What is correct about these impresions

[Lt Bull]

I think what people envisage with foxholes combined with bocage are these kind of German fighting positions dug into the bocage base:]

Hmm..nice pics. But hard to tell if any of the pics are actually foxholes (more like trenches), the second one if any. Hard to tell where the natural ground level is in the 1st and 3rd pic. More pics would be good preferably taken from a distance.

Do you actually read what I write when you quote it back?

LOL yes, I think you took it the wrong way. I was just really addressing how people (not necessarily you) might EXPECT to be able to just place entrenchments behind bocage and have LOS through it because of the evidence that's been suggested and now shown in the pics posted...its possible but invariably NOT without modifying the bocage itself, by digging/cutting slots through the bocage. Maybe having a special dedicated composite bocage tile (with the vision slot and trench integrated) which actually IS this kind of "fortified bocage might be the answer.

[MikeyD]

I just found these impresions on another forum and...

You didn't stumble, perchance, on a particular cabal of banned grousers did you? If the game was made of bacon they'd be complaining about it not being dry-cured applewood smoked bacon. There's nothing in the world that if you really wanted to complain about it that you couldn't find cause if you looked hard enough.

[Federico]

Sorry MikeyD but I don't follow you. Maybe it's my English. What exactly do you mean?

And I find these impressions on the matrix games web page forums; on a thread were some folks were comparing the game with PCOF.

I love CMBN, Cmsf and many other games of Battlefront that I have. I just asked my question to have some feedback of people who probably had spent more time playing the game than me.

Tks

[Guest]

Ahh, if I'd known it were coming from a PCO devotee who has only played the CMBN demo that would have made more sense.

Yes, we don't use abstractions like PCO, which means things that are abstracted away (an AT gunner being in the wrong spot, the effects of fortifications, kneeling vs. prone) in PCO are represented explicitly in CMBN and therefore are apparent problems to people used to abstraction, when in fact, and in most cases, they're just slightly closer to reality.

Yeah, we model the fact that soldiers have to rise up to fire their weapons from behind a wall... the wall isn't just a bonus to their defense rating, it's in the way and has pros and cons to being behind it. It's cover, but you can't kiss the dirt and still defend yourself. Obviously BFC prefers explicit modeling which, in my opinion, leads to more emergent behaviors.

I don't see one approach as right or wrong, but more experience with / enjoyment of one or the other would certainly color one's opinions of the alternative.

And yes, the fellow who made the comments needs to spend a bit more time with CMBN before he makes grand pronouncements about the system.

[Lets_All_Fight]

You didn't stumble, perchance, on a particular cabal of banned grousers did you? If the game was made of bacon they'd be complaining about it not being dry-cured applewood smoked bacon. There's nothing in the world that if you really wanted to complain about it that you couldn't find cause if you looked hard enough.

No. I know this thread as I was reading it myself yesterday. It's not that lot. It's on a PCO board, as Frederico points out. Still, I particularity liked the claim in that thread that BN is an arcade game.

[Federico]

Ahh, if I'd known it were coming from a PCO devotee who has only played the CMBN demo that would have made more sense.

Yes, we don't use abstractions like PCO, which means things that are abstracted away (an AT gunner being in the wrong spot, the effects of fortifications, kneeling vs. prone) in PCO are represented explicitly in CMBN and therefore are apparent problems to people used to abstraction, when in fact, and in most cases, they're just slightly closer to reality.

Yeah, we model the fact that soldiers have to rise up to fire their weapons from behind a wall... the wall isn't just a bonus to their defense rating, it's in the way and has pros and cons to being behind it. It's cover, but you can't kiss the dirt and still defend yourself. Obviously BFC prefers explicit modeling which, in my opinion, leads to more emergent behaviors.

I don't see one approach as right or wrong, but more experience with / enjoyment of one or the other would certainly color one's opinions of the alternative.

And yes, the fellow who made the comments needs to spend a bit more time with CMBN before he makes grand pronouncements about the system.

Thanks for the reply Phil.

Much appreciated.

[GSX]

You didn't stumble, perchance, on a particular cabal of banned grousers did you? If the game was made of bacon they'd be complaining about it not being dry-cured applewood smoked bacon. There's nothing in the world that if you really wanted to complain about it that you couldn't find cause if you looked hard enough.

I was reading this earlier and was waiting for someone to make the obvious wrong assumption based on a stupid pre-conceived notion that GS is for banned grousers. It's a bit like saying BF is only for Fanboys. In truth both sites are somewhere in-between.

I suppose Matrix is just full of whiney banned grousers then:D

[Guest]

Thanks for the reply Phil.

Much appreciated.

Sure thing. I addressed his comments point for point a page or two ago, as well. Some of the bits he mentions - about hedges, for example - are flat wrong. The others are just... off base.

