How does CM:SF stack up against CMx1?

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Sergei]

Back to the virtual world, I have to second an enhanced audio spotting for tanks. Tanks are goddamned loud, that kind of rumbling loud that you can almost hear under gunfire (I'm having trouble describing it in words).

I would like to see (hear?) that combined with such features as noise of nearby objects and explosions 'blocking' the noise of far away objects, so that if you were trying to sneak a Sherman to a town held by German infantry it would get spotted, but if there were three Tigers in the town as well, the closer by noises might block the Germans' ears.

Then of course you would also need the option to turn the Tiger's engines down, but you would need to start them periodically to keep the engines warm. A clever Allied commander would use this warming up for his benefit.

[Apocal]

I would like to see (hear?) that combined with such features as noise of nearby objects and explosions 'blocking' the noise of far away objects, so that if you were trying to sneak a Sherman to a town held by German infantry it would get spotted, but if there were three Tigers in the town as well, the closer by noises might block the Germans' ears.

This is good.

Then of course you would also need the option to turn the Tiger's engines down, but you would need to start them periodically to keep the engines warm. A clever Allied commander would use this warming up for his benefit.

This is vaguely ludicrious. The idea that someone would intentionally turn his engines off when the enemy is only (at most) 4km away is pretty... out there.

[flamingknives]

Hey, why are you always with the negative waves Apocal?

[Apocal]

Hey, why are you always with the negative waves Apocal?

I have a small ***** and was unloved as a child.

[Sergei]

This is vaguely ludicrious. The idea that someone would intentionally turn his engines off when the enemy is only (at most) 4km away is pretty... out there.

I suppose also that to a Norfolker like you, a hero is some type of weird sandwich, not some nut who takes on three Tigers.

[Dietrich]

Not only are tanks loud, they're loud enough that (especially when buttoned up) it's almost impossible to hear anything quieter than nearby gunfire or the explosion of HE shells. That's part of why (in WW2, at least) savvy tank commanders went unbuttoned as much as possible, the better to spot targets annd to aurally detect threats both near and far.

According to Franz Kurowski, on one occasion the German tank commander Hans Bölter climbed onto a Tiger to warn the crew of Russian tanks lurking nearby, and even though he shouted at the top of his lungs, the crew could only hear him enough to think he was a Russian tank-hunter. Ironically, Bölter heard one of the Tiger's crew shout: "Russian infantry on our tank!"

[Apocal]

I suppose also that to a Norfolker like you, a hero is some type of weird sandwich, not some nut who takes on three Tigers.

I have no idea what you are talking about here...?

Not only are tanks loud, they're loud enough that (especially when buttoned up) it's almost impossible to hear anything quieter than nearby gunfire or the explosion of HE shells. That's part of why (in WW2, at least) savvy tank commanders went unbuttoned as much as possible, the better to spot targets annd to aurally detect threats both near and far.

According to Franz Kurowski, on one occasion the German tank commander Hans Bölter climbed onto a Tiger to warn the crew of Russian tanks lurking nearby, and even though he shouted at the top of his lungs, the crew could only hear him enough to think he was a Russian tank-hunter. Ironically, Bölter heard one of the Tiger's crew shout: "Russian infantry on our tank!"

I think (not sure) newer diesels are quieter. Gas turbines certainly are though.

[Sergei]

I have no idea what you are talking about here...?

[McIvan]

What CMx2 also gives is what CMx1 players had demanded! "Give us 1:1 units!", "Give us a realtime option!", "Give us vehicle interiors!", "Give us more complex buildings!", "Give us more detailed terrain!", "Give us time-sensitive environments!" Poor BFC can't win with some old CMx1 grousers.

You are pretending that every single CMx1 player demanded every single one of these "features", which is just silly.

In particular, I certainly don't remember any groundswell at all for realtime. What I do recall is people being rather stunned, and hoping in a somewhat worried tone that WEGO would in fact still be bolted on....somehow.

Secondly, just because someone implements a concept, doesn't mean they implemented it in a manner incapable of improvement or impervious to criticism. Whether it gets constructive criticism or not is another question.

Thirdly, while the developers giveth, the developers have also taken away.....for example trenches that now give only poor cover and (unrealistically) cannot ever be concealed no matter what terrain they are in. Harder to use and benefit from cover. Lack of fortifications (hopefully this will be addressed in CMx2 Normandy).

