Yes, I bought CMAK, but am I happy?

[McAuliffe]

Addictions always return. You can try to suppress them, but it's hard to get rid of them. Although, I swore never to touch the stuff again, I could not resist and bought CMAK.

Since CMBO, I own a copy of CMBB too, but skipping playing CMBB was easy. I always advocated, that the actions on the eastern front were not suitable to be simulated in a company-level and tactical game and that the terrain was most of the time too boring to pose any challenge. Best tactics were reduced to a head on and hope for the best.

More or less the same applies to desert warfare: Although actions were of a smaller scale, I prefer to play a naval battle simulation then plotting my troops around in an empty scenery.

Now that CM is picking up the Italian theatre, that should make things different again: Mountains, little villages on crests to fight for, bridges to seize. It made look CMAK very promising. Besides, with the mods available you could create all your favourite CMBO scenario's again.

So, what are my first impressions of this 3rd. version of CM.

Cool, you can create maps and import them in your quick battles. (this was already the case in CMBB), There is the usual attention for details of terrain as well as of the vehicles, uniforms, etc... Unfortunately, most maps of the Italian theatre didn't look very convincing. I don't think the available 8 m interval for height difference, doesn't help either. You just need more intervals, to get those slopes smoother.

I had also some trouble to select units, when I was playing a quick battle: What do you do with an allowance of 119 pts for artillery, if the cheapest FO costs you 123?

Selecting two pltn's of ordinary infantry pushed my support bonus through the limit. At the end, I could not spend half of the points anywhere else then buying fortifications and trucks.

Maybe experience will help me to understand more the selection procedure, but right now I don't know what to expect when I open the unit screen.

Scenario design: As I had seen those cool pictures of buildings on pavement, I started immediately to play with the editor, Finally, we would be able to create those typical European villages or towns.

However, I found out, that there may be eight icons available, only two orientations for building on pavement are showing on the map. Please note, this is different for the buildings without pavement, where you can play with the orientation of the various buildings and thus create narrow alleys and diagonal streets...on grass tiles.

Why do the buildings on pavement have not the same features? Moreover, it makes 6 of the 8 icons useless.

Last but not least: sniff.. the makers failed again to save some of my precious time:

[rant mode on]

Where is the follow the leader group command, damnit! This is a COMPUTER game and IIRC computers were invented to automatisate repetitive and boring tasks. [rant mode off]

I hope they dig it before they release the CMII engine. All the best.

[flamingknives]

Yes, some of these things bother me too, but then I think "What else could I be playing?"

If I want to fight a realistic battle, I don't play QBs - those are just for fun. If I want Arty, I play larger battles. Being as I can't use the stuff very well, I rarely buy that much of it anyway.

The light building bug is really annoying, as is the mandetory flamethrowers for late war Commonwealth infantry.

[Sirocco]

North Africa wasn't completely featureless. And even the more "desert" landscapes provide their own challenges. The time period covered also provides some interesting equipment match-up's.

[Kingfish]

Welcome back, stranger

[Sgt Bilko]

Please could you explain why the Russian Front is not a suitable theatre for company sized units and tactics, and why the terrain is too boring.

Surely a small battle is just a microcosm of a large battle so the same tactics apply irrespective of the fact that CMBB incorporates both small and large?

Terrain is terrain, how can one differentiate between intersting and boring terrain, each terrain type poses its own problems that need a certain tactic or/and attitude to exploit.

CMBB offers the same terrain types as CMBO, built up areas , open , woods , hills etc.

In fact you get the open Kursk type scenarios which force you to adapt to new tactics that are just as exciting as any.

The battles rely more on timing and deployment rather than manouver, CMAK creates even more problems as some scenarios offer literally no cover, this just adds to the diversity of the series.

I suppose if you like playing in just one particular way you may be dissapointed but gaining an overall mastery of all the permutations of the battlefield seems the rationale behind the CM game concept and it does this perfectly.

[ May 02, 2004, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: Sgt Bilko ]

[McAuliffe]

Originally posted by Sgt Bilko:

(...)In fact you get the open Kursk type scenarios which force you to adapt to new tactics

Right!... you mean 3 SS Panzer divisions head on against whatever Russian tank army somewhere in a sunflower field of a couple square miles? Interesting to read about or making a movie, but playing...not so sure.

The scale of the key actions was just huge, too huge to have the same atmosphere created in a CMBB map. I recall players complaining that there computer choked when processing one turn of: "To the wolga" which was IMHO the only scenario more or less reflecting how battles where fought on the Eastern Front.

I agree on the variety of armor and other toys to play with and Yes, I like to play battles where scenery and nature of terrain play a role and where the outcome not only depends on the evolution of weaponry at a certain time for one side or another. I was not dissapointed by CMBB. For as much as I know about the eastern front, it just didn't contain the tactical challenges, I was interested in.

Originally posted by Sgt Bilko:

(...)gaining an overall mastery of all the permutations of the battlefield seems the rationale behind the CM game concept and it does this perfectly.

Too nice to be true.. I guess that BF just wanted to satisfy the various interest-groups. Why am I interested in Western Front, more specifically the Ardennes? Maybe because I lived nearby. Why is someone interested in the desert war, maybe his grandfather fought there and told exciting stories.. Maybe, you have read Anthony Beever's book about Stalingrad and you got hooked on by flamethrowers in sewers, who knows?

All the best.

[jwxspoon]

Eric!

Nice to see you back. Drop me an email, I have a question or two for you.

jw

[flamingknives]

The scale of battles that you are interested in did take place on the Eastern front, but the accounts of these battles are swamped by those of the much larger operations.

