How realistic do you feel CMAK/CMBB is?

[Lightning War]

A simple question really: How realistic do you feel the game is?

I'm not asking that question in relation to the historical accuracy. Moreover, do you think the game engine is realistic?

[JasonC]

42%.

?

[patboy]

less 42%!

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Lightning War:

A simple question really: How realistic do you feel the game is?

I'm not asking that question in relation to the historical accuracy. Moreover, do you think the game engine is realistic?

I don't usually find it realistic, because I am too old and wily a buzzard to suspend my disbelief for a computer-based entertainment. I expect that the callow youth who do willingly suspend their belief for computer-based entertainment would expect more in the way of flashy high-end CGI to help them do so, because, never having spent too much time outdoors, they imagine that that is what real life is like.

The one flash of "realism" I had was when I first looked at the ground for a CM:BO scenario set at Chef du Pont; having been at Chef du Pont on a battlefield tour a few weeks previously, I was struck by the superb job the scenario designer had done of representing the terrain.

The game does more or less encourage tactics like those used in real life, and so succeeds very well indeed as a tactical wargame -- probably better than any other computer-based tactical wargame I have ever seen, not excluding professional ones.

It succeeds best of all as a model of WW2 direct-fire combat, giving the intelligent user plenty to think about and rewarding long study. However, like all working models, it doesn't need to be very realistic to be useful.

All the best,

John.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[JasonC]

John and Adam have both given better answers than my puzzled response. The desire to distinguish realism from historical accuracy is what throws me. What is the question without that?

And what kind of answer would be thought on point? "Realistic enough to ..." propositions? Ranking compared to something else?

[slysniper]

It is 42.5%, And the answer is, nothing will ever get it right but this is the best thing available to this date until something better is created. For now its the best model of the events of combat that is available.

[Juergen2SS]

Everything can always be improved upon, but as above some of the modeling is a bit questionable like Arty spotting. I dont need to see it to give coordinate. All Artillery use Pre-zoned grids, all you need to do is ask, and you will recieve. Anyways it is a decent game non the less. However if you give the game dynmaics like Falcon 3.0, then you have a campaign game that makes you feel more imersed. It wont make it real because no game is realistic, only simulated. But a great simulated game can make you feel imersed and could potentialy give you a better dynamic for what could be real.

[DavidFields]

This would be my approach to answering the question:

It is a realistic enough simulation such that real life tactics usually produce the best results. I think that is about the most we can ask for in a computer simulation.

It is not realistic in the sense of not having the gore, tedium, pee-in-the-pants fear, and barbarity of the real thing.

Whenever I start noticing simulation quirks, I figure it is time for me to go off and play something else....like Harpoon 3, or Europa Universalis II, or...heaven-help-me, Everquest 2.

Then I can come back to CM with newly-novice (as far as game-mechanic-manipulation) eyes. It may make me a better "player" to know that...some AFVs may, as an odd game engine thing, be more vulnerable when hull down. But from a realism stand-point, I don't really want to remember/know that.

[ May 13, 2008, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: Rankorian ]

[DavidFields]

[double-post]

[WineCape]

Actually, Jason is correct.

The all important number to the secret to the universe and life itself is ....42.*

What was the question?

*Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy

[MeatEtr]

I thought it was 23%.

[Guest Mike]

Everyone knows that made up figures are just as useful as accurate ones.....

87 studies have shown this

[Philippe]

The game is only historically accurate to the extent that the individual scenario designer does his homework and uses his imagination.

There are some impressively researched scenarios out there, and there are some real howlers. The worst I've seen was an aberrant fantasy about fanatical Hitlerjuden (sic) defending Germany in the last days of the Reich. If someone's idea of scenario design is to set up two lines of fantasy vehicles, find another scenario to play -- you won't get any insights about WWII.

The underlying model is pretty good, but there are problems. Time is distorted and everything happens way too fast. The year only has three seasons and two underbrush states, which makes March and April scenarios a bit bizarre. Command and Control is handled oddly, but given the general acceleration of time it doesn't matter too much. While it's true that it takes time to explain your orders to someone -- hence the time delay -- even the most hyperactive multi-tasker can only give so many orders in the space of sixty seconds, and this limitation isn't modeled. And the suspension of disbelief goes out the window when you try to move a column of vehicles down a road). And indirect fire (as opposed to direct fire) seems strange at times.

The model seems to work pretty well for reinforced company actions in spite of all of that, in the sense that it will give you some insight into the underlying activity (which is what a model is for). It creaks when you increase the scale or increase the time-frame, because there are necessary activities that are very important in real life that simply can't happen the way the game was designed.

And remembering that it's a game is very important. CMBO was probably a bit more fun than CMAK and CMBB, mostly because it was more game-like. Reality, especially when you're dealing with something as nasty as war, can be pretty unpleasant.

[sonar]

Hey Phillipe. If your intrested in the command and control element of the game, see my post on using runners in the cmbb section.

[SgtMuhammed]

Originally posted by WineCape:

Actually, Jason is correct.

The all important number to the secret to the universe and life itself is ....42.*

What was the question?

*Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy

What do you get when you multiply 6 by 9?

[McIvan]

Oh dear

[JasonC]

4 2 - in base 13...

[DavidFields]

Of course, 42 in base 10 is 33 in base 13...but you all knew that.

101010....