Not as much fun as previous games.

[daft]

This:

i still honestly do not understand this comparison that keeps surfacing year after year. in CMx1 area target (or unit positioning or LOS/LOF calculations or whatever) is not bound by or stickied to the tiles. in CMx1 the unit can be positioned in any position within a tile and a area target can be chosen for any position within a tile. the effect of the area fire or LOS/LOF calculations are not bound by the tiles, but by radius or cumulative type of specific types of terrain within the LOS line. it's not an impression -- it's how it works.

And this:

On this point, I just want to mention that it worked the same in CMx1. Area fire was always targeted to the center of the 20x20m action spot. Its the graphical representation that made it looked as though you were targeting a precise point.

Makes me very confused. Could you please make up your minds?

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Makes me very confused. Could you please make up your minds?

i seriously don't know why they (even Steve of BFC) keep saying it again and again. i have argued about this (how LOS/LOF, targetting and unit position works in CMx1) numerous times since CMSF came out.

what they say is frankly total nonsense as everyone can see if they do some simple tests in CMx1. why they keep saying it i can only guess. perhaps they just have forgotten, but i guess they just want to rise by blood pressure until i poop blood. anyway it's freaking annoying as i need to do extra laundry.

[c3k]

Gautrek,

I think posts #19 and #20 may be the most appropriate. I would, humbly, add the following: play WeGo, and replay the turns when action is occuring but have the camera down close to your men. Try the intro campaigns.

It may not be your cup of tea. Coming from CMSF, I know that the UI does take a little bit of training. Once that hurdle is passed, the game flows.

Ken

[Sgt Joch]

i seriously don't know why they (even Steve of BFC) keep saying it again and again. i have argued about this (how LOS/LOF, targetting and unit position works in CMx1) numerous times since CMSF came out.

what they say is frankly total nonsense as everyone can see if they do some simple tests in CMx1. why they keep saying it i can only guess. perhaps they just have forgotten, but i guess they just want to rise by blood pressure until i poop blood. anyway it's freaking annoying as i need to do extra laundry.

UDC, I presume the ones who designed and programmed the game have a pretty good idea how the bloody thing works.

What you see in CMx1 is just the graphical representation, area fire is spread over the 20x20m CMx1 AP and the combat effects calculated on that basis, even though your little red line is pointing to a particular spot of the AP.

[McAuliffe]

UDC, I presume the ones who designed and programmed the game have a pretty good idea how the bloody thing works.

What you see in CMx1 is just the graphical representation, area fire is spread over the 20x20m CMx1 AP and the combat effects calculated on that basis, even though your little red line is pointing to a particular spot of the AP.

How do you explain then, that hiding behind a wall in CM:1, was protecting you more or less from direct fire, while when yo uwere putting your guys on top of the wall, they were dead meat?

...or when you were positioning your squad just close to a bocage hedge, this gave them a better LOS then when they were sitting a couple of meters back?

I can as well recall instances where my pixeltruppen, crawling to a ridge, were difficult to hit, while when they were ending up a a couple of meters further, they were obliterated.

[c3k]

The following is all quoted (partially) from McAuliffe. I've added my comments in bold.

Well, I am of same opinion as Gautrek, Lunsku, Guachi, Steiner and Co.... So, maybe he didn't have to add "in my modest opinion" at all.

My humble observation shows, that we lost since CM1 series a number of good implementations:

- target lines They exist, but only for the one selected unit. On the other hand, once you select your unit, all known enemy icons are highlighted. Selecting an enemy unit highlights all friendly units which have LOS. But yes, a SHOW ALL TARGET LINES command would be nice improvement.

- command lines Again, adding them would be nice. However, the game has at least two, more detailed, implementations. The "in command" graphic (the yelling mouth, eyeball, etc.) can be clicked to snap to the HQ. Also the chain of command graphic (green dot, red x) can be clicked to snap to the HQ. Using the HQ, the subordinate units are listed and can be clicked on. Double clicking any unit highlights all sister/HQ units.

- one click status report (wounded, killed, deployed, calling arty...) This is also valid, insomuch as the UI needs to be studied a bit to find out who is doing what. A benefit is that different members of a unit can be doing different actions. However, once a casualty is evac'ed, you can never tell by looking at the UI how many men a squad has lost. That's too bad.

- adjustable waypoints Oh, this is big. My backspace key would really appreciate this!