[Hans]

Small fanfare and salute, a veteran returns

[Lawyer]

I gotta agree with ya, McAuliffe. The Eastern Front just didn't get me going, and the desert doesn't either.

But Italy has my Western Front juices running again. It's a great feeling. I'm even designing my second CM scenario in four years. hehe... I'll send it to you when it's done.

I'm invading Normandy in August if you have time to meet up.

Cheers,

Jake

[Sgt Bilko]

Originally posted by McAuliffe:

Right!... you mean 3 SS Panzer divisions head on against whatever Russian tank army somewhere in a sunflower field of a couple square miles? Interesting to read about or making a movie, but playing...not so sure.

Well if all battles on the Eastern Front were like that you might have a point....straw man arguement im afraid....pick the most extreme scenario you can think of then posit it as the norm to make the defending arguement look silly....please...im an adult.

The scale of the key actions was just huge, too huge to have the same atmosphere created in a CMBB map. I recall players complaining that there computer choked when processing one turn of: "To the wolga" which was IMHO the only scenario more or less reflecting how battles where fought on the Eastern Front.

Fair enough that Russia was notable for its big scale, so open your wallet and get a bigger PC ,download mapping mission and then you could get the more of the scale you want with CMBB, thats your limitations not the games.

I agree on the variety of armor and other toys to play with and Yes, I like to play battles where scenery and nature of terrain play a role and where the outcome not only depends on the evolution of weaponry at a certain time for one side or another. I was not dissapointed by CMBB. For as much as I know about the eastern front, it just didn't contain the tactical challenges, I was interested in.

Like having trees to hide behind and French wine cellars to plunder.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sgt Bilko:

(...)gaining an overall mastery of all the permutations of the battlefield seems the rationale behind the CM game concept and it does this perfectly.

Too nice to be true.. I guess that BF just wanted to satisfy the various interest-groups. Why am I interested in Western Front, more specifically the Ardennes? Maybe because I lived nearby. Why is someone interested in the desert war, maybe his grandfather fought there and told exciting stories.. Maybe, you have read Anthony Beever's book about Stalingrad and you got hooked on by flamethrowers in sewers, who knows?

What!!!...satisfying various interest groups....the filthy swine.........Maybe im just a nerd who likes problem solving, the more diverse the problems the better, the only theatre i got emotionally involved with was the American Civil War after reading Shelby Footes Trilogy, i played that to death as the Confederates on every concievable format.

All the best. [/QB]</font>

[ParaBellum]

Originally posted by McAuliffe:

I always advocated, that the actions on the eastern front were not suitable to be simulated in a company-level and tactical game and that the terrain was most of the time too boring to pose any challenge. Best tactics were reduced to a head on and hope for the best.

I think you definately should brush up your knowledge of tactical fighting on the eastern front.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by McAuliffe:

The scale of the key actions was just huge, too huge to have the same atmosphere created in a CMBB map. I recall players complaining that there computer choked when processing one turn of: "To the wolga" which was IMHO the only scenario more or less reflecting how battles where fought on the Eastern Front.

I'll make sure to tell that to my grandfather who spent a lot of time fighting battles you think did not happen. Such as lying behind a cemetery wall with 50 other Germans waiting for 200 Soviets to assault them in February 1944. Such as fighting reconnaissance into a Baltic village with some Stugs and guns in July/August 1941.

The scale of the key actions in the west also dwarves anything you can do in CM. Or have you seen someone design a playable battle showing the whole operation to close the Falaise pocket? Or the whole Cobra breakout? Or the whole of Monte Cassino? Or the whole defense of the Oosterbeek perimeter? Or the whole initial stage of the Ardennes offensive? Or the whole of 12th SS assaulting the Elsenborn Ridge? Do I need to go on?

There are many reasons for not being interested in CMBB. Plain old ignorance does not feature highly amongst those, or reflect well on you.

[Jaws]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by McAuliffe:

The scale of the key actions was just huge, too huge to have the same atmosphere created in a CMBB map. I recall players complaining that there computer choked when processing one turn of: "To the wolga" which was IMHO the only scenario more or less reflecting how battles where fought on the Eastern Front.

I'll make sure to tell that to my grandfather who spent a lot of time fighting battles you think did not happen. Such as lying behind a cemetery wall with 50 other Germans waiting for 200 Soviets to assault them in February 1944. Such as fighting reconnaissance into a Baltic village with some Stugs and guns in July/August 1941.

The scale of the key actions in the west also dwarves anything you can do in CM. Or have you seen someone design a playable battle showing the whole operation to close the Falaise pocket? Or the whole Cobra breakout? Or the whole of Monte Cassino? Or the whole defense of the Oosterbeek perimeter? Or the whole initial stage of the Ardennes offensive? Or the whole of 12th SS assaulting the Elsenborn Ridge? Do I need to go on?

There are many reasons for not being interested in CMBB. Plain old ignorance does not feature highly amongst those, or reflect well on you. </font>

[MikeyD]

"Unfortunately, most maps of the Italian theatre didn't look very convincing."

I won't quibble about the look of the average random QB map, but several of those CD scenario maps (and a number of 3rd party Italian scenario maps) look pretty cool to me. The new scenarios linked to the companion book have some especially nice looking maps:

http://www.battlefront.com/products/cmak_comp/cmak_comp.html

It's always (ALWAYS!) best to locate some well done maps then use - and reuse - them as imported maps for your QuickBattles.

About that building-on-pavement bug, BFC was notified of that bug practically on the day the V1.01 patch came out. If we're lucky a fix to that will be forthcoming in v1.02... someday.

[ May 03, 2004, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]