Another First Impression

[Claymore]

The first thing I'd like to do is thank Battlefront for their effort at bringing us this new game. According to Battlefront, and it looks true, every bullet and shell is tracked exactly through space to its eventual destination. That destination is no longer the CMx1 abstracted group of troopers but an exact representation of every soldier, nut, and sprocket. This exact modelling was the predominant reason the the CMx2 build was carried out.

I'm enjoying the game, and isn't that the test for a successful game? At least at the beginning, before the niggling details move from distractions to frustrations. That's the big thing to avoid. Frustration.

I think it is arguable that games (or any product really) who fail do so because of they caused some kind of frustration. In its most extreme, the worst case would be a non functioning product which would cause the most frustration of all. Very good products can however be extremely frustrating and that's what CMx2 has been for me. Very good and very frustrating.

I'd be curious to know from Battlefront what was more successful? CMx1 or CMSF? At least from my observations from long distance, CMx1 had a much more enthusiastic following than CMSF.

At this point in my gameplay I believe that Battlefront can be rightly proud that they have created an immersive environment for grogs. The current CMx2 CMBN engine applied to the WWII time-frame where the weapons platforms were much less lethal and one-shot kills were not the rule looks like an excellent beginning. I enjoy tracking individuals through the battlescape (ha! tube-guy!) which gives an almost roleplaying experience in some cases. We did that in CMx1 after all when we examined each

unit at the end of combat to see who scored the most kills. In fact, the CMBN pre-release chatter requested that Battlefront include the same information CMx1 presented (kills, hit locations). The only place I don't see kill information presented right now is for off-board artillery (or am I wrong).

I hope that some of the criticisms that will follow can be addressed in patches, but I believe that most will be impossible to address and will rely upon yet another engine re-write. Unfortunately I think that the ultimate CMBN build, when reached, will still contain a higher level of frustration with the mechanics than I would wish. I hope that Battlefront proves me wrong.

I guess most of my disappointment comes from the inability of the player to use the CMx2 as its rules implicitly are devised. Remember, since the projectile tracking is a completely faithful model of the real world environment it is axiomatic that unit position and facing are also needed to be precisely defined.

That last point is the crux of the entire CMx2 raison d'etre. An engine that's entire premise for existence is built on modelling a projectile's exact trajectory information. Unfortunately though, the player cannot position his pieces in anything that resembles a similar level of precision.

For armour v armour battles this is not entirely unsatisfactory. After all some level of imprecision is expected when commanding a vehicle to "go over there and stop". So for vehicle vs. vehicle battles the CMx2 engine works quite well and its limitations seem to be acceptable. I imagine that any quirky behaviour can likely be tempered in patches.

Now however insert troopers into the battlescape. Whether you consider infantry vs infantry or infantry vs armour, the inability to locate units is an extremely frustrating element of gameplay. After all the reality of infantry warfare was that units were positioned to take best advantage of precise fields of fire. However, it is impossible to locate crew service weapons in

anything approaching realism or even acceptable. For example, it is nigh impossible to "keyhole" units (AT guns, HMGs, etc...). You drop a ATG on an action square and the CMx2 engine defines exactly where it's going to be within that 8x8 square. A lot of very important things can happen in an 8x8 square. If you're at one side, maybe that opening in the bocage is within LOS, while if you're where the CMx2 engine forces you, you cannot. CMx1 with all of its abstractions had much better placement abilities.

In the Bocage scenario I've been completely frustrated by being unable to place my MGs and AT guns properly. I can't emplace just over the reverse slope of a crest or at a particular break in the bocage during the setup phase. I'm frustrated in the extreme. Frustrated almost to the point of not wanting to play with infantry at all.

Can we "nudge" the positions in the EDITOR? Can we nudge them in the SETUP? I don't know since the EDITOR doesn't include UNITS for experimenting with placements.

So that's my first impressions after playing the DEMO. Maybe these same sentiments about the engine's limitations have been voiced earlier during CMSF. If so, how did Battlefront respond? I realize that shrinking the action square dimensions will balloon the required processor cycles, but hopefully something can be done to ameliorate the situation.

Cheers all.

[Mord]

I wrote this to you in the other thread but might well as put it here too.

The action spots can be a PIA now and again...but once you get used to them and work with the highlight boxes that show you where your guys will set up...it's no so bad...I don't even notice it anymore I am so used to working within the limits of the game. My dudes, having gotten as close to the spot as I can get them, usually end up doing what I need.

Something that may help a bit is; once you get them as close a possible to where you'd like...issue a face command in the direction you want them looking...that might nudge them a bit more.

