MRoadster Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 A recent thread about multi-turrets in CMBB got me thinking about the topic of possible upgrades to CMBB. As a huge fan of the eastern front, I am always a bit "bummed" when I load CMBB after playing a round of CMAK. First off, I don't want to see a delay in CMX2 just like the majority of you. However, I am curious to know if there are others out there who are craving the eastern front with the graphical and gameplay goodness that is in CMAK. Since arty played a huge role on the eastern front, the smoke effects of CMAK would be ideally suited to the arty heavy scenarios in CMBB. This alone would be a major upgrade in visuals and LOS issues. I can live without the multi-turrets on the eastern front (however their inclusion would be nice). CMBO was justifiably left behind because of the huge changes made when CMBB came out. But CMBB and CMAK are much closer in their gameplay parameters. What do you guys think? Can we have our cake and eat it too? A CMBB upgrade with hopefully minimal/no impact on CMX2 while we anxiously await the next generation of Combat Mission goodness? Battlefront, is there any hope? C'mon, let's see a show of hands! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 I'm playing a lot more CMBB than I am CMAK. Yes I like the dust and arty smoke in AK, but compared to the BO to BB change that is nothing. The last time I played BO was late last year. The last time I played BB was a couple hours ago. Seems clear enough to me that BB doesn't need to be fixed to be played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRoadster Posted February 4, 2004 Author Share Posted February 4, 2004 JasonC, Yep, I'm still playing a lot more CMBB than CMAK. CMBB is still highly playable and my preferred choice. It's just that each time I boot up CMAK I come away with the "Gee, that subtle change would be GREAT in CMBB" factor. The issue isn't game playability, it is gameplay enhancement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 On some subtle points I agree. I'd like to see tankers stay buttoned even if they are in Russia, for instance - something the recent patch makes possible for CMAK (full minute buttoning). And dust from big arty barrages would make realistic Russian arty tactics much more effective (map fire obscuring things at the right times as well as hurting things, etc). The things I am most irked by in CMBB (minor, but there are some) wouldn't be changed by going to CMAK engine things, though (overmodeled this, undermodeled that, weird rariety effects encouraging armor cherry picking, etc). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wol Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 ANd Multi turret T-28s at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 I hate to rain on your parade, guys, especially as I agree with you over the desirability of upgrading BB in an abstract sense. But it ain't gonna happen. BFC is compeletely committed to a maximum effort to get to work on CMx2 and bring that to us as quickly as possible. And to tell you the truth, I support that decision even though it is not a painless one. BFC is apparently convinced that in the long run they can give us more of what we want faster with a new engine redesigned from the ground up than to continue tweaking the old one. I'm not a programmer, but from what little I have picked up on the subject and observations I have made over the years, I would tend to concur. It seems to me that continued tweaking of an old system beyond a certain point just introduces fresh bugs. Soon your patches have patches and the whole thing is about double the size on your HD that it started out and runs slow as hell. Can anyone think of a company that has gone down that path and whose customers suffer daily because of it? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 They would need to fix the Panzer IV turret problem first. I just cant stand playing with the tin panzer. I also do not like the soviet tanks not being penalized for their poor gun depression. A cheap fix would be to not give them equal hull down benefits. But the fact that they can blast down into gullys at infantry is so gamey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 Originally posted by Mr. Tittles: They would need to fix the Panzer IV turret problem first. I just cant stand playing with the tin panzer.Do you have evidence that it didn't behave like that in real life? I also do not like the soviet tanks not being penalized for their poor gun depression. A cheap fix would be to not give them equal hull down benefits. But the fact that they can blast down into gullys at infantry is so gamey. A cheap fix eh? Perhaps you'd like to tell the BFC crew how to do it - go up in front of the all powerful Charles? I think that's something for the new engine. The amount of up elevation annoys me - there's few things as annoying as having a T34 parked in the street blasting your men in the top floor with cannister. But I want to see CMX2 fix all that, and most likely do things we haven't thought of yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 Flamer I not only have info, but any book on the Panzer IV also has info. The turret had a cast mantlet that was 50mm that was further protected by 30mm shield. It also had 100mm on its copula. These are different numbers than the 50mm 'rectangle' that the game models the turret as. The Panzer IV is also seen with tracks over the 50mm areas. I doubt this will get any attention from