Not as much fun as previous games.

[WineCape]

Needs repeating, and the gist of my post earlier, given the OP’s statements:

.... advice to people who don't think they like CM:BN, but loved CMx1, is to figure out specifically what is tripping them up. Talk with players who are enjoying the game and try keeping an open mind. It's possible that there are remedies. Or possibly not. Either way, CMx1 is every day further in the past and CMx2 is ahead of us.

Some posters here have valid points wrt niggly parts of CMBN, to various degrees as there ARE no remedies for some issues. Other issues are perceived, due to the way certain posters play. However, if a person doesn’t want to entertain those offered remedies from those that like the game to X-degree, you obviously run the risk, however small, of not basing your ultimate decision on an informed choice. Unless you feel OK with that, or you're a quick-judgment-first-impression-lasting-forever guy, then there's obviously no argument in trying to entertain new ideas or offered advice.

Try the time investment remedy; CMBN is a more complex simulation compared to CMx1. Try also other remedies offered, whether they are full- or half remedies, but TRY their advice and see if the game grows on you for a 10-14 day period, or not. Then make a decision.

If I had posted the original post, I would be damn curious - it's my nature - to at least try such remedies offered; to find out WHY some say it grows on you, if at all; to find out if my initial opinion(s) are entrench, or changed, given further investigation. Did I say I am inquisitive by nature?

I also understand, if time investment is offered as but one remedy, some peoples' attention span/patience threshold doesn't last that long - no offense to those so inclined – that’s also …. passable.

CMBN is an order of higher fidelity that you cannot compare to CMx1, and the niggly bits, UI oddities just might form a different opinion with time investment. My attitude, at a minimum, would be one of curiosity to these offered ideas and time investment. Curiosity given BFC’s success as indie publisher: has BFC 'earned' my patience to some degree to TRY out those that offered remedies/half remedies on the specific issues that just “kills it” for me? For me anyway, I would say yes, they have earned my patience, given BFC's track record with their CMx1 franchise, given money spent earlier in support, etc. There's no harm in trying such ideas urged by posters, rabid fans or not.

Because I would hate to make snap judgements on anything in life and then miss the odd chance of changing my initial opinion - and live to regret it - just because I did not investigate further, despite advice to do so in the very first place. Wouldn’t you? But then, I’m a curios-kind-of-guy.

[slysniper]

Yes, that is rather critical.

I think a lot of CMx1 players forget their own initial reaction to CMx1 when they came upon it. Many were initially frustrated that their Panthers were getting picked off like flies or their infantry melted when trying to close assault Shermans. Hull down? A concept hardly any computer wargame touched before CMBO. How about the TO&E organizations that nobody had ever played with before? Lots of figuring out what to do with Volksgrenadier forces, for example.

Anyway, CMx1 was so different from other wargames that a lot of people stopped with the Demo and retained their interest in Steel Panthers and Close Combat. Some warmed up to CM later on, others still have not. But I think most found CMx1 to be quite a challenge when they first played it. Now, with perhaps 10+ years past, I can see that many have forgotten what it's like to try something truly new.

Steve

This is a very true statement.

I know for myself, I was one of those type that it was a while before I turned over to CM from the close combat games, I liked the 3d aspects of the game but the differences was holding me back and I was slow to want to change. As time went on, I became the player that stated, no other games were as good as CMX1.

Now the CMX2 game engine has been out for awhiile, again I remember the great hatred of trying to play it at first and not understanding why it was so hard. So I was not interested in the CMX2 games until Afgan came out, But the truth is, by then I understood most of the mechanics of the game, so the game play improved so much that I was enjoying it much more.

Now I pre-bought cmbn before the Demo and knew I would just have to master the game interface, Now I find myself totally wondering why I did not get into CMX2 before now, because once you understand the game environment you can enjoy it as much if not more than the CMX1 games.

Learning curves and accepting change seems hard for people in general, I see it in the work field and I see it in this game. Its just a fact of life, there will always be those that will adapt to change and there will be those that do not. To each his own.

