Will some of the FUN be put back ??

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Nurmipora:

I think Foamy want's some 2 headed monsters and other cool stuff like that added.

Are those SMG or rifle-equipped 2-headed monsters?

Would equipping the Wehrmacht with 2-headed monsters prolonged the war?

Can those 2-headed monsters run with HMGs?

What if the MGs are Brens on tripods?

If a 2-headed monster is penetrated by a 76.2mm blunt-nosed APHE with a large burster, will Rexford care?

[SFJaykey]

If one of the monster's heads spots an enemy unit, the other automatically sees it too. Borg spotting at its worst; so unrealistic. BFC fix or somefink!

[dalem]

I understand what foamy is asking for. I haven't bothered to play BB in a month or so, not much at all before that. Part of it is burnout, part of it is my abominable luck with AFV, but part of it is that the game is simply too much work as it stands for folks like me (and maybe Foamy). Doesn't mean I'm an arcade player, nor a simpleton, nor crying for going all the way back to BO. It means I'm not having fun with the current incarnation.

That's all.

-dale

[Richie]

Too much Wolfenstein for Andreas?

[Banshee]

My Panther just picked up an invulnerability powerup, then I used a cheat code to give myself unlimited ammo.. FUN FUN FUN!

[Stephen Smith]

CMAK will require you to manually tie each soldier's boots. 1/3 of all soldiers will then have to be manually made to take a piss, and all soldiers will then be manually made to load a round in their rifles.

Some 'arcade players' will complain that having to micromanage such minutaie is no longer 'fun.' They will immediately be publically flogged on this board: "real soldiers had to tie their boots, why shouldn't these?" "Go play Doom if you don't like realism, loser!"

To the obvious complaint that added detail isn't necessarily more realistic; its simply more detailed, Battlefront will issue a statement saying that their goal is to make the most realistic combat simulator available, and if research suggests that boot tying existed in North Africa in 1942, then by God our games will make the player tie shoes in 2003!

The natural progression:

Combat Mission: I could conduct a river crossing, fight my way through forest, and engage in a battle thereby capturing a town in 45 turns (see the scenario L'elle River Crossing for a perfect example of what made CM great). Utterly unrealistic. Utterly fun.

Combat Mission: Battle to Berlin: I can conduct a river crossing in 45 turns, but only if I micromanage the behavior of every squad every 10 meters (walk, then run, no wait: walk, then crawl, then run, no wait: walk, then crawl, then sneak, then walk again, then run). Not necessarily more realistic, but definitely more detailed. The fight through the forest will require an additional 45 minutes. The fight for the town will require an additional 45 minutes. To do the same thing that was done in CM will require 135 turns. Less fun

Combat Mission: AFrica Corps: I can get my troops into position to begin a river crossing in 45 turns: assemblying them into position: hit the 'load weapon' key for every soldier in my command, then the 'take a piss' key for every third soldier in my command (note; actually only 40% of soldiers actually comply with their orders to take a piss; the rest immediately crawl away from the sounds of battle, route, and are combat ineffective for the remainder of the scenario), hit 'conduct roll call' for every leader unit, hit 'get gas' for every vehicle (1/10 of all vehicles are found to be non-mission capable in order to model historically accurate rates of flat tires, broken parts, and intentional sabotage on the parts of the crews). At the end of 45 turns, I am ready to begin the river crossing; however, the scenario has now ended. To perform the river crossing, an historically accurate 6 hours, or 360 turns, is required.

In Combat Mission II, each turn will represent 1 second, you will have separate icons for each soldier, each limb of each soldier will have to be moved separately, and each scenario will require 48 hours of preparation followed by 6 hours of hiding under an artillery barrage followed by 30 minutes of shooting blindly in the general direction of the enemy. All of this is 'realistic' and those who complain about such things as not wanting to micromanage the position of each soldier's shin will be derided as fantasy-loving illiterates.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Richie:

Too much Wolfenstein for Andreas?

Never played that.

