interest in light infantry tactics. Red Thunder is very armor - heavy (as it historically was), so it is out of my natural comfort zone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does the engine seems cleaner? faster?

 

...

 

Not trolling.. rather curious if others think the game experience in CMRT is better than the other titles in the CMx2 engine?

 

It certainly has been refined and gives a much smoother playing experience than the previous titles in the series. If anyone doubts me, just go back to CMSF and see how cringe-inducing the UI can be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It certainly has been refined and gives a much smoother playing experience than the previous titles in the series. If anyone doubts me, just go back to CMSF and see how cringe-inducing the UI can be.

I actually mess around with CMSF on almost a daily basis and while I miss so many things that have been added since, I still love that game.  I think however the OP is comparing to more recent titles and I think I lean towards the same answer as five five six.  I will say though I have had some great infantry fights even in tank heavy scenarios.  My first run at Studienka I had a great battle in the eastern side of the town.

  George is a master scenario creator/crafter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The latest updated CMBN should be as fast as CMFI. But then again CMFI doesn't have close-packed hedgerows to contend with (and neither does the AI while pathing). So CMBN still has a bit more thinking to do. CMFI is certainly faster than the pre-2.0 upgrade CMBN. Especially on slower machines.

 

 

I mean, how hard is it to add tank riders to CMBN?

 

The answer to that question is really really hard. I mean a Herculean task. A lot of work for very little tactically. In '44 Normandy nobody in their right mind would ride a tank into the teeth of the enemy, not with LOS distances as close as they are. Russia had their own tactical doctrine and specialized tank riding units. it wasn't mere a tax service for foot-wear GIs. I admit things change as we approach 1945, a lot of tactics and equipment changed when we hit 1945.

Edited by MikeyD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... I mean, how hard is it to add tank riders to CMBN? I would think NOT hard, but clearly hard enough that it wasn't added.. and it wasn't because of military doctrine..it was because the bits and bytes don't play nice together I'm sure.. I mean, add it in in CMRT and not in CMBN? ...

Hi Stanley

Here's the reason from a Battlefront post a while back when 3.0 came out :

Battlefront.com said

Unfortunately the scope of work for tank riders was too massive to be included in a $10 Upgrade. Each model plus (IIRC) 2 LODs has to be hand tweaked by a 3D artist, hand coded by Charles, and tested for problems. There are always problems (guys sitting above the deck, into the turret, facing the wrong direction, using the wrong animations, etc.) because placing these hotspots is more art than science. The assuredness that a certain number of hotspots will need some tweak or several means the development cycle is repeated for a subset of the total number of changes. To give you some understanding of the process we go through...

From memory there is about 200 vehicle models between CMBN and CMFI. If we figure an average of 10 "hotspots" for soldiers per vehicle (some have more some have less), that's a total of 2000 hotspots that have to be created for the base models, times 3 to include the LODs. That means about 6000 hotspots have to be added, coded, tested, and tweaked before we're done. Knock the workload down by a small bit because there are a few models that are 100% the same between releases or nations (there's still some work to do, just not as much) and exclude the vehicles that don't need the feature at all. Oh, let's say 5000 hotspots. I dunno what each hotspot averages out to in terms of work, but 3 minutes each is probably very conservative. That means the cost of an Upgrade has to cover 250 hours of labor just for this one feature, plus the other features, plus the other testing, plus the sales related expenses, plus the "opportunity cost", plus our risk, plus profit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think CMRT is conceptually tank heavy. Scenario designers needed to reflect the operational realities of Operation Bagration and BTS gave us the TOE to simulate those fights. If a player (and their email opponent) want to explore small unit infantry tactics just fire up the editor and put together a battle in close terrain (AFVs not welcome). These might be hypothetical without doing some research, but they are well within the possibilities of summer 44 on the eastern front. It is known that WWII armor had little staying power on the battlefield and withdrew after the offensive to fight another day. The book collection called "infantry aces" tells about a lot of east front infantry actions. Too bad they have no maps and be mindful that the narrative may not be completely accurate.

 

Kevin

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I just want to point out that I believe the continual upgrading of the engine is difficult.. that said, I believe the clean slate of CMRT is reflective of a more mature gaming experience vs. CMBN..

 

Yes, it's difficult but for me as a fan of ALL of the theaters it's well worth it to get to play older games with all the new improvements.

 

CMBN 3.11 and CMRT are essentially identical code-wise, though.  There have definitely been big improvements in 1.x, 2.x and 3.x, in hundreds of areas, so CMBN has come a long way, but the great thing about the Upgrade system is that the older titles really do have the same engine as the newer.

 

Tank riders had nothing to do with code, and everything to do with needing to modify every single relevant model, and its data, to allow for it.  Huge, huge, huge undertaking.  Code's there.  But without magically appearing a huge swathe of artist / data hours it really couldn't be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think somewhere else it was mentioned that moving the vehicle models between titles was far easier than initial work, but that there was still some work. I agree though it would be nice to see applicable vehicles be ported to CMBN and CMFI if or when possible. CMFI was supposedly due a whole module still. Assuming the Bulge title game is out first who knows maybe we will see something. CMFI deserves a little love.

Ah there it is, in MikeyD's quote from Steve.

Edited by sburke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess MikeD makes my point.. it's hard,  ney impossible to move a legacy game from one engine to another, even in the same game universe..

 

I remember when I first played CMBN and the small/medium sized maps were not as enjoyable as say, "the passage" was when I first opened CMRT..).  I think this is the result of a clean start, and them having the benefit of hindsight with the previous iterations.

