LOS issues resolved in CMN?

[Battlefront.com]

Every time this argument gets raised nothing new comes from it. And I don't mean in recent years, I'm talking about since 1997 when we first announced a 3D representation of tactical combat. People just as passionate as Steiner14 argued the same things against CMBO before they even saw a single screenshot.

After the Beta Demo came out they either changed their opinion or became even MORE passionate in their conviction that CMBO was nothing sort of Evil and it had to be stopped! How can one seriously have a wargame that uses the same graphics as DOOM? How can someone possibly have fun with a game that has no CRT to predetermine the results before making a move? And MY GOD... simultaneous movement and combat?!? HOW ON EARTH AM I GOING TO CONTROL WHAT HAPPENS?!?

By this logic we should have abandoned CMBO before it was released, or at least run screaming from it after. We did not. More people stayed clear of the CMx1 games than bought them. But those who didn't were very, very glad we didn't listen to the doom sayers, to the people who the game wasn't designed to satisfy.

No different now.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Homo ferricus,

I know you are taking a look at things from both sides, however your comment is a perfect illustration of the primary issue between the CMx1 lovers who hate CMx2 and those who used to love CMx1 (or have never heard of it) who love CMx2:

The early Combat Mission games walked a line at a near-perfect threshold between the player and the game, IMO.

We heard the same line of argument from Steel Panther fans, as we did from Close Combat fans. Every time I make this argument it's not addressed because it is impossible to argue against. Although the Steel Panthers and Close Combat forums that were around in 1999 and 2000 are long gone, our archives are still here and they are filled with hostility (even open warfare at one point) between groups who all think their choice of game is "near-pefect" and everybody else are wrong. Just like religions, people confuse subjective opinions with incontrovertible facts.

There are, of course, plenty of people that understand that it's not black and white. You're one of them, Steiner14 does not appear to be. This is also understandable. Nobody else in the last 10 years has duplicated, not to mention surpassed, what CMx1 did for people that fell in love with CMBO or CMBB (I don't think anybody fell in love with CMAK ). So if nobody else in 10 years has produced a game like CMBO except us, and we are no longer going to produce more like it, then it's understandable that there is some bitterness. Misdirected and misguided as it may be, it's still understandable.

We've said since the very beginning of our existence that we can not please everybody and trying to do so will likely result in us going out of business. As long as we sell enough of the games we make to satisfy our needs, we're content with that. Based on the sales, and continued sales, of CM:SF products... we are perfectly happy with the direction of CMx2 and will continue with it.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Now, back to the original point of this thread.

There is nothing "wonky" in how LOS is calculated or implemented. There is, however, a continued problem with imprecision of directing indirect fire. The most notable example of this comes with buildings at oblique angles. There have been many rounds of fixing this problem, but it is a troublesome issue (read -> computationally expensive) to make go away. But it will continue to be reduced over time.

What people sometimes confuse is Spotting, which is a totally different concept from LOS or LOF. There are dozens and dozens of threads discussion this already, so I'm not going to go into details again other than to say that Spotting has its limitations because there's no way the CPU can handle several thousand pairs of simulated eyes individually scanning and rationalizing the battlefield every millisecond. It's simply not feasible, but over time we have and will continue to decrease the time between spotting checks.

Now, back to the "CMx1 was perfect and obviously 1:1 is completely broken" line of argument (because I know it will come up again , this is factually incorrect. CMx1 had "wonky" spotting as well and for the same reasons. This tends to be forgotten, or perhaps overlooked, but it is a fact. In theory we could have had more checks more frequently in CMx1 than we do now with CMx2, however I'm pretty sure the average unit in CMx2 checks spotting more often than the average unit in CMx1 did. CMx1 might be a vastly more simplistic system, but the hardware was also vastly less capable of doing spotting checks (they are hardware resource hogs).