Regarding fun, while I am a dour, humourless German, devoid of any deeper understanding of the word, or indeed the very concept underlying this 'fun' thing people keep yabbing on about, I do have a feeling that a look in the dictionary confirms could be called 'fun', when playing CMBB. Moreso than I did in CMBO, by comparison. I think it is a matter of taste.

I would not call those people who do not experience that particular feeling, be they German or otherwise disadvantaged, 'Arcadejunkies'. I would only say that it is unlikely that their wishes will be heeded, which I selfishly think is good, and you are just stuck with CMBO, which is still being played by a lot of people, so I would submit that your lot is not really that hard. I think BFC is on the right course with their products.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Stephen Smith:

CMAK will require you to manually tie each soldier's boots. 1/3 of all soldiers will then have to be manually made to take a piss, and all soldiers will then be manually made to load a round in their rifles.

Some 'arcade players' will complain that having to micromanage such minutaie is no longer 'fun.' They will immediately be publically flogged on this board: "real soldiers had to tie their boots, why shouldn't these?" "Go play Doom if you don't like realism, loser!"

To the obvious complaint that added detail isn't necessarily more realistic; its simply more detailed, Battlefront will issue a statement saying that their goal is to make the most realistic combat simulator available, and if research suggests that boot tying existed in North Africa in 1942, then by God our games will make the player tie shoes in 2003!

The natural progression:

Combat Mission: I could conduct a river crossing, fight my way through forest, and engage in a battle thereby capturing a town in 45 turns (see the scenario L'elle River Crossing for a perfect example of what made CM great). Utterly unrealistic. Utterly fun.

Combat Mission: Battle to Berlin: I can conduct a river crossing in 45 turns, but only if I micromanage the behavior of every squad every 10 meters (walk, then run, no wait: walk, then crawl, then run, no wait: walk, then crawl, then sneak, then walk again, then run). Not necessarily more realistic, but definitely more detailed. The fight through the forest will require an additional 45 minutes. The fight for the town will require an additional 45 minutes. To do the same thing that was done in CM will require 135 turns. Less fun

Combat Mission: AFrica Corps: I can get my troops into position to begin a river crossing in 45 turns: assemblying them into position: hit the 'load weapon' key for every soldier in my command, then the 'take a piss' key for every third soldier in my command (note; actually only 40% of soldiers actually comply with their orders to take a piss; the rest immediately crawl away from the sounds of battle, route, and are combat ineffective for the remainder of the scenario), hit 'conduct roll call' for every leader unit, hit 'get gas' for every vehicle (1/10 of all vehicles are found to be non-mission capable in order to model historically accurate rates of flat tires, broken parts, and intentional sabotage on the parts of the crews). At the end of 45 turns, I am ready to begin the river crossing; however, the scenario has now ended. To perform the river crossing, an historically accurate 6 hours, or 360 turns, is required.

In Combat Mission II, each turn will represent 1 second, you will have separate icons for each soldier, each limb of each soldier will have to be moved separately, and each scenario will require 48 hours of preparation followed by 6 hours of hiding under an artillery barrage followed by 30 minutes of shooting blindly in the general direction of the enemy. All of this is 'realistic' and those who complain about such things as not wanting to micromanage the position of each soldier's shin will be derided as fantasy-loving illiterates.

NICE RANT!

you write very well

are you a writer by proffesion?

that was VERY entertaining

-tom w

[SFJaykey]

Originally posted by Stephen Smith:

CMAK will require you to manually tie each soldier's boots.....Some 'arcade players' will complain that having to micromanage such minutaie is no longer 'fun.'.....

Well I've never played CMBO, but I think I have an idea of what Stephen is talking about. Perhaps his desires, and those of the people in the "CMAK wishlist" thread who are asking for group orders, and those who would like a command game, might be best satisfied with a different game altogether. One that was _not_ attempting to depict behavior at the squad level, but at the platoon, with turns representing more time...kind of like the difference (for you others who are old enough to remember cardboard gamepieces) between Squad Leader and Panzerblitz.

