Not as much fun as previous games.

[Destraex1]

I got credited with being a beta tester (didnt actually sign an NDA) but did test numerous patches and maps for EYSA. I think EYSA took on a heavy load and did not quite live up to expectations as being a 3dcc type of game. I personally loved the game for MP only, that to me was where the game shined. I can't help but look back at "EYSA" and smile every time I fire up CMBN. I think EY would like this game.

I was also a BETA tester for EYSA. I basically wanted the CMBN we have today from EYSA. It almost got there too. It missed out on things like los issues and being able to move in buildings properly. The main problem with the game however was frame rate.... that was the real killer. Remember too that they attempted to do what CMBN does today in 2011 in 2003 with similar graphics and tracking of every bullet.

[Battlefront.com]

When we set out to make CMBO we were very, very concerned about not biting off more than we could chew from a design standpoint. We were also very concerned about the hardware issues because 3D hardware acceleration was pretty new in 1997 when we started. But what we wanted to make is something much closer to CM:BN than CMBO.

Steve

[gunnergoz]

Steve - just think what your kids or grandkids will be able to design with the technology they'll have by then. WW2 with the original cast! In 3D with direct sensory inputs. Game comes with a complementary 30 day vacation in your local VA hospital.

[BloodyBucket]

Anybody who has access that sort of simulative technology allowing total realism with sensory input and chooses to put themselves in a WWII foxhole rather than a cat-house would need to be monitored very, very closely.

BTW, I'm finding this game to be as much fun as the previous games, even if there is no gratuitous feminine pulchritude.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

I might be silly for doing this, but I'm going to try again

silly things are often the best things. they keep stuff interesting.

The freedom to choose means nothing if the choice has no significant impact on what result you get from it.

you are of course 100% right that there's no difference at all what comes to the terrain type on any given point with similar terrain type.

but it has a significant, even extreme, impact on LOS calculations.

much of advanced / experienced CMx1 gameplay, especially regarding infantry, is based on these types of LOS calculations -- many of the tactics do not work if one isn't aware of these LOS effects. just a couple of examples of the LOS effects so that you get what i am after:

- differences in terrain height (elevation) within a 20x20m tile

- differences in LOS regarding to stuff in other tiles (e.g. you want a LOS thru the open space between two buildings -- because of the way the tiles are layed out you need to be in a specific position within the 20x20m tile in order to get the angle that gives LOS thru the space in between the buildings)

- differences in cumulative LOS -- each meter (or cm or whatever) thru a blocking terrain type reduces LOS, so that when you have "collected" enough blocking terrain through different tiles the LOS is finally blocked -- so you need to consider your position within a 20x20m tile to be in or out of LOS towards an area on other tiles

- special cases, a bit related to the cumulative stuff (e.g. how to make a SMG squad be able to fire from within a building out to the street, but at the same time be out of LOS to the building across the street)

reminder: these were examples of how the ability to choose position within one 20x20m tile has significant impact on the results, even if the whole 20x20m tile would have only one and same terrain type.

If I place 12 men on one pixel anywhere within 20x20 meters they are always in the same type of terrain taken from a very limited pallet. Always. In CMx2 each Soldier is positioned within a partial meter according to the terrain around it, which is far more complex and varied even within a single Action Spot. Therefore, how can you say that from a tactical and combat standpoint being able to specify which pixel in a vast sea of unrealistically drab terrain all 12 men are going to stand on is superior to the way it works in CMx2?

they only way it is superior is in the ability to position a unit exactly where it's wanted. of course i don't think it's superior to have a whole squad in a 10 square centimeter area. what i am thinkinking of are MGs, bazookas, AT guns and such. with them it's sometimes crucial to have the weapon in a specific spot within a 8x8m (or 20x20m) tile in order to have the wanted LOS/LOF.

please note that i am not saying the CMx1 positioning system is superior in general. in most cases CMx2 system is clearly superior and no doubt will get even better in future.