It is true that in CMx1 LOS/LOF was far more forgiving than it is in CMx2. In CMx1 you could, for example, hit a tank behind a building because there was no accounting for flight path. If you saw it at the time you shot you could hit it, even if it went behind cover after. It is also true that in CMx1 elevations didn't matter that much because the mesh was quite rough and everything spotted and fired from the exact same height, regardless of where the gun actually was.

The many technical advances, made possible by abandoning the CMx1 codebase, improved various annoying aspects that were constantly complained about. For example, Absolute Spotting. There's a huge one right there that produced TONS of frustrating results. Another was the inability of a unit to track (remember) a target once it went out of LOS or LOF. Yet another was lack of distinction between Morale and Suppression, which resulted in units either able or unable to fight when they either should or shouldn't.

And the list goes on and on as it always does when ever someone wishes to look at CMx1 with rose colored glasses and CMx2 with a clear view. Both game systems had "wonky" aspects and people complained about them. Whether or not the balance of "wonky" in one is greater or lesser than "wonky" in the other lies in the eye of the beholder. We, obviously, feel that on balance CMx2 offers far fewer and far less significant "wonkiness" than CMx1. And unlike CMx1 after it's second release, CMx2 has the ability to reduce/eliminate these problems with each release. That's almost entirely due to the core of the game being based on a 1:1 system vs. a major abstraction of the real world. Any engineer will tell you that at some point abstracted systems become more difficult to maintain than realistically ordered ones. We found this out before CMBB was even 1/2 completed and it's why we decided to abandon it after CMBB came out. At the last minute we decided to do CMAK anyway, but obviously no more than that.

Steve

[Homo ferricus]

Could it be that humans inherently want more and more despite what they get, and will forever tend to comparing the now to the past?

Dare I post a Billy Joel lyric?

"The good ol' days weren't always good, and tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems"

Bring on the Joel flaming, I deserve it...

[Paper Tiger]

CMx1 was a computer game that appealed to wargamers. One of the criticisms that keeps resurfacing is that CMx2 is not as good a wargame as CMx1 and it's not difficult to understand why some are of that view. They are probably, at heart, board wargamers, folks who played all the great Avalon Hill and SPI classics, of whom I am one. But unless you happened to live in a big city with an active wargaming club, it was hard to find opponents to play these games with you. Fortunately, the CMx1 series of games were sufficiently 'board-like' to appeal to wargamers who were also able to get online and exchange turns with other wargamers from all over the world - and BFC had a core fan-base of on-line community of wargamers. It really was wargamer heaven. No more sitting on buses on a Sunday afternoon with your copy of Breakout:Normandy concealed in a plastic bag to prevent girls from seeing it and thinking you were a geek.

Wargamers care more about game systems than anything else while Computer gamers usually yearn for better graphics to enhance their gaming experience. You can usually tell who the old-time board gamers are by their passionately voiced complaints that the CMx2 engine is less of a wargame than CMx1 because they feel it placed too much emphasis on graphics and pretty explosions. They just wanted another CMx1 title with the serious issues ironed out but they didn't get what they hoped for.

CMx2 probably appeals more to a younger, new generation of wargamers - the computer wargamer - younger people who missed out on the hey-day of board wargaming and who grew up playing computer games as kids instead of the board games that I did, perhaps even missing out on games like Monopoly and Risk but nevertheless, wanted to play wargames. With the exception of its QB system, CMx2 matches CMx1 as a wargame as the WW2 grogs will finally find out when their long, frustrating wait in the wilderness finally comes to an end later this year.

-apologies for any inconsistencies in the above post as my wife has been chattering away to me throughout and I haven't had a chance to read it undisturbed - bless her

[MeatEtr]

The many technical advances, made possible by abandoning the CMx1 codebase, improved various annoying aspects that were constantly complained about. For example, the inability of a unit to track (remember) a target once it went out of LOS or LOF.

Steve

Really, this has been fixed? I'm asking because I sure haven't seen it. I've watched on many occasions where my AFV engage a target and swing the turret back to the forward position right after losing sight. Then shortly later re-acquiring the same target is no different then the first time.

