Suggestions for future improvements...?

[Francesco]

I've just played a QB.

Here is a screenshot which made me think about this thing... (sorry for the small pic but I wanted not to make the thread too "heavy"...

What happened: a Panzershreck fired at my JS2 with a particular result...

Rear Upper Hull Penetration

Gen Demaged

I thought immediately that I would have to see:

Rear Upper Hull Penetration

Engine Demaged

Immobilized

That would have been much more realistic, don't you think?

Would this be possible to add in the next patch?

Or would it be correct?

What do you think?

Best regards,

Francesco

[Col Deadmarsh]

BTS needs to completely tone down both the fatigue and the infantry morale in this game to a point where it's more than CMBO but much less than it is now.

As of right now, we have a slow, frustrating game that no one wants to play.

[Rebus_Badger]

1) I'd like to see a somewhat more robust graphics capability that allowed multiple (random?) models of the same vehicle to be used in the same battle. Some of the new mods are simply wonderful, but it is a bit odd to have 7 identical T-34s.

2) The fast move speed seems a bit high - whether it is accurate or not, in playback mode sometimes the medium and even heavy tanks seem to be racing far too quickly on road or not. This may be simply a scale problem.

[MrNoobie]

id like a slow motion button so its easier to take pics of a tank shooting

[Abbott]

As of right now, we have a slow, frustrating game that no one wants to play

Speak for yourself. I enjoy CMBB much more then CMBO, including the infantry model.

They may make a few tweaks, who knows? However I will play CMBB just the way it is without a worry. Steps can be taken to handle infantry fatigue with good tactics in most instances. Sometimes a player may have to accept the fact that terrain is unfavorable for an infantry attack and use the cease fire button or withdraw if the needed support can not be brought to bear.

[ November 01, 2002, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[Dar]

As of right now, we have a slow, frustrating game that no one wants to play

Guess I'm no one then, 'cause I am loving it! :cool:

As for the original post, there is so much bizarre stuff that can happen in any situation that it is entirely possible that a "rear upper hull penetration" can cause gun damage. Anything that penetrates the armor is gonna send out shrapnel/spall and it's gonna richochet around damaging crew and components. Even if it's a 1-in-1,000,000 chance, it is still possible!

After all, despite the lottery odds, we do have winners, don't we?

I don't expect you're going to see "rear hull penetration" and "gun damaged" in combination in any great frequency.

[ November 01, 2002, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: Dar ]

[Col Deadmarsh]

Abbott, you make up the .00000000000001 percent of people who like playing this kind of ultra-realistic game. If you're a casual gamer or a ladder player who plays to win, these new changes ruin the game. Most wargamers still want what is essentially a game. The keyword there is "game." It's supposed to be fun to play. More realism (if that's true with the effect we have in CMBB now) doesn't always translate into a better game. It can actually detract from the game's playability.

I predict a lot of unhappy customers stuck with a game they don't want and can't return due to BTS's no-return policy. This will translate into much lower sales when the next version comes out.

I don't disagree with what they're trying to do but they went way, way, way too far in implementing this new realism to the point where they've taken the fun out of the game.

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

Abbott, you make up the .00000000000001 percent of people who like playing this kind of ultra-realistic game. If you're a casual gamer or a ladder player who plays to win, these new changes ruin the game. Most wargamers still want what is essentially a game. The keyword there is "game." It's supposed to be fun to play. More realism (if that's true with the effect we have in CMBB now) doesn't always translate into a better game. It can actually detract from the game's playability.

I predict a lot of unhappy customers stuck with a game they don't want and can't return due to BTS's no-return policy. This will translate into much lower sales when the next version comes out.

I don't disagree with what they're trying to do but they went way, way, way too far in implementing this new realism to the point where they've taken the fun out of the game.

Col, I certainly do not agree with you on the point that I am in a very small percentage that like CMBB. From watching this forum I would say that maybe five percent are unhappy with the new model. Most like it very much and are Wargamers such as myself. I do agree with you that Wargames are supposed to be fun and to this end I have found CMBB extremely enjoyable. I believe you have your figures a bit backwards.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

BTS needs to completely tone down both the fatigue and the infantry morale in this game to a point where it's more than CMBO but much less than it is now.

As of right now, we have a slow, frustrating game that no one wants to play.

Well I don't know about that

I am Still curious enough about CMBB to keep playing it as I know I have not yet plumbed the depths of its detail and mystic.

BUT that said it is HARDER to play and win then CMBO for sure. It is clearly rewarding those folks that use REAL world WWII combined arms tactics in battles, (there seems to be general agreement about that).

I REALLY like the morale for tanks now, so they can "break" and panic in CMBB and so they should.

"As of right now, we have a slow, frustrating game that no one wants to play" :eek:

I think that is a little unfair as they appear to selling this game in numbers higher then their original expectation (no?) :confused:

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

Abbott, you make up the .00000000000001 percent of people who like playing this kind of ultra-realistic game. If you're a casual gamer or a ladder player who plays to win, these new changes ruin the game. Most wargamers still want what is essentially a game. The keyword there is "game." It's supposed to be fun to play. More realism (if that's true with the effect we have in CMBB now) doesn't always translate into a better game. It can actually detract from the game's playability.

I predict a lot of unhappy customers stuck with a game they don't want and can't return due to BTS's no-return policy. This will translate into much lower sales when the next version comes out.

I don't disagree with what they're trying to do but they went way, way, way too far in implementing this new realism to the point where they've taken the fun out of the game.

