Not as much fun as previous games.

[Steiner14]

Lmao what the hell? I have studied three years of psychology and I have no idea what you're talking about.

But you obviously haven't finished the study with success...

If anything they will ruin the suspension of disbelief, and thus tension. It's like watching a good movie and then having one of the film crew come out with a tape measure in the middle of an action scene, to see if someone got hit with a bullet.

A good movie consists of certain elements and ingredients that create a certain illusion. For example realism often does not work in a movie script. But i think you will once again understand nothing...

Having lines all over the place however would get terribly distracting and make for an ugly game.

Could it be, certain CMBN-players draw most of the fun of improved graphics and therefore react so hysterically like startled chicken when it comes to target lines, command-lines and other visual "destractions"?

This reminds me about people, who don't like chess. But if you animate the figures, then they at least a interest as long as they have seen all animations...

I'll say this again... if the targeting lines were so critical to the game, don't you think we'd have seen SOME lobbying activity by CM:SF players at the very least?

I don't know one of the reasons could be, that they look ugly (see above statements, how important graphics has become to a certain type of CM-players).

Another reason could be, that target lines work on a subconcious psychological level. I don't know, but if that's the case, then 90% don't recognize it, until they will experience it.

I think McAuliffe made a very good point about target lines: what i see as player is much less, than the pixel soldiers can see. One tree in front of an enemy unit, and i don't see it anymore. I don't see it appearing, i don't see it turning it's turret, i don't see it targetting and i don't see it shooting. If i'm close enough and the action on the field is not too much, maybe i'm lucky to hear an impact.

A target line would be of great help for the player, to get a better impression to recognize what the units see/do.

I don't know how hard it would be to implement, but if this could be made optional, then the graphic-fetishists would not be disturbed at all.

You said, that you may not lose focus of the main group which i find a very healthy and clever attitude. If it would be possible to implement certain things to please the old CMx1-farts, without compromising the visual attraction by making target-lines or command-lines optional, wouldn't you hit two flies with one slap?

And who knows? Maybe some of the newer players would try this old CMx1-style out and would start to like it - from what i have read in the forum, there even seem to be RT-players who tried WEGO and switched to WEGO?

[sfhand]

The first time I played CM:SF, upon release, I was blown away by all the lead flying and the lack of familiar targetting lines and such. It was hard for me to get into the game, in part, because of this. Once it was all patched up I found I had grown accustomed to the interface and the lack of all things CMx1, including my personal favorite: moveable waypoints, was no longer dealbreakers for me. I enjoy the game exactly the way it is right now. What I perceive to be the biggest "flaw" is actually a "flaw" and has been acknowledged as such so I'm not going to beat that drum in this thread. I'm not inclined to offer advice to others, especially in matters involving personal preference, but I will add my voice to the chorus saying that all they needed to grow accustomed to the game was to give it a little time...

[Battlefront.com]

Could it be, certain CMBN-players draw most of the fun of improved graphics and therefore react so hysterically like startled chicken when it comes to target lines, command-lines and other visual "destractions"?

Nah, more likely some people act hysterically when they don't have something they had before, even though 99.9% of the rest of the people playing the game don't miss it

I don't know one of the reasons could be, that they look ugly (see above statements, how important graphics has become to a certain type of CM-players).

Another reason could be, that target lines work on a subconcious psychological level. I don't know, but if that's the case, then 90% don't recognize it, until they will experience it.

Faulty logic. People are playing the game for reasons of enjoyment, yes? They know if they are enjoying a game or not, yes? For wargames, and most games I would say, tension and excitement are central reasons to play, yes? Therefore, if a game isn't creating tension and excitement they would probably not enjoy the game, yes? And since gamers are not shy about expressing disappointment, then isn't it very hard to believe that people wouldn't be complaining that "something is missing" from the game even if they can't identify it?

So, according to you nobody is really enjoying the game right now. They THINK they are enjoying it, but they aren't. For that they would need yellow lines all over the map, blinking on and off rapidly sometimes. And until then they are just ignorant of what they are missing.

Do you understand this is what you are saying?

Now, I can see a utilitarian function of having player assigned Target Commands displayed as lines. This would tell the player which unit has been explicitly instructed to engage either another unit or a piece of terrain. And since it's easy to have something like this toggle off, those of us who don't want to have immersion compromised can have the lines off. But the thought of having lines for what the TacAI is engaging... that's a non-starter.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I'm not inclined to offer advice to others, especially in matters involving personal preference, but I will add my voice to the chorus saying that all they needed to grow accustomed to the game was to give it a little time...