Any game can benefit from comparisons of strengths and weaknesses versus a predecessor. Nothing is gained by silly straw-man stone-chucking.

I'm looking forward to giving the Normandy demo a try.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Battlefront.com]

McIvan,

You are pretending that every single CMx1 player demanded every single one of these "features", which is just silly.

Nah, he's just pointing out that if we ask 100 customers what they love best about CMBO we probably would get a list of 2000 complaints The facts are facts... gamers LOVE to complain about the games they love, wargamers go a step further. There's a lot of guys out there that say "this game sucks. I should know, because I've played it for about 1,000 hours"

In particular, I certainly don't remember any groundswell at all for realtime.

Not from the CMx1 fans, perhaps, but then again it's a self selecting audience in that regard. Meaning, people that like WeGo and hate RT are sure to be found in greater numbers on a Forum discussing a WeGo game. Poll people in RT game forums about WeGo and they'll sing a different tune.

As I've said a million times since the early days of CMx2 announcements... it would have been absolutely idiotic for us to build a new game engine with all the inherent limitations of WeGo from a simulation standpoint. A RealTime game engine can be made to do WeGo, a WeGo game engine can not do RealTime. We made the absolute best decision at the time and as far as we're concerned it was an extremely smart thing to do.

What I do recall is people being rather stunned, and hoping in a somewhat worried tone that WEGO would in fact still be bolted on....somehow.

Those who don't expect change are always stunned by it. Those who do not want change are offended by it. Same old, same old.

WeGo is an important part of CMx2 now and forever. There has never been, nor will there ever be, a change in that attitude.

Secondly, just because someone implements a concept, doesn't mean they implemented it in a manner incapable of improvement or impervious to criticism. Whether it gets constructive criticism or not is another question.

Correct. Constructive criticism is not only good, it's necessary if a game is to improve. The opposite, however, gets in the way of improvement. Fortunately for us, we have a large number of people who are able to be constructively critical.

Thirdly, while the developers giveth, the developers have also taken away.....for example trenches that now give only poor cover and (unrealistically) cannot ever be concealed no matter what terrain they are in. Harder to use and benefit from cover. Lack of fortifications (hopefully this will be addressed in CMx2 Normandy).

This has been debated a hundred times already. The cases made against CMx2 trenches have been disjointed, contradictory, factually incorrect, and generally not very impressive IMHO. Especially considering that CMBO didn't have trenches at all in any form of any time. CM:SF also has more "fortifications" with more functionality than CMx1 ever had. For example, the ability to put any unit in a bunker or to remove troops from them.

But your basic point is correct... often times a new feature which offers several advances over a previous one carries with it a sacrifice of some sort. It's regrettable, but it's the price that sometimes must be paid. Obviously there is room for debate about if the sacrifices are worth it, however we often find that such debates boil down to people with extremely narrow vision disregarding the positives the new feature brings. It's understandable since the easiest way to cast a new feature as a step backwards is to dismiss the positives it brings to the table as something other than what they are. At other times there is a legitimate point which we agree with and can also (with time) do something about. It would be nice to get the latter without the former, but we have to take the productive with the unproductive here on this Forum.

Any game can benefit from comparisons of strengths and weaknesses versus a predecessor. Nothing is gained by silly straw-man stone-chucking.

Agreed. But understand that silly straw-man stone-chucking doesn't come from just one side of debate.

I'm looking forward to giving the Normandy demo a try.

Works for us!

Steve

[MikeyD]

I recently made a simple suggestion to fix the 'trenches problem'. Rename them! The'ye being used in scenarios as roadside ditches 80% of the time anyway, just rename them "Ditches" - problems solved! They look like ditches, they act like ditches, they protect like ditches. And nobody is going to be surprised that an attacker would be already aware of the presence of ditches along a road. The trench problem isn't a problem of coding, its a problem of labeling.

[Lanzfeld]

MikeyD.........................

WINNER!

very very good

[Apocal]

Those who don't expect change are always stunned by it. Those who do not want change are offended by it. Same old, same old.

I still remember some of the old throwdowns over your decision to go 3D and how the game could have been so much better if time hadn't been "wasted" on 3D.

