Is CMRT a more mature gaming experience?

[Guest]

I can't speak for Tiller's engine, but our upgrades are difficult.  In terms of programmer time they're a huge investment - we're taking all of the features we've added for a new game, and making them work with an old game that was written, in parts, to use entirely different code (since the new features didn't exist when we were writing it!).  In some cases we need to adapt the new code to the older title (for instance, where things work differently for some equipment in the older game, but not all).  And then it all needs to be tested, bugs worked out, much of the normal production rigmarole needs to happen.  We put a *lot* of time into them.  It's a very different thing to a ) adding features to a single title, or b ) fixing bugs.

 

Producing free patches, on the other hand, is just a matter of making fixes in existing code and testing it - it's a tiny fraction of the work and really only limited by how difficult the fixes are.

Edited January 19, 2015 by Phil Culliton

[Doug Williams]

I have them all, and CMBN is still my fav.

[Sublime]

well CMBN certainly has the advantage of the modules, and 3.0 upgrade. interestingly my CMBN scenarios load WAY faster than my RT scenarios. Odd.

[Bulletpoint]

When you say a more 'mature experience' are you hinting it's more enjoyable for the elderly?

 

I think he means to ask if the game engine has gotten more technically refined.

[Michael Emrys]

I have them all, and CMBN is still my fav.

 

I have to say that I agree, but solely because working with American forces in Western Europe is more in my "comfort zone". CMRT is a truly magnificent game and I can't help but admire it greatly. But I doubt that I will ever love it in the same way, simply because there is no side historically in that struggle that I can truly align myself with emotionally. CMFI/GL is much closer to home and I like it as well, but that theater did not always have first call on the latest equipment, and that takes a little of the edge off.

 

Michael

[Childress]

But I doubt that I will ever love it in the same way, simply because there is no side historically in that struggle that I can truly align myself with emotionally...

 

Yeah! If you do enough research you can cull some interesting battles from the most one-sided or meaningless grand strategic situation. But there's something to be said for making a game in which the action unfolds on a stage where the outcome of the war hangs in the balance. In sales terms: Statingrad> Kursk> Bagration> Berlin.

[Trooper117]

I think he means to ask if the game engine has gotten more technically refined.

 

Oh my lord, yes, I know he does... I was simply interjecting a little humour!

[hm_stanley]

Personally. I would enjoy trying my hand with lesser tech against soviet armor in the mid '42 period. Where the Germans began practicing with Panzer Jaeger units culled together from bolting on guns to Frankenstein concoctions. Anyway.. That would be fun. The Nazis can thank god they integrated air defense into their basic infantry battalion structure otherwise, they would have been in big trouble.

[Michael Emrys]

Yeah! If you do enough research you can cull some interesting battles from the most one-sided or meaningless grand strategic situation. But there's something to be said for making a game in which the action unfolds on a stage where the outcome of the war hangs in the balance.

 

True. In a very abstract way of lines and circles on a map, I can really admire the German performance in the first couple of months of Barbarossa. Not because I think they were the good guys who should be winning against the evils of Communism, but because at that moment they were skilled practitioners of military art fighting against a foe that was horribly off balance. But I suspect that this is best covered at the strategic or at least operational level. I'm not particularly thrilled to see it played out on the CM battlefield. Granted that some aspects are well covered at that level (such as the matchup of various models of armor), but the whole aspect of logistics—which to a large extent is what won and lost that war—is more or less completely elided in CM.

 

Michael

[Sublime]

Emrys, I can see your point but for the opposite reason. Whilst histories, especially early histories of the Eastern front written by German or Russian sources (Especially memoirs) are horribly biased, more recent histories, and other sources are WAAAAY less biased than most histories of the Western vs Axis wars. Simply because in the Eastern Front both sides are essentially bad guys.  Therefore there is no 'great crusade'.

[Michael Emrys]

...more recent histories, and other sources are WAAAAY less biased than most histories of the Western vs Axis wars. Simply because in the Eastern Front both sides are essentially bad guys.  Therefore there is no 'great crusade'.

 

It all depends on who you are reading. Yeah, there are tons of books printed every year that are basically nostalgic for what great guys we were. Citizen Soldier is an embarrassing example of that. But there has also been a lot of unsentimental (and even anti-sentimental) revisionism written in the last 20 years about the war fought by the Western Allies. That is still ongoing and looks to be for at least another couple of decades.