Oh and by the way, congrats Steve, you just broke the record for saying "wonky" in a single post.

[TheVulture]

@MeatEtr

I suspect Steve is referring to the fact that units note where they lost sight of something (the '?' icons) and have better spotting at those locations if they enemy reappears close by. I don't think there is anything to anticipate the movement (or not) of something that drops of out sight and continues to cover that spot. With no visible targets, the tank returns to default position, and still has to slew back, which is annoying in some situations and the right behaviour in others.

Sadly distinguishing when it would be wise to continue to train on a target and when it is wise to revert to a default position (forwards, centre of target arc) is a can of worms, and attempting to code it might just end up with the same overall number of 'failures' just shifted to slightly different situations.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

And let us not forget the splendid area firing on last known location.

I think it's one of the biggest leaps forward.

No more frantic shooting at the beginning of a round and then chirping crickets for the rest of the turn until someone raises his head again. No, a convincing continuity in gunfire. Battles not only play more realistically, they sound it as well.

[stikkypixie]

Really, this has been fixed? I'm asking because I sure haven't seen it. I've watched on many occasions where my AFV engage a target and swing the turret back to the forward position right after losing sight. Then shortly later re-acquiring the same target is no different then the first time.

Oh and by the way, congrats Steve, you just broke the record for saying "wonky" in a single post.

Maybe it helps with hit chances?

[Steiner14]

Steve,

i know, that we, who think that CMx2 has lost the magic that CMx1 had (which is not the same thing as saying that CMx2 were a bad game), are from yesterday and not intelligent enough to recognize it.

But if that were true, why isn't CMx2 used in the wargaming community for turnaments, ladder-gaming and huge campaigns like CMx1 was used?

[MarkEzra]

Steve,

...and not intelligent enough to recognize it.

Please take a moment to reconsider this bit. I feel certain that no here considers your post or your views un-intelligent...or am I just being stupid

[Jonny(FGM)]

But if that were true, why isn't CMx2 used in the wargaming community for turnaments, ladder-gaming and huge campaigns like CMx1 was used?

The answer to that is, that it is. The blitz allows CMSF games to be reported on their ladder and over at The Few Good Men i believe Bootie is going to create a CMSF ladder once the auto ladder is up and running for CMx1. Also at FGM i'm taking part in a CMSF campaign.

I think the main reason why not as many people play it multiplayer is that the QB system (i'm sorry there's no better word for this) sucks. But i can forgive the game that as I can still have plenty of fun playing against the AI and the scens against other human players.

[Battlefront.com]

Steve,

i know, that we, who think that CMx2 has lost the magic that CMx1 had (which is not the same thing as saying that CMx2 were a bad game), are from yesterday and not intelligent enough to recognize it.

Never said that. I just said that you can't seem to grasp the concept that just because you don't like it that means it's crap. This isn't a sign of a lack of intelligence, it's a sign of blind arrogance.

As I've asked 1000 times before... if your opinion is valid, then what of the opinion of people who still think Steel Panthers kicks CMBO's ass?

But if that were true, why isn't CMx2 used in the wargaming community for turnaments, ladder-gaming and huge campaigns like CMx1 was used?

Because CM:SF is modern warfare and almost all wargaming clubs are WW2 based. Plus, what do wargaming clubs have to do with popularity or validity of a game's worth? I don't have a very high opinion of ASL/SL, yet there are people that travel great distances to play tournaments in person. I don't tell them they are WRONG to do this, I just say I'm not interested in devoting my time towards what they are interested in.

Please take a moment to reconsider this bit. I feel certain that no here considers your post or your views un-intelligent...or am I just being stupid

No, you're not stupid either. Steiner14 is simply unable to accept that his opinion isn't one we share. And he's very bitter about it. Bitter and unintelligent arguments often sound the same.