I might like to play such a game myself, as long as the action played out with as much detail as in CM, that is: the movements and actions of each squad and vehicle are depicted. After playing CM I don't think I could ever go back to watching abstract symbols representing my units, except at the strategic level.

A platoon-level game with 3 or 5 minute turns would make larger battles much more manageable, allow small battles to be played with less "effort," and allow more to be accomplished in a single game (like Stephen's bridge crossing/town assault example), without sacrificing too much realism.

If the AI can be upgraded to handle the squads adequately, such a game would be a lot of fun to play. Perhaps in CMX2 a toggle could be installed for "Command level" or somesuch. I've read that the X2 engine is supposed to be "modular;" maybe that means that the graphics and combat algorithms etc could be easily used with either command structure. Or maybe it would be an entirely different game.

In any case, as far as CM, for me the realism is the foundation of the "fun." I agree that certain orders and the "cower" SOPs could be tweaked to make the friendly TacAI more of an aid to the player than a hindrance. But in general I think BFC is on the right path with the CM series and while I don't need to be bothering with bootlaces or zippers, I don't want to see any realism lost in future editions.

[Richie]

Well I do hope the Aussies will be included as their own entity in CMAK, Hopefully as "Diggers". Will they be spontaeously driven to play "TWO UP" (90%) if there is no other action going on? (See note in any travel guide on aussies betting on a fly and two glasses of beer)

Oh Andreas, how can the Germans be "dour and humourless"? You guys drink more beer than Australians. I've seen your beer halls for myself.

It is true though, I am stuck on CMBO for now, but I must say that it is only with the input and feedback from such excellent gentlemen as yourself, that I have been able to realise the full potential of the fine gift the wonderful team at Battlefront have given me with both CMBO & CMBB

[Stephen Smith]

Thanks-

Actually, I'm an engineer. But I read alot.

RANT MODE OFF:

This is my prediction for the future of CM.

In the not too distant future (in fact, probably, today) it will be technically feasible to 'draw' all soldiers in a squad (Rather than represent squads by 3 soldiers, teams by 2 soldiers, leader groups by 1 soldier, etc). This will be done-after all, why not? Its realistic (why represent 12 soldiers by 3, if you can actually draw the 12?), it looks cool, etc etc.

However, there will be problems. The computer AI will screw little things up: when you want to line a squad up behind a wall, the computer will occasionally accidentally set individuals on the wrong side of the wall. Sometimes it will place soldiers outside of a building, or outside of foxholes, etc.

To fix this, the software will have to be tweaked to allow the player to manually move individual soldiers. After all, its not realistic for one soldier of a squad occupying a bunch of foxholes to be lying on the ground next to a perfectly good foxhole, is it?

Tied to this will be occasional errors in the casualties caused: perhaps you have the machine gunner behind a corner, and the squad takes casualties from the street, but the computer randomly 'kills' the machine gunner rather than the individual in the street. Utterly unrealistic! So, the software will be rewritten so that fire is targetted on individual soldier icons rather than the 'squad' icon. (and similarly, individual soldiers, rather than 'squads' fire at the enemy as well).

Then, you will realize that sometimes you want your soldiers to lie down-perhaps in a foxhole, perhaps behind a wall, etc. Again, realism dictates that it be done, the software is an easy tweak to add 'lay down/stand' orders, so why not?

Then, some people realize that moving individual soldiers gives you certain advantages. For instance, if you move two soldiers to the edge of a wood, but leave the mass of the squad deep in it, you can see out without committing the whole squad (i.e. set up an LP/OP). Perhaps you want to put a machine gunner at one part of a wall and the riflemen at another. Perhaps you want to be able to cover a long hedgeline with one squad, so you spread the guys out more than the computer would.

It becomes apparent that moving individual guys is no longer an option; it is a necessity. Both to do exactly what you want to do, and to avoid allowing the computer to set you up in screwy positions, you find yourself moving individual soldiers rather than squads.