[Battlefront.com]

Wooo... this is a lively thread! Playing catchup, I think I've identified three things from the past few pages:

1. CM:BN isn't fun to play, because fun is an absolute term and not an opinion.

2. CM:BN isn't a carbon copy of CMx1, and that is apparently a bad thing.

3. I am a liar.

So let's take each one at a time:

Thanks to Slysniper for requoting me from earlier in the thread and adding his own personal experience. Yes, I do get the feeling that some CMx1 players were expecting CM:BN to be same old game they played before. Why anybody would WANT that is beyond me. If I wanted to keep playing the same game over and over again, why bother buying a new game? Just play the old one.

The fun from CMx1 is the same as the fun from CMx2... learning how to master a particular depiction of tactical warfare. Some won't like the particular way we did it for CMx2, just like plenty of people hated the way we did it for CMx1. We never expected 100% of CMx1 fans to fall in love with CMx2. As long as we make enough people happy to keep in business, we're happy. We can't get worked up about individuals because, let's face it, 99% of the gamer audience out there would hate CM of any flavor if they were forced into trying it.

Yup, it's true that CMx2 doesn't have specific things that CMx1 has. Sometimes this is on purpose because the CMx1 feature wouldn't work, or would in some way conflict, with the CMx2 system. Sometimes it was left out because it's just not needed. The latter has room for disagreement, but it should be remembered that it's an opinion. Here's an example...

Up until about a week ago I forgot that CMx1 even had targeting lines. According to some the game is impossible to play, not to mention enjoy, without targeting lines. Shoot... and all this time I thought I was playing AND enjoying this game. But apparently I wasn't. Dang, this is a real blow to me.

The notion that the only way CM:BN can be played is by spending more time than one would at CMx1 is also an opinion. Since I play RT almost exclusively, and rarely pause, I have a different opinion. Especially because I win far more often than I lose.

So on and so forth.

Now, there are features which were good for CMx1 and are good for CMx2 as well. Many of them are in the game right now, already. A few of them are not. Moveable waypoints is one of the common issues brought up that I agree with. So yeah, the game's not perfect. But focusing on the handful of better things in CMx1 against the mountains of better things in CMx2 is rather a silly way to go about comparing things. Again, it's opinion of course, but feature for feature CMx2 has far more going for it than CMx1 did. Certainly way more than CMBO had. Enjoyable or not, that's a different issue and it must be remembered that very few people out there enjoy anything we make.

Now for the last one...

That's right... URC caught me. I'm lying. The 8x8m Action Spot grid is nothing but a scam. It offers no advantages over the CMx1 20x20m grid. In fact, it is worse because the CMx1 20x20m grid was superior because you could click your mouse on any pixel you wanted. All my energies in trying to convince him of the contrary were far easier to do than admit the truth... CMx2 is built on a lie, a scam, a complete false foundation that was intended to deceive and harm the CMx1 faithful.

And it should be evident to all that this is the case, that I'm lying. Because it OBVIOUSLY couldn't be that URC is not understanding the explanations. Lord no... that's an impossible situation to even contemplate. I mean, an end user not understanding the game mechanics, even when painfully explained to him in great detail by one of the two guys who built BOTH systems? No way, never could happen. Ergo, I'm a liar and URC is the truth sayer.

(obviously I've given up trying to explain the same thing 101 different ways and still have it ricochet off URC's head).

Steve

[Pvt. Ryan]

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...

Not officially, no, but sometimes you can play a battle a few times, which means you basically know what and where the enemy forces will be, but given the sometimes nearly unobtainable objectives and limited duration of the scenario, you have to get everything just right to get a victory. The varying AI plans certainly help to change this up. It gives longevity and replayability to the game, but I don't remember most CMx1 scenarios being as difficult to win. Maybe the AI is just that much better this time.

[George MC]

Not officially, no, but sometimes you can play a battle a few times, which means you basically know what and where the enemy forces will be, but given the sometimes nearly unobtainable objectives and limited duration of the scenario, you have to get everything just right to get a victory. The varying AI plans certainly help to change this up. It gives longevity and replayability to the game, but I don't remember most CMx1 scenarios being as difficult to win.