the game makers. So it isnt worth telling anyone that isnt listening anything. The CM series is an infantry game to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Carr Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 I would love to see all the CMAK visual goodies in CMBB. In fact, I would pay another $45.00 just to get them in there (like I was buying the game for the first time). I think if BFC knew they could make money by bringing CMBB up to CMAK visual standards with the smoke, dust and slow brew-up's they might reconsider. How many of you would consider forking over some money to get CMBB up to the CMAK visual standards? I'm not even really concerned about the multi-turreted tanks but I would love to see the slow brew-up's and dust clouds kicked up by vehicles. I hardly play CMAK at all to be honest. I predicted that I wouldn't leave the Ost front much but purchased the game for myself and others (gifts)anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junk2drive Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 I would pay 40-50 for an all in one dvd with upgraded (to ak) bo and bb and ak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stikkypixie Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 Leave them work on CMX2... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 I would love to see the CMAK enhancements come to CMBB. However, I don't think it is that big of an issue to delay the next version of CM. CMBB is still my favorite game of all time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 Show of hands: Who'd be willing to forgo upgrade of CMBB for quicker release of... let's say... CMII:Fulda Gap (Cold War scenarios)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 Why does it have to be a big delay anyway? Can there not be more than one programmer hired to apply CMAK to CMBB? I would pay 30.00 USD (as long as Panzer IV turret is fixed). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 Because to teach someone Charles code would take a long time, not to mention the formulas contained within. Rune Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 Originally posted by MikeyD: Show of hands: Who'd be willing to forgo upgrade of CMBB for quicker release of... let's say... CMII:Fulda Gap (Cold War scenarios)? Me! Me! Me! Originally posted by Mr Tittles: I not only have info, but any book on the Panzer IV also has info. The turret had a cast mantlet that was 50mm that was further protected by 30mm shield. It also had 100mm on its copula. These are different numbers than the 50mm 'rectangle' that the game models the turret as. The Panzer IV is also seen with tracks over the 50mm areas. IIRC a similar thing affects the Sherman and the Hetzer has suffered horribly from having rounded armour in place of the CMBO slope. Field modifications would be tricky to cover - certainly the piles of sandbags, tracks and tree trunks are omitted from allied tanks, as are external stowage on British tanks which I understand had a spaced armour effect. CMX2, with - I assume - more detailed 'engine models' ( as opposed to 3d models) with more armour plate resolution should fix you're concern, so all the more reason to vote for that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Carr Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 Originally posted by MikeyD: Show of hands: Who'd be willing to forgo upgrade of CMBB for quicker release of... let's say... CMII:Fulda Gap (Cold War scenarios)? IF CMX2 is going to be about the Fulda Gap then I'm not even interested in it. If that's the case then I say definitely get CMBB up to CMAK speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 On some subtle points I agree. I'd like to see tankers stay buttoned even if they are in Russia, for instance - something the recent patch makes possible for CMAK (full minute buttoning).Full minute buttoning is already present in CMBB. It was introduced with v1.03 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 Woo Hoo! More pzIV debate! I'll bite, MrTittles. Okay, the PzIV commander's cupola may have had 100mm armor but that wouldn't keep it from occassionally shearing off completely when it got a solid hit by anything over 45mm (a problem also for the drum cupola on the early Tiger I and even the U.S. M60A1 MBT!). If a prominent cupola like that was really a good idea more tanks would'a had 'em. The gun mantlet may have been 50mm, but cast armor is notoriously softer than rolled plate. Plus there's a complicated collection of retaining bolts and odd shapes and a rather large opening for the gun and recoil cylinders. That extra 30mm shield was probably needed simply to return the turret front to a minimum standard of protection. There are good reasons why the MkIV hasn't received übertank status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 Nothing personal Mikey. But you do not know what you are talking/guessing about. And Fulda Gap? No thanks. Cast armor is not modeled as that much less than other armor. To follow your 'reasoning', its 50mm cast = 20mm rolled. Not quite. The 30mm shield is also not cast. Doesnt wash. Shearing of welded on copulas? M60A1 had a commanders turret, not a copula? I have never seen a picture of one of these german copulas sheared off. If penetrated, then fine, but not sheared off. The Panzer IV turret front is a collection of the following: 1. 50mm nearly vertical 2. 50mm nearly vertical with tracks 3. 50mm cast+30mm shield 4. 