Everything is realistic, everything is logical. Every little change 'improved' upon a problem identified in CMBO/CMBB. But now, you are maneuvering individual soldiers in smaller and smaller time increments. The scenarios will get smaller; the time represented will get smaller; the action performed by each command will get smaller; and the game will have essentially evolved into a squad simulator that can be used to move a platoon, company, or battalion, for anyone masochistic enough to force himself through it.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Richie:

Oh Andreas, how can the Germans be "dour and humourless"? You guys drink more beer than Australians. I've seen your beer halls for myself.

Drinking is a serious business. More so in Bavaria, where they have all the beer halls. Most of them are populated by diggers and kiwis anyway.

[Stephen Smith]

SFJaykey--

I think you are about right. The difference in emphasis between Squad Leader and Panzerblitz is pretty close to the difference in emphasis between what people who like CMBB and people who prefer CMBO are looking for.

Where I disagree with you is that (as my above post suggests), I think alot of the steps taken in CMBB (and as I predict in CMII) take the system 'below' the squad level. For example, moving a tank to a certain place is at the 'squad' level. Moving a tank to a certain place, and having to manually set the turret direction, is at the 'team' or even 'individual crewman' level. And I have used this analogy in the past, but: moving a squad across a field (as was done in CMBO) is a 'squad' level command. Moving a squad across a field, but having to worry about the most appropriate time for that squad to walk/run/sneak/rush/etc is below the 'squad' level-its more like the team leader-level. CMBO made me feel like a company or perhaps battalion commander. CMBB makes me feel like 25 team leaders.

steve

[aka_tom_w]

" CMBO made me feel like a company or perhaps battalion commander. CMBB makes me feel like 25 team leaders. "

ok

BUT is that bad or is that good? :confused:

I think they intended to design CMBO to make you feel like 25 team leaders in the first place, they just didn't exactly get it "right" the first time around

I don't expect CMX2 to go below the squad level or the team level as you put it.

-tom w

[ May 14, 2003, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Marlow]

Is CMBB really more of a micromanager's game than CMBO? Somethings were simplified in CMBB. The fiddly hide and ambush stuff replaced with a much more user friendly covered arc command. The follow command allows easier hunting of tanks without replotting just because the tank moved a bit. It seems that most of the fuss is about the new movement commands and the effects of MG fire, both of which are marked improvements that do not so much increase the micromanagement as the realism. This isn't the case of adding unnecessary detail, but rather making the unit act properly to fire. A little story: When I first started playing CMBO I did all the right things like moving up my MGs to cover routes of advance and using mortar spotters and HE to suppress likely enemy possitions before I would move troops forward. But over time I learned that this was often unnecessary in the game as I could just run my troops across the danger area without undue casualties. Then came CMBB, and to my delight, I was force back to proper tactics. Having to use support arms and movement properly isn't undue micromanagement, but realistic modeling.

[Richie]

Andreas, this is certainly true as one just can't seem to get away from those damned tourist backpackers. Unfortunately I rarely drink beer. Only when I'm desperate. I drink Cider. If I get in my car and drive for about 2000kms I can enjoy a beer in Sydney. I live in Adelaide. Not that everyone in Adelaide drinks Cider but I find it fun. Here we drink mostly beer and wine (re our famous? Barossa wine region) Perhaps it was in Bavaria I enjoyed your excellent beer halls, I can't remember as I was a drunken backpacker. I did indeed find that fun too, as I find BOTH CMBO & CMBB fun. I can't help feeling that if you find drinking a serious business then perhaps your taking it too seriously !!! :eek: You should then definitely come too Australia, so's I can buy you several drinks... no, seriously !

[Stephen Smith]

Frankly, I haven't played much CMBB. I played few times, found it tedious, and ever since then, whenever I call up a scenario, I load it, look at the screen, and realize I just don't want to go through with it.

However, when I did play those few times, I do have to admit that I enjoyed playing defense-for exactly the reasons you mentioned. I think the covered arc command is really good. re: mortars. to be honest with you, I've never figured out how to use them! I have read that its possible to get them to fire when they don't have a LOS (and a leader/spotter does), but I've never been able to get it to work!