Mord.

[Catacol Highlander]

I have to agree with Claymore. I bypassed CMSF as I wasnt interested really in the modern setting.

I intend to return to CMBN but my first experience with the demo is exactly that of Claymore. I cannot position my units precidely because they default to the centre of a square. Now I know that going to 1:1 scale has increased realism, and that the old CM1 method was an abstract so that a squad right on the crest of a rise was never quite a realistic thing, but it almost feels now as though we have become even less realistic because I cant tell a single soldier to go to a specific point of the bocage or map at all - and in the abstract form of CM1 I could.

I am wrestling with it, but it feels to me as though part of the tactical skill element has now gone. With CM2 it is going to be about approximate positioning of the correct units in the correct place, laying down fire in the right place and timing everything right, but that was always the case with CM1 anyway and you had the ability for precise placement.

A pity... maybe I will feel different in a couple of weeks.

[Blackcat]

How accurately do you guys want to be able to place you units? To the yard? To the foot? "It is nigh impossible to "keyhole" units", sorry but you can this very successfully - you can also place units behind a crest.

As for being able to place units more accurately in CMx1, I don't think so. In CMx1 the action squares were much larger for a start and the infantry unts were abstracted, three pixel soldiers representing a whole squad of upto 13 men.

[phil stanbridge]

Maybe if you break the squads down into their little teams, it will help somewhat? But I have noticed it can be slightly distracting. I've only played one scenario (demo training) but the size of the squads doesn't help - however, isn't this somewhat realistic? After all, you wouldn't get a full squad trying to squeeze itself into a small area would you? I think its hundreds times better than the artificial representation in CMx1 - I also love the way squads will fire at multiple targets at once. Now that didn't happen before.

[Destraex1]

move the men and cancel the orders when you get them where you want

Usually not needed though. The order types usually take care of what they do in contact. And I have not found any problems positioning the troops in cover that would be detrimental to gameplay.

[hoolaman]

As for being able to place units more accurately in CMx1, I don't think so. In CMx1 the action squares were much larger for a start and the infantry unts were abstracted, three pixel soldiers representing a whole squad of upto 13 men.

No the "action squares" in CMx1 (not that they were called that) were smaller, 1x1m IIRC.

OTOH the fact the infantry were infinitely small points did make it a bit less realistic.

[~Viajero]

Id agree also with Claymore, although for me the main issue affects AT guns and MG placement. I can live with the way infantry is treated.

If there was a way to place those guns to an exact point much as you can do with vehicles that would be a perfect solution.

[Fetchez la Vache]

I am also having trouble with the "action points" and I think the same level of frustration as the OP. I encountered it the first 5mins of botting up the demo and playing the Crossroads tutorial - why did my movement orders 'snap' to the middle of the road when I was clearly clicking on the gassy verge? I understand why now, but I'm finding it somewhat 'jarring'...

Saying that, I simply don't want a game where I have to precisely place every soldier since I simply wouldn't be able to properly handle any forces larger than a platoon. So there needs to be a compromise. For me I'd love to see a system along the lines of Men at War where movement commands can be snapped to specific unit stances at places of cover. So you could have more control of (for eg) which side of a bocage you wanted your soldiers to take cover behind. CMBN does do that already up to a point but it's not as transparent how your men will position after the movement order.

I also find it wierd setting a target point exactly on the place where I saw that PaK only to have the final target offset to the nearest "action point". Again, 'jarring'.

But I am getting used to things already so in another few weeks I'm sure I would re-read this post and wonder what I was talking about back then. :-)

[Catacol Highlander]

move the men and cancel the orders when you get them where you want ; .

?? - you mean the CMSF vets do this? Acknowledge that the engine cant give the precision and find a manufactured route around it? I think that probably reinforces my point very nicely if that is the case.

And Blackcat - you could place your abstracted units in CM1 very accurately indeed. I would measure my infantry squad placements while in cover to the exact metre sometimes, and the "look" command (which seems to have gone?) gave you the easy way to measure exactly how close to the edge of cover or how close to a road a section/squad/team deployed. I know that in itself is a bit abstract as 10 men take up space on the battlefield. Accepted - that is not realistic. But now do we have an engine that has actually made that any better? It is frustrating specifically in the Bocage Demo scenario not to be able to position an MG in exactly the spot you want, and in CM1 I could get an HMG right where I wanted it. Note than an MG is a single piece of equipment, not an abstract of 10 men.

