A different CMx2 "problem"

[Redwolf]

On the issue of cover and concealment. Paper Tiger, said "real life commanders aren't told that this knoll over here offers 64% concealment and 24% cover while that carrot patch over there offers 86% concealment but only 5% cover." I agree with him but once they were in position, they would have a good appreceation of how much cover and concealment the terrain offered, so, I think something that showed up these stats, though only for your own troops and only those that were stationary, would be a good thing, cheers.

Right. The individual soldier looking for his personal spot in the terrain he can choose from based on his squad's orders has a pretty good idea about which rock or bush or whatever will provide cover and/or concealment.

Not so in CM:SF.

[Redwolf]

It's really sad to see this topic devolve into this...

The OP was wondering if/how he can get into CMSF and what BF can do to make the game more exciting for him. Your advice - don't bother playing the game.

Since you've stopped playing the game without being able to enjoy it what makes you feel qualified to give anyone advice about things you know nothing about (how to enjoy the game)? And why resort to ad hominem (edit: especially if it goes without saying)?

No, I said there is no point spoiling your general hunger for wargames, or for CM style games, by forcing yourself to play SF if you don't like it. You might end up getting fed up enough that you skip Normandy and for all we know that can be a great game, or at least play very different from SF.

This advice isn't limited to gaming at all. Taking a break and revisiting something after a major change has been scheduled for that something anyway can be a good idea.

[MikeyD]

Not so in CM:SF.

(Note I used the quote function). Do you play the game much? The game does a good job of using terrain features, folds in the earth, ridges, wall, etc. Admittedly isn't not as 'excellent' as three stick figures standing in for twelve so you can 'imagine' a dozen soldiers crouching behind rocks and rain barrels.

I'm curious, Redwolf, what was you opinion of the soldiers use of terrain in the Marine scenario "Hills and highways" and the British scenario 'The Mouse trap"?

[sfhand]

No, I said there is no point spoiling your general hunger for wargames, or for CM style games, by forcing yourself to play SF if you don't like it. You might end up getting fed up enough that you skip Normandy and for all we know that can be a great game, or at least play very different from SF.

This advice isn't limited to gaming at all. Taking a break and revisiting something after a major change has been scheduled for that something anyway can be a good idea.

The OP said he had the same problem with with CM:BO yet after reading Fion Kelly he was inspired to play on. Had he followed your advice he would have never discovered the joys of CMx1...

[Smaragdadler]

edit: wrong thread

[Thomm]

Right. The individual soldier looking for his personal spot in the terrain he can choose from based on his squad's orders has a pretty good idea about which rock or bush or whatever will provide cover and/or concealment.

I always thought that the level of detail that you imply is abstracted in CM:SF :confused:

Best regards,

Thomm

[Yair Iny]

I have to say this whole throwback to CMx1 being more engaging because you knew exactly what the terrain parameters were, etc, is quite hilarious. I remember threads in CMx1 specifying exactly how much distance to keep between squads so that suppression of one doesn't affect the other. I remember long threads with Walpurgis Nacht discussing the exact merits of different types of terrain cover, with a level of mathematical detail that would shame a pentagon systems analyst Seriously, to say that CMx1 is more engaging because you knew more and had more control is, to me, a joke. At best you could say it is more engaging because of the period.

On a personal note, I found CMx2 quite hard to get in to. My troops kept dying, and I didn't feel like I had control of what was going on. Every once in a while I'd play a scen when everything went right and had a blast. Then I watched Tyrspawn's videos and just tried to do as he does, i.e. follow basic tenets of tactics, establish a base of fire, fix and flank, and most importantly, not worry about the little things being perfect. Just put some suppression on a building and assault a squad into it. And you know what, suddenly the game became fun. Playing in RT, I don't even pause now, except for once or twice when I get reinforcements, and stop for a second to plan for their usage. And I think that is the biggest problem with the transition from Cmx1 to 2. In the old CM you had so much more control. You knew the terrain params exactly and could place a squad in the terrain exactly (it being a pin point). Now, you have to play like a real commander. Get you guys to do their things and hope that overall things play out kindly. It's way more fun, if you ask me.