[Battlefront.com]

Apocal,

I still remember some of the old throwdowns over your decision to go 3D and how the game could have been so much better if time hadn't been "wasted" on 3D.

Ah, good times Oddly enough Michael Emrys just recounted his pre-CMBO attitude that he'd never play the game in anything but overhead mode, but that once he got the game he found he rarely wanted to. Sometimes we have to not listen to customer feedback for the customers' own good

Steve

[McIvan]

Steve,

Stunned because it was out of left field in terms of warning....but it's not important.

My major purpose in writing was to object to a caricatured generalisation of critics.

Obviously every developer has to make some judgment calls because customers will never be unanimous in what they want, nor can they realistically be expected to understand the limitations of the engine and how the developer is planning to mesh the various elements together. Either those judgment calls work or they don't. My personal opinion is that some of the abstractions in CMx1 work better than the more explicit, but still abstracted, representations in CMx2. However, each to his own....and for the sake of balance I should mention that there are elements in CMx2 that work very elegantly, such as chained orders (once the pathing was, um, worked on). It's all been covered elsewhere.

It's undoubtedly a good thing that units can now move into and out of bunkers. There's no need to be somewhat defensive about the issue; I expect you would like to incorporate more elements commonly used in Normandy than bunkers/ditches, and I assume there will be some. It would be desirable if trenches could be concealed, but I can understand that if the game engine has its limitations in that regard there's not too much to be done about it without a major concept change in the visuals.

[McIvan]

I recently made a simple suggestion to fix the 'trenches problem'. Rename them! The'ye being used in scenarios as roadside ditches 80% of the time anyway, just rename them "Ditches" - problems solved! They look like ditches, they act like ditches, they protect like ditches. And nobody is going to be surprised that an attacker would be already aware of the presence of ditches along a road. The trench problem isn't a problem of coding, its a problem of labeling.

Very good

But, erm, what do we then use for.....trenches?

[Wengart]

Oddly placed ditches?

[Battlefront.com]

McIvan,

It's undoubtedly a good thing that units can now move into and out of bunkers. There's no need to be somewhat defensive about the issue;

Explaining another point of view is not being defensive. I simply pointed out that there were some things you stated as if they were fact which are not, and therefore a contrary position can exist. I also have to contend with apples to oranges comparisons, which are neither fair to the game nor conducive to a discussion about the issue. The only way to correct for this is to point out the flaws in directly stated comparisons. When you stated something I agreed with I stated that as well. I am fair

I expect you would like to incorporate more elements commonly used in Normandy than bunkers/ditches, and I assume there will be some. It would be desirable if trenches could be concealed, but I can understand that if the game engine has its limitations in that regard there's not too much to be done about it without a major concept change in the visuals.

Correct. As with other conversations we've had about the FoW trench issue, there are too many problems with going to a 2D "decal" effect like we had in CMBB/AK (again, no trenches in CMBO). It's completely off the table because it is, overall, not a good idea.

There will definitely be improvements to the defensive options in the very first release of CM Normandy. I've covered these in the past to the extent I wish to at this stage of development.

Steve

[McIvan]

McIvan,

Explaining another point of view is not being defensive. I simply pointed out that there were some things you stated as if they were fact which are not, and therefore a contrary position can exist. I also have to contend with apples to oranges comparisons, which are neither fair to the game nor conducive to a discussion about the issue. The only way to correct for this is to point out the flaws in directly stated comparisons. When you stated something I agreed with I stated that as well. I am fair

Steve

I thought I just made a basic point that you basically agreed with. It wasn't actually a criticism.....or, at least, it wasn't intended to be. Extrapolating some criticism from that basic point and answering it is what I was referring to as defensive....and I can say that because I know what I meant. But maybe it didn't read that way.

You can take this next point on board or not, as you please...and I'm not entirely sure why I'm bothering to write it....but sometimes an outsider who has only infrequently trawled these boards over the last year or two (because I'm primarily a WWII enthusiast) can see changes that people who visit every day don't.....like going back to your hometown after a decade, describing the changes to people and finding that the changes happened so gradually that they didn't really notice them.

