Maj Soshtokovich Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 I can already anticipate the flames etc from this post. Save yourself the effort and reply to the problem ITSELF p_l_e_a_s_e. CM 2 is pretty much CM 1 in a different guise with a few ( ie: limited) changes. It is NOT rebuilt from the ground up ( as engine 2 is expected to be). As a front line simulation, it is reasonable but there has been many complaints about flag posession and whether 2 squads from side A own a flag wich has 3 AFV located there etc. More to the point the perimiters in operations are fairly random. Hands up who can anticipate a perimiter before it is drawn? I thought so. Here is my main point. If this is supose to simulate combat on the Eastern Front then one might expect to be able to fight in a manner of those times. The German philosophy on this ( which will suprise no-one in this Forum) was to gain " freedom of movement" at times paying almost total disregard for the flanks. Perimiters will HAVE TO have a top screen/ bottom screen aspect NOT a straight line. In another post I have suggested that there may be a way to have human intervention in drawing such lines. However to be a true representation of the Eastern Front it aslo needs to allow for encirclement" after all AT LEAST 50% of battles were of that nature. If this cannot be done via perimiters then it should be able to allow for reinforcements to come on the edge of mapboards and for the new perimiter to include ( when the new perimiter is drawn) this new shape. This might be for example be like an upside dowb " L". The point of this is to allow a three- axis battleground, to allow possible human intervention in drawing a new perimiter ( if this proves too difficult to program) and provide a whole new scope to the game. Please note I have the utmost respect for all personel at battlefront .. Thank you 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 I feel sorry for you. CMBB is a great game. You are missing out if you let it go. To each his own. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Originally posted by Maj Soshtokovich: CM 2 is pretty much CM 1 in a different guise with a few ( ie: limited) changes. It is NOT rebuilt from the ground up ( as engine 2 is expected to be).Sorry, it was never expected to be a new rebuild (CM3 will feature the new engine). Regardless, it is an improvement on CMBO IMHO. Mace 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffsmith Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Gee I wish MY Failures were as successful as CMBB !!! BTW what is your definition of failure again ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 failed how? Did CMBB fail? Did I miss that thread? :confused: Did I miss the part where BFC says "Oh I guess we will just go back to flipping burgers because CMBB was such a catastropic FAILURE!" :eek: I'm sorry... Did I miss the part where CMBB sales and profts FELL off the scale compared to CMBO? Can some tell me what part of CMBB "failed"? :confused: yours in sarcasm alone... -tom w [ February 08, 2003, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenGriffon Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Somewhere out there, a bridge is missing a forum-TROLL. GG 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpkr Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 I don't see the problem, myself. Yes, the battle of the surrounded did happen a lot on the Eastern front, but failing to include that as a quick battle or operation option hardly makes the game as a whole a failure. As to human intervention -- you can already do that -- they're called 'scenarios'. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maj Soshtokovich Posted February 9, 2003 Author Share Posted February 9, 2003 I did NOT say it was a tatal failure - not do I. What I am asking is will the new engine allow some of the things I present. IF it is a representation of " fighting on the Eastern Front" then why isn't it ? Ahhhhhhhhhh why do people write about if this ( cm 2 ) is a failure then etc... or some character assasination. Please focus...... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpkr Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Originally posted by Maj Soshtokovich: What I am asking is will the new engine allow some of the things I present. IF it is a representation of " fighting on the Eastern Front" then why isn't it ?It is in many ways -- just not the one you are wanting. As I said earlier -- you can still recreate these battles by playing scenarios. Ahhhhhhhhhh why do people write about if this ( cm 2 ) is a failure then etc...Because you titled this thread "Why CM 2 failed" which impliles that CM2, in toto, not in part, failed. Many here do not believe that is the case. Now, you have shifted from stating why CM2 is a failure to saying it is only a partial failure, then, you abandon that 'failure' premise and ask whether the particular type of operation you want will be in the new engine. And you are telling everyone else to stay focused? Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwxspoon Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 It is not perfect. But I believe CMBB is the best there is. Period. When CMBO came it was the best. CMBB is better. No dispute. I'd bet my whole retirement that CM3 will be an even bigger improvement. Why worry about what CMBB isn't? Get excited about what it is, which is simply the best simulation of World War 2 Eastern Front fighting. jw 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benpark Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Taking you seriously, though I suspect you are joking: If you are implying that CMBB is a failure because it does not portray "battles of encirclement", you need to consider that this scale of action is WAY beyond platoon/ battalion level. It is very easy to set up situations where small groups of men are cut off or surrounded in the scenario editor. Your issues with CMBB seem to stem from a lack of understanding of the scale the game portrays, and how this relates to the historical realities-rather than your imagined wishes. I would point you toward something of an operational level to simulate what you desire. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParaBellum Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Originally posted by Maj Soshtokovich: CM 2 is pretty much CM 1 in a different guise with a few ( ie: limited) changes. It is NOT rebuilt from the ground up ( as engine 2 is expected to be). Who ever said CM 2 would feature a new engine, rebuilt from the ground? Did BFC personally tell you things they didn't tell the rest of us? They're really mean, aren't they? Your quote "...at least 50% of eastern front battles were encirclement battles..." You do know the difference between operational warfare and tactical warfare, don't you? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YECoyote Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 If you're complaining that QB Parameters don't allow for Encirclement, then you're wrong to have that assumption in the first place. There has never been any ANY games with such detail built into QB. The idea of QB is to have a quick game setup against human or AI. Not to try to recreate all combat scenarios. Still, I think CM does a wonderful job with OOB. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maj Soshtokovich Posted February 9, 2003 Author Share Posted February 9, 2003 CM 2 is pretty much CM 1 in a different guise with a few ( ie: limited) changes. It is NOT rebuilt from the ground up ( as engine 2 is expected to be). I just made the point just in case anybody thought that it was.... CM 2 is not a failure as a game, it just fails to capture "true combat on the Eastern Front". I do not believe better and more believable perimiters are impossible. I am just not sure how it can be done. What it will do is encompass something completely missing and both players ( particularly players)and game designers will gain immesurably. I dearly look forward to further replies on this. Thank you 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Originally posted by Maj Soshtokovich: CM 2 is not a failure as a game, it just fails to capture "true combat on the Eastern Front".Well that's a matter of personal opinion. IMHO, CMBB is perhaps everything I expected of Eastern Front WW2 combat. There really have captured how I perceive it to be. Mace 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hardcampa Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 I'm not going to flame you since you're just a sitting duck for that. But, I still don't understand exactly what you mean. If you want to encircle you set that up in the scenario editor. What's the big deal? The topic is stupid btw.. you're trolling with that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeauCoupDinkyDau Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Originally posted by Maj Soshtokovich: CM 2 is pretty much CM 1 in a different guise with a few ( ie: limited) changes. It is NOT rebuilt from the ground up ( as engine 2 is expected to be).It was never ment to be rebuilt from the ground up. They stated this a LONG time ago. Long before the game was even near to being complete. However to be a true representation of the Eastern Front it aslo needs to allow for encirclement" after all AT LEAST 50% of battles were of that nature.Yes, this is true on a strategic and operational level. However, CM is a tactical simulation. While a company can encircle an enemy platoon, the types of encirclements you refer to are beyond CM's scope. You are missing out if you decide to quit this game. *shrugs and walks off to go play CMBB* [ February 08, 2003, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: Vader's Jester ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Originally posted by Vader's Jester: [ *shrugs and walks off to go play CMBB* [/QB]Wait, you have a CMBB computer and an internet one which are far enough from each other to require "walking" between them? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bil Hardenberger Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Sounds to me like you are only really complaining about the Operation system.. in that you are not alone, however to flame the entire game for that one flaw is ludicrous. Do like I do, stay away from Operations, at least until the next engine.. they take too damned long to play anyway Bil 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 sigh... yet another baby being thrown out with the bathwater thread. Is it a full moon out or something this week? I just responded to two threads which indicate that CMBB was a complete failure because it doesn't have IS-3 or 251/22 models in it. Now I come into this thread and find out that this is incorrect. The game is a failure because it doesn't simulate things which are outside of its scope. What is a poor game company to do Oh, and a reminder... it took nearly 2 years to make this little upgrade which managed to get profiled on CNN Headline News of all places. It has also won (again) several of the top Game of the Year awards. And all but a few who play it think it is the most accurate and engaging simulation of the Eastern Front ever. If that is your definition of failure, I would love to hear your definition of success. Of course, not living on some higher plane of existance I am sure I wouldn't comprehend the answer. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Originally posted by Bastables: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Vader's Jester: [ *shrugs and walks off to go play CMBB* Wait, you have a CMBB computer and an internet one which are far enough from each other to require "walking" between them? [/QB]</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeauCoupDinkyDau Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Originally posted by Bastables: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Vader's Jester: [ *shrugs and walks off to go play CMBB* Wait, you have a CMBB computer and an internet one which are far enough from each other to require "walking" between them? [/QB]</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMik1 Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Hey, Want to talk about failed games, well then leave here and head over to a Combat Flight Simulator 3 fourm, you might have some that agree with you!! But, here?, no.........great game. BigMik1 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Originally posted by Maj Soshtokovich: Here is my main point. If this is supose to simulate combat on the Eastern Front then one might expect to be able to fight in a manner of those times. The German philosophy on this ( which will suprise no-one in this Forum) was to gain " freedom of movement" at times paying almost total disregard for the flanks.Comes as a surpise to me, actually. Are you talking operationally? After 1943, the generals were CRYING for permission to have "freedom of movement", which Hitler continually denied them. Are you talking tactically? Even there, German armour was as often as not tied to their infantry. However to be a true representation of the Eastern Front it aslo needs to allow for encirclement" after all AT LEAST 50% of battles were of that nature.What is your source for this? And are you confusing the tactical and operational level? Operationally, German doctrine was very much tied to the vernichtungsgedanke - what that has to do with CM is beyond me. You may have a point here, but your post is so muddled, I haven't the foggiest what it is. [/QB] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou2000 Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Originally posted by Maj Soshtokovich: ...snip..... Save yourself the effort and reply to the problem ITSELF p_l_e_a_s_e. ..........snip............... Here is my main point. If this is supose to simulate combat on the Eastern Front then one might expect to be able to fight in a manner of those times. The German philosophy on this ( which will suprise no-one in this Forum) was to gain " freedom of movement" at times paying almost total disregard for the flanks. Perimiters will HAVE TO have a top screen/ bottom screen aspect NOT a straight line. In another post I have suggested that there may be a way to have human intervention in drawing such lines. However to be a true representation of the Eastern Front it aslo needs to allow for encirclement" after all AT LEAST 50% of battles were of that nature. If this cannot be done via perimiters then it should be able to allow for reinforcements to come on the edge of mapboards and for the new perimiter to include ( when the new perimiter is drawn) this new shape. This might be for example be like an upside dowb " L". The point of this is to allow a three- axis battleground, to allow possible human intervention in drawing a new perimiter ( if this proves too difficult to program) and provide a whole new scope to the game. Thank you I think you are forgetting that the majority of encirlcement on the Eastern front involved entire armies ..... or at least whole divisions. The area of that encriclement covered an area way beyond the scope of CM (BO or BB). As for the engine re-write..... well i have no inside info from BFC, but im fairly sure that CM3 will again not be intended to cover areas of that scale ! Open up a CM ..... any size .... now ask the question. Does this really represent the historically correct area that entire Pazner divisions would occupy during an encriclement and any battles to breakout ?. In CM you can easily simulate the battles taking place on the edge of the encirclement ... but the game ... was never intended to cover an area of that scale ...therefore if it cant do something that it was never intended to do then you can qualify it as a failure. If CM was intended to be WWII Grand Strategy at its best. the it would probably have been called Strategic Command - European Theater or something similar Lou2000 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.