That's cos you took flags - player waited - AI attacked; player slaughtered AI... If you find the time limit too limiting go ahead and extend the time. I must admit I tend to give most of mine around an hour, or more if it's big. I think your playing style in CMX2 (CMSF and CMBN) has to be slower, more methodical. Something for scenario designers to take into account. OTH the issues you mention are more design issues than game issues. I'm sure as everyone becomes more familiar with CMBn you'll see the quality of scenarios start to increase (not to say the ones available are poor - they are not, in fact there are some corkers), just more time spent creating these scenarios for CMBN (WWII) means more finely tuned victory conditions. Anyways - just an opinion

[Pvt. Ryan]

Yes, I agree, but it's an example of a perception of the game being different even if it's not the game's fault. (Can a game be at fault? ) There are some great scenarios and awesome QB maps included with the game. Plus I really do think the AI is a much tougher opponent in CMBN. For example, if you leave your men in one position too long the AI will drop arty on them if it can and ruin your day. This didn't happen in CMx1.

[George MC]

Yes, I agree, but it's an example of a perception of the game being different even if it's not the game's fault. (Can a game be at fault? ) There are some great scenarios and awesome QB maps included with the game. Plus I really do think the AI is a much tougher opponent in CMBN. For example, if you leave your men in one position too long the AI will drop arty on them if it can and ruin your day. This didn't happen in CMx1.

Totally agree bud - I'm still adjusting to WWII in CMBN. Odd as I've played CMSF since the very beginning but in some way I just accepted how stuff worked out. Now in WWII I'm really seeing just how differant it is in CMBN compared to my CMX1 experience. I'm loving it! At the moment I'm having a ball just playing the game

[undead reindeer cavalry]

That's right... URC caught me. I'm lying.

my rhetorical question to the other member implied that i think you do not actually remember how CMx1 worked on these parts.

Because it OBVIOUSLY couldn't be that URC is not understanding the explanations.

it's not a question of having intellectual capacity. the subject is extremely simple and extremely simple to test.

the statement that 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." is simply counterfactual. it's not a question of opinion. there is no way to "explain" such statements to somehow be true.

i find it extremely strange how people defend this utter and complete nonsense again and again. seriously, what's the purpose? CMSF and CMBN are great wargames that do not need absurd counterfactual CMx1 bashing to excel.

Lord no... that's an impossible situation to even contemplate.

just suck it up and move on

[Lt Belenko]

I'm having a hard time getting in to CMBN vice CMx1 a different reason.

While playing CMx1 massive casualties were expected - 30, 40, even 50% as victor. My limited CMSF gaming (less than 20 AI games total - even as a pre-order on CMSF) made me think about every causality. With CMSF 5% causalities or less seemed like the norm.

Now with CMBN when a squad assaults across a field that takes 3 hits I'm freaking pissed off and morning the losses - ALT-Q. @#&%^#$. So far I have yet to readjust to the higher causality rates.

[George MC]

I'm having a hard time getting in to CMBN vice CMx1 a different reason.

While playing CMx1 massive casualties were expected - 30, 40, even 50% as victor. My limited CMSF gaming (less than 20 AI games total - even as a pre-order on CMSF) made me think about every causality. With CMSF 5% causalities or less seemed like the norm.

Now with CMBN when a squad assaults across a field that takes 3 hits I'm freaking pissed off and morning the losses - ALT-Q. @#&%^#$. So far I have yet to readjust to the higher causality rates.

I'm wading through my guys corpses in my PBEM with Sergei...

[Lets_All_Fight]

I'm having a hard time getting in to CMBN vice CMx1 a different reason.

While playing CMx1 massive casualties were expected - 30, 40, even 50% as victor. My limited CMSF gaming (less than 20 AI games total - even as a pre-order on CMSF) made me think about every causality. With CMSF 5% causalities or less seemed like the norm.

Now with CMBN when a squad assaults across a field that takes 3 hits I'm freaking pissed off and morning the losses - ALT-Q. @#&%^#$. So far I have yet to readjust to the higher causality rates.

Yep, been there too. I'm beginning to loosen up, though, and get used to watching half a squad get wiped out by a MG42 I missed. The problem I'm now having is when I go back to one of my SF PBEM games, I'm being a darn sight more cavalier. BFC Fix or do sumfink!

I had completely and utterly forgotten about targeting lines in CMx1. And Command Delays. And a whole bunch of other things. I would love to have an image overlay function for the editor, though, and an improved method of seeing which squad has taken serious casualties and to whom would also be nice.

