New member: this series of games is great

[NS]

I was directed to this series of games after complaining on another message board about the appalling lack of realism in WWII tactical games (Blitzkrieg) that I find in stores. Last week, the CMBB/CMAK combination arrived, and I have loved playing them! The painstaking attention to every aspect of detail is simply unbelievable. So far I have thoroughly enjoyed every historical battle that I have played, and I have not even started playing operations and quick battles.

What really annoyed me about other games was the grossly innacurate scales used. Artillery fired on map at ranges of about 100 yards, there were no time lags for orders, and trying to control everything in real time ruined the fun for me. The "clickfest" arcade-like nature of these games also turned me off. What can I say, I've always been mature for my age (I'm 27 and I've read that the average age here is ~ 35). I think that the paused orders phase, followed by one minute movies, together with the entire "we go" concept are simply ingenious. The CM series developers have really done a good job of undoing the Gordian knot that is the dilemma of having one person simulate a WWII battle at the tactical level.

On a sidenote, as a realism nut, I would like to know if the ideal goal for the developers is for the player to simulate the battlefield tactical CO and only him, or rather the combined wisdom of all officers on the map. From what I gather, it usually does not seem like you are literally playing one man (the CO), though it is possible in some all-tank battles. Perhaps the next generation of realistic WWII tactical games will let one literally see everything through the CO's eyes while receiving reports and issuing orders based on all of this information with the help of command staff. I think that this sort of thing, combined with the current CM series way of doing things, would be the holy grail of realistic WWII tactical games (as you, the player, being but individual, are in fact simulating one and only one individual), though the player's view of the battlefield may be a bit limited, unless you allow camera manipulation as you do now and rationalize that it is a combination of what the CO can see from his command post, the reports that he receives, and his superior visualization skills. I do accept that simulating a small number of officers is fine in the sense that they're all trained in the same school of military thought and know each other and are under the same hig-ranking officers, but still, the way I see it, the ultimate goal should be "one player simulates one man" since strictly speaking, the small number of officers on the field were different people with somewhat different personalities, intelligences, etc.

I'd like to know what others here think.

[Panzer76]

Hi and welcome to the forum.

The CO view you are decribing are not going to be implimented by BFC for gameplay (=fun) reasons. While BFC is trying to make realistic games, they must also appeal to the gamer. There are numerous threads in the CMAK forum now where BFC are discussing the future of CM, I would recommend you to browse through them.

If you are looking for a WEGO game but from a divisional perspective, I would urge you to look up Combined Arms from Matrix Games.

[Krautman]

From my limited experience, i think that the CM games are the best trade-off between realism and playability available. Most Sudden Strike/Blitzkrieg/Codename:Panzers etc players will never get to CM, but anyone appreciating detail and realism won't get away from it. The turn system is revolutionary and imho reflects execution of battlefield orders considering difficult communication pretty well. I wouldn't know a way to do it better. Well, i'm no games developer.

[slysniper]

NS, seems like many other gamers who wants to have the fill of being one person within the game.

I think this comes from the Role playing mind set that many games provide. So in cm you see all these units and maybe your dream is to be the commander or a tank commander or some grunt.

Why not have a option in the game, that was a sort of game inside the game that the player does pick

one unit and has total command of it. Maybe receiving a score for how well he did with that unit that is added into the rest of the scores in the game.

Since I was a sniper, I would love to be one in the game and sneak behind enemy lines and place a bullet in the head of all these commander wantabee's and see how they enjoy that gaming experience.

[NS]

I guess it all boils down to a trade-off between an ultra realistic, albeit "limited" participation game whereby one is the CO and only the CO, or a very realistic game that makes the approximation whereby one individual simulates the individual and collective judgements of a few officers of the same battalion or regiment. I love the idea of both.

[Panzer76]

I think being placed as CO or a specific role in a game like CM would find a very limited market. Thus it does not make sense to make such a game. Adding it as an option must be viewd from a cost/benefit POV. But as I said, there are no plans so far to include this.

[Bannon DC]

Check out the thread in the CMAK forum started by "Battlefront.com" (I think). That is Steve -- one of the main guys. He threw out some tid bits on the next generation of Combat Mission (CMx2). They are envisioning more of a command and control network for the next version.

But, you'll have to wait for a year or two still.

As you may have discovered from reading the forum, the best way to play CM is head to head. Play by email sounds like a drag, but it really works out pretty well. Get a couple of games going and you'll get yourself busy.

Enjoy

[MikeyD]

Ah, it's always refreshing to have a newbie come up and remind us why we love this game so much.

No you're not playing 'one man' in the game (unless that man has a big white beard & flowing robes. ). You're more playing the situation - what would happen if a platoon of BT light tanks were to attack a river crossing at night. Or what would happen if you used a Sturmtiger to supoort an infantry assault. Or what would happen if two armor collumns stumbled upon one another in a blizzard. It's the situation that gets chewed over. The units (up to the battallion commmander )are... well... cannon fodder.

But sometimes during a scenario one gallant squad can catch your attention more than others. You root for them and cheer their victories... and then usually they get hosed to oblivion by a flamethrower and you move on to another unit.

[Wally's World]

NS,

Weclome aboard! You sound just like I did when I first discovered this new game (CMBO) back in last 1999. At that time, I couldn't believe that someone was creating a game with such detail to tactics, morale and the new WEGO system. I couldn't wait for CMBO to be released.

Anyway, I like the system that CM has. The only two things that I would change is to set scenario parameters to enable or disable the following:

1) Allow units to choose targets themselves instead of allowing the user to choose the target for the unit. I think it is more realistic to allow the unit AI to choose the unit instead of a company or battalion CO to tell each unit what to fire at.

2) Allow either the Detailed Armor Hits Off or On. I know that there is a HotKey for this, but it should have been a scenario parameter set for both sides and cannot be changed once the battle begins. I always play with the detailed hits OFF in my PBEM games and I trust that the guys I fight against also have it off. It's way more fun and realistic not knowing where the sheel hit the target and if it actually penetrated and caused any type of damage. Instead, you should have to judge the way the target reacts to the hit to see if there was any damage done. This allows the user to bluff his opponent by using armor that has sustained, let's say, a gun hit. The opponent won't know this if he has the Detailed Armor Hits OFF.

Just my two cents...

[Ardem]

Hey NS, wait till you discover Meta Campaigns, where you can mix a bit of educated strategy roleplaying and a constant campaign, then you will find true heaven.

There are a few around but I won't promote any.

[chiavarm]

Originally posted by slysniper:

Since I was a sniper, I would love to be one in the game and sneak behind enemy lines and place a bullet in the head of all these commander wantabee's and see how they enjoy that gaming experience.

It sounds like you are in the wrong forum. You should try Tom Clancey's Rogue Spear.

I would think in real life a commander would be at a great disavantage vs a sniper.

You could try to sneak around in CM but the game length pretty much prohibits this type of action.

I have read of snipers picking their position and staying there for a day or more!

[MikeyD]

I actually tried making a sniper-vs-commander scenario once. An Allied sharpshooter and platoon commander team infiltrate an area at night and try to kill the AI's battalion commmander. I must admit it wasn't much fun playing that game as the Germans, and its wasn't very successful playing it as the Allies either!