Anyways, back in the days when CMBB/AK were going great guns and everyone was more of less happy, you were a relatively happy chap, albeit with a tendency to pontificate . CMSF has been a somewhat more rocky road and you have had to deal with a barrage of criticism & disappointment, some constructive, some decidedly not. It should hardly be a surprise to you if your behaviour should change to take on some aspect of siege mentality...with a relatively thinner skin and a tendency to read criticism into people's words. Not that that is always wrong...just cos you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. But it does seem like it became a lot harder around here to voice a contrary opinion without getting jumped on as people reacted to not just the plain opinion but every possible negative connotation that could be drawn from the passage.......and vice versa, it has to be said, so maybe this is directed at a wider audience. (It's been like where you tell your wife/girlfriend something and it can be taken two ways...you meant the nice way, right? Good luck explaining THAT to HER.) With 1.10 and 1.11 proving to have mostly made people happier, you've become a trifle happier (in contrast, the people riling you around 1.1-1.6 got both barrels).

Now I'm not saying that I'm on the receiving end of this tendency, because we've had a perfectly civil dialogue, but I think others have been, and not necessarily from you or just you, and along the way there has been way too much generalisation about customers...how they act, complain, don't know what is good for themselves etc.

That's psychoanalysis 101 out of the way. The solution would be for everyone to lighten up a bit. Relax! We're not all out to get you. Most of us just want a good game, and it's fun to argue passionately about what does or doesn't make one. On the other hand, if I get responses back along the lines of "Who? Name them? Which thread?" so that my no doubt ill-conceived perceptions can be dissected in minute detail then I'll just withdraw my observations. I don't care enough to play that kind of verbal warfare.

Mildly surprised I bothered to write this.....it was just some musing on defensiveness that set it off, and an awareness that the "intermittent outsider" perspective can often have some value. Make of it what you will.

Funnily enough, one of the reasons I'm looking forward to giving CM: Normandy a try is that all the CMSF shennanigans have greatly reduced my expectations. I get the basic idea of what it will be like. As a result, I might well be pleasantly surprised by the non-CMSF features that get thrown in. Looking forward to it....and if you could personally organise this to happen just prior to, or coincidentally with, my next new PC purchase, that would be much appeciated

[[hirr]Leto]

You'd never guess that he is a member of MENSA AND a lawyer, would you?

: )

Cheers!

Leto

[Battlefront.com]

McIvan,

Well, I have to point out that sometimes the "intermittent outsider" lacks perspective specifically because of the intermittent aspect. There are some posters who can post constructive criticism, and there are those who can't (or won't, either way it's the same). The former are necessary to make the game a better one, the latter actually impede progress. The cycle here is that periods of relative productivity usually come only after periods of turmoil where those who can't be constructive with their criticism go away or are banned. It's a cycle that has repeated itself since before this Forum (i.e. in the old BTS web board) was created. I don't see any reason to think this cycle will flatten out, no matter what I or anybody else does. It appears to be a natural process. For example...

As regular Forum members will remember, we had TONS of problems before and immediately after CMBO was released with Close Combat and Steel Panthers guys coming here to pick fights. Some had to be banned more than a dozen times before they finally went away. When CMBB was released we had plenty of people complaining about things added and things changed, as well as usual complaints that the game wasn't finished to their satisfaction. When CMAK was released we didn't have so much controversy other than people expressing frustration that we didn't remake CMBO or add anything new. That was partly because we weren't adding many new customers to the mix, so those who had issues with the game (including just not caring about it anymore) were absent. Between CMAK and CM:SF we had many heated discussions about creative issues, not to mention the now infamous PBEM insanity.

Perhaps the most recent rough patch was longer and/or more intense than previous ones (for a number of reasons, technical problems being only one of them), but now that we're largely past that we are getting back to having a more productive Forum. This is a good thing for everybody except for those who insist that the Forum has "gone to the dogs" and is just a big brown nose festival. The irony which is lost on those people is that they used to be "fan bois" being called rather unflattering names by other critics. The original name for them was "CM Zombies", coined by rather nasty personalities on the Close Combat 3 boards in the late 1990s.

In short... we're used to this, In fact, I'm going to guess that I banned less people at the height of the CM:SF criticism than I did during the mythical uninterrupted love fest surrounding CMBO. I suggest that a thinning skin is not the reason behind that

As for your previous post... you said some things I agreed with and some things I disagreed with. If you didn't want to see a response from me (or someone else) then you shouldn't have posted. If you did want to see a response, then I don't see what the problem is.