[Redwolf]

I have to say this whole throwback to CMx1 being more engaging because you knew exactly what the terrain parameters were, etc, is quite hilarious.

It's not what anybody said. What we said is that more knowledge than provided is needed to herd the individual soldiers around. Compared to the point-like squads which were pretty clear WRT what kind of cover and concealment they end up in.

I was tempted to accept Mickey's challenge (though I ended up not buying the Brits module following my own advice here, although I might get it after Normandy) and post screenshots of individuals' placement that I feel is realistic or not. But I think we already know the outcome which is that I find things unrealistic that others find realistic.

Even taking the word for individuals now using terrain features how did the situation develop when you want a squad to peek around the corner of a house?

I remember threads in CMx1 specifying exactly how much distance to keep between squads so that suppression of one doesn't affect the other.

I never used that level of knowledge. I gained some related knowledge about exactly what gets spotted when and I found that it lowered my enjoyment of the game. That was when I stopped poking to find out combat parameters.

I remember long threads with Walpurgis Nacht discussing the exact merits of different types of terrain cover, with a level of mathematical detail that would shame a pentagon systems analyst Seriously, to say that CMx1 is more engaging because you knew more and had more control is, to me, a joke. At best you could say it is more engaging because of the period.

It's not about control. It is about realism. Can you make your squad perform a certain task in a certain environment and get a proper - realistic - risk for all the members of the squad out of that?

I found that in the past CM:SF did not, specifically because individual squad member would (when moving) expose themselves to directions of possible enemy fire when a real soldier wouldn't.

It was probably a mistake that I allowed this discussion to be too concerned with stationary objects used for cover when the squad is going stationary. The real issue is what all the dudes do during movement.

[Battlefront.com]

Some quick comments:

1. The tried and true "Red poses no challenge" notion has been crushed, solidly, so many times before I find those who keep bringing it up hard to view as rational. Especially when the argument is extended to suggest that the Syrians are somehow lacking a capability that would even significantly change the overall balance. Each time this comes up the question is put out... what real world weapon system available to a Red force would give Red a capability that it currently does not have? There has never been any response to this because, thanks to the T-90SA, BMP-3, AT-14, RPG-29. and modern RPG-7V rounds there isn't anything to list. While someone can certainly make specific cases where Red is almost completely hopeless, the same can be said for certain circumstances in CMx1 games. So it's just a bunch of nonsense to argue that cherry picked circumstances reflect the game as a whole. It's borderline nuts to argue that there's something realistic we could give Red to make them significantly better in standing up to Blue toe-to-toe. Nuts, I tell you, nuts

2. Yes, CMx2 does have a steeper learning curve than CMx1. The primary reasons for this is the games increased complexity from a simulation standpoint. It's similar to the difference between chess and checkers. Both games have very simple rules and a fairly similar environment. The rules for chess, though more complex, aren't really all that harder to learn than checkers. But the complexity of the strategies, and the significance of errors, is radically more difficult to grasp in chess than checkers. I think few who enjoy chess would suggest that is a bad thing, though people who like checkers most likely would.

3. CM:SF has an additional "learning curve" to it for most people. The primary reason is that the majority of wargamers out there are WW2 types and not Modern. The battlefields may look similar, but trying to play CM:SF like you would CMAK and you're likely to find success difficult to achieve. People only marginally interested in the Modern setting, or digging deep to master something new, will find themselves looking for something more familiar. Secondly, modern warfare has much thinner margins of error compared to other epochs of warfare. That's inherent and has nothing to do with CM:SF. In fact, it simply demonstrates that we've simulated the environment fairly accurately. To overcome the thinner margins of error takes increased understanding of the systems and how to use them.

4. Knowing that a bush provides 20% improved concealment and 0% cover is useless information because it can not be utilized by the player. Not unless we allow players to mirco manage the exact position of each soldier. Plus, there is no simple "if you are here this is your cover/concealment rating" because there are too many factors at play. Such as relative height. A wall provides 100% concealment and 100% cover when you're behind it, but as soon as your soldier sticks his head up the equation changes dramatically. If the enemy is at the same level or lower it is one thing, if the enemy is higher it's another thing. It's impossible to even display this information, not to mention actually use it. Therefore, we will never have such information for Normandy or any other game based on the CMx2 engine.