Yes. It's asking a lot of the brain to put aside as many as 10 years of game experience so quickly. It's true for any big change, for that matter. Sometimes people MOSTLY embrace the new, but there's still one or two things that the person thinks are problems or missing, then after a while find out that they aren't. Or at least aren't as bad as they original thought. Time, use, and talking with others helps a LOT.

Think about Operating Systems. Even though I am a Mac guy I have had times when Apple made a change that I didn't think was all that positive. Or removed something I thought was useful. But you know what? If you told me I would have to go back to System 9 now I think I would switch to Windows 7 instead. Hell, I would probably even rather Vista than go back to System 9. Yet at the time I was using System 9 I would have rather had my eye gauged out by a rabid squirrel than use Windows of any flavor

Steve

[Agua]

gautrek,

Great to see you around.

Give this a try. Read closely through the Command (movement, combat, special, adminstrative, and "instant"), Unit Info panel, and C2 portion of the manual. Its not that many pages. Go grab a QB and in an out of the way location, play around with the units. Try the tutorials and read through manual as you play (its well written - who did that? Martin?).

Once you get accustomed to the interface (and it will take a little time investment), you're going to find you have a LOT more control in real time, with extremely liberal use of pause, than you ever had in wego.

There are command features I miss too, such as armor only cover arcs, find hull down, moveable waypoints, and shoot & scoot, but the game is a beauty and it would be a shame for you to miss it because you're put off by what's missing rather than discover what's there by spending a little more time with the interface.

[MikeyD]

This whole topic must be baffling to new players who know nothing of CMx1 - and I assume there's going to be a lot of people like that buying CM:BN. Tales of a legendary 'ideal' game played, it appears, by the Gods themselves in Vallhalla. Really, they should hunt down the old CMAK demo and give it a spin just for comparison purposes. It might help shed light on this otherwise perplexing discussion.

[Lets_All_Fight]

This whole topic must be baffling to new players who know nothing of CMx1 - and I assume there's going to be a lot of people like that buying CM:BN. Tales of a legendary 'ideal' game played, it appears, by the Gods themselves in Vallhalla. Really, they should hunt down the old CMAK demo and give it a spin just for comparison purposes. It might help shed light on this otherwise perplexing discussion.

I should do that too. Although I played all the CMx1 games for years it seems I barely remember any of these vital features. God, I must have been really drunk.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

You said that in our last debate. I explained exactly how it worked because it's so basic and simple there's nothing really to forget. You didn't get it then and I doubt you'll get it now.

i probably get what you are aiming at regarding CMx2 (e.g. any given point within a tile can have multiple types of terrain -- in style of one top of another ---, whereas in CMx1 any given point within a tile can have only a single type of terrain... and so forth). what i haven't been able to get has been the stuff implied in the context (for example that one CMx1 tile could only have one type of terrain or that LOS would only be tracked on "tile level" instead of being calculated also within a tile).

So it is it is rather... interesting... to have a customer claim that he not only knows the game guts better than I do, but that the most important aspect of CMx2 is no better (or inferior as you've argued) to what CMx1 had.

i have never said the action spot system of CMx2, as a whole, would be inferior to CMx1. i have only commented about some aspects of it in comparison to CMx1 and reacted to statements regarding how CMx1 works.

in my eyes CMx2 is Close Combat in 3D. both systems are "hex based" under the hood, while units appear to move freely in the environment, are represented 1:1 and take hits from fired shots. i like Close Combat and i do like CMx2 games.

what comes to my personal preferences, at the moment i think CMBN is superior to CMx1 games, if one really wants to compare them in this way (as they are quite different), but it's a bit early to say. at least CMBN has huge potential of becoming the number 1 tactical computer wargame of all time. it has a lot more potential than CMx1 had.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Tales of a legendary 'ideal' game played, it appears, by the Gods themselves in Vallhalla.

lol. something along those lines, yes.

[Reiryc7]

With every step forward someone will feel they can't go any more in that direction. Tons of Steel Panthers and Close Combat people refused to play CMx1. And they refused to play either Steel Panthers of Close Combat either. Yet in theory all three games should have appealed to the same player. For some it did, but I'd say that was few and far inbetween.

Steve

I was sort of one of the close combat people... I enjoyed steel panthers until close combat came out, then I rarely touched steel panthers after that. I was hooked on the real time aspect. I even got the cc beta team for cc4 and cc5.

Then when cmbo came out, a friend whom I regularly close combat with really enjoyed it and I gave it a go. I just couldn't get into the game because of the way infantry combat worked. That was my biggest sticking point. I eventually bought cmbb and cmak and played them some... but I missed the way individual soldiers were represented and the morale of said soldiers.