[Nippy]

However, when I did play those few times, I do have to admit that I enjoyed playing defense-for exactly the reasons you mentioned. I think the covered arc command is really good.

I just convered "The Bridge Heads" from CMBB back to CM:BO as best as I could. Bleh... Rifle Squad after Rifle squad walked into the MG-42s like they weren't even there.

[Patrick Moore]

Originally posted by dalem:

I understand what foamy is asking for. I haven't bothered to play BB in a month or so, not much at all before that. Part of it is burnout, part of it is my abominable luck with AFV, but part of it is that the game is simply too much work as it stands for folks like me (and maybe Foamy). Doesn't mean I'm an arcade player, nor a simpleton, nor crying for going all the way back to BO. It means I'm not having fun with the current incarnation.

That's all.

-dale

I hear ya, man!

I asked for a feature that (IMHO!!) would make the game more "fun and playable;" an accessible OOB during the battle. Just a simple list/chart of what units are on the map and their status (broken, tired, alert, etc.) to keep track of all the units in a battle and I got "run outta town like a common pygmy!"

Many folks objected to this as being too unrealistic for CMBB. The only two responses I can think of

1) it is a feature that doesn't have to be used by the player (why have variable scale of FOW...no FOW is unrealistic!)

2) it would make the game more accessible for the casual players.

I guess what I'm trying to say is to keep all the realism and detail in the game but make it scalable(sp.) for us "tactic/SA-challenged" gamers!

Again, these are my humble opinions. Thanks for reading. I love this game and their are moments that make my jaw drop out of amazement of some cool graphics or battle events. Because of such moments I KNOW that I will buy CMAK regardless of how it appears on the market!

[dalem]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

" CMBO made me feel like a company or perhaps battalion commander. CMBB makes me feel like 25 team leaders. "

ok

BUT is that bad or is that good? :confused:

For me it's bad. Very bad. But no biggie. I have BO to play. And it's not like I get an electric shock every time I fire up BB. I'm going to fire it up and send out turns I owe tonight. I'm even enjoying some of those games, parts of them.

When CM:AK comes up I'll buy it and play it and hopefully having Brits and Yanks to play with will get me more "into" the game. I'll see.

-dale

[MikeyD]

Two points.

One: Have you noticed the occassional CMBO "AI sucks" thread has been substituted in CMBB with the occassional "CMBB not as much fun" thread. I suspect the two are linked. I cannot remember the AI handing me my head this often in CMBO. If I had a fragile ego I'd take it kind'a hard!

Second: I seem to recall even in the manual BFC says people have a tendency to over-micromanage the game. It doesn't really need to be this hard. For instance, with 'move to contact' command a lot of CMBO's worry of marching troops into unknown territory has been taken care of. Don't you remember watching your troops continue marching trough mg fire in CMBO and feeling powerless to stop them?

I gues one of CMBB's "flaws" is that soldier/vehicle movement and behaviour in the game has become so much more refined, playing CMBB like it was CMBO just feels too heavy-handed. so we unconsciously tend to micromanage more than encessary.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Nippy:

I just convered "The Bridge Heads" from CMBB back to CM:BO as best as I could. Bleh... Rifle Squad after Rifle squad walked into the MG-42s like they weren't even there.

Hey Nippy - you really got the point of the battle. Good idea, should have done that myself before I *cough* deleted *cough* CMBO from my HD.

[Nippy]

*Part comedy, part counter-thesis. All laughs.*

In Combat Mission II, each turn will represent 1 second, you will have separate icons for each soldier, each limb of each soldier will have to be moved separately, and each scenario will require 48 hours of preparation followed by 6 hours of hiding under an artillery barrage followed by 30 minutes of shooting blindly in the general direction of the enemy. All of this is 'realistic' and those who complain about such things as not wanting to micromanage the position of each soldier's shin will be derided as fantasy-loving illiterates.