5. In the end CMx2 (and CM:SF) will appeal to certain people and will not appeal to others. Just like CMx1 appealed to certain people and not to others. If you're someone that liked CMx1 and doesn't like CMx2, that's OK with us. Players are under no obligation to like CMx2 as a whole or CM:SF specifically. Just like we, as developers, aren't required to make sure you do.

Steve

[Redwolf]

3. CM:SF has an additional "learning curve" to it for most people. The primary reason is that the majority of wargamers out there are WW2 types and not Modern. The battlefields may look similar, but trying to play CM:SF like you would CMAK and you're likely to find success difficult to achieve. People only marginally interested in the Modern setting, or digging deep to master something new, will find themselves looking for something more familiar. Secondly, modern warfare has much thinner margins of error compared to other epochs of warfare. That's inherent and has nothing to do with CM:SF. In fact, it simply demonstrates that we've simulated the environment fairly accurately. To overcome the thinner margins of error takes increased understanding of the systems and how to use them.

4. Knowing that a bush provides 20% improved concealment and 0% cover is useless information because it can not be utilized by the player. Not unless we allow players to mirco manage the exact position of each soldier. Plus, there is no simple "if you are here this is your cover/concealment rating" because there are too many factors at play. Such as relative height. A wall provides 100% concealment and 100% cover when you're behind it, but as soon as your soldier sticks his head up the equation changes dramatically. If the enemy is at the same level or lower it is one thing, if the enemy is higher it's another thing. It's impossible to even display this information, not to mention actually use it. Therefore, we will never have such information for Normandy or any other game based on the CMx2 engine.

5. In the end CMx2 (and CM:SF) will appeal to certain people and will not appeal to others. Just like CMx1 appealed to certain people and not to others. If you're someone that liked CMx1 and doesn't like CMx2, that's OK with us. Players are under no obligation to like CMx2 as a whole or CM:SF specifically. Just like we, as developers, aren't required to make sure you do.

Hence the "wait for Normandy and go from there". Since you have to redo all the concealment for Normandy anyway and neither modern weapons nor imbalanced forces apply that's the better thing to do than beating one's head against the SF wall to the point of not trying Normandy. I don't see why that isn't the best solution for everybody involved.

"Go from there" also can mean go back to SF/Brits or whatever. If indeed a steep learning curve that some of us never climbed with CF is the problem, then climbing it with increased incentive in Normandy might make us end up enjoying SF after the learning, no?

[GSX]

And yet although I play more SF than I do CM-1 Im often still left with the feeling that SF is all about using a first world A Team to beat up a 1970's C Team. Although I dont have a huge problem with it as I tend to try and play Afghanistan esque battles.

I do genuinely feel that somewhere in all these discussions is a middle road as it is a game after all. You should play games for relaxation and entertainment and theres no doubt that Ive had a lot of fun out of it, especially the last year when I think it has been very playable. you just have to find whats most enjoyable for you and if you genuinely dont like it after all this time, then it surely must be time to move on, or wait for Normandy.

All that said, I do feel that SF could benefit from a much more robust infantry model, the word simulation is oft bandied around here to describe SF, but I really do think te game is an approximation of infantry rather than a simulation. However, I understand the limitations of the CM-2 system and perhaps by the time we get to CM-3 the infantry may be simulated more realistically.

[Battlefront.com]

Hence the "wait for Normandy and go from there". Since you have to redo all the concealment for Normandy anyway and neither modern weapons nor imbalanced forces apply that's the better thing to do than beating one's head against the SF wall to the point of not trying Normandy. I don't see why that isn't the best solution for everybody involved.

Oh, I agree. If someone has given CM:SF a fair shake and it isn't to their tastes, then certainly put it aside and wait for WW2. Imbalanced forces, however, are still prevalent in WW2 as well, depending on the circumstances.

"Go from there" also can mean go back to SF/Brits or whatever. If indeed a steep learning curve that some of us never climbed with CF is the problem, then climbing it with increased incentive in Normandy might make us end up enjoying SF after the learning, no?