I hope noone at BF takes my words the wrong way - in all my years as a member I dont post often and read far more, and I love CM more than any game I have ever played in approx 30 years of gaming, but I'm just saying that this is going to take some getting used to and at present it feels as though I have lost some control. Maybe that was the point - to represent more realism and precise control is unrealistic - but in the world of gaming where players will push the limits of an engine or scenario to eek out the slightest advantage control is the core of the game. Maybe too it was the only way to make real time gaming work? I wonder which was the main priority - getting the game into real time, or maximising realism?

[Other Means]

No the "action squares" in CMx1 (not that they were called that) were smaller, 1x1m IIRC.

OTOH the fact the infantry were infinitely small points did make it a bit less realistic.

Nope, the action spots in CM1 were 20x20m.

While there's something to this, it'd be nice to have more granular control, I think people are still expecting to be able to position a whole team on a pin head. You could put them exactly where you wanted them in CM1 because really, there was a single point. How are you going to get 12 men to a single point?

Currently just get them as close to where you want and let the TacAI position them between within the square. Works well enough but you're never going to have 12 rifles poked over the same bit of wall. Which is realistic.

[LJFHutch]

In over a year of playing CMx2 I've only found a handful of situations in which I found the situation annoying, most of the time it's fine for me.

[c3k]

In over a year of playing CMx2 I've only found a handful of situations in which I found the situation annoying, most of the time it's fine for me.

Ditto. There are a few locations where it just won't do what I want (CMSF, CMBN), however, in the vast majority of times it works great. If you think you're playing a first person shooter, you will be frustrated. If you think you're the platoon commander (or higher), your ability to position squads and weapons is far greater than any platoon leader ever did.

Having said that, there have been many threads calling for a tighter mesh. The state of computing doesn't support that right now. It will... Then we'll demand centimetric mesh.

The FACE command tells your men where to orient themselves. They will then wiggle and shift to gain the best cover from what's nearby. Very nice...

Ken

[Steiner14]

Have too agree, too.

Now you can decide, if you want to move the ATG

8 meters deeper into the wood, or out of the wood.

8 meters from a reverse slope position without LOS to a forward slope position with LOS.

8 meters forward if you are behind a building or stay out of LOS.

For RTS it is necessary, that the game engine can make calculations fast enough, but for WEGO this does not apply, since there is no time constraint for the resolution of the turn.

It would lift CMx2 to another level, if WEGO players could decide for a much better and finer resolution at the cost of longer turn-calculations, while the RTS-mode stays like it is.

[Keith]

Unit placement works fantastic in my impression. Try adjusting the unit placement using the setting the target arc or unit facing features. I suggest people read the manuals if they feel they are getting frustrated and cannot do something they want to do.

[Blackcat]

Mr. Highlander,

It is many years since I played CMx1 and no doubt time has dimmed my memory, but I have no recollection of placing units being that accurate withing the 20 by 20 metre squares.

However, there is no point in dwelling on the past we have to deal with what we have now, and will have until computing power reaches the point where an even finer grid is available. It is possible to place a MG or AT gun in cover, behind a crest or whatever you need to provide a LOS and LOF to where you need and be covered. Put the unit in the grid square nearest to what you want and issue a face command, the TAC AI will nudge the unit into the best possible cover. I can't think of any occasion in playing CMx2 where this has given me a result that wasn't satisfactory, though sometimes when checking LOS with the target command I have had to adjust to the next square over.

I do remember going through quite a steep learning curve when getting used to the tools available in CMx2 and working out how to do what I wanted in a manner different to that which had become instinctive in CMx1. It also took me a long while to accept what Steve from BF and others kept telling me, CMx2 is a new game not an evolution of CMx1 - nothing has been taken out or added, it is all completely new. I still hanker after that which I sworn not to mention on these boards ever again, but it doesn't help.

[Steiner14]

Unit placement works fantastic in my impression. Try adjusting the unit placement using the setting the target arc or unit facing features. I suggest people read the manuals if they feel they are getting frustrated and cannot do something they want to do.

You can overcome the problem i described above? Please explain i want, i have to know!

[Erik Springelkamp]

You can overcome the problem i described above? Please explain i want, i have to know!

After you choose the placement in 8 metre increments, the tac AI will finetune your choice and will generally find a very good spot.

And I want a pony, by the way :-)

[BigJ62]

Are there any dead cows in game?

[Sgt Schultz]

I experienced about three minutes of frustration before I parsed the reasoning behind my unit positioning troubles.

Folks need to realise that this is the engine, so this is our world. BFC has provided... now we must go forth and be fruitful.

The world will be as good as WE make it.

All this means is you are whinging in the wrong direction my friends.

MAP MAKERS must take into account that folks want a treeline to provide enough depth for dark blue lines.

