Will some of the FUN be put back ??

[dalem]

Originally posted by 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!

And I suspect the two are not linked. Nowhere in any of the posts I have made on these topics (and there have been a few since the game came out) have I tied my enjoyment of the gameplay with victory.

-dale

[REVS]

OK, here's my two cents' worth. All this reminds me of how Squad Leader went wrong and became ASL.

It got more complicated. In the beginning was the 40 page rule book, which then responded to the calls for 'realism' far too often, and it ended up the 140 page rule book. Players spent most of their time looking up rules and fending off the endless arguments about rules and their interpretation.

The bottom line: more complication doesn't mean more realism. I'm sure there's a mathematical theory to explain this, but with a basic game like Squad Leader or, in our case, CMBO, you get, say 80% realism, 20% fantasy.

Now, with CMBB, you add 20% more complication, and you raise the bar to 82% realism. I imagine with the next generation of game, they'll add a further 20% complication and end up with 84% realism.

In short, the law of diminishing returns applies. More 'realism' is basically a bummer for playability.

What we need is a game designer who listens to arguments about 'realism' only in the beginning, then remains deaf to these arguments for evermore.

If we took CMBB and its much better modelling of AFVs and artillery, but got rid of all those boring little 'realistic' tiring troops and went back to playing with our tireless little supermen, we'd have a more fun game with 81% realism. All people who buy this "more fun" CMBB would have to sign an oath never to complain about realism-based issues, and just get on with playing the bloody game.

Now, this isn't going to happen, unfortunately. The designers of CMBB, like the Squad Leader/ASL chaps, are besotted with their boring, beloved 'realism', and like moths drawn to a flame just don't know when to stop pursuing it. I think this mentality comes with the territory of being dedicated, bright and committed enough to design such a wonderful game in the first place.

[Moon]

Interesting viewpoint REVS, and certainly not incorrect. But don't forget that you're talking about the guys who managed to bring you that 80% realism level in the first place. Most games I have lying around here manage half the fun at 20% the realism it seems. There is a point of diminishing returns indeed, and we have always been careful not to cross it in fact. By comparing CMBB with ASL it sounds like you need a brain like Einstein to be able to play it. But that's not the case - it's a breeze to learn the controls of the game, they're not more complicated than CMBO's (in fact, some FPS games seem to require a memory like Einstein's and the finger acrobatics of a Copperfield to make them work properly).

But the game certainly is more difficult to master than CMBO. And that is fully intended. If this takes the fun out of it for some, the best solution is to adjust the various options available, from the fog of war settings to simply choosing what you play with (veteran troops, fit troops, avoid deep snow). CM gives you those options, use them.

CMAK will certainly not make a jump in complexity like some people claim CMBB did. Thing is, it seems we have achieved that balance between realism and playability in the current engine as it is, and there is little gain by going further (except for some small tweaks maybe). A new readjustment will be easier to make with the new engine, while at the same time keeping complexity low and possibly introducing even more options to allow people to choose the setting they like. Achieving this with CMAK would probably add another 6 months of development right there.

Martin

[S.Sgt. Havilandt]

I hope the new one has a tweaked computer pick feature during random quick battles. It doesn't work so hot as is, and I am sick of fighting King Tigers and SMG squads.

Please, please, tweak this.

[REVS]

Hey Moon

Appreciate the various points you make, they're all very good. And the last paragraph of my previous post was intended to express my admiration for your collective abilities and achievements, which I think are outstanding.

But where I think the 'complication' comes into the game is the level of management, and hence micro-management required. In CMBB I think there's more than in CMBO, and it's not the kind of fun management we like to do, either. The excessively tiring troops, the delay in driving vehicles along a complicated path, these are undoubtedly more realistic, but for so many people looking for recreation, not re-creation, they're simply boring details that we'd really, sincerely, like to do without.

I do enjoy CMBB, in fact I like it a bit more than CMBO (a) because artillery is modelled better and ( I finally get to be the Russians, whose side I have fought on against my German-loving best mate for the last 20 years, first in Squad Leader, and now with your excellent game.

However, I can just see history repeating itself with SL/ASL, and now CMBO/CMBB. If only the head decision-maker in your organisation cottoned on to the idea that your major target audience is not fellow wargaming grogs of the highest echeclons. Rather, it's the middling suburban boys with a bit of leisure time, a beer in the hand, probably no actual military experience, and a very healthily developed capacity for fantasy with themselves at the helm of the heroics, who are the people who will provide you with an income, and plaudits, into your old age.