[88mnick]

The way I look at it , this game is the same , but not. CMBO was fun for me because “WEGO” and it's attention to detail . And not the same , because of all the new video bells and whistles . Because of the new game engine ,we have absolute incredible detail and all the units are represented plus some changes that had to be made because , coding a game is the peak of compromise . But I think the game still has that magic that hooked me 10 years ago . Let me state for the record there will be a patch or two ,and remember folks perfect games do not exist , but this one comes close..........

N

[Steiner14]

Up until about a week ago I forgot that CMx1 even had targeting lines.

Then please tell me, how can a player recognize, if a tank is engaging in a firefight with another tank, if this tank is out of view and if the player concentrates on another unit?

[MengJiao]

Then please tell me, how can a player recognize, if a tank is engaging in a firefight with another tank?

I'm never sure what is shooting at what, but in an example I've already used somewhere around here, I noticed some M10s shooting at something over a Kilometer away on a hill. One shot bounced high up so I assumed the M10s were shooting at Panthers and I moved some Shermans to get an angle on the area. Later it turned out that there had been Panthers up there and one had been knocked out and one immobilized while the rest moved on to more incredible adventures without doing any damage that I could find.

[Pvt. Ryan]

Then please tell me, how can a player recognize, if a tank is engaging in a firefight with another tank, if this tank is out of view and if the player concentrates on another unit?

If you are playing RT and find that you are missing important parts of the battle then that particular battle is better played WEGO so you have to time to observe everything.

If you are already playing WEGO then you can tell if a tank is engaging a target by looking at what the crew is doing. If they are just "spotting" they don't have a target. If they are aiming, firing, or reloading then you know they are engaging a target. It's pretty easy to see what they are shooting at at that point.

[Smithers]

I can't believe I read through 12 pages of this tripe. And it all started because one fellow isn't enjoying the game,morphed into a Bill Clinton explanation of "fun"........then topped off with URC vs Steve.

Must admit the URC vs Steve aspect is fun to watch.

[lookeylou]

I'm a RT player and I trust my men.

it seems like its a control issues at the heart of the matter. Meaning some players want to be involved in every nuance of the game. The AI in the game is really good. knowing the exact moment your tank is engaging an enemy isn't going to change the out come. As long as your tactics are fundamentally sound you will succeed at this game. Your tank will defend itself. And take action if set up right. Players got to get in the mind set that you are at a higher level. and to leave your men alone to carry out your orders. Battles from the Bulge, had these concepts so it makes it easier for me to grasp.

The only time i order my men to fire is to suppress a position.

[Steiner14]

If you are already playing WEGO then you can tell if a tank is engaging a target by looking at what the crew is doing. If they are just "spotting" they don't have a target. If they are aiming, firing, or reloading then you know they are engaging a target. It's pretty easy to see what they are shooting at at that point.

Pvt. Ryan,

thank you for the suggestions. But if i'm observing another unit, then i can't see, what the tank crews are doing.

I have thought a lot about the reason, why a certain amount of tension is missing and maybe i have found a plausible explanation:

For me one of the most fun aspects in CM is not to win, but to observe, how tactics play out. WEGO is not about interacting, it is about planning and then watching.

So if a tank engages another tank, this is something i will not miss - but NOT only the result, no, from the very beginning of the fight and not after the first impacts had occured already.

I will not miss the tension to know, that a tank soon will shoot, but not to know which tank will be the first, that will shoot!

Remember how much fun was that in CMx1 (and how much fun that would be in CMx2 again):

You move a tank into LOS and then you hope, that your tank will be the one, that shows the target line first. Shoot! Miss. Damn, but the enemy still hasn't seen and engaged your tank! Second shot! Miss again. And now the yellow target line from the enemy appeared! Damn, in a few seconds he will shoot back!

The more i think about it, the more certain i am, that here lies one of the psychological key aspects, that made CMx1 fights so extremely thrilling and so much fun: because the information that was presented to the player via target lines in both directions, allowed to build up tension even before things happened.

I would highly recommend BTS to check with a test-implementation, if target-lines are a psychological key factor in CMx1 for tension buildup!

[WineCape]

I would highly recommend BTS to check with a test-implementation, if target-lines were a psychological key factor in CMx1 for tension buildup!

BTS implemented target lines. BFC did not ID'ed this as a priority for CMSF/CMBN, nor probably for the foreseeable future, if ever.