 

Michael

[Bulletpoint]

True. In a very abstract way of lines and circles on a map, I can really admire the German performance in the first couple of months of Barbarossa. Not because I think they were the good guys who should be winning against the evils of Communism, but because at that moment they were skilled practitioners of military art fighting against a foe that was horribly off balance. But I suspect that this is best covered at the strategic or at least operational level. I'm not particularly thrilled to see it played out on the CM battlefield. Granted that some aspects are well covered at that level (such as the matchup of various models of armor), but the whole aspect of logistics—which to a large extent is what won and lost that war—is more or less completely elided in CM.

 

Michael

 

 

That's interesting, because I was just thinking to myself today that nearly everything I read about WW2 portrays the Germans as pretty much incompetent. Yet people praise their military efficiency.

 

I know my impression is probably controversial, but it It seems to me they bungled more or less every offensive they carried out against reasonably competent and prepared opponents.

 

Their strategic concept of the war was deeply flawed from the grand strategy to logistics, to tank design (and other crazy experimental weapons). They didn't "get" the Russian winter. They didn't "get" the concept of encirclement at Stalingrad. They didn't "get" that the war would be won by air power. Or maybe they understood those things but were too incompetent to do anything about it. I know much of this has something to do with Hitler personally, but was Stalin any less nuts? Did anyone dare to challenge his mistakes?

 

Their alliances were with incompetent powers as well, it seems. Fascist Italy with its ridiculous pomp and delusions of grandeur, all folding up when push came to shove. Japan, who despite having the most fanatical soldiers and the advantage of first strike against the US Navy just went from loss to loss after that.

 

When I was a kid, I read about WW2 and thought it had been a war between opponents of approximately equal mettle, with the outcome hanging in the balance until quite late in the war. But the more I read about it, it seems it was a one-way trip down for Nazi Germany (thankfully!).

 

It wasn't an "easy" war of course, and I don't mean to belittle the hundreds of thousands who died to defeat Hitler, but it just seems the Germans did nothing right. Maybe with the exception of a few short operations in the desert?

Edited January 26, 2015 by Bulletpoint

[Sublime]

Emrys- CItizen Soldier and all of Ambroses books are excellent examples of well... BS.  Its been proven he actually lied on accounts about a landing craft on DDay and he blatantly cherry picks scenarios to make the Germans look like bungling fools. What hollywood and Super Uber American pro western writers dont seem to get is by making the Germans look like fools it actually detracts from what the Allies had to face in WW2.

And I disagree Emrys. Yes the Germans bungled quite a bit, and grand strategy wise failed miserably. They also  had a lot of interference from the party, Hitler, HImmler taking over Army Group Vistula, etc.  You cannot however take away their storming most all of Europe, early Barbarossa. Etc. In fact with out Hitler plan Blau may have won the war for the Germans. An excellent boook I just read on the whole war of the Eastern Front claims Stalin sent Emmisarries to the Nazis in the Summer of 41 willing to give up the Ukraine and Crimea in exchange for armistice. If the Germans had done that, caught their breath and continued an offfensive they may very well have won.

One also cannot detract from the repeated German ability to throw together organized defense in the face of utter chaos and rout time and again.  They did it after Falaise, and in the East over and  over and over again. And some of the German operations in the East, such as Mansteins 'backband blow' in Kharkov are masterly.  People also forget the often overlooked complete Soviet failure of Operation Mars near Moscow around the same time as Op Saturn near Stalingrad. Mars actually had more material in some aspects - while Saturn did in others.  (men and armor vs arty and aircraft etc.)  I can easily get up and tell you what book I was reading if you want.  A lot  of the info is just from knowledge from the past, but the specific stuff on Mars, and Blau are from the recent book, Blau more from past books reinforced by the recent book.

Though I hadnt the faintest idea before that the Russians had put such a huge effort into Mars which was in many ways more than equal to the offensive against Sixth Army at Stalingrad and lost terrribly. The author stated and I believe its been proven out (Bagration) that it took a little while for the Russians to realize Army Groupe Center was the German key unit in the East, and after they realized that expended their energy into destroying it. History shows the results.   The author also states and other more contemporary authors state that Prokhorovka may not have been the biggest tank battle in history, there easily could have been engagements in the East rivalling its size. And that Kursk even if it succeeded, would not have altered the German's fate in the East one bit.  At best it would have prolonged the agony.