The answer to that is, that it is. The blitz allows CMSF games to be reported on their ladder and over at The Few Good Men i believe Bootie is going to create a CMSF ladder once the auto ladder is up and running for CMx1. Also at FGM i'm taking part in a CMSF campaign.

I think the main reason why not as many people play it multiplayer is that the QB system (i'm sorry there's no better word for this) sucks. But i can forgive the game that as I can still have plenty of fun playing against the AI and the scens against other human players.

Definitely the QB system is a problem for some sorts of ladder play. However, I think most tournaments (at least the ones I've participated in) use premade scenarios. And as I said above, the lack of a WW2 setting is the primary problem as far as I can tell.

Thankfully, it's not a problem for us either way. Sales have been and continue to be good. Whether there are one or one hundred tourney websites out there doesn't matter. Just like it doesn't matter, from a business standpoint, that people are still playing CMx1 games 6-10 years later. We don't get residuals

Steve

[zmoney]

On the original issue of LOS/LOF, I think it is more obvious if you are playing as the Syrians. 90% of the time I play with the western nations against the Syrians and I have found my western forces have little problems with spotted and destroying the Syrians. Although the building LOS/LOF is a problem but not a game breaking one to me just an annoying one.

But the times I have played red vs red I have noticed my BMP’s, Tanks and even infantry take far longer to spot and bring accurate fire on an enemy. I thought this was intentional due to the fact the Syrians have less modern equipment like Fleers etc… So my conclusion is that it is supposed to be this way. But….. I do find it annoying that when my vehicle is unbuttoned and it is day time clear conditions that my troops still have a problem spotting the enemy that is right in front of them at close range. I think that is the issue and Syrian spotting should be improved at closer ranges during day time hours. My solution would be to give Syrian units with binos 85 to 90 percent the spotting ability of western units within 500 meters. Units without binos should have close to the same ability at spotting targets within 200 to 250 meters.

Paper Tiger your riding the bus while trying to conceal the board game comment was hilarious.

[Battlefront.com]

@MeatEtr

I suspect Steve is referring to the fact that units note where they lost sight of something (the '?' icons) and have better spotting at those locations if they enemy reappears close by.

That and when a target momentarily goes out of LOS/LOF the unit does not instantly forget about it. That's what happened in CMx1 and it absolutely doesn't happen in CMx2. BUT...

I don't think there is anything to anticipate the movement (or not) of something that drops of out sight and continues to cover that spot. With no visible targets, the tank returns to default position, and still has to slew back, which is annoying in some situations and the right behaviour in others.

Correct. What we must avoid is what we call "target fixation". At some point the TacAI for a particular unit has to decide if the target it was shooting at is important enough to remain fixated on to the exclusion of all other targets or, in the case of a tank, keeping its turret in the optimal ready position (i.e. facing forward). It absolutely isn't perfect in CM:SF now, nor ever will be in any future CMx2 products because...

Sadly distinguishing when it would be wise to continue to train on a target and when it is wise to revert to a default position (forwards, centre of target arc) is a can of worms, and attempting to code it might just end up with the same overall number of 'failures' just shifted to slightly different situations.

Yup! No point spending weeks and weeks of coding and testing to come up with something that is just as error prone, but for different reasons, as what we started out with.

And let us not forget the splendid area firing on last known location.

I think it's one of the biggest leaps forward.

No more frantic shooting at the beginning of a round and then chirping crickets for the rest of the turn until someone raises his head again. No, a convincing continuity in gunfire. Battles not only play more realistically, they sound it as well.

One of the many basic improvements that people, including me, now take for granted. Here are a few other significant improvements that people likely take for granted (if they play CM:SF regularly) or are unaware of (if they don't):

1. Vehicles can be abandoned and, under realistic conditions, re-crewed.

2. Vehicle passenger capacity is based on headcount instead of unit count.

3. Units can rearm themselves with fresh ammunition.

4. Various AT weapons and ammo can be "acquired" dynamically.

5. Artillery support is not tied to a dedicated FO team.

6. Infantry can shoot from within vehicles.

7. FoW is capable of vastly more nuance and variability. For example, the same enemy unit can be a "?" icon in different places simultaneously depending on which of your units spotted it where.