Steve

[[hirr]Leto]

I have a few questions:

Do you have a plan for releasing information on Cm2 Normandy ex ante, and if so, at what stage or stages and at what level of detail?

A sub question of the above: will you be opening a new forum section to deal with the questions that will obviously start flowing now that you have posted the infamous Tiger shot heralding CM2 Normandy?

What market or demographic are you aiming at with the new game (do you have some research data that you may be basing some of your design principles on) or are you just building it and hoping they will come? I ask this because you've stated in the past that you have greatly expanded your sights with respect to target markets, moving from your past customers of your old products to new customers who may be already playing in new genres (you mentioned real time gaming forums once).

What is the process for beta tester selection? Do you have to know or trust the person, or are you looking for a specific skill or characteristic, or even demographic to strategically link your betatesting squad to the markets to which you will be selling?

Is the emphasis going to be on campaigns (a narrative, or storyline as you will) so that a player will need to complete missions, or are you looking to build in scenario based, full editing and QB based flexibilities to allow for the development of a user based community? (almost like open source products, but of course the code is not disseminated, so not really)

I ask these questions in a forthright and respectful tone.

Thanks for your response.

Cheers!

Leto

[Patrocles]

I thought I just made a basic point that you basically agreed with. It wasn't actually a criticism.....or, at least, it wasn't intended to be. Extrapolating some criticism from that basic point and answering it is what I was referring to as defensive....and I can say that because I know what I meant. But maybe it didn't read that way.

You can take this next point on board or not, as you please...and I'm not entirely sure why I'm bothering to write it....but sometimes an outsider who has only infrequently trawled these boards over the last year or two (because I'm primarily a WWII enthusiast) can see changes that people who visit every day don't.....like going back to your hometown after a decade, describing the changes to people and finding that the changes happened so gradually that they didn't really notice them.

Anyways, back in the days when CMBB/AK were going great guns and everyone was more of less happy, you were a relatively happy chap, albeit with a tendency to pontificate . CMSF has been a somewhat more rocky road and you have had to deal with a barrage of criticism & disappointment, some constructive, some decidedly not. It should hardly be a surprise to you if your behaviour should change to take on some aspect of siege mentality...with a relatively thinner skin and a tendency to read criticism into people's words. Not that that is always wrong...just cos you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. But it does seem like it became a lot harder around here to voice a contrary opinion without getting jumped on as people reacted to not just the plain opinion but every possible negative connotation that could be drawn from the passage.......and vice versa, it has to be said, so maybe this is directed at a wider audience. (It's been like where you tell your wife/girlfriend something and it can be taken two ways...you meant the nice way, right? Good luck explaining THAT to HER.) With 1.10 and 1.11 proving to have mostly made people happier, you've become a trifle happier (in contrast, the people riling you around 1.1-1.6 got both barrels).

Now I'm not saying that I'm on the receiving end of this tendency, because we've had a perfectly civil dialogue, but I think others have been, and not necessarily from you or just you, and along the way there has been way too much generalisation about customers...how they act, complain, don't know what is good for themselves etc.

That's psychoanalysis 101 out of the way. The solution would be for everyone to lighten up a bit. Relax! We're not all out to get you. Most of us just want a good game, and it's fun to argue passionately about what does or doesn't make one. On the other hand, if I get responses back along the lines of "Who? Name them? Which thread?" so that my no doubt ill-conceived perceptions can be dissected in minute detail then I'll just withdraw my observations. I don't care enough to play that kind of verbal warfare.

Mildly surprised I bothered to write this.....it was just some musing on defensiveness that set it off, and an awareness that the "intermittent outsider" perspective can often have some value. Make of it what you will.

Funnily enough, one of the reasons I'm looking forward to giving CM: Normandy a try is that all the CMSF shennanigans have greatly reduced my expectations. I get the basic idea of what it will be like. As a result, I might well be pleasantly surprised by the non-CMSF features that get thrown in. Looking forward to it....and if you could personally organise this to happen just prior to, or coincidentally with, my next new PC purchase, that would be much appeciated

"you just don't get it!"