Combat Mission: Forever Underfire (CM:FU) - in June of 2007 BTS was purchased by war game publisher Strategy First. Their first order of business was the put into development the next generation Combat Mission games. Once again set in Normandy, the latest CM game, called CM:FU, promises to delight both grogs and “l33t b0yz” gamers alike with incredible changes and improvements like:

- Removal of LMG’s, HMGs, mortars, off map artillery, HE rounds for tanks and AT guns, barbed wire, flamethrowers, satchel charges, and grenades. This move alone will bring much greater game play balance to infantry units as they inflicted too high of a causality rate on infantry.

- All Half-Tracks will be replaced with nitro-burning transport trucks that can withstand 75mm gun hits to the engine. Be it marshes or pavement, the Mark I Turbo-Truck will always travel at a speed in the triple digits. No more wasted time having your infantry walk around. Now they can ride in style.

- The all variants of the German 88mm gun (Including Infantry AT weapons) have been removed from the game. In fact, any gun over 57mm has been removed along with tungsten rounds. Now armor battles will be more balanced and enjoyable than ever.

- Bombs dropped from aircraft no longer damage ground targets. To balance this out, AA guns no longer damage aircraft. In fact AA guns no longer even aim at aircraft.

- No more Tac-AI restrictions on player orders. Troops now follow your commands to the letter without fail. What charge light infantry into a burning building? What to see if a King Tiger can float in a river? Well now you can and that pesky Tac-AI won't get in your way!

- T-26 Persing, M48 Patton, M1A1 Abrams, and tactical nuclear weapons can be used from June44 onward. This will help balance out against the German Tiger II (all refitted with a 37mm guns of course)

- New simplified armor types for easy reference. Cardboard, tinfoil, and coke can. No more confusing penetration tables to compute means faster calculations of turns.

- New and more robust infantry. With new AI and leadership values, your infantry won't be halted by silly things like enemy fire, explosions, or death.

- Troops may no longer assault tanks. This has been a sore spot for armor fans for a long time as they never enjoyed having to baby-sit their armor. Have no fear. Now tanks can go where ever they want when ever they want without a care in the world.

Big things are in store for Combat Mission's future. In fact, the next installment is already in the works. It's called Combat Mission: Frontline Urban Battles Around the Reich. This new game will feature a hit point system for armored units, a leveling system, and an interface so simple, the game will play itself…literally! Oh yes, CM:FU and CM: FUBAR will be the pinnacle of war gaming.

*A special thanks to well researched rants of Fishu at the WWII Online boards and for teaching me that fudging real world data in the name of "Gameplay" is never a good idea. Fight the power! Free AP40!*

[ May 14, 2003, 05:34 PM: Message edited by: Nippy ]

[Andreas]

Hehe.

[Silvio Manuel]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Silvio Manuel:

No fun in CMBB?

Try this:

lower the Fog of War from Extreme to Full. Should make spotting much easier. Alternatively, make sure you don't play in reduced visibility conditions like dawn/dusk, overcast, fog, rain, etc.

Play with Veteran troops, Regular at the minimum. Should reduce the irritating crawl thru MG fire (heh). However you'll still experience the "improved" MG-area fire/suppression from infantry and tank MGs.

Give the attacker a 10% bonus in troops.

Do you think these will help you? They should help to make CMBB more "arcade" like... much like the easier gameplay of CMBO, but with all the improvements still intact.

that is a GOOD point

not having enough fun in CMBB?

Try fightling with ALL Crack or Elite units if that is your idea of fun.

and YES your fun might actually increase (if fun means winning without working hard for it) if you play at only FULL FOW and not Extreme EFOW.

those two factors right there are like turning on the CMBO fun switch I would guess.

Great Suggestion Silvio, but please don't mess with the REALISM of CMBB because it should be more like CMBO, IT should NOT be more like CMBO at ALL!

Read my sigature line below if there is any doubt as to where Steve G of BFC stands on the issue

-tom w </font>