8. Higher level units can be a mix of any type of unit instead of being limited to just infantry or just vehicles (the CMx1 exception was halftracks)

9. HQs can be mounted or dismounted types regardless of attachments, whereas on CMx1 it was not possible to have mounted HQs with dismounted sub units.

10. Buildings aren't abstract 1 or 2 story structures that can only align one way on the underlying grid and can not be combined with other structures.

11. A spot on the map can be combinations of just about anything instead of being limited to 1 or 2 types of prepackaged possibilities.

Etc.

Notice that this list is pretty "gamey" and non technical in nature (like what true LOF, 6 heights for Spotting/LOS/LOF, etc). These are also things that people asked for. So it's kinda funny to suggest that we don't listen and that we're more interested in dry mathematical stuff than fun gameplay. Plus, people have asked, and even demanded, plenty of dray mathematical improvements as well

Steve

[hcrof]

6. Infantry can shoot from within vehicles.

Um, they still cant fire from red vehicles. Not through the gun ports or from the hatches on top. Nor can those vehicles generate defensive engine smoke (I know, I know, I'm just being difficult...)

Sorry, I just occasionally feel the urge to just throw my pet peeves out there.

I like that list btw, many of those are the reasons why I much prefer CMSF to CMBB

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Oh come on Steve, that's not true. You guys don't listen to your customers.

I mean, if you did, we would have blast waves and tracer bounce.

Now, you might argue that their absence means you only haven't listened to me. But by god man, isn't that even worse?

[Michael Emrys]

Could it be that humans inherently want more and more despite what they get, and will forever tend to comparing the now to the past?

Certainly.

Dare I post a Billy Joel lyric?

Only if you want to encounter someone very big and extremely nasty in a dark alley.

Michael

[Sivodsi]

2. Vehicle passenger capacity is based on headcount instead of unit count.

Yes, this coded rule is an improvement, but it gets pretty frustrating when you want to load a 7 man Syrian infantry unit into a BMP with 6 seats.

Surely in RL, if there is a contingency for it, it would happen for short distances: "Holy Akhbar! This BMP only has 6 seats, but there are 7 men, Hammid, you are the smallest, lie down over their knees, it is only for 2 minutes - and mind the bayonet!"

This situation arises out of other coded decisions that were made in the game design. In the first place why would you want to put a 7 man squad into a vehicle they wouldn't use? Because they have an RPG launcher, unlike your recon team that does not.

I find it hard to believe that in RL the Syrians would spend too long trying to work out how to do this: there is a need for some soldiers with AT weapons out yonder, but we only have infantry and recon troops to deploy in our BMP. So we either give the recon squad an RPG launcher or we send the infantry squad (either one lucky person gets to stay behind or we somehow squeeze him in).

Of course, this particular 'game problem' could be fixed by:

1) allowing Syrian units to be split (at a bigger cost of morale due to different capabilities to splitable western units). This would allow more flexibility in deploying Syrian units - though lead to perhaps 'unSyrian' ways of using red infantry.

2) allowing units to use some weapons that are not native to them (surely even recon squads would have some sort of RPG training, and in any case if uncon conscripts can fire an RPG, so should a soldier)

3) including an RPG launcher as equipment in a BMP (is it not reasonable to expect?)

4) Allow units to share equipment with each other, or 'store' equipment in BMPs, strykers etc. then if the BMP does not come with an RPG launcher, another unit can 'give' them theirs.

All of this sounds easy on paper, but naturally comes with a whole host of programming & other factors that conflict, that have been discussed so often in separate threads of their own.