[Steiner14]

BTS implemented target lines. BFC did not ID'ed this as a priority for CMBN, nor probably for the foreseeable future, if ever.

Implementation does not necessarily mean to understand the magic it creates in the player's mind. You don't know the reason why target lines were implemented. Maybe tey wanted to give the player more information and it simply worked. But i doubt that BTS/BFC ever analyzed the psychological impact of tension buildup caused by the target lines.

[mjkerner]

You move a tank into LOS and then you hope, that your tank will be the one, that shows the target line first. Shoot! Miss. Damn, but the enemy still hasn't seen and engaged your tank! Second shot! Miss again. And now the yellow target line from the enemy appeared! Damn, in a few seconds he will shoot back!

But Steiner, with all due respect, you need target lines for that tension? I agree that the tension aspect is half the fun. But I have that anyway, all the time, in this game. I never played CMx1, only CMSF before, so I'm not used to target lines, and they sound absolutely annoying immersion-killer. I play RT (but once in a while WEGO when I want to capture some movie footage for Movietone Newsreels ) so maybe that has something to do with it. But the tension is there every time I move a squad through a hedgerow, or a tank around a corner. I've had numerous moments of tank meeting tank, me swinging my tank's turret around and wondering who's getting off the first shot. I guess to each his own, and if there was an ability to toggle a target line on/off, that would apparently please a lot of people. But is the lack of one that much of a game killer?

[Bradley]

I'm amazed that someone who plays these games cannot see the value that CMBN gives, and keeps giving. Though I will not discount their opinion(s). I was a a CMBB player and a long time player of Close Combat and am still very fond of it, in spite of its limitations. However CMBN breaks the mold like non other. I haven't been this giddy over a game since my initial purchase of CC. I firmly believe it is already the finest tactical game I've ever played. I can't say enough good things about. Not only do I have a fantastic game of armor but a superb INFANTRY game to go with it. Having a blast, to say the least. The interface is now second nature and has not inhibited my enjoyment in the least. I love the many details it offers a player. My sincerest thank you to the BF team.

[Bastables]

Fighting the interface has been the largest problem for me. That I've found fun while re learning is a testimate to other aspects of the design.

Then I tried the alt hot key file included in the game that just has direct key to command, with none of the annoying relative key set up of CMSF/A. My enjoyment has jumped to a significant degree highlighting that having to initially fight the interface was a problem.

Percentage read outs for tank combat is tied I think to the more die roll aspect of CMBO, ie when a shell was fired the engine made a decision if the round would hit with the initial variables calculated This was easy to display as that percentage became part of the independent variable so if their was a 50% chance to hit the engine would actually roll the to hit when the shell was fired.

Now it seems that the shell is fired and informs the the game it is now 100m away at so and so m/s at so and so an angle, it keeps doing this until it hits a tree or house or another "live" veh and then it hits the target or misses because the gunner was off or the target tank moved. The percentage to hit chance no no longer exists as it seems the CM2 engine with it's RTS base carries out it's calculations in a second by second basis.

CM1 carried out simpler calculations and then used these to "replay" the results in the movie phase. These simpler calculations included a percentage to hit chance which could be displayed to the player. CM2 does not have the same information as it does have the advantage of calculating calculating to discreet 60 sec cycles it's now on the fly doing it for everything every sec and does not generate a percentage to hit that is then used as a independent variable.

As to people saying green gunners where unsure of their jobs and where apparentlly given orders to just give it a bash. . .

http://www.archive.org/stream/Panther-fibel-BetriebUndKampfanleitung/Panther-fibel-BetriebUndKampfanleitung1944119S.Scan#page/n19/mode/2up

Please note how this traning manual covers obliquity, then what angles you should shoot at T34's and at what range. It gives general weak points to aim for on US, Commonwealth and Soviet tanks . Even green troops were trained on the "basics" of doing the job.

As a tongue in cheek "soldiers" manual it equates penetrating armour with lining up ones ***** to achieve penetration of a vagine in cartoon form: 90deg angles offer the best success!

Shooting T-34 is just like rape lads!

The 1940's dealt with complicated concepts by making it fun with casual racism and sexism. Clean maybach engines are like a young blond girls, dirty ones are like fat girls with growths. . . .