Yes, the learning curve is mostly adapting to the increased fidelity of the CMx2 game system. It's hard enough to go from CMx1 to CMx2, but going from something like Steel Panthers or Command & Conquer must be a bit more challenging There's still the fact that an arid and urban centric environment will always be more challenging than a temperate one, just as modern forces are more challenging than WW2 forces. Which means I still expect people to not "get into" CMx2's various Modern games even if they are in complete love with the WW2 versions. And that's fine by us... we're not expecting everybody to want everything. If they do, and many do, that's icing on the cakes for us.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

GSX,

I do genuinely feel that somewhere in all these discussions is a middle road as it is a game after all. You should play games for relaxation and entertainment and theres no doubt that Ive had a lot of fun out of it, especially the last year when I think it has been very playable. you just have to find whats most enjoyable for you and if you genuinely dont like it after all this time, then it surely must be time to move on, or wait for Normandy.

Yup, totally agree. I like to play "brainless" shoot-em up games too for the same reason. Sometimes I don't want to think. Sometimes I don't want to be bounded by reality. Other times I do. I'd no more like to be forced to play one type for ever and ever any more than I would be forced to play another type. If CM, of any flavor, doesn't float someone's boat (and it doesn't float but a small % of the entire games audience) I expect them to move onto something else. Which is why our business model is not designed around appealing to hundreds of millions of gamers.

All that said, I do feel that SF could benefit from a much more robust infantry model, the word simulation is oft bandied around here to describe SF, but I really do think te game is an approximation of infantry rather than a simulation. However, I understand the limitations of the CM-2 system and perhaps by the time we get to CM-3 the infantry may be simulated more realistically.

Realism is always on a continuum. As computers get better, so to can the level of realism. CMx2's infantry modeling is probably the most realistic of any game ever made. It's certainly more realistic than CMx1's, and CMx1 is generally thought of to be above most (arguably, by some, not above Close Combat). We have a proven track record of keeping things advancing and not stagnating with older models. it's why CMx1 was not even remotely like ASL

Steve

[MarkEzra]

I’m also curious as to how some of the die-hard CMx1 players were able to make the transition. Maybe that could help me.

I think I qualify to give my opinion. When first I saw CMSF infantry form a single line to "move" (something no war game I owned could do)...well I was sold. And this was the release version for pity's sake! Like you I had limited knowledge about "Modern" warfare....by "Limited" I mean Steel Panthers 2.

I soon discovered the Syrian Army was like the US or USSR of 1942. I needed to pay strict attention to C&C, use over watch and base of fire when moving forward, avoid long range gun fights of ANY caliber, and to except large losses with a degree of equanimity found only in the most sociopathic of Kommissars. By careful placement of my Syrians in defense and striking isolated Blue units en mass in the advance I've come to enjoy a good degree of success in this asymmetrical world of war.

If you decide to give CMSF another shot...or if you plan to get Normandy(why wait to learn the games tactical do's and don'ts?) ... I'd be glad to PBEM with you. mark.ezra3591@gmail.com It was How I learned to play CMx1and CMx2 as well.

And speaking of CMx1: I loaded CMAK up and played it again recently. About 30 minutes worth... Somethings are best left as fond memory. That's how CMAK is for me.

[MeatEtr]

I like to play "brainless" shoot-em up games too for the same reason. Sometimes I don't want to think. Sometimes I don't want to be bounded by reality.

Steve

Which is why we all need to kick back and kick ass with Sam.

Yup, their remaking this classic. Suppose to come out like late-November, woohoo.

[Wengart]

I always thought that the level of detail that you imply is abstracted in CM:SF

Best regards,

Thomm

If I am not mistaken this is abstracted and works something like this.

When a bullet intersects a soldiers model the game gives him a chance of not being wounded/killed. So a soldier laying prone in rocky terrain behind a tree will have a higher chance of not getting killed. So one could say the game allows more bullets to intersect with him before he is killed (although it is quite possible for the first bullet to kill him its just a chance that he wont be killed). While another soldier standing up running across the road would have a very high chance of being killed if any bullet were to intersect with him. This is really noticeable if you were to watch some of your men taking fire while in a house. You'll see numerous bullets intersect with them before they are killed.

I also believe caliber of the bullet makes a difference. I have yet to see a man live through getting hit by an APSFD round!