In general though, I agree that the decreased amount of abstraction has led to an improved game, even if the ramrod rules mean that you can't always do what you want, or seem to be unreasonable in specific situations like here (or more pertinently, what you might have been able to do in CMX1).

[Battlefront.com]

Um, they still cant fire from red vehicles. Not through the gun ports or from the hatches on top. Nor can those vehicles generate defensive engine smoke (I know, I know, I'm just being difficult...)

If I had said CM:SF was perfect then you'd have me in a corner. CMx1 didn't have either of those things, but CMx2 will. At the moment firing from ports is not possible because it requires a lot of restrictions on a per weapon basis. Firing from inside a BMP was neither easy nor all that effective. In a real combat situation it wouldn't likely happen, especially if the soldiers plan on dismounting any time soon. Ever been inside a BMP-1? It's like being in a steel coffin with bad furniture.

I honestly forget why we don't allow firing from hatches in Red vehicles. The code is in there for Strykers already.

Sorry, I just occasionally feel the urge to just throw my pet peeves out there.

You wouldn't be a wargamer if you didn't

I like that list btw, many of those are the reasons why I much prefer CMSF to CMBB

We are confident that a lot of the anti-CM:SF people will become pro-CMx2 as soon as they get the setting they love most. There's still a lot of WW2 gamers out there that feel snubbed by us supporting non-WW2 gaming at their (perceived) expense. And then there are those that will not convert, just like Steel Panthers and Close Combat gamers that still have never bought a CM game.

Oh come on Steve, that's not true. You guys don't listen to your customers.

I mean, if you did, we would have blast waves and tracer bounce.

Now, you might argue that their absence means you only haven't listened to me. But by god man, isn't that even worse?

What did you say? That's the first I've heard you mention either issue. I'm sure of it.

Yes, this coded rule is an improvement, but it gets pretty frustrating when you want to load a 7 man Syrian infantry unit into a BMP with 6 seats.

We do allow some vehicles to go +1 over their capacity, +2 in some cases. But as I asked above... have you ever been inside a BMP? It's amazing to know that even 6 fully loaded soldiers can fit in the back! So we have been reluctant to increase capacity. Especially because there should be no reason why you have a larger unit in need of riding in a BMP.

This situation arises out of other coded decisions that were made in the game design. In the first place why would you want to put a 7 man squad into a vehicle they wouldn't use? Because they have an RPG launcher, unlike your recon team that does not.

As far as we know they aren't issued one and theres apparently none stowed in either BMPs or BTRs. So as far as we can tell we do have things realistically arranged and player work arounds for it, that don't work, aren't of a concern to us.

1) allowing Syrian units to be split (at a bigger cost of morale due to different capabilities to splitable western units). This would allow more flexibility in deploying Syrian units - though lead to perhaps 'unSyrian' ways of using red infantry.

There is no independent leadership within a Syrian Squad besides the Squad Leader. The Soviet doctrine is to use the Squad as a single entity, not split it up. Combine the two and you have what you see in the game... a lack of tactical flexibility due to doctrine and the practical ramifications of it. So it should remain the way it is.

2) allowing units to use some weapons that are not native to them (surely even recon squads would have some sort of RPG training, and in any case if uncon conscripts can fire an RPG, so should a soldier)

It's not about training it's about what they have access to. If the Recon Squad isn't issued an RPG, and there isn't one in their vehicle, then they shouldn't have one. Of course in real life things are far more squishy than that, but we can't go sticking RPGs all over the place where they aren't supposed to be just because occasionally one unit would wind up with non-standard equipment. And this is as true for Blue Forces as for the Syrians.

3) including an RPG launcher as equipment in a BMP (is it not reasonable to expect?)

As far as we know this isn't done, likely because there isn't room *and* units which are supposed to use one have it issued to them.

4) Allow units to share equipment with each other, or 'store' equipment in BMPs, strykers etc. then if the BMP does not come with an RPG launcher, another unit can 'give' them theirs.