MAP MAKERS must be aware of their action spot/reverse slope positions.

MAP MAKERS must make buildings large enough so a single HQ isn't figuratively hanging out the window to be shot by anyone.

BFC is probably in no mood for an engine tweak at the moment, so we need to step up.

We have the tools, the talent and the time.

Get to work.

[ASL Veteran]

It seems to me that, because every soldier is individually rendered, that some players want to be able to command each individual soldier ... individually. I want that soldier to be standing in that corner facing that way. I want Sgt Slaughter to be commanding the squad while standing behind the fence. I want Private Jones to be laying down next to that bush over there, etc. If you are hoping for the ability to be able to place every single individual soldier exactly then that's probably never going to happen so you will be waiting in vain.

Now then, I personally have very seldom had issues with the placement of individual team members within an action spot by the Tac AI. Sometimes, I will admit, the squad's fire teams just refuse to go in the action spot that I want them to - but in that case I will end up splitting the squad so I can place the team in the action spot that I want to place them in. On occasion I have had to use the "Face" command to get the individual squad members to position themselves within the action spot in the way that I want them to. Once the firing starts though the squad members will generally maneuver themselves into good firing position ..... and ....... there is still a little bit of abstraction in the engine too even though it's harder to detect.

As far as the keyholing issue .... I'm going to presume you are talking about heavy weapons teams like HMGs etc. Yeah, sometimes there can be an issue with that. I think it's primarily caused by the LOS being traced from the team leader instead of the weapon itself since weapons teams (including ATGs) are treated as infantry units rather than like an individual weapon. The team leader is also not always in the best spot and it can get frustrating at times. I've found that many times, if I just place the weapon in the action spot where I want to place it that even though I seemingly can't trace a good LOS from that spot the weapon will still fire when I need it to since LOS is traced from the team leader and the bullets are traced from the weapon itself. The way LOS is traced through the terrain can be a bit frustrating as well because it traces LOS to the ground location of the spot you are trying to see to. If there is any grain or some tall grass or something in between you and the ground level location it may seem like you don't have LOS but when someone goes walking by you can see them because they are above ground level.

So I guess what I would say is .... yeah, there probably can be a bit of frustration there with weapons teams. It honestly doesn't bother me too much though - I can generally get the results I need without much frustration. It might be helpful if you put up some screen shots of the behavior that is frustrating you so the beta testers here can see what the issue is. You know - I want to place my weapon here so it sees over there and my LOS is always blocked no matter what I do. A picture is worth a thousand words, and you can get much better results that way.

I wanted to edit this in .... I'm actually not 100% certain anymore that using the Target command to trace LOS with a weapon team will trace LOS from the team leader instead of the gunner. That may have been changed in one of the beta versions .... although I'm not positive about it. That'll teach me to post without double checkng first!

[Steiner14]

After you choose the placement in 8 metre increments, the tac AI will finetune your choice and will generally find a very good spot.

Will try, thanks.

[Fetchez la Vache]

I keep telling myself this is ASL with hexes. :-)

At the end of the day I want a tactical game I can play while hovering 50-100m above the battlefield (read: board). So some level of abstraction is required and so far the demo is showing me this is done pretty well. It's just the visuals are 'fooling' me into thinking this is different type of game (Men at War, ToW, CoH, etc) where I am used to a different movement/positioning system. I think that's why CMBN currently feels a bit weird at the moment.

As opposed to board games, the best thing with CM is that once I make my orders I can zoom in to watch them being executed (yes, I am a WEGO player). For this aspect the 1:1 representation is a fantastic step forward.

[~Viajero]

As far as the keyholing issue .... I'm going to presume you are talking about heavy weapons teams like HMGs etc.

Yeah, in my case the infantry placement in the 8x8 thingie is not that much of an issue.

It is the precise positioning of AT guns and HMG that is a bit of a problem.

[ASL Veteran]

Yeah, in my case the infantry placement in the 8x8 thingie is not that much of an issue.

It is the precise positioning of AT guns and HMG that is a bit of a problem.

Yeah, I just confirmed in the game again that when you click the Target line to check LOS that it's still traced from the team leader instead of the weapon. Just keep that in mind when checking LOS because the bullets fire from the weapon not the team leader, so if the weapon looks like it's about right then just leave it there and hope it fires where you want it to. If you play around with it enough you will get the hang of positioning things.

You will probably need to leave yourself a little slack in how you position your weapon teams too. I mean, if you want to just miss that building corner and only have LOS to an area that's about 3m wide then it's gonna get frustrating no doubt about it. You just aren't going to be able to position your teams with that level of precision.