Now you've created a game that has made infantry combat much more fun! It feels in many respects like close combat for me and that's a huge positive! You've also increased the realism factor with the data and then there's the 'gee whiz, that's neat!' factor with things like seeing the actual mortar round leave the tube or seeing bullets ricochet off armor, etc etc...

I agree with the OP that there could be a bit more info for the player to know what's going on with his men. One of the things that I liked about close combat was the soldier monitor. I could see at a glance that pvt wilson was starting to panic but that privates smith and washington were still ok. I also would like there to be a little bit less delay on the right clicking to clear selection of a unit with higher video settings. I also inadvertently give orders, especially when there are more units on the screen. I don't know if this is possible though and may just be a limitation due to hardware and not fixable through programming. I'm running a quad core 2.83 with 2 gigs ram and an nvidia 8800gt vid card for reference.

[Reiryc7]

CMBO was called BSL (Beyond Squad Leader) in developement phase when Battlefront was called BigTimeSoftware.

I thought that was the title of close combat 1 when it was being developed back in the mid 90's...

http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread.php?20364-Beyond-Squad-Leader-for-the-PC!

Loved close combat 1 btw... my favorite out of the series!

[Sardaukar]

I thought that was the title of close combat 1 when it was being developed back in the mid 90's...

http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread.php?20364-Beyond-Squad-Leader-for-the-PC!

Loved close combat 1 btw... my favorite out of the series!

Yea, you are correct, CM was supposed to be CSL (Computer Squad Leader). Memories...

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2464372.html

Computer Squad Leader: RIP... Again

By Alan Dunkin, GameSpot

Posted Jul 15, 1998 2:40 pm PT

Avalon Hill's curse of trying to create some sort of computerized product based on its popular Advanced Squad Leader board game continues.

More Images (3) »

Tuesday night GameSpot News was informed by Charles Moylan of Big Time Software, the developer of the anticipated Computer Squad Leader (CSL), that Big Time's relationship with Avalon Hill had suddenly ended, CSL was dead, and the game "formerly known as CSL" would now become something called - for now - Combat Mission. We've included two very preliminary screenshots taken from the game, which are very "rough" and were taken in a pre-alpha stage.

[hm_stanley]

Does anyone remember Eric young (I think that's his name). He was one of the main developers on close combat. He and keith zabadou parted ways and he went on to create a game that was supposed to be 3d close combat, and there was a company that he hooked up with who was going to publish it, and then it just never materialized. I was a beta tester for cc 3, 4 & 5. Keith was a good guy, and very proud of his games. I had most of atomics software.. Anyway, anyone know what that games name was?

[hm_stanley]

Squad Assault and GI Combat... I didnt think they became games, I guess they sucked since i never heard about them or played them..

[Reiryc7]

Does anyone remember Eric young (I think that's his name). He was one of the main developers on close combat. He and keith zabadou parted ways and he went on to create a game that was supposed to be 3d close combat, and there was a company that he hooked up with who was going to publish it, and then it just never materialized. I was a beta tester for cc 3, 4 & 5. Keith was a good guy, and very proud of his games. I had most of atomics software.. Anyway, anyone know what that games name was?

I was a tester for his games...

Gi combat and eric young's squad assault...

[Reiryc7]

Squad Assault and GI Combat... I didnt think they became games, I guess they sucked since i never heard about them or played them..

They weren't that great. I think they were trying to accomplish what cmbn has done but it never materialized as such. Issues with movement points, the graphics were subpar, and the modelling were off. There was some game play value and some fun in both, but neither captured the feeling of close combat in 3d that there were basically going for in my opinion.

[whako]

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.

[whako]

BTW hello Reiryc, Its only been 8 years since we touched base. You still playing EYSA?

[hm_stanley]

we should ask him...

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/eric-young/9/443/436

[ng cavscout]

we should ask him...

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/eric-young/9/443/436

Wow, I didn't know he was a cowboy.

[Reiryc7]

Wow, I didn't know he was a cowboy.

Aren't all americans cowboys?

[gunnergoz]

Only the ones with chewing tobaccy dripping from their mouths. The rest of us are latte swigging city pukes.

[guachi]

Huh.

Eric Young did the V4Victory games? I loved those games. I think those were my first serious computer wargames after owning a few semi-realistic games. Many wasted hours on those.

[Pvt. Ryan]

Eric Young used to post on this forum. I sold my V4V collection to him.

[Battlefront.com]

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

i probably get what you are aiming at regarding CMx2 (e.g. any given point within a tile can have multiple types of terrain -- in style of one top of another ---, whereas in CMx1 any given point within a tile can have only a single type of terrain... and so forth).