While this isn't a bad idea on the surface, it's fraught with realism and practical UI problems. We have no plans on doing this.

All of this sounds easy on paper, but naturally comes with a whole host of programming & other factors that conflict, that have been discussed so often in separate threads of their own.

Bingo

In general though, I agree that the decreased amount of abstraction has led to an improved game, even if the ramrod rules mean that you can't always do what you want, or seem to be unreasonable in specific situations like here (or more pertinently, what you might have been able to do in CMX1).

Rules are unavoidable since everything has to be programmed, tested, and supported long term. What's more, the totality of the things people can do has ramifications on game play and realism. The more "gamey" people want CM to be, the less favorable restrictions are. The more "realistic" people want the game to be, the more favorable restrictions are. Even when such restrictions should not be as strict as they are. It's pretty easy to make something wildly liberal or extremely strict, it's very difficult to make something situationally one or the other depending on abstraction and contextual logic.

Overall the amount of tactical flexibility one has available in CMx2 is far greater than in CMx1, while at the same time tactical realism is much higher.

Steve

[Sivodsi]

Yeah, no problems with the decisions as made and their justifications given. But sometimes specific situations come up and you want to do X but you can't because of Y.

In the scenario I'm playing there are no AT teams, I only have regular infantry and recon, and this means I can't get a simple RPG launcher equipped unit out to where its needed.

we do have things realistically arranged and player work arounds for it

Indeed, if only I could shoot a soldier in the 7 man squad so that they would fit into the BMP! Perhaps if I just get a unit to stick their head above the ridge?

Overall the amount of tactical flexibility one has available in CMx2 is far greater than in CMx1, while at the same time tactical realism is much higher.

While CMx2 was working out its teething problems I still played CMAK and CMBB, but with the improvements from about 1.09 I suddenly got tired of CMx1s limitations and could stand playing it no longer. Above I said 'in general' CMSF is an 'improved game', but that doesn't do it justice. Actually, IMHO CMx2 kicks CMx1's butt out of the ground.

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, we definitely hear you about the exceptions sometimes being a real issue. Especially me since I've been the guy putting together all this TO&E. I have to find creative ways around oddball stuff all the time, and occasionally manage to get Charles to change the code to accommodate some of the more common problems. I know I wish I had more freedom too

One of the major things we did for CMx2, starting with Normandy, was change the TO&E formatting (code) in several significant ways. Most of this is not noticeable to the end user, but does mean a few thousands less entries to keep track of. And that means better consistency, fewer bugs, more flexibility, and of course less headaches.

The big, visual, changes to the TO&E have to do with the new Cherry Picking system. As a small bone, it is now possible (with limitations, of course) to offer the player a large formation which have specific sub variant formation options. I'm not just talking about options for units, but for formations as a whole. For example...

Select a German Rifle Company. It has 2x Medium Mortars attached to it. Now you have the option of purchasing an off map Medium Mortar asset (like CM:SF) or a Mortar Section containing two on-map mortars.

Select a German Infantry TD Battalion and opt to have the 1st Company be StuGs or Marder IIIs. Its not just swapping out vehicles, its swapping out how they are organized. For example, StuG Companies come with either 10 or 14 StuGs, with or without the 3rd Platoon being armed with StuH 42s. The Marder IIIs are not organized like this. And then there is the 2nd Company to consider... it usually is towed ATGs of some sort, but can be self propelled too.

And of course the new behavior also allows players to Cherry Pick as well. CMx1 had almost nothing but Cherry Picking and CM:SF was simply too ridged in the other direction. CM: Normandy strikes a much better balance between realism and player flexibility as well as increasing options and decreasing user interface headaches.

Steve

[Steiner14]

This is Steve posting here up top. I did something I've never done before... I hit the EDIT button and composed my response instead of hitting QUOTE and making a new post. This resulted in me accidentally wiping out Steiner14's post. Sorry about that Stiner14!! If you have a better copy of this please post. Otherwise accept my humble reconstruction attempt.