[Moon]

Hehe, don't call us an organisation. We're just six guys, with beer in the hand, little military experience (I think 2 of us served, might be wrong though) and a very healthy capacity for fantasy

Seriously, though, if you find that you micromanage too much... then don't. I have never micromanaged CM, and that hasn't changed with CMBB (in fact, I find that I micromanage less with CMBB because the added commands give me more flexibility to express to the TacAI what I want to do). You will not win a game of CMBB when you micromanage that you would have otherwise lost. Or to put it differently - if your (as in - "some people's", not talking about your particular style of play, just to make that clear) "plan" to win is based on some kind of micromanaged "move there then do this at exactly this time while this guy is doing that 3 seconds later", then that person's understanding of tactical combat in WWII is totally flawed. It just didn't work this way, and while one can argue about the exact balance of playability and realism, we would never ever dumb down CM to the level which would allow someone to pull this off.

From my experience people that have trouble adjusting to CMBB are trying to do too much in too little time. It seems that to them the mere idea of spending one turn doing nothing, simply nothing (as in not giving any orders), is totally strange. But that's the only thing that is occasionally needed to rest your troops, achieve sufficient suppression to silence that pesky enemy MG, or simply get a better angle on the enemy tank.

In a way it all might be our fault, however - we didn't make CMBO as good as we wanted I keep asking myself sometimes - if there never had been a CMBO, would people even have a "problem" with CMBB?

Martin

[SFJaykey]

Originally posted by REVS:.....{CM's target audience is] the middling suburban boys with a bit of leisure time, a beer in the hand, probably no actual military experience, and a very healthily developed capacity for fantasy with themselves at the helm.... [/QB]

Enjoying this exchange and sorry to interrupt, but I have to say this describes me pretty much to a "T", except you left out the pot belly. Don't know a Grossdeutschland from a gross dutchman (or at least I didn't before visiting Dorosh's site). And I love the realism in CMBB!

I think the best way to make at least some of the "funseekers" happy while maintaining realism is to tweak some of the orders and TacAI SOPs to make the game easier to play, more intuitive, more an aid to the player rather than the cause of frustration (like the "cover panic" and "AFV cower" SOPs). By easier to play I mean accomplishing the same task while issuing fewer orders, setting fewer waypoints. "Hunt," "Shoot & Scoot", "Advance" etc are all orders that combine a set of instructions to your troops...these orders and others in that vein make it easier to play with less micro-management and should be a focus of future adjustments. IMHO.

[Warmaker]

Well, we can make future CM games be more appealing to a wider range of players by doing the following:

- Forget armor values for your vehicles. Use the hit points system. Give the guy with the 9mm pistol a chance!

- Where's the resources to harvest? Put them in!

- Where's the harvesters? Put them in!

- Where's the factory and barracks? Put them in, too!

- Why can't my troops bunny hop down the streets of Stalingrad?

- Include respawning points.

- Where's the Orcs, I mean *ahem* nevermind.

- This isn't what it was supposed to be! GI Combat had it right!

[dalem]

Originally posted by Warmaker:

Well, we can make future CM games be more appealing to a wider range of players by doing the following:

- Forget armor values for your vehicles. Use the hit points system. Give the guy with the 9mm pistol a chance!

- Where's the resources to harvest? Put them in!

- Where's the harvesters? Put them in!

- Where's the factory and barracks? Put them in, too!

- Why can't my troops bunny hop down the streets of Stalingrad?

- Include respawning points.

- Where's the Orcs, I mean *ahem* nevermind.

- This isn't what it was supposed to be! GI Combat had it right!

You know, constantly belittling what may be valid concerns is not very constructive for any of us.

Not everyone who is bored by BB is hoping for increased immunity to MG fire and powerups. Some of us just want the "gee whiz!" factor back for ourselves. There is a whole continuum of gameplay that exists for many features in CM - it's not just "Fun ON"/"Realism OFF", and "Fun OFF"/"Realism ON", so there is nothing served by portraying it that way.

-dale

[foamy]

This is a really interesting and informative discussion, the problem is we all have our own ideas of what is FUN.

For me, we don't need to reverse all the really great technical improvements made in CMBB, just a few simple things will do, for example; a) Reduce the Tiring and let the troops get into the action earlier. Lets have decent sized explosions and flying dirt from artillery etc. so we can see and feel the experience, c) Bring back the shock wave. d) Give troops a little "Rambo" juice so they don't all run away at the first sign of action. IMHO these modest enhancements won't make the game play "Gamey", it just adds back some excitement.