 

*Absolute War by Chris Bellamy

Edited January 26, 2015 by Sublime

[slysniper]

BULLETPOINT

 

You likely would not be saying that if the date was in the spring of 1942, Up to that point Germany was seemingly unstoppable and the world was in fear. That is where their reputation comes from. Yes they had made mistakes before that point. But til then things were going their way.

 

From that point on I have to agree with you, but still most of their challenges was from within, they were their own worst enemy. ( But most of that leads to Hitler Himself)

 

You cannot say that many a German General showed amazing skill even if their hands were tied with many stupid directives from above.

They did.

 

But in the long hall, no in all likelyhold their goals could never had been meet. No matter how good or bad they were as a fighting force. Hitler was too ambishes. (if the goals had been realistic, the world would surely have been a different place than as it is today,)

[Michael Emrys]

That's interesting, because I was just thinking to myself today that nearly everything I read about WW2 portrays the Germans as pretty much incompetent. Yet people praise their military efficiency.

 

I know my impression is probably controversial, but it It seems to me they bungled more or less every offensive they carried out against reasonably competent and prepared opponents.

 

Their strategic concept of the war was deeply flawed from the grand strategy to logistics, to tank design (and other crazy experimental weapons). They didn't "get" the Russian winter. They didn't "get" the concept of encirclement at Stalingrad. They didn't "get" that the war would be won by air power. Or maybe they understood those things but were too incompetent to do anything about it. I know much of this has something to do with Hitler personally, but was Stalin any less nuts? Did anyone dare to challenge his mistakes?

 

Their alliances were with incompetent powers as well, it seems. Fascist Italy with its ridiculous pomp and delusions of grandeur, all folding up when push came to shove. Japan, who despite having the most fanatical soldiers and the advantage of first strike against the US Navy just went from loss to loss after that.

 

When I was a kid, I read about WW2 and thought it had been a war between opponents of approximately equal mettle, with the outcome hanging in the balance until quite late in the war. But the more I read about it, it seems it was a one-way trip down for Nazi Germany (thankfully!).

 

It wasn't an "easy" war of course, and I don't mean to belittle the hundreds of thousands who died to defeat Hitler, but it just seems the Germans did nothing right. Maybe with the exception of a few short operations in the desert?

 

You are not entirely wrong, but I would disagree with some of what you post.

 

It's true that much of Germany's "brilliance" was against second and third rate powers or first rate powers that were not prepared for war, and their large scale offensives hit a stone wall when they came up against equal opponents. That said, they then fought tenaciously and well on the defensive. Many times when the Allies thought they had Germany on the ropes and ripe for the knockout blow, the Germans handed them their heads.

 

I would say this, for most of the war the Germans were superior in tactical doctrine and training in that doctrine. Their staff work also was excellent and in many areas was superior. This shows up in their ability to throw together Kampfgruppen on the fly and have them operate efficiently. This was a skill that the Allies were never quite able to match. In sum, for the first half of the war they were very good at winning battles. In the second half of the war, what we see is the Allies starting to figure the game out and instead of trying to emulate the German tactics, started to develop their own that played to their strengths and minimized their shortcomings. That basically is what won the war on the battlefield.

 

On the large grand strategic scale, I agree that Hitler and Germany were almost completely incompetent and without a clue. You can start with the Nazi belief (almost a tenet of religious faith) that Germany's prosperity, indeed its very survival, depended on militarily subjugating it neighbors and rivals. This was a blunder of such magnitude that it beggars the imagination, but I guess it was also a part of world culture at the time. At least many countries bought into it to a greater or lesser degree. But for Germany to try to take on virtually the entire industrialized world with only a handful of mostly weak and incompetent allies, was a non-starter from the word 'go' and should have been seen as such.

 

For Germany to win the war in any meaningful sense, it would have had to defeat a host of powerful enemies and would have had to do so very quickly before those enemies could get their act together. Hitler thought that was exactly what he could do and was doing, but he really only succeeded in that strategy against France. The UK, the Soviet Union, and the US were never defeated and against that coalition Germany didn't stand much chance barring a miracle. Hitler was counting on a miracle, but it never came. Or if miracles did occur, they were not distributed in the proportions that would have won the war for Germany.

 

There is a great deal more to be said on this subject, but this post is already long enough and other duties call.