All of unquoted parts are word for word what Steiner14 wrote (they were quoted in my response), though I might have lost a sentence or two. All the quoted pieces are from my previous post and I think I got the right parts put into the right places.

------

Never said that.

You say it all the time, that i don't understand it.

I just said that you can't seem to grasp the concept that just because you don't like it that means it's crap. This isn't a sign of a lack of intelligence, it's a sign of blind arrogance.

I don't like your kind of discussing with strawmans.

Your post was about putting into readers mind, that i'm not capable to understand the superiority of CMx2 and that i were just writing about liking or not liking.

You didn't even touch the aspect of fantasy as part of the sucess of CMx1.

Because CM:SF is modern warfare and almost all wargaming clubs are WW2 based.

But how is that possible, if CM:SF sells much better than CMx1?

Plus, what do wargaming clubs have to do with popularity or validity of a game's worth?

No, it is just one aspect that fills the picture.

As another argument you can take the forum itself and compare how the discussions have changed from CMx1.

The forum, even years after release, was full with excitement, of what was happening in the game. Gamers were reporting, as if they were there themselves.

All this has vanished - in quantity and in quality. But i fully admit, that your sales raised.

Steiner14 is simply unable to accept that his opinion isn't one we share. And he's very bitter about it. Bitter and unintelligent arguments often sound the same.

Again a strawman. I fully accept, that you don't share my opinion. My initial post was about nothing else, that you have a complete different vision of where you want to develop the game and i tried to show the differences and where the psychological reasons are. And i'm also not bitter at all, since i'm glad i don't spend time for gaming anymore.

But i do like to come back from time to time and check, if CM:N is out already, since i will give it definately a try.

[jhmorneau]

In general though, I agree that the decreased amount of abstraction has led to an improved game, even if the ramrod rules mean that you can't always do what you want, or seem to be unreasonable in specific situations like here (or more pertinently, what you might have been able to do in CMX1).

I read this thread while listening to "Let it bleed" from the Rolling Stones.

Just figure what the last song says, again and again ?

"You can't always get what you want,

you can't always get what you want,

you can't always get what you want

but if you try sometimes

you just might find

you get what you need"

With CMSF I found what I needed

Blessed be the Stones !

PS : very interesting thread, as always in this forum. It's a pleasure to practice one's english reading skill here...

[hoolaman]

I noticed this quite a bit actually, very sparse foliage blocking huge tanks from being seen :confused: VERY frustrating. In CMx1 I always could tell when my tanks would have a firing solution prior to moving them into position. It seems to me that CMx2 is indecisively hovering between abstract LOS and non-abstract, and ends up being a lot worse than it could be as a result. If Battlefront is unable or doesn't have the resources to fix this I think they'd be better off making the LOS abstract again as far as trees/bushes go. In other words, if it's a couple meters worth of "tree area" it would be visible, if it's a certain depth than it wouldn't. Right now you're basically just guessing.

There is no need to guess, because CMSF allows you to work out a LOS+LOF from any waypoint you plot. You just have to select a waypoint and target from there and you can see which points that unit will be able to target when it arrives there (possibly a tad unrealistic but neccesary from a gameplay POV imo). Just make sure that your move is going to end up in a place that leaves you in LOS to the target and all should be well.

However, there are some abstractions in LOS. Any individual vehicle can only trace LOS from one height (usually near the turret sensors or the commander's head), so individual trees can be a 100% LOS block for vehicles within an action spot and certain positions will leave you blind behind a tree. What I do is make sure my vehicles don't park behind a tree that will block LOS in a critical direction.

But as others have said, if your unit has spotted the enemy already, it should be shooting. I've never known trees to prevent LOF on a spotted enemy. At worst, the shell will explode on a branch or something.

The game system isn't perfect, but when you understand its limitations and the tools you need to allow you to reliably do what you want to do, it turns the frustration level down a lot.