100mm copula This is a range of protection. To model it with 1. makes the tank very weak. [ February 04, 2004, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 Jack, Nothing has been announced about CMX2. It is still being discussed internally. Rune Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 As said, the buttoning for min 1 minute was in late CMBB, it was just broken again in CMAK 1.0. I cannot play CMBB, the vehicle turn rates and bog rates kill me. The T-34s speed is a nice thing but the unrealistic slowness of the StuG III versus the StuG IV make we want to edit any StuG III scenario to put in IVs. In CMAK the turn rates have been much improved and big rates reduced, so you can operate the StuG III again. The partial solution to borg spotted return fire is also to my liking. I also arrived at the conclusion that CMBB armor and penetration is off, which would is understandable since it is only a snapshot in time of BFC knowledge. But it is unfortunate that it is a snapshot at a point in time where the PaK 40 shredders everything including an IS-2 so that you wonder why they bothered developing the 75mm L/70 and 88mm L/41 at all. Return fire from 76mm against 80mm (Tiger side and StuG front) also appears unrealistic and has a huge impact on scenarios with realistic OOBs. A think BFC cannot easily change is that the CM engine works much better for symmetric warfare with Germans and Western Allies having the same delays. I think realistic CMBB scenarios are often a joke to play, green T-34 before 1944 taking 3 minutes thinking time before moving up a road just because it has a few curves and the scenario designer placed a long approach way before the defenders. And why wasn't it possible to give us a quick fix like delay-free movement in turn one? That would have killed this particular issue. Same for artillery, while I see that BFC had to do something do model Soviet slowness, the outcome was that CMBB artillery is pretty much unusable. BFC should have gone two small steps further and allow pattern fire and impact shape for preparatory bombardment and they should allow "holding" an ongoing barrage, lot losing your target (it would be a lot more realistic). And don't get me started on the Molotov Cocktails which make a squad more effective once it runs out of them because they switch to hand grenades. I also developed a good distaste against the canister implementation because there is no model whatsoever for different cover characteristic of canister versus small-arms and fragments. Everything that can be penetrated by a 7.92mm bullet is also penetrated the same way by canister. In particular, this makes being i a foxhole with head down (= helmet facing canister shot) much less effective than in reality. Canister should be great against troops in the open but rapidly lose effect when troops are in cover. For me, CMBB is still the prototype software which suffers badly from small omissions, damaging the most realistic things (planned Soviet fire support, StuG front, Tiger sides, PZ IV turret, delay system stopped halfway in development). In CMAK they fixed some thing. But more importantly, the things that go so badly wrong in CMBB are not in CMAK or at least not important: molotovs, canister, slow nation, super-slow artillery. Even if they merged the fixes that are in CMAK, the game would still suffer from all those things which are specific to eastern front CM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRoadster Posted February 4, 2004 Author Share Posted February 4, 2004 Since CMAK is basically an upgrade of CMBB set in another theatre, I wonder if there really is a huge danger of introducing a myriad of new bugs into CMBB by patching to the most recent CMAK standard. Also, I wonder how much time we would lose off the release of CMX2 by diverting some effort to sustaining the longevity of CMBB. A week? Two weeks? Three weeks? One month? If I get another year and a half's enjoyment out of CMBB I won't even notice that I've had to wait a bit longer for the new product. With CMBB left "as is" I can only count the days and hope the East Front is the focus of CMX2. I think CMBB, as a watershed wargaming product, deserves to be tweaked to the max. Originally posted by Michael Emrys: I hate to rain on your parade, guys, especially as I agree with you over the desirability of upgrading BB in an abstract sense. But it ain't gonna happen. BFC is compeletely committed to a maximum effort to get to work on CMx2 and bring that to us as quickly as possible. And to tell you the truth, I support that decision even though it is not a painless one. BFC is apparently convinced that in the long run they can give us more of what we want faster with a new engine redesigned from the ground up than to continue tweaking the old one. I'm not a programmer, but from what little I have picked up on the subject and observations I have made over the years, I would tend to concur. It seems to me that continued tweaking of an old system beyond a certain point just introduces fresh bugs. Soon your patches have patches and the whole thing is about double the size on your HD that it started out and runs slow as hell. Can anyone think of a company that has gone down that path and whose customers suffer daily because of it? Michael [ February 04, 2004, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: MRoadster ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Gallear Posted February 4, 2004 Share Posted February 4, 2004 I hoping they will bring CMAK to CMBB standards :eek: ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts