CMx1 vs CMx2 tests

[JasonC]

Of course the comparison is entirely valid, the comments to the contrary are being willfully clueless, and the point is to see how much the game engine has changed, not the weapons.

When 40 guys with guns on one side of a field and 40 guys with guns on the other side of the field try to do A and try to do B, C happens. Leave everything but C parallel in the two periods. What happens to C?

Not in reality. In CM. It is a perfectly intelligible and testable question.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

You can argue that the AK-47 is similar to the MP-44 (basically because it can be suggested that the Soviets built one based on captured stocks of the other).

...

It just wont work.

As JasonC argues, what are we really talking about in CM terms? Some sort of FP rating (weighted by ROF, bullet size, etc., though in the end what does it matter as it is all under the hood in any event) applied to a morale model and a cover rating in order to achieve a result (expressed in terms of target status)? It's all just numbers, the effects of which are observable...

[gibsonm]

“willfully“?

How do you know that?

As you already know not only what I’m going to type but why I’ll let you carry on the conversation with yourself.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

“willfully“?

How do you know that?

The military used to call it "dumb insolence" when you showed contempt without saying anything. It may still be in your QR&Os? It's sort of along the same lines as willful ignorance...

[Combatintman]

I'm pretty much with gibsonm on this one. My main question is what exactly is the point of the question and therefore the reasoning that follows is the apples and pears argument that's been bouncing around.

In short you cannot compare the two in terms of warfare or game engines. For the first point modern infantry squads are different to their WW2 equivalents. I think for instance you would struggle to find a late war German squad that was MG-42 and MP-44 armed in its entirety. The modern Syrian equivalent is, if we are saying that RPK/PKM/RPD + AK-47 equates. Additionally LAW/RPG are issued more frequently across the board and are more accurate. The UGL adds significant firepower to any infantry squad/section (many have at least two) - no similar capability existed in WW2. SMGs - admittedly they weren't issued on the same scales as war films would have us believe but they were still fairly common in WW2 organisations from platoon-level downwards. How many do you see today - none unless you like action movies.

If you take the modern British infantry section and compare to its WW2 equivalent, the only deduction you'll make is that there are still 8 of them (mech and light role) and that they drink tea. That is the only similarity. The days of rifle group and gun group are long gone - you now have two fire teams each with 2 x L-85A2 (SA-80), 1 x LSW and 1 x LMG probably better known as SAW). Each fire team will probably have one weapon with a UGL and if needs be will carry a LAW. So how does that compare to 1 x Sten, 6 x Lee Enfields and a Bren gun?

Moving up to company and battalion level weapons - if anybody can find me an equivalent to the AGS-17/MK-19/GMG in WW2 terms issued at that level I'd be interested. Also in terms of indirect fire weapons - most have a longer reach, better targeting capabilities and more lethality than their WW2 equivalents.

Then of course we have other factors such as body armour, improved command and control and lighter ammunition...don't get me started on vehicles and gibsonm, who has spent his life around these things has said more than I could.

Want another comparison - American Civil War versus Napoleonic .... they stood row to row, wore uniforms that didn't blend in with the environment, they had horses etc, etc. Superficially they may be similar but as we know they were not.

Now to the game engine - they're different, we've been told they are so why not get over it?

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[abneo3sierra]

I *believe* that the original poster, and those backing that post, were referring to how the game models warfare vs. the cmx1 series. Not really that there are not differences.

Having both, I would stress that from what I have seen, cmx2 is more geared for small unit tactics, whereas with cmx1 cmbb, I have already played with a full regiment on each side.

As to the WP equipment being not much better than ww2, I would disagree. But that said, it should be possible to compare apples to apples if the idea really is to see how the game handles combat. Use the editor, and put a squad on each side, and see. Do not expect the same results as x1 though. I have done this just before I posted this, and overall the x2 engine handles itself very well, with my only reservation being that it may be a little more of a clickfest, whereas in x1 you gave commands and let them be followed. I am still learning the x2 system though, so it is quite possible I am incorrect.

[JasonC]

Combat - it is pointless to ask what you will learn from it without having done it.

If CMx1 squads with bolt action rifles at 300 yards shot down to a man, forces that just went to cautious under concentrated automatic weapons fire at 100 yards in CMx2, then that'd be news about the model changes, wouldn't it?

If on the other hand a half squad with M-16s can kill 400 men in 10 minutes, while an equal number of HMG 42s with max ammo only pin the same targets, that would also be news about the model changes, wouldn't it?

Go find the answer first and then worry about what it means or how accurate it is. Every player wants to know the tactical realities they face in either game system, don't they?

[Combatintman]

I'm sorry guys I just don't get why you have to pick over the model to such obsessive depths. I've got CMBO, CMBB, CMAK and now CMSF and I've enjoyed playing all of them. In all of these games I've had my arse handed to me when I've ignored basic tactical principles or gone against the wrong enemy with the wrong capability and that is enough to satisfy me.

I personally would rather see and lobby for additions to CMSF such as additional building types, a better AI editor with triggers and a preview mode as well of course as the British Module than endlessly pick the game engine apart.

[Battlefront.com]

JasonC,

Of course the comparison is entirely valid, the comments to the contrary are being willfully clueless, and the point is to see how much the game engine has changed, not the weapons.

A PSA (Public Service Announcement) for new Forum members... if you don't think exactly like JasonC, you are not only wrong but a moron. Us old hands have gotten use to him being an arrogant SOB, so I'm sure you will too

Not in reality. In CM. It is a perfectly intelligible and testable question.

Yes, but what relevance does it have? I designed both game systems and I for one can't "willingly" see what the point is to compare the two systems against one another. They are completely different epochs.

Adam1's follow up comments here help illustrate that:

Rifles vs Muskets is not MP44 vs AK47. I realize there is some difference but the idea is just to see how the engine is different, if significantly, while minimizing the difference between the weapons. It also helps to keep the tests small. For example, a single PKM deployed firing at running Syrians are various ranges - that is, an MMG tripod firing on body sized targets at a controlled range.

See how that is pretty narrow? So there are eight of them and they drink tea at 200m and we fire at them with a deployed 7.62mm firing machine gun in both sims and note the differences, if any, in different terrain.

Well, certainly there can be isolated testing done with very carefully selected weapons and situations so you can look for something specific. The problem with doing the usual problem with isolated tests... people tend to find whatever they are looking for when they set the tests up. It's been that way for, oh... I dunno, 8 years now so I don't think it will change any time soon

Or put another way... doing an isolated test often times comes up with a result that is really not that reflective of actual gameplay. Then people get wrapped up in something that is quite irrelevant where it matters (i.e. playing an actual game, not a scripted test situation). Not that this is a bad thing, but it can become that when some people refuse to put it into context and prove that it matters. We all know this happens

Now, I actually do think that Adam1's suggestion of doing some carefully controlled, highly selective, tests would be interesting to see. So please don't think I'm saying just because I think it is irrelevant that I'm not saying it couldn't be interesting. There is a difference

My prediction is that things will come out quite different, for two reasons:

1. CMx1 has Morale and Suppression tied together in one factor. This is not true in CMx2, which gives CMx2 units a different possible range of behaviors that weren't really possible in CMx1. Lots of overlap, for sure, but CMx1 is inherently more "brittle" in simulation terms.

2. Individual soldiers and individual LOS/LOF in CMx2 means a completely different way of calculating the effects of fire. Like the point above, CMx2 is inherently more flexible and exact, therefore I'd expect significant behavioral differences in certain circumstances.

I chose these two particular differences because they probably have more impact on a small, carefully constructed test than some other factors. Meaning, the more isolated the testing the more likely there will be a divergence between how the units being shot at respond.

Of course, I could be completely wrong and the two games may behave very similarly in the same situation. I don't know since I've not played CMAK in about 4 years

Steve

[C'Rogers]

There is a problem besides the weapons. You have another variable in that the terrain is a totally different model. If you wanted to run a test of soldiers being fired on from 100 yards in Tall Pines how are you going to equate that to CM:SF? You can do open field but CMx1 didn't exactly equate the open field terrain with literal emptiness. There was the assumption that things were there that the model abstracted. So you would have to find some kind of ideal mix.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[gibsonm]

Just wait for the CMX2 Normandy Module and then run all the tests you like, comparing it to CMBO or CMAK.

Then you’ll have like with like.

[Combatintman]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

Just wait for the CMX2 Normandy Module and then run all the tests you like, comparing it to CMBO or CMAK.

Then you’ll have like with like.

Yeah but then they'll want to compare that to CMSF!!

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[JasonC]

C'Rogers - if there is no meaningful cover in CMSF, then that would certainly constitute a serious model change. Nothing like trying it to see.

[gibsonm]

Well why don’t you then?

[abneo3sierra]

Originally posted by JasonC:

C'Rogers - if there is no meaningful cover in CMSF, then that would certainly constitute a serious model change. Nothing like trying it to see.

The model didn't change. There is cover. At the moment it is a desert environment, basically, so he was saying you would have to wait till they got out of the desert to compare, unless you just put them in N Africa..and even then, with each person here equaling one person instead of 1 squad and thus individual LOS rules, you will still have differences. From what I can tell, there is no 'subtile'level of cover, no need for it though, when you are doing individual soldiers, they each can individually find cover.

[JasonC]

Individual CMSF soldiers can't find their backside with both hands, in my admittedly limited experience. You can write a superperfectionistee tac AI to find every cover seam, or you can design for effect. If you do neither and let men mill around in accurately modeled open, you don't get an accurate cover model.

Also, in my experience no amount of vegetation is "cover" in CMSF. Nor depressions, really, though that has improved since early versions. There are buildings (which die to HE in any form) and there are blood smears. The only effective cover is shooting more than the other guy. Also, units die, in CMx1 they broke first. Most units in CMx2 are like men stuck in barbed wire or running across train tracks in CMx1.

Which is why I still prefer CMBB. But whatever floats your boat.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[abneo3sierra]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Individual CMSF soldiers can't find their backside with both hands, in my admittedly limited experience. You can write a superperfectionistee tac AI to find every cover seam, or you can design for effect. If you do neither and let men mill around in accurately modeled open, you don't get an accurate cover model.

Also, in my experience no amount of vegetation is "cover" in CMSF. Nor depressions, really, though that has improved since early versions. There are buildings (which die to HE in any form) and there are blood smears. The only effective cover is shooting more than the other guy. Also, units die, in CMx1 they broke first. Most units in CMx2 are like men stuck in barbed wire or running across train tracks in CMx1.

Which is why I still prefer CMBB. But whatever floats your boat.

I do very much like BB also.

I have had plenty of experience with soldiers irl even making poor choices, so that is actually , although annoying, realistic. Would be good I guess if the experience level could affect that though, but that starts to get extremely complex.

Hadn't noticed the fight to the death angle..now that you mention it, that probably should be altered at some point I hope.

[Childress]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Most units in CMx2 are like men stuck in barbed wire or running across train tracks in CMx1.

Which is why I still prefer CMBB. But whatever floats your boat. [/QB]

Agree, Jason. As posted before, infantry in CMSF need to acquire skeddadling skills. The "Deer in the headlights" phenomenon seems to occur too frequently. And some may find the odd panicking grunt excised from the team, the current work around, as unsatisfyingly abstract.

When CMBB first came out there were loud whinges on the forum that squads were too brittle; they broke too easily. (I was one of them, lol)This was tweaked in patches but CMAK got it just right, in my opinion. BFC was, in retrospect, correct to go in this direction.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[dalem]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Chance Encounter is the US forces (4 shermans plus a company of infantry)

I simply cannot resist.

Chance Encounter isn't 4 Shermans plus a company of infantry, etc.

It's a rifle company plus 4 Shermans, etc.

A not-subtle difference that is completely irrelevant to this topic, but fun to point out.

And it's all about the fun.

-dale

[gibsonm]

Sort of depends on who is under command whom doesn’t it?

Or if you prefer, who is the supported and who is supporting.

[ March 23, 2008, 12:52 AM: Message edited by: gibsonm ]