- targeting at precise points instead of 'grid sticking' This is only applicable for Area Targeting. If BF.C can implement a "linear area target" that would be nice. As it is, "grid sticking" area targeting actually spreads the fire across the action spot.

- ambush ( hide&cover arc) This is in the game. Order your men to HIDE, give them a tight TARGET ARC and they will "ambush" whoever enters the arc.

- hunt (move to contact - stop - fire - move on) Agreed, HUNT as implemented is really "move to contact then stop and drop". That's not good. A real HUNT would be nice to have.

- scoot and shoot This is in the game as a function of movement and fire orders. There are many discussions and tutorials which show how to do this. It is MUCH more flexible in CMSF/CMBN than it ever was in CMBB/CMAK.

- targeting of higher level floors of buildings (while lower levels where out of LOS) This is fully enabled in CMSF/CMBN. I'm confused about this criticism.

- scenario/map editor that is compatible with 3rd party apps that allow underlying bmp to transpire (not to mention importing DEMs) I am unfamiliar with this functionality in CMx1. It'd be cool to cut and paste a google earth image and have an instant map be created, complete with elevations, buildings, roads, foliage, etc. Where's HintJ with his 20k?

- free set up or default setup option This is supported in CMSF/CMBN as a function of the scenario designer. You can edit any battle if you don't like the setup.

- execution delay penalties reflecting chain of command lag. This is subject to discussion. It depends on your pov. Should a squad freeze in the midst of a street? Lots of debate, based on whether a command comes from the squad leader (you), or the battalion commander (hey, that's ALSO you!). I would like to see some form of delay based on how far up the chain the command originated from.

- WeGo by TCP/IP Oh, if I could get this by using HintJ's 20k, I'd have him fork it over right now! This would be a huge benefit.

(some will add automatic generated quick battle maps, but I rather preferred anyway designed maps that were imported in a QB) The current implementation is good. However, it is dependent upon an active user base creating and adding more maps with AI plans built in.

Now, all the bold statements I added in, above, are "IMHO". I think that a lot of the criticisms have some merit, however, some - as noted - do not really hold up. Because a function is accessed differently does not mean that the function is missing. Again, IMHO.

Ken

[Vinnart]

Absolutly agree that an open minded perspective is the best to enjoy the game whether you have played CMx1, or not. Anyone new to the game must give themselves time to adjust to a learning curve. It is not a simple game, and that is why so many love it.

I can say though for my taste after spending sometime in the hedgrow country that although I enjoy WWII setting bocage fighting is not my favorite setting. It is much slower going, and more static than the terrain of CMSF. Having said that, I enjoy both CMBN, and CMSF, but would say I prefer the open terrain, and mobile combat of CMSF more than bocage fighting. Once we get out of the hedgrows I see me enjoying the WWII combat more. I see QB' meeting engagments with little, or no bocage being my favorite style of combat for this base game.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

UDC, I presume the ones who designed and programmed the game have a pretty good idea how the bloody thing works.

so you are saying they are lying purposefully?

What you see in CMx1 is just the graphical representation, area fire is spread over the 20x20m CMx1 AP and the combat effects calculated on that basis, even though your little red line is pointing to a particular spot of the AP.

it's so sad that this stuff is not trolling. please go make some tests in CMx1.

for example fire some MG fire into a group of infantry. the effect is actually based on radius, not tiles.

for example have a building that is 99% blocked by other buildings and throw some direct HE at the visible corner of the building. the targetting is for the particular spot, not the center of "action spot" (do not exist in CMx1).

etc etc blah blah blah.

[Sgt Joch]

How do you explain then, that hiding behind a wall in CM:1, was protecting you more or less from direct fire, while when yo uwere putting your guys on top of the wall, they were dead meat?

...or when you were positioning your squad just close to a bocage hedge, this gave them a better LOS then when they were sitting a couple of meters back?

I can as well recall instances where my pixeltruppen, crawling to a ridge, where difficult to hit, while when they were ending up a a couple of meters further, they were obliterated.

that is different, you are talking about direct fire.

In CMx1, the terrain works more as in a traditional hex based wargame. If you are in a "woods" tile, everyone gets the spotting/defence benefit no matter wher the fire is coming from. If there is a wall between you and the incoming fire, you get an additional benefit for that. If the fire is coming from two separate directions, the attacker gets a bonus to simulate enfilade fire.