[aka_tom_w]

yes but how we/you define or describe that "gee whiz" factor

is it possible CMBO had that "gee whiz" factor primarily because it was a NEW in fact revolutionary strategy wargame concept (i.e. Full Blown 3D battlefield, with a we go system with great accuracy in armour penetration calculations)

I am not sure how to revisit that "gee whiz" factor in an subquent CM games (CMBB CMAK) build on the original CMBO engine. :confused:

I think there are alot of "gee whiz" factors in CMBB, I personally LOVE the cover arcs. And Perhaps the COOLEST "gee whiz" factor is the NEW and ground breaking Death Clock.!

I am not sure what dalem is actually looking for?

Hi dalem,

if you could make some optional user controled setting or switch in CMBB what would it do? ?

As has been suggested you could just play CMBB with more experienced units and only full FOW (not EFOW) and get the same/simliar experience as CMBO?

On one point I totally agree, I cannot understand the spoken sound files of either side in CMBB, and for me that is one of the biggest negatives of the Russian front, as I feel no "comfort level" or kinship with either the Allies or Axis like I did in CMBO, but that is mostly "just" an emotional feel or attachment to one side. I play CMBB a great deal now and I really do like the new and enhanced level of realism, and now I prefer it (by a large margin) to CMBO.

But to be honest I can't wait for CMAK so I can once again command all the english speaking forces and units and l look forward to ALL their new accents and phrases (E.g. Stick that in your Pipe and Smoke it Fritz! .

-tom w

[ May 14, 2003, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

"d) Give troops a little "Rambo" juice so they don't all run away at the first sign of action. "

Simple,

Why not just use crack or Elite units to get some of that "Rambo" factor back?

I have not played with Elite units (ever) in CMBB but I am guessing they are still fully stoked with Rambo Juice™ ( like CMBO)

-tom w

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

On one point I totally agree, I cannot understand the spoken sound files of either side in CMBB, and for me that is one of the biggest negatives of the Russian front, as I feel no "comfort level" or kinship with either the Allies or Axis like I did in CMBO, but that is mostly "just" an emotional feel or attachment to one side.

Hear, hear! I hope that BFC will take the effort to get English translations for each of the .wav files this time.

I also look forward to modding the English .wav files back into CMBB (although the english accent might be a bit incongruent with the Russian troops --- maybe I should use the English guys for the Finns, the Aussies for the Romanians, and the Americans for the Germans and Russians?).

Steve

[dalem]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

yes but how we/you define or describe that "gee whiz" factor

I think it's probably so subjective that it would be very difficult to define.

is it possible CMBO had that "gee whiz" factor primarily because it was a NEW in fact revolutionary strategy wargame concept (i.e. Full Blown 3D battlefield, with a we go system with great accuracy in armour penetration calculations)

I think that is a significant part of it. BUT I was left so flat so quickly with BB even while still playing BO strongly that I do believe there is something more at work for me than "it ain't nuthin' like the first time".

Hi dalem,

if you could make some optional user controled setting or switch in CMBB what would it do?

As has been suggested can you not just play CMBB with more experienced units and only Full FOW and get the same experience as CMBO?

You are misunderstanding my points. In a nutshell, I do not find the game "too hard to win", I find it "too hard to play". Troops under MG fire should duck and crawl, obviously. But for ME, constantly redirecting every squad back to a treeline two meters away and the like has the appeal of sprinkling paprika into my eyes.

I find the "panic" mode unrealistic (hah!). Individual men run and crap themselves and hide. Whole squads do not dance back and forth in sight of the enemy slowly whittling away. If the squad is a "pickup" then simply disappear it as "dispersed" and don't make me think I have a viable unit to pay attention to.

As otehrs have mentioned, give me an "advance through contact" command that will enable me to direct a platoon or squad to "point B". How or when they get there is unimportant to me.

Anyway, those are the types of mechanical things that would get me more into the game.

-dale

[Warmaker]

If Rambo infantry is what you want, then that's fine. Make it an option like Fog of War but don't you dare make it the default, unchangeable setting. There's a reason (or two) CMBB is on my computer now while CMBO is not.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by MrSpkr:

I also look forward to modding the English .wav files back into CMBB (although the english accent might be a bit incongruent with the Russian troops ---

Perhaps you need to review your copy of Enemy at the Gates again.