[womble]

Still, I particularity liked the claim in that thread that BN is an arcade game.

It is to laugh...

Arcade game? [boggle]

[Sgt Joch]

I was reading this earlier and was waiting for someone to make the obvious wrong assumption based on a stupid pre-conceived notion that GS is for banned grousers. It's a bit like saying BF is only for Fanboys. In truth both sites are somewhere in-between.

I suppose Matrix is just full of whiney banned grousers then:D

Agreed, there is more than enough room for all opinions, especially now that so many posters at GS seem to really like CMBN.

[Battlefront.com]

No game, of any sort, is "perfect". I don't care what genre, I don't care how many millions of units it might have sold, there's always room for criticism and improvement. Some players thrive on negativity, often because they don't want to like the game. Anybody around for the early days will remember the Close Combat and Steel Panthers guys who hated CMBO with a passion. Every single thing they could pick on, whether it was real or perceived problem, was used to justify not liking CMBO. Or more often, justifying why they should continue to like CC or SP. In doing so they overlooked not only the good things in CMBO but conveniently forgot about all the weak areas in CC and SP. Since this mentality is alive and well in gaming, obviously CM:BN has to suffer through it as well.

Another type of critical player says something like this:

"This game sucks. There's so much wrong with it I don't even know where to start. For example, last night I played for 5 hour straight and noticed all kinds of issues. And these things happen all the time. I should know, because I've played the game for about 1000 hours so far. Not only that, I played all the crappy games this company made for the last 10 years. They can't ever get it right. Oh look, they have another one coming out next month. I'm going to buy it on the off chance that they finally made a game I can enjoy. I'll let you know my opinion of it after I've played it every night for 3 weeks."

We find these types of critics really, really, really funny They are so convinced that they are having a bad time with the game they don't understand that they actually enjoy it. But hey... we all know people like that and we all put up with them as best we can.

The kind of critical gamer we like is the type that is reasonable and keeps things in perspective. They find things they think might need improvement, and sometimes they're right and sometimes they're wrong, however they can recognize that despite the problems (perceived or real) they have no problem stating that they enjoy the game as a whole. Fortunately, this is the vast majority of our customer base. If it wasn't I think we wouldn't be making serious wargames any more

Steve

[theFightingSeabee]

Here is the bottom line:

There is no other game in existence ever made in the history of mankind that portrays fighting in Normandy to such a realistic degree. None. So, even with it's problems, it's still the best out there.

[Childress]

Here is the bottom line:

There is no other game in existence ever made in the history of mankind that portrays fighting in Normandy to such a realistic degree. None. So, even with it's problems, it's still the best out there.

Be careful with the hubris. You don't want to irritate Nemesis.

It is a great game. The best in the series. Hiring that extra programmer paid off.

[theFightingSeabee]

Be careful with the hubris. You don't want to irritate Nemesis.

It is a great game. The best in the series. Hiring that extra programmer paid off.

Don't care much about Nemesis. Until someone names a better game, the hubris remains.

[Battlefront.com]

It's another thing that makes us smile a lot. We state that we've got the most realistic tactical wargames out there, period, and some say this is "hubris" or "boasting". Er... no... it's fact. We can't help it if there isn't anything else out there that even comes close. We're only responsible for the stuff we make, not the stuff others make or don't make.

We've said this for a long, long time... the wargaming niche is very underserved. We do our best to fill the needs within the niche, but we're never going to appeal to everybody. If others want to make games to directly compete with us, fine. So far it's not happened but in theory it could happen any day. We're not ignorant of that fact and it's why we're not complacent. If we were complacent we'd still be using a slightly warmed over CMx1 engine

Steve

[Blackcat]

... If we were complacent we'd still be using a slightly warmed over CMx1 engine

I'd bet you wouldn't because I think you like to play your own games and, therefore, for your own satisfaction and enjoyment you will always make the best game you can.

[StellarRat]

We state that we've got the most realistic tactical wargames out there, period, and some say this is "hubris" or "boasting". Er... no... it's fact.

Steve

In your area of expertise, I would agree. Your company also distributed Dangerous Waters. I still consider it the most realistic tactical sub/ASW game ever written.

[Bastables]

No. I know this thread as I was reading it myself yesterday. It's not that lot. It's on a PCO board, as Frederico points out. Still, I particularity liked the claim in that thread that BN is an arcade game.

Is PCO the new game after Eric Youngs attempts to rebuild Close Combat in 3d? or is it the fanbase who have tended to denigrate CM for not being Close combat and not a sucessor?

I'm on the matrix forums after having purchased the superb War in the east and might drop some monies on the Slithirine Swords and sandals games. THis does not mean i'm intrested in reading a old chaps continued baiting of BTS version of modeling Battalion lvl and below combat.