[Walrus26]

Hi. Been lurking about whilst making the transition from CM:BB to CM:BN with limited gaming time. I have an observation which supports the OP and one that counters it.

Bocage + Pioneers + Blast + Vehicle Pathfinding = NIGHTMARE. The second mission in the Panzer Lehr campaign had me pulling my metaphorical hair out as one of my pioneer squads (in C2 along with the others) would not execute the blast command I gave it, whilst the other squad I was using nearby to do a similar job carried it out. I had to micromanage the hell out of the vehicle movement plotting afterwards, and even then it didn't appear to work consistently even when routing vehicles to the same plot points as other ones! AAAAArrrrrgh definitely not fun. And this game is heavy on the bocage, right?

On the other hand, it was truly a satsfying achievement for me to get my FO into position to call in the howitzers on a very worthy target, listen to the radio chatter and watch the fire mission inexorably get more and more accurate with each volley....leaving me to mop up what bits of US soldiery that weren't mangled in the destruction. This was followed up by blasting a couple of further bocage holes with Panthers positioned behind the pioneers with target arcs already assigned........after a couple of very bloody minutes the trapped remnants of the american force surrendered in a very realistic fashion and I was pleased (in a smug way, I have to admit) that planning and good tactics got me a total victory with only 14 deaths and another 14 wounded. (OK only on veteran level at the moment)

Did I mention the nice feature whereby your casualties that might be able to be rescued by buddy aid light up with red X's when you select that squad? What's German for "no man left behind"?

I did this on real time (but with huge amounts of pausing due to the vehicle micromanagement hell I encountered) - I will go back to WEGO probably, but the thought of having to wait for a minute whilst a halftrack or tank gets itself in a tangle in anything other than a safe area does worry me.

Just my 2p worth, back to lurking.

[Battlefront.com]

Then please tell me, how can a player recognize, if a tank is engaging in a firefight with another tank, if this tank is out of view and if the player concentrates on another unit?

By looking at the tank? Looking at muzzle flash? Listening? I play RealTime, which means I do not have the benefit of replay. Sometimes I miss something because it's off camera, but in that case a line off camera is just as useless to a RT player. And yet... I think CMx2, and especially CM:BN because of its tight terrain, has far more tension in it than CMBO ever had.

You move a tank into LOS and then you hope, that your tank will be the one, that shows the target line first. Shoot! Miss. Damn, but the enemy still hasn't seen and engaged your tank! Second shot! Miss again. And now the yellow target line from the enemy appeared! Damn, in a few seconds he will shoot back!

I get all that excitement, and more, without the lines. Now I'm on the edge of my seat because of a fully immersive environment. I fire at a Tiger and see my shell bounce off, I see its turret rotate towards mine. Will my next shot get in kill shot before that slow turret comes around? I don't know, but I certainly don't need a yellow line to tell me that the Tiger is after me. It's pretty obvious.

The more i think about it, the more certain i am, that here lies one of the psychological key aspects, that made CMx1 fights so extremely thrilling and so much fun: because the information that was presented to the player via target lines in both directions, allowed to build up tension even before things happened.

Then why has no tester, and no customer I can think of, ever suggested CMx2 was suffering without targeting lines? We've had three major releases, with 3 Modules released on top, and this is really the first I can think of targeting lines being brought up. Certainly the first time being brought up as a mandatory part of tension and game excitement.

I don't doubt you believe in what you say. I'm sure for you this is a real issue. But I don't see the evidence that it is for others.

I would highly recommend BTS to check with a test-implementation, if target-lines are a psychological key factor in CMx1 for tension buildup!

The game has been actively played for about 5 years now. There have been thousands of suggestions made in that time for things to improve gameplay. As far as I know nobody has mentioned targeting lines. So why should your pet idea cut in line ahead of the others? Especially when my professional judgement is it as an unnecessary piece of UI that interferes with tension and atmosphere by introducing an element which reminds people they are playing a game.

But i doubt that BTS/BFC ever analyzed the psychological impact of tension buildup caused by the target lines.

Correct. We don't make a habit of looking for problems in areas nobody has indicated may be a problem. Nobody has said CMx2 lacks tension. In fact, I'd say the opposite is true. My guess is more customers feel the game has more tension in it now than it ever had before. And if it doesn't, I don't see how an artificial yellow line is going to significantly change that.

Steve