I would guess the game is selling very well. I would also predict that when the offer the CMII rewrite it will sell VERY well also.

I am VERY happy they did not make a game for the "casual gamer or a ladder player who plays to win"

I am VERY happy that they made a WWII combat simulation the rewards players for keeping their men and units ALIVE and out of the line of fire (generally )

My guess is the Abbott might reprsent the "wargamer grog" that was in fact (I think) the target market for CMBO, (sadly CMBO missed the the mark of being the Realistic Combat simulator that CMBB is) bUT since CMBO was not perfect it was MORE fun to play and we ended up with an attempt at realistic combat simulator that was still "somewhat" "gamey" and really fun to play.

BTS has finally honed the game to the state it is now so they could get it JUST where they want it. (well almost, a few patches to follow). So you can surely appreciate (maybe you can't) that they re-worked the CMBO game engine to make CMBB the HARD realistic combat simulator that it is presumably (if you read their old manifesto) because they wanted to make the KIND of combat simulator they themselves are interested in playing, the kind of realistic simulated experience in "gaming" that no one else is offering !!

I truly hope they care less for the tastes of the "majority" of casual gamers or a ladder players who play to win and continue to offer more realistic games for those in the clear minority that appreciate their effort.

I am surprised you have chosen to complain about the no return policy. Firstly you played (I presume) the same DULL and BORING demo scenario's that I did and yet you STILL ordered the game, secondly, if you dislike the game that much sell it on ebay apparently it will sell fast and you can still get most/some of your money back .

-tom w

[ November 01, 2002, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Francesco]

Well, I started this topic because i wanted just to know what do you think about engine demage during battle... as the case i presented you with that JS2... I think that is a bit frustrating speaking about "what I would like to see" or "is CMBB a good game or not"... start another topic on this way if you like... but I'd like to hear about the case i presented...

Byez!

Francesco

[Dar]

Francesco:

As I mentioned in my earlier thread, it is not LIKELY that a rear shot is going to result in gun damage, but it is entirely possible. Unless you see this result quite frequently when a vehicle is hit in the rear (create a QB and then have your armor "Reverse" towards the enemy), I find it hard to believe it's a bug.

[Rebus_Badger]

Dear, dear. If you wanted only comments on your point, then why call the thread what you did?

Besides, I still want my simultaneous multiple tank models!

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Originally posted by Francesco:

Well, I started this topic because i wanted just to know what do you think about engine demage during battle... as the case i presented you with that JS2... I think that is a bit frustrating speaking about "what I would like to see" or "is CMBB a good game or not"... start another topic on this way if you like... but I'd like to hear about the case i presented...

Byez!

Francesco

Its entirely possible that your particular situation involved the turret's traverse being damaged, so there was no longer any reliable way to aim the gun. Basically, its just that "gun damage" doesn't have to mean that the gun itself was hit. I see no need to change anything.

[Maxx]

My suggestion would be to add German SMG squads earlier than Feb '44. Please see this thread for details:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=002818

[Mace]

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

As of right now, we have a slow, frustrating game that no one wants to play.

Sorry, that's your opinion and I for one don't agree.

I think that the CMBB infantry battle is a lot superior to the CMBO one.

And by the way, I definitely want to play CMBB, all the time!!!

Mace

[Monty]

Maybe this is a nice idea:

Make "realism" options like :

- Low realism setting (for newbies) ( infantery behavior ala CMBO )

- Medium realism setting

- Full realism setting ( CMBB like we have now )

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Monty:

Maybe this is a nice idea:

Make "realism" options like :

- Low realism setting (for newbies) ( infantery behavior ala CMBO )

- Medium realism setting

- Full realism setting ( CMBB like we have now )

Why bother?

"Realism" (which is not usually a sensible thing to talk about, I prefer "credibility") and playability are not, contrary to long-hallowed faulty-reasoning, incompatible.

Would you suggest having settings for maximum fun, average fun, not much fun?

All the best,

John.

[ November 01, 2002, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: John D Salt ]

[John D Salt]

Double post, finger trouble.

[ November 01, 2002, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: John D Salt ]

[StellarRat]

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

As of right now, we have a slow, frustrating game that no one wants to play.

I like it better than before, so your statement "game that no one wants to play" is totally wrong. I want to play it. By the way, if your .00000000000001 is were right than the Earth would have a population of at least 10 trillion people, so that's wrong too.

[ November 01, 2002, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: StellarRat ]

[Ex Bellator]

CD, that's some of the most outrageous b*llsh*t I've ever read here.

You do not know what most wargamers want, you do not know that no-one wants to play the game, your predictions are wild guesses, you cannot say that there is no fun in the game.

Seeing your stupid arrogance leading you to think you can be the spokesperson for wargamers everywhere beggars belief.

You sir, you may be sure, do not speak for me.

[Sailor Malan]

Wow - two threads active on the same subject. The other one's got a much better crowd in it (BTS has been in!)

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=002815

[SaTyR]

Fine, the Colonel seems to have an opinion. He doesn't like CMBB. Why whine about the game here, why just not stop playing and move on to more "fun 'strategy' games" such as C&C or G.I Combat (or whatever) if those suit You better ?

If I don't like something and do not see myself learning to like it in the future, I don't whine, I just stop tinkering with the damn thing and move on. Suggest You do the same.

[White Phosphorus]

If only the shells were hitting the actual models... So many problems and oddities would go away.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

As of right now, we have a slow, frustrating game that no one wants to play.

Speak for yourself please