 

I mean, I've always wondered how one could make a game like this with three separate pieces, Maps, Units, and Game Engine.. with each plugging and playing into one another.. and do as well as they have ...

 

I'm not complaining, quite the contrary, I'm in awe of how they have done as well as they have.. just that I realized when I was playing H2H in CMRT how much more fun I was having then when doing the same experience, even in the same code base in CMBN.. and it was really about the experience, fidelity, etc in this latest version..as opposed to my experience in the latter.

 

I can't wait for CMBB (battle of the bulge) and see what goodies that will bring to the engine, as they start again, from a clean start...

Edited by hm_stanley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess MikeD makes my point.. it's hard,  ney impossible to move a legacy game from one engine to another, even in the same game universe..

 

I remember when I first played CMBN and the small/medium sized maps were not as enjoyable as say, "the passage" was when I first opened CMRT..).  I think this is the result of a clean start, and them having the benefit of hindsight with the previous iterations.

 

I mean, I've always wondered how one could make a game like this with three separate pieces, Maps, Units, and Game Engine.. with each plugging and playing into one another.. and do as well as they have ...

 

I'm not complaining, quite the contrary, I'm in awe of how they have done as well as they have.. just that I realized when I was playing H2H in CMRT how much more fun I was having then when doing the same experience, even in the same code base in CMBN.. and it was really about the experience, fidelity, etc in this latest version..as opposed to my experience in the latter.

 

I can't wait for CMBB (battle of the bulge) and see what goodies that will bring to the engine, as they start again, from a clean start...

 

 

Hmm.  Well, I wouldn't say it's impossible to do - I think we pulled it off quite nicely - but it's certainly difficult.

 

It sounds like you're saying that the scenarios, campaigns, etc., are better, though, as opposed to the engine (which, as we both mention, is identical).  Which I think is true - we have some really fantastic scenario designers, and they have gotten even better at their jobs since CMBN was in the works.

 

You can see the progression from CMBN through CW, CMFI and CMRT, that our scenario guys are now both passionate about great scenarios (as they've always been) and experts at making great stuff with CM's editor.  I think our editor enhancements - map overlays, triggers, etc. - have helped too, giving them more tools to work with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think that CMRT has a bit more aesthetic polish to it, but I find the other games just as much fun to play. In my (subjective) experience, CMFI generally has the most challenging and best designed scenarios.

 

CMx1 games also did seem to have an enormously larger number of scenarios when compared to the newer games as well, even taking their age into consideration.

 

I am really looking forward to earlier Eastern Front battles however, particularly 1942. I might have to wait a while for that though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It sounds like you're saying that the scenarios, campaigns, etc., are better, though, as opposed to the engine (which, as we both mention, is identical).  Which I think is true - we have some really fantastic scenario designers, and they have gotten even better at their jobs since CMBN was in the works.

 

You can see the progression from CMBN through CW, CMFI and CMRT, that our scenario guys are now both passionate about great scenarios (as they've always been) and experts at making great stuff with CM's editor.  I think our editor enhancements - map overlays, triggers, etc. - have helped too, giving them more tools to work with.

 

 

Actually, this is what I think he is actually referring to. He thinks it is about the game engine. But what has changed is that the designers of scenarios are improving their skills on how to use the program , plus you have added tools that have helped them do better. What maybe he does not see is that you can make just as good of a designed scenario now in CMBN as within RT. It is just the fact that he just remembers all them early CMBN battles and no they are not as good as the CMRT stuff we see now. But there is newer CMBN stuff released or available that are on even ground. You just need to play it.

 

I have been playing CMFI a lot lately because I figured I would not be playing it much once CMBS came out. There was many scenarios I had not played in the 2nd Mod thinking I would use them for H2H. Wow, why did I wait so long, some great battles in there.  So it just comes down to what interest you, you can find it in any of the games. As mentioned, the tools to do a good job is in all of them. Finding battles that you really enjoy comes down to what you like.

 

And Thank You BF for keeping the engine updated in all three of these releases. ( We all know it will come to a end at some point, don't we.) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Believe it or not. I have not seen it.

 

I did read the book when it came out and found it very interesting.

 

Having been around many Snipers, I find that his mental outlook at life and what he was doing and how he justified what he was doing and for what purpose made him able to do what he did and be good at it.

 

As for how much action he saw and what he did, it is somewhat amazing, I know of many guys who would have liked to be given a chance to do their job and never seen hardly anything. It is one of them factors after training for many years, there is just a desire to use the skills you have developed. even if you are not sure what using them skills will do to you.

 

I just know I was shocked when I found out about his death when he was shot by one of the returned vets. he was helping that was having problems. It really was a sad way to go.

 

He should have died when he was helping the infantry clear houses and he stepped in and showing them how to do it and was point for breaching the buildings.

 

Just because he had his seals training, the luck of not hitting a ambush or some type of booby-trap explosion is amazing doing that type of work. But you have to give him credit to just go do it because he was tired of seeing other guys wounded or killed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

American Sniper is receiving very favorable notices on IMDB. Aggregate score: 7.6/10.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2179136/?ref_=nv_sr_1

However there were a lot of angry 1 point reviews that skewed the average. These were mostly political in tone.  Bradley Cooper reportedly put on 30 pounds to portray the burly Chris Kyle whose end was, as you mentioned, pathetic.

Edited by Childress
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...