 

Michael

[Vanir Ausf B]

I know my impression is probably controversial, but it It seems to me they bungled more or less every offensive they carried out against reasonably competent and prepared opponents.

 

They completely crushed France, which at the time was widely believed to have the best army in the world (in retrospect they didn't really but they were hardly pushovers). They gave the British all they could handle up through the end of 1942 (Operation Sonnenblume, First El Alamein).

[Reiter]

Long way has been come, in example, from first version of cmbn. Looking good.

[Sublime]

Emrys - I read a good book with a series of essays on what if the Axis won.  Basically the essays covered battles, though some grand strategy was thrown in.  I forget the exact name but like as above, when Im done doin some shovelling Ill dig it up.  It had a collection of reputable authors who wrote the essays including Glantz. Most of course could only cover immediate things such as battles, as going beyond what if X happened at Stalingrad or whatever then sets off a chain of events which makes realistic prediction almost impossible.

However, one of the most realistic scenarios I read for Germany pulling it off basically had Canaris and his cronies NOT convincing Franco to 'pull away from Hitler' and Hitler going through with the planned attack on Gibraltar.  Axis formations would be allowed to go through Spain, and for Spanish pride some Spanish units would be used (perhaps covertly) In seizing 'the Rock'.  Seizing the Rock would completely shut down Operation Torch, and change the balance in the Mediterannean drastically. With a renewed focus on the Med, the Brits in Egypt would be screwed and the possibilities for Axis expansion into the Middle East would have been interesting indeed. There was more to it than that, but to my mind, which I admit Im not genius, of all the scenarios in the book, this seemed the most likely to drastically change the chances of Nazi Germany in WW2. This is before Barbarossa, Pearl Harbor etc. This would cut off the Med and make it an Axis lake. The rest of the scenarios essentially would just prolong the war, or really turn out not to win the war at all.  Glantz wrote an interesting blue on blue (among a few other Ost Front essays) grows bigger at the end of the war with US and Russian troops engaging in combat, but ended it with both sides calming themselves down and stopping it after a couple of weeks. I was disappointed. But as many authors pointed out and as I said above for alternate history you have two options - delving into the realm of fiction where you choose what you want to happen, or being able to point out an opportunity or decision and being able to somewhat accurately decide what would have happened as a result of this decision. The problem is only immediate results can generally be simulated, as the real world and events expand exponentially with each passing second so the only realistic alternate history is choosing a different decision or move, and then what if for immediately after or in that situation.  You  cannot say what if Hitler had let 6th Army breakout (without all of its heavy equipment btw) and then realistically come up with a what if for the next 3 years.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Sublime

[Wodin]

Yes it is. It's the most mature and grog like tactical wargame out there. Graviteam Tactics comes close but it's realtime only which loses marks for me.

[Rinaldi]

I'm more of the opinion that 3.0 Normandy and Red Thunder in its current form are more or less the same level of maturity and fidelity. Perhaps its because the warfare in RT is slightly less symmetrical (not to say it is fully so in Normandy, speaking relatively here) and the general scale of the game is a bit larger by definition of being on the Ost Front.

 

I've put alot more time into Normandy, so its probably a natural bias on my own end. 

 

 

 

That said, the units SEEM to not do as many DUMB things (path'ing)

 

I can't recall who pointed it out, I believe it was sburke, but the lack of confounding hedges every 100m probably helps alot with that. Human error viz. such obstacles never helps either.

 

 

 

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.. 

 

Do what you love! I had a friend play the Normandy demo; he was absolutely disgusted by it. He loved Shock Force, and felt claustrophobic playing Normandy. Saying you prefer Red Thunder and believe its a better H2H experience will always remain a true statement so long as you keep believing it. I dig both equally. 

 

 

 

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

 

Its apparently not in the immediate cards, I think they're saving it for the Bulge, something something not a common occurance in Normandy. Which I disagree with, as the Canadians rode tanks constantly if the Ia of the 12.SS is a good source on this (he said it was highly effective and that the Canadians had far better co-ordination with armor as a result). We also know for a fact that the lead two companies of 22IR and the 41AIR rode bareback on tanks during the first few hours of Cobra to reduce congestion; passing through the 9th ID was painful enough, it would've been more painful with all the M3s in tow. The mounted units followed later.

 

But hey, not my game, I just play it.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Rinaldi