[Stephen Smith]

Interesting Discussion-

Ultimately, I guess, it comes down to a completely subjective judgement of 'how much detail is enough?' There's no right answer, there's no realistic answer-its just a matter of personal preference-what exactly do you want to spend your time doing while playing a game? In my own case, with CM,I basically spent the overwhelming majority of my time simply moving guys; I rarely gave them specific targets (I let the AI do that-though not artillery, of course), I rarely used 'sneak' or 'crawl', or even 'run'. I never really experienced squads being able to run up to machine guns unscathed, but I never really tried to do that, either. Pretty clearly, I was interested in the 'big picture' of a CM scenario (setting up lines of defense, or attacking them), and was perfectly willing to allow the computer to take care of the details (i.e. exactly how does a unit move across the field? exactly who does a unit shoot at? exactly where is the turret of a tank oriented at?).

In SL/ASL, my own preference was roughly at the Cross of Iron level. Squad Leader did have some annoying little little problems that COI fixed (like rather generic tanks), and COD/GI:AoV/ASL seemed to add meaningless detail (swimming? scaling cliffs?).

Interestingly, the game Third Reich is going through a similar evolution. There have been about 4 versions of it up to now, with the latest being Advanced Third Reich. Far more complicated than the original, each one has added a bit more detail. Some time this year, another version will be released, A World at War - which is Third Reich in a global game. It will have 2-3000 counters, a 200 page rulebook, and cost $175 dollars. At present, they expect to sell about 700 copies.

I wonder if any game has ever evolved without becoming more and more complicated?

steve

[Engel]

Originally posted by Stephen Smith:

I wonder if any game has ever evolved without becoming more and more complicated?

I don't know about other games, but many roleplaying games in recent years have developed like that. Although there was a phase when realism (or rather consistency and plausibility) was mixed up with complexity, giving the rolegamers rule monstrosities such as the Hero series, GURPS, Aftermath, and Rolemaster. If you used all the rules (at least those that didn't contradict each other)(, you got a very complex games. They did often fail the reality check regardless, but that's another matter entirely.

Anyway, in recent years the development has been towards internally consistent rulesets, where you don't have separate rules for everything and exceptions to those rules. Rather, you tend to get games that have a reasonably universal resolving mechanism. OTOH, roleplaying games are different from wargames, despite originating from them; you rarely need to know the exact chances of penetrating 80mm of rolled homogenous armor at 60º with a 50mm APC, for example.

[Marlow]

Originally posted by dalem:

As otehrs have mentioned, give me an "advance through contact" command that will enable me to direct a platoon or squad to "point B". How or when they get there is unimportant to me.

This one I will agree with. I'd like it if a squad would remember its original objective. Let it panic and such, but when it is back in good order, I'd like it to start off again unless I cancel the order.

Dale, one suggestion I have is to keep to smaller battles with only a company or so of Infantry.

[Redwolf]

Are people honestly interested why I threw up on CMBB?

I observe that those who had similar opinions than me just went away while I still have hope to get something ironed out for CMAK (and I also observe the 1.03c patch is already much better in some of them).

But I certainly don't want a penis comparision like the last times

[ May 15, 2003, 08:30 AM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[88mm]

One way to achieve better managment (=less work for the player) and still maintain the high level of realism is more CO-control and Platoon control.

What i've seen in other Wargames and miss in CMBO/CMBB:

1) Tank-platoon formations like Wegde, echelon left/right, column etc..

-Not availible in CM**

2) Platoon HQ orders like above to make easy line-ups like inline, scout (with a forward point) ,column, march, outflank left/right where the platoon Hq desides where the squads should go, not you.

-not availible in CM**

3) A pool where you select your officers based on what you prefer, like a Co Hq with scout-speciality, or a attack specialist, defend-specialst..whatever. And afcource a option to upgrade the Co/Platoon Hq with decorations, start etc. (something like in PG)

-Not availible in CM**

In sum; Make the game less unit control and more Group control, where the platoons HQ or Tank Commanders can make choices for themselves instead of every single unit standing as a idiot, not knowing what to do and waiting for your input to make a usefull contribution to the effort. Ow yeah, atleast they shoot back. and they duck and hide too when things are getting hot. But's that almost all you can expect. The Co Hq, The Platoon Hq or everyone else, noone have/gets one brilliant idea to assualt that pesky at head on, make a flank mavouvre whatever. It all comes down to you. and that's what's wrong with it.

I loved the action in ácross the rhine with the tank-platoons. Give them a contact point, say "probe" or "delaY" and they make contact with enemy units, where they keeped in contact and battled to enemy from a nice distance, whit probe they tried to re-contact themselve. With delay they didn't. Delay was usefull against a advancing enemy, where my tansk make contact , made a few shots and pulled back a little. Great to see how those tactics works, without the need to control every unit on the field.