SORRY I'M SUCH AN ARSE.

Ok found out it was all referring to Panzer Ostfront, which I was thinking about buying and not the latest iteration of the old Closecombat team.

As to the criticism contained within that forum they should be taken with a ton of salt as the Chap seems to have an ax to grind and his criticisms such as questioning the los of individual dudes interfering in engagements seems a bit off base: Rotating the unit or cover arc means infantry will then turn to gain los and put cover between them and the "kill zone" or fire lane.

Get both CM won't be going to the eastern front till 2 add-ons anyway. BTS seems to be more interested in greater fidelity of input and outcome for a wargame. Panzer has campaigns and more Flavour of war thing going for it. Like a more detailed version of Men of war or like the Theater of war series. Ostfront seems nice in that it's like buying the firt two games content in one package. Imagine buying CMAK but it included all the stuff from CMBO and CMBB. I think this will occur anyway with the module approach that BTS seems to have settled on with shockforce: You buy the base game and then add on the other theaters, scenarios, To&e.

Just get both and decide for yourself which you prefer.

Oh it seems the bad blood is historical as blackhand studios was part of the close combat fiascos, even developing Close combat: Last Stand Arnhem. The CMBN problems are not only inaccurate but are similar to the real issues that Eric Young's first post Microsoft/atomic games close combat series had in moving to 3d, back at the start of the decade of the new century. . .

[Battlefront.com]

When Panzer Command first was announced, many years ago, it was billed as a "CM killer". That was its stated purpose. The game borrowed heavily from Combat Mission but had some of it's own twists. It also apparently lacked a lot of what made CM popular. As a result it didn't live up to its expectations and the developer went out of business. Matrix bought, or somehow acquired (as it has for other abandoned games), the code so that it could develop it on its own versions using volunteer labor. Not sure if any got paid or not, and it's none of our business to know this anyway.

We became aware of PCO when someone told us that someone over there said we were rushing CM:BN to completion to make sure we beat PCO to market. Something about us "fearing" what PCO's release would do to our sales. Hard to fear something you're not even aware of existing, but hey... why let reality get in the way of a good story, eh?

There is one person on the PCO team, in particular, that has savaged us over the past few years. Lots of interesting personal attacks against me in particular as well as conspiracy theories which even Fox Mulder would have questioned. Apparently, and I'm really not sure how, I ran over his dog or somefink. Well, whatever. Some people can't get up in the morning if they don't have an enemy to focus on, so it is what it is.

From our perspective we're happy PCO exists. It's not competition (there's too few products to be competition) and it services a different section of the wargaming niche. Some will undoubtably enjoy PCO and not CM:BN, others will enjoy CM:BN and not PCO. Others will enjoy both to some extent or another. It's all good.

Steve

[Bastables]

Ok just brought PCO. The Infantry felt like CMBO, hell I initially had to turn off the option to keep the infantry sections represented as 3 men. . . Conclusion the infantry sections are abstracted as a single entity as in the old CM's. And not represented down to single soldiers as discrete entities. The gfx are actually worse than CMBN and the largest map in PCO is 2km x 2km . . . It runs smoother but it's graphically less complicated and still has the detail/texture/model pop in that CMSF and CMBN have. realistic To&e there is none, one "buys" units at platoon level from a limited pool of platoons at the start of a battle.

If this is a CM killer it's a killer of CMBO a decade late. It seems to be CMBO with a Close combat style campaign. Now you have detail based simulation style games like CMSF/BN, games that focus more on graphical fidelity with a smattering of physics and 3d worlds like men of war or in between Theater of war series from IC. Again POC seems to be competing against CMBO/CMBB.

[Battlefront.com]

To clarify... the claim that Panzer Command was going to be a "CM killer", that was for the original game that came out many years ago. Therefore, it was supposed to "kill" CMx1 since that was the only thing out on the market at the time. The irony is they were trying to "kill" something that was already, technically speaking, "dead" from a development standpoint since we stopped CMx1 development in 2004.

Steve

[Bastables]

Yeah and considering the markets evolved to other games with different priorities a la Men of war or theatre of war and BTS CM series has grown too I'm not sure the design brief of a better CMBO was far sighted move (or a close combat married to CMBO).

[sburke]

You didn't stumble, perchance, on a particular cabal of banned grousers did you? If the game was made of bacon they'd be complaining about it not being dry-cured applewood smoked bacon. There's nothing in the world that if you really wanted to complain about it that you couldn't find cause if you looked hard enough.

Wait! You mean the game comes with Bacon?!! And I thought it couldn't get any better!!

[undead reindeer cavalry]

oh cut the crap guys CMBN is a great game, but the level of C3 simulation is almost zero.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Until someone names a better game, the hubris remains.

do you want a better game or more realistic battles?