Yeah but real soldiers have a sense of self-preservation. The individuals place themselves in relative safety within the parameters given by the squad's general positioning. CM:SF soldiers don't do that.

Of course this is still a slight problem. If a man were to position himself in a more exposed spot, and thus increase the number of bullets intersecting with him then his % chance of dying increases.

Personally I think its something that will be improved with over time, and that we just have to deal with. CMx1 had borg spotting we have some odd placement of a guy or two. (and probably a few other things but I don't want to bother with writing up a list)

Also, BFC's refusal to bump up Red's capabilities with some tougher units and some gear the Syrians could have bought years in the future (facing an American attack) leaves the gaming experience too much like a turkey shoot. This further increases my hope that the mostly even fight of Americans versus Germans in Normandy will make for a better gaming experience.

Reply With Quote

At this point I don't think there is much BF.C can add to the Syrian armory. Although has a Red player I would love some new toys. My personal favorite would be the RKG-3.

[Paper Tiger]

BTW, it goes without saying that these "believers" comments come from people who don't even know how to use the quote functionality on a forum.

I actually prefer to create my own style thank you

Not sure what you are getting at when you say "believers'" though. I just like this game and you don't. It's my hobby and it's not yours. I really enjoy working with it and you don't. It's not because I 'believe' anything, I just enjoy it. I guess this is just a symptom of your own need to 'demonise' those who are different from you. Understandable when discussing political issues or current affairs but a 2 year old computer game? :eek:

Anyways, in response to the OP, I adore Classical Music but no matter what I do, I simply can't get into Jazz. You can recommend any recording by any performer to me and it won't matter how fantastic it is, I won't enjoy it. And I've tried too. And it's not an intellect thing. I can 'understand' a jazz performance, I just don't enjoy it and it's my loss.

So you could read lots of AARs and watch videos on YouTube but if Modern Era's not your thing, it's not your thing. Fortunately, I happen to like both WW2 and Modern. In fact, after taking the time to learn the ropes, I've grown to prefer Modern Era to WW2.

BTW, I would be what you called a CMx1 'super user' as well. I bought CMBO just after it was released in the UK and played it almost exclusively for several years. Perhaps CMx1 was such an easy 'fall' for a lot of us because there was no CMx0 to compare it to. Or perhaps it's because CMx1 is actually more like a board wargame (I played ASL before CMBO) than the CMx2 series is.

[MarkEzra]

... because AI just doesn’t provide a fun playing experience.

I made a very short Vid of a QB battle played in WEGO. It's shows a Syrian Mech Inf Ambush. I thought you might want to see what Regular Syrian Inf with normal settings can do against American Armor. It's Titled "Poor Bloody Syrians" You can view it here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/WarlordMarkEzra?gl=GB&hl=en-GB

[76mm]

Like real life eh? When you're looking for somewhere safe to park your touche in a firefight, real life commanders aren't told that this knoll over here offers 64% concealment and 24% cover while that carrot patch over there offers 86% concealment but only 5% cover. Very very gamey

?? You think that a commander looking at a particular site on the ground in real life has no idea about the cover, concealment, and lines of sight at that site? Sure, he couldn't reduce it to percentage terms but that is hardly the point, is it? The point is that he would surely recognize that moving behind that grove of trees will PROBABLY provide more cover from direction X than moving behind that line of bushes, etc.

[Paper Tiger]

Sure, he couldn't reduce it to percentage terms but that is hardly the point, is it?

Emm... yes it is.

[MikeyD]

Same as in CMSF, in other words. You learn the effectiveness of a particular patch of cover and concealment in CMSF by using it, and continue on from there. Sure you may struggle the first few scenarios but the game's been out since 2007. Most players have caught on just fine by now.

CMSF is never going to devolve back into a board game. The ones who expect CM:Normandy to come with hexes and dice will be disappointed. Some people keep beating on the same old dead horse.

[Dietrich]

CMSF is never going to devolve back into a board game. The ones who expect CM:Normandy to come with hexes and dice will be disappointed. Some people keep beating on the same old dead horse.

Maybe when CM:Normandy comes out, all the people who currently complain about (or just plain ignore) CMSF will... still whine that it doesn't provide them the same (war)gaming experience as CMx1! Wouldn't that be ironic...

[Battlefront.com]

76mm,

?? You think that a commander looking at a particular site on the ground in real life has no idea about the cover, concealment, and lines of sight at that site?

Before he gets to that spot himself? Only the barest concept, if even that, would be in the Commander's head. After he got there, in person, then he would have some idea of cover, concealment, and lines of sight depending on the complexity of the terrain and the amount of time he had to evaluate every single fold of earth, every single tree, every single bush, etc. within the area the unit is deployed. And even after such an examination, it would still be a rough guess because one never really knows how well concealment works until you are in the firing position of the enemy. Nobody really knows how well cover works until one is actually shot at.

Sure, he couldn't reduce it to percentage terms but that is hardly the point, is it?

I think Paper Tiger put it very well... "yes it is"

The point is that he would surely recognize that moving behind that grove of trees will PROBABLY provide more cover from direction X than moving behind that line of bushes, etc.

Correct. And that is exactly what CMx2 allows players to do. Just look at the terrain and figure it out directly. In CMx1 that wasn't really possible because the terrain was pretty crudely simulated and even more crudely visually depicted.

I remember having all kinds of discussions about "hey, my guys are in Heavy Forest and I can see from one unit to another, so why can't I hit the other guys?". Underbrush, small folds in terrain, rocks, individual trees that mattered, etc. were all not depicted in CMx1. In CMx2 there is far less missing and therefore adequate visual information for the player to draw the conclusions he needs.

MikeyD wrote:

Same as in CMSF, in other words. You learn the effectiveness of a particular patch of cover and concealment in CMSF by using it, and continue on from there.

Yup. That was the intention of CMx1 as well and boy didn't we catch Hell for it! Even with those percentages and what not, we still got hammered by the board wargame grogs who wanted CRTs so they could compute all kinds of ridiculous things. Or put another way, some people will want to turn CM into a spreadsheet. We, on the other hand, are trying to turn it into a simulated real world environment. CMx1 moved in that direction quite a bit by going to 3D, but the hardware was holding further progress back. CMx2 pushes things ahead in big bounds, though it is still not perfect.

Honestly, I think the non-hardcore wargamers have less problems with the lack of information than the hardcore ones do. Why? Because the non-hardcore are more likely to look at what they have and deal with it instead of resisting the new paradigm and instead insisting that the old stuff needs to come along for the ride.

Now, I don't disagree with the notion that CMx2 has the level of information perfect in all places. However, terrain cover and concealment is not one of those areas. A text description of the terrain in the manual plus common sense should be just fine. Those who have trouble are probably either over analyzing or are simply too hung up on outdated conventions to see that they aren't needed any more.

Steve

[sfhand]

...

I remember having all kinds of discussions about "hey, my guys are in Heavy Forest and I can see from one unit to another, so why can't I hit the other guys?". Underbrush, small folds in terrain, rocks, individual trees that mattered, etc. were all not depicted in CMx1. In CMx2 there is far less missing and therefore adequate visual information for the player to draw the conclusions he needs.

...

Steve

This raises a question (off-topic as the thread seems to be drifting a little). Since the terrain features of Normandy are going to include much more vegitation, are you planning on changing/tweaking the way trees and such stand up to incoming fire? I'm not taking a position on how realistic the current modeling is, but I'm pretty sure with the increase in vegitation there will be an increase in scrutiny...

[Moon]

76mm,

Quote:?? You think that a commander looking at a particular site on the ground in real life has no idea about the cover, concealment, and lines of sight at that site?

Before he gets to that spot himself? Only the barest concept, if even that, would be in the Commander's head. After he got there, in person, then he would have some idea of cover, concealment, and lines of sight depending on the complexity of the terrain and the amount of time he had to evaluate every single fold of earth, every single tree, every single bush, etc. within the area the unit is deployed. And even after such an examination, it would still be a rough guess because one never really knows how well concealment works until you are in the firing position of the enemy. Nobody really knows how well cover works until one is actually shot at.

76mm, I can only suggest that you grab a topo map from your general area (but one that you haven't been to yet), select a spot on it and try to deduce from looking at the map what you're going to see, then go to the spot and look around. Chances are you will be thoroughly surprised