Afcource this requires a much better Ai, and maybe it's just exactly this why it isn't done.

Most Ai are stupid, and to get realism the last thing you want is a dumb Ai....

More lessons about group-control: Look at Shogun, total war. Very impressive, to see your army in such detail. and yet you don't have to micro-manage to get a realistic feeling.

[Guest BigAlMoho]

"In sum; Make the game less unit control and more Group control"

CM started out as "Computer SQUAD Leader"... The idea IS to lead EACH squad as if you were the "SQUAD LEADER"... It is all about making SQUAD level decisions... Yes, company and higher level plans ARE needed but once formulated it is the SQUAD level actions that make or break the larger plans...

In CM:BO I found myself getting lazy and just throwing units at the objectives and consequently I was starting to lose interest... Then, with CM:BB I found that if I used the same knee-jerk style of play I was getting destroyed and I didn't like that at all... But, now I have regained my SQUAD level mentality and I am enjoying the game much more than CM:BO... It has been a rough re-education but now I am letting go of the old, bad habits and getting the proper lower level play style into "muscle memory"...

Al

[88mm]

that's fine , if your interested in mini-games on a platoon /companie scale. But when you're interested in "on to wolga" games, the squad-approach is just too much. With a complete bataljon you don't want to control every single men. Atleast, i don't. I like to keep it playable'that means. A battle must be done in a certain amount of time, say 1 a 2 hours. Instead of putting so much attention in a squad or a single tank, there could be more focus on the Hq/s. So that you have more time for what really matters, set out the lines, deployment etc.etc. and like another game i know, at the same you CAN! control 1 single unit, 1 unit at any given time. Just to get the feeling of being "there". So you take control of one tank, ride/shoot with it, or you contol a squad. I really can't see the joy in controlling 200+ units, one at a time, turn after turn....

and when this micro-managment expands, what do you got? Right, platoon :eek:

[Sergei]

In general, I find playing CM a lot of fun. There is just enough micro management for me to have it more personal than some kind of command/supply type game, but not so much that I couldn't keep focus on my objectives. 88mm, you're saying you want to play scenarios like On to Volga - well, I don't. It is just something that CM hasn't been designed for. Games like CM have a certain scope. There's no point at trying to make it to an operational level, just like (IMHO) there's no point in having grand strategic level scenarios for TOAW. But certainly you can control a battalion (which btw. doesn't make for 200 units) with ease in CM. I do at least. Just stay clear of the regimental level.

I don't really understand your playing style if you have to give commands to every unit of yours every turn. I usually give movement orders for several turns time to part of my force, while the rest are overwatching. Then I move the overwatchers.

My main gripe is about vehicle path finding, especially since in CMBB you have to be conservative about giving extra waypoints since they cost extra time. I mean, if there's just some rough between points A and B, surely the vehicle should be able to do better than plot some 50 million new edge-hugging waypoints.

[Andreas]

Scale is an important issue here. Many posters here can not know that, but initially there was a very low point limit in the QB engine in CMBO (1,500 point battles, IIRC) which was removed after a lot of clamouring. BTS (as they then were) stated that this was the upper limit of what the game was designed for, and it would work best with 1,000 point battles, or sumfink (working from memory here, but I think the ball-park range is right).

To use an inappropriate analogy: asking the game to work just as well with 'To the Volga' type battles is akin to expecting your 1969 VW Beetle to run as smoothly at a constant 80 miles an hour as a modern Beetle would. You can go 80 miles an hour in both - it is a lot more fun in the latter though.

Regarding platoon orders for tanks - CMBB introduced the command model for vehicles. This was a big step forward in its own right. I would expect BFC to refine this in the same way as they have refined infantry orders. Whether this will (or should) include specific formations to adopt, I am not sure. I personally think it is fun to do that oneself and rewarding if it works out. It is also more flexible. This comes back to scale again though. I rarely play anything where I have more than 2 platoons of vehicles to contend with. I can see how it would be a different issue with a battle where you have 25 platoons. But I ma just not interested in those, and I don't think that CMBO/B has been designed with those in mind anyway.

Selecting commanders with special abilities is just wholly unrealistic, and goes against the grain of what CMBB is about. This did not happen in the real world. Formations had to deal with the officers they were given. I don't think such a mechanism has any place in CM, ever.

I am also completely against anything that turns CM into a command game, and I would not buy such a game. You are really requesting a different game then. Fortunately enough, BFC seem to have the same opinion there.