And CMx2 has roughly 4 "tiles" for every 1 "tile" in CMx1. This is a critically important point which, IIRC from our previous discussion, you didn't really grasp as being all that important. So note this and read...

what i haven't been able to get has been the stuff implied in the context (for example that one CMx1 tile could only have one type of terrain or that LOS would only be tracked on "tile level" instead of being calculated also within a tile).

In CMx1 when you look at 20x20m, how many types of terrain can you see in there? There were only three basic types of terrain:

1. Single terrain feature -> Trees, Tall Trees, Grass, Dirt, Water, etc.

2. Specialized terrain feature -> Wall, Bocage, House, etc.

3. Road -> either on a single type of base terrain (such as Grass) or through trees of some sort.

So within 20x20m everything was either in grass with no other features, grass with a wall, tall trees with no other features, a house with no other features, etc. All combat, all tactics, all everything you care to name of any importance within the game was tied to this system's level of detail. Keep that in mind as I continue.

In CMx2 not only are large numbers of possible combinations of terrain within a specific Action Spot, but with nearly 4 Action Spots per 20x20m section of the map there is variation within what was a monotonous piece of CMx1 terrain.

What does this mean in practical combat/tactics terms? See if you follow this...

What terrain is a CMx1 unit in if it is in the NE corner of a Grass tile? Grass. If the unit is 20m due south, what terrain is it in? Grass. How about due west of that spot? Grass. Due north of that location? Grass. Anywhere inbetween these points? Grass 100% of the time, all the time. I can say that even in an abstract discussion (i.e. no map in front of me) because for 100% certain anything within that 20x20 tile is 100% identical in all ways, all the time, every time.

In CMx2 if a unit is in the NE corner of an Action Spot with Tall Grass, 2 Trees, Brush and a Low Wall cutting through it, what terrain is the unit in? Well, that depends. They are all in Tall Grass at least, but 1 soldier might be in Brush, another behind a tree, another behind a wall, etc. Right? OK, now go 20m due south. What terrain is the unit in? I haven't a clue because the unit is now 2 Action Spots further away. Could be literally anything. Same is true for all other directions.

Within a CMx2 Action Spot the terrain variations are not only inherently far more complex (if the designer wants it to be), but the exact positions of each Soldier or vehicle means that moving even 1m away could completely change the terrain characteristics of that particular soldier or vehicle. And a unit can have MULTIPLE terrain effects present at any given point in time. In fact, that's the majority experience.

In fact, the above example of a CMx2 Action Spot (8x8m) would take roughly 3 CMx1 Tiles to experience the same terrain. 1200m2 instead of 64m2. And of course the CMx1 terrain was "either or" and never "in combination". All your men were in Grass in CMx1, but in CMx2 some might be behind a wall, others behind a tree, etc. Tactical redeployment could change on the fly as it is not predestined. Unlike when in a CMx1 Grass tile... no variation ever for any reason.

i have never said the action spot system of CMx2, as a whole, would be inferior to CMx1. i have only commented about some aspects of it in comparison to CMx1 and reacted to statements regarding how CMx1 works.

You seem to get hung up on the fact that in CMx1 all units rested on a single pixel and that you could choose which pixel they could be on. You argued that choosing which pixel to place those 12 men matters and that because you can only specify a 8x8m space to put a CMx2 unit then CMx1 is superior in that regard. No it is not.

It's like the old joke about the original Ford cars. "You can have any choice of car color you like, as long as it's black". The freedom to choose means nothing if the choice has no significant impact on what result you get from it.

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?

in my eyes CMx2 is Close Combat in 3D. both systems are "hex based" under the hood, while units appear to move freely in the environment, are represented 1:1 and take hits from fired shots.

CMx1 is no different than this in principle, but in execution the terrain resolution was far lower and less varied than either CMx2 or Close Combat. What's more, in addition to moving freely in the environment being an illusion, it also didn't track anything 1:1. CMx2, on the other hand, not only moves things freely (i.e. a Soldier can stop on any pixel within an Action Spot), where the individual moves to MATTERS. Did the guy stop behind a tree or a wall? It matters because the shots are tracked individually as well. CC was somewhere inbetween CMx2 and CMx1 in this regard.

CMx1 was a great game, but highly abstracted. Being able to pick a particular pixel wasn't important.

what comes to my personal preferences, at the moment i think CMBN is superior to CMx1 games, if one really wants to compare them in this way (as they are quite different), but it's a bit early to say. at least CMBN has huge potential of becoming the number 1 tactical computer wargame of all time. it has a lot more potential than CMx1 had.

Which is one reason why I'm so puzzled that you're not "getting it" when it comes to the terrain. I'll say it again... probably most of what you think of as better in CMx2 is directly tied to the better fidelity of the terrain modeling. This drives just about everything from the actual gameplay standpoint. Even the 1:1 infantry's realistic feel.

Steve