If you are directly targeting a spotted unit, the fire is more effective than area fire on a particular hex.

remember that in CMx1, the game only sees your squad as occupying a single point on the map. Once all these and other factors are taken into account, the game calculates a result: suppression/casualties.

In CMx2, because of the 1:1 representation, the effects of direct fire is more directly simulated, although there is still some abstarction. If your squad is behind a wall, the wall protects you from the bullets which will impact the wall. If one of your squad member pops up to look over the wall, he could get hit. If an enemy squad comes up from behind, the wall offers no benefit.

The overall effects are more or less the same, it is just more directly simulated in CMx2. The effect of 1:1 simualtion is much more in movement and the interaction of infantry with terrain.

[MikeyD]

Quickly reading over the posts my impression is the primary complaint seems to be that CMx2 wouldn't make a good board game. That's a bad thing?

[McAuliffe]

Quickly reading over the posts my impression is the primary complaint seems to be that CMx2 wouldn't make a good board game. That's a bad thing?

No, the primary complaint is that it takes more time to process a turn in CM 2 then in a board game and with processing I don't mean the calculating-time by the computer, but time needed for giving instructions to your pixeltruppen. I really don't know how those RT player are able to do so in one continous move. Please tell me, they are pausing the game, aren't they?

It takes actually more time then in CM:1 and this with on average less units on the map in a CM:2 game then in CM:1, at least this comparison goes up for the scenarios I used to play in CM:1.

[bodkin]

This game feels a lot more realistic than CMx1, it feels like you are actually involved in something that is real, particularly where infantry are involved. That does not necessarily translate into the OP's 'fun' though, perhaps realism negates fun to some degree, particularly when it involves more work than it should.

I think some scenario designers seem to have forgotten how to make fun scenarios, instead more recently in CMSF and now into CMBN alot of scenarios feel like a frustrating chore to be endured. I suppose it was simpler in CMx1 when everyone was designing missions for WEGO and the victory options were pretty much limited to capture the flag.

[MengJiao]

I really don't know how those RT player are able to do so in one continous move. Please tell me, they are pausing the game, aren't they?

I pause the game when something big and/or relatively unexpected happens or when I want to see if it is a good point for a save or if I want to unscramble some command problem.

If stuff is just blowing up all over, then I usually don't pause if things seem to be going well. I did pause one game to organize the rescue of a lieutenant and his jeep driver and get them back to a working radio.

[Sgt Joch]

it's so sad that this stuff is not trolling.

URC, you have some major behavior issues, just because you are unable to understand how CMx1 area fire works is not my problem. You are of course entitled to believe whatever you wish.

[Zatoichi]

It takes actually more time then in CM:1 and this with on average less units on the map in a CM:2 game then in CM:1, at least this comparison goes up for the scenarios I used to play in CM:1.

Well, I imagine you've been playing CM1 for a bit longer than CM2.

For me, some turns fly by, and others I'll be issuing a bunch of complicated multi-part orders. But even then, I may watch the replay where I did nothing more times than the replay where I plotted a move for every unit on the map. I find the game suits my particular style of play nicely, and gives me great pleasure (and the occasional blood pressure moments too).

It can't really be a huge surprise to anyone reading here that fun is subjective, surely?

I've never really been bothered by the new UI - I'm one of the lucky ones I guess. I'd love to have moveable waypoints back at some stage, and some kind of area target arc/linear plotting feature. Oh, and scroll bars on the scenario/save game/QB screens.

Oh, and an in-game delete button for old saves.

Armour target arcs! How could I forget them?

But hey, luckily for me, I enjoy the game even with these features from my pet list not having made the cut.

Ooh! Ooh! AI Triggers!

[stikkypixie]

URC, you have some major behavior issues, just because you are unable to understand how CMx1 area fire works is not my problem. You are of course entitled to believe whatever you wish.

To be fair, although technically you are correct in the sense that there are only 20by20 tiles and units were a point entity. Certain tiles such as wood tiles had special rules that make the calculations more nuanced.

[Sgt Joch]

To be fair, although technically you are correct in the sense that there are only 20by20 tiles and units were a point entity. Certain tiles such as wood tiles had special rules that make the calculations more nuanced.

yes, of course.

[Brightguy]

I somehow doubt that this thread is heading in a terribly productive direction, but I'll add my quick and mixed opinion anyway. Maybe some moderation will help.

I'll start by saying that this is a very impressive game. The execution is absolutely amazing in some ways. I do have some issues, but that doesn't mean this isn't a fantastic game. May just not be the sort of game that I'm looking to play right now.

I have been initially very frustrated with play, although less so as my games have progressed. I started out getting my butt handed to me by the AI and having really no idea why and from what. That sucked. If I hadn't loved BO so much, I doubt I would have hung in. The only way to make it work I learned was to slow down, get the camera much lower and watch the replay several times for each turn, once for every platoon or so to make sure I didn't miss anything for that unit. At this level, things are considerably more immersive and interesting. Still can be frustrating, but at least I'm learning how to work things and can achieve some success against AI and some dramatic and exciting play. Had a very entertaining holiday yesterday with Last Defense, a golden oldie made new and fascinating again.

I will say that I do have some continuing gripes.

I need to customize the hotkeys. My lazyness that I haven't yet, but still a shame I have to.

Love the relative spotting in terms of realism, still think that target lines are possible. That squad knows what they're shooting at, just show me. Why make me watch the video three times?

Same with C&C, just show the damn lines.

I am puzzled by the lack of a cover arc armor or hunt armor. Have had several tanks and bazooka teams whacked for lack of one. Why open up on a Tiger (already buttoned up) with a rifle?

Buildings seem to offer far less cover/morale benefit than I would think. Troops that stand their ground in brush run like mad when fired on in a house.

That said, it is an entertaining game which I am appreciating more and more. Real downside is that I have to glean too much info from the movie so it takes hours and hours to play more than a company sized engagement. May be that I had kids between BO and BN, but that is a long time for me now. I'm hoping the game continues to grow on me to make the investment worth it.

[Wego McPbem]

Love the relative spotting in terms of realism, still think that target lines are possible. That squad knows what they're shooting at, just show me. Why make me watch the video three times?

The problem here is that individuals in the squad can and do fire at different targets. You'd have to have a targeting line for each member of the squad which would just be too much.

The rest of your points are fair enough though.

[Pvt. Ryan]

I think some scenario designers seem to have forgotten how to make fun scenarios, instead more recently in CMSF and now into CMBN alot of scenarios feel like a frustrating chore to be endured. I suppose it was simpler in CMx1 when everyone was designing missions for WEGO and the victory options were pretty much limited to capture the flag.

I would agree with that. Many of the scenarios are so frustratingly difficult. Of course, I enjoy a good challenge, but it often seems you are doomed to failure unless you unlock the "key" to a particular battle.

[Sirocco]

I find the whole "it's CMx2, not CMx1" line pretty weak. An interface is an interface. What CMx1 did was very elegant at times. The representation of C2 was at a glance. Click a HQ and you knew what was in command. Now you have to click through every attached unit. You can't argue that that's anything but a step back. The move from the right click menu to hotkeys was a huge leap back. CMx1 just did some things better, just as CMx2 does a lot of things better than CMx1. I'm encouraged to hear the UI is being looked at again, and hope future patches will reflect the downgrading we have now with it.

[Brightguy]

@Wego McPBEM

I understand that different members of the squad can and to fire at different targets, but usually one or two. I don't claim to know the code machanics, but I don't think that one would need 11 target lines. Something like turning contacts red for when the squad has targeted them in the past five seconds might be a decent compromise.

Again, I understand the design philosophy and it has some merits. I would personally rather that more information that can be obtained from watching the movie be obtained by the player in a more time efficient manner.

[Wodin]

I would agree with that. Many of the scenarios are so frustratingly difficult. Of course, I enjoy a good challenge, but it often seems you are doomed to failure unless you unlock the "key" to a particular battle.

I found CMSF really needed a slow methodical style of play....it did take some getting used to...but if you try and use the right tactics you do get far...rushing in at anytime is bad news...CMBN is the same...you have to think alot more than any other game I've played at this scale...

Also there is no key way of doing a scenario....it's no where near a puzzle type wargame like a few others out there...infact I've replayed scenarios where the AI has acted differently each time...

Finally most people moan about AI being weak in a game...not here..not if the scenario is done well...

I'm sure new easy scenarios will come out....you will have so many you wont know which one to play...

[Steiner14]

How about a target line between the unit symbols?

[Brightguy]

That would be fine w/ me.