Wargamers wargame

[Bruce Robert]

I have played BO & BB from the beginning, and still play them. I have played wargames - both board and miniatures - most of my life, and enjoy the level of abstraction that the early "Combat Mission" contains: Like looking down on a tabletop full of lead/pewter painted miniatures. With the new "Combat Mission," Battlefront has once again produced a wargamers wargame. For me, it is not a question of favorable or unfavorable comparisons to the earlier versions - although I can see why that would happen considering the name, etc. - but that this is in many ways an entirely different game. I enjoy them all for different reasons, just as I still play "Take Command 2nd Manassas which is 5 or 6 years old now and much more abstract looking and playing then many newer games which for me don't capture that wargamer feel: historical accuracy, command and period knowledge/tactics versus eye candy and click fests, etc. For this new "Combat Mission" this wargamer offers a hearty Thank you.

Having said that, a few considerations:

1. A toggling through the terrain/tree visuals like BO/BB. From full trees to partial to none. The idea of trees with trunks is interesting, but I find the earlier version simpler and cleaner and allows for easier game play.

2. With above, a clear visual on the ground of various terrain so there is no confusion as to what the ground is or isn't, whether tree visuals are on or turned off.

3. Along with above, a small icon to show what terrain a unit is in, or some degree of cover icon along with hidden/partially hidden icon.

4. Does it matter to a commander what any given soldier is doing? I need to know unit integrity and unit effectiveness, all else is clutter. That soldier A is "turning" or "cowering" seems a bit flashy without any real payoff. In short, perhaps a bit more abstraction for playability sake.

5. Although I might be having an auditory illusion, the sounds seem less realistic than the earlier versions. There seemed to be more distinction between various weapons and explosions in earlier sound files.

6. Not to criticize the UI, which is not that bad, but it is a bit clumsy to my style of playing. I really like the simple efficiency of left click for unit, and right click to bring up a command menu. Perhaps a double click to release a unit.

Regardless of a few personal pet peeves, brilliant new game.

Bruce G

[Michael Emrys]

2. With above, a clear visual on the ground of various terrain so there is no confusion as to what the ground is or isn't, whether tree visuals are on or turned off.

+1

As yet, I do not trust my ability to read terrain type from just looking at it. Light forest, heavy forest, etc. all look pretty much the same to me. Maybe with practice I'll be able to pick up more clues, but "the issue is in doubt". I would want the terrain to be simplified to fewer types and drawn to be unambiguously recognizable, or (preferred) passing the cursor over an action spot with Shift pressed brings up an info box with all the terrains in that action spot listed.

Michael

[JonS]

1. A toggling through the terrain/tree visuals like BO/BB. From full trees to partial to none. The idea of trees with trunks is interesting, but I find the earlier version simpler and cleaner and allows for easier game play.

I prefer it the way it's done in CMBN, especially since ...

2. With above, a clear visual on the ground of various terrain so there is no confusion as to what the ground is or isn't, whether tree visuals are on or turned off.

3. Along with above, a small icon to show what terrain a unit is in, or some degree of cover icon along with hidden/partially hidden icon.

... simply isn't practical. In the editor you can place one pinetree, or two or three, in a single tile. Those trees might be growing on grass, or long grass, or weeds, or in heavy or light forest, or any of the other ground-cover tile types. And that tile may or may not also have brush. Alternately, any of those same tiles may contain no trees at all. There simply isn't a 'tree' or 'forest' tlle in the way that CMx1 had them.

4. Does it matter to a commander what any given soldier is doing? I need to know unit integrity and unit effectiveness, all else is clutter. That soldier A is "turning" or "cowering" seems a bit flashy without any real payoff. In short, perhaps a bit more abstraction for playability sake.

Oh, I don't know. I do use that information. Not all the time or constantly, but it is useful when I want that particular info.

Regardless of a few personal pet peeves, brilliant new game.

Indubitably

[gunnergoz]

Personally, I find the soldier status list on the left to be very useful. I play WEGO and it helps me understand what is happening in the squads. With vehicles and guns, if I see the gunner "aiming" instead of "spotting" I can rest assured a round is on the way. I can see immediately how many casualties exist and how many men are cowering gives me an idea of morale trend and potential firepower not being generated. All in all it is a brilliant thing to have in the game and I'd hate to give it up now that I'm using it.

[Michael Emrys]

Personally, I find the soldier status list on the left to be very useful. I play WEGO and it helps me understand what is happening in the squads. With vehicles and guns, if I see the gunner "aiming" instead of "spotting" I can rest assured a round is on the way. I can see immediately how many casualties exist and how many men are cowering gives me an idea of morale trend and potential firepower not being generated. All in all it is a brilliant thing to have in the game and I'd hate to give it up now that I'm using it.

Agree. I like it too and find myself using it more and more.

Michael

[Other Means]

I think wargamers are conditioned to think the terrain a unit is in is all important as it grants cover and concealment bonuses. However this is not the case in BN as the path from the shooter to the shot matters much more. Also, it matters whether the unit is in front or behind the tree you can see etc.

So really you're much better using what you can see.

[Holman]

Respectfully disagree.

I also think that the problems "reading" the terrain will drop away pretty quickly with experience. The only serious graphical problem with terrain is the difficulty of telling breaks in the bocage from all but the perfect angle.

As for wanting more abstraction to lump the whole squad together, I couldn't disagree more. 1:1 representations means that it really does matter what individuals are doing. Seeing individual actions over time gives you a much more nuanced view of the situation.

Say you have a ten-man squad. Five are shooting and five are not shooting. Those five non-shooters are cowering/moving/medic'ing/spotting/spotting, which is very different from if they are cowering/cowering/cowering/medic'ing/cowering. And both of these give you a lot more understanding than if you just saw that the squad is down to 50% of normal fire output.

CMx2 stepped onto the road of 1:1 representation and something close to WYSIWYG. I want to see BTS keep going farther.

[Fredrock1957]

1. A toggling through the terrain/tree visuals like BO/BB. From full trees to partial to none. The idea of trees with trunks is interesting, but I find the earlier version simpler and cleaner and allows for easier game play.

Don't think this can be done as each tree is individually modeled...

[Peregrine]

CMx1 were wargamers wargames, CMx2 is a wargamers simulation.

More abstraction is not the direction these games are heading.

[lookeylou]

I think wargamers are conditioned to think the terrain a unit is in is all important as it grants cover and concealment bonuses. However this is not the case in BN as the path from the shooter to the shot matters much more. Also, it matters whether the unit is in front or behind the tree you can see etc.

So really you're much better using what you can see.

My world is turned on it's side. Never knew that. So use to the HEX granting superpowers. Interesting.

[StoneAge]

I can't wait for 1 meter by 1 meter action spots (or smaller)

being able to set squad formations (wedge, line etc) and spacing

more terrain types

more flavor objects

etc etc etc

I know! ten years from now, but I am happy with that time line

[gunnergoz]

Yeah, but who's going to be around in 10 years to program it? These guys want to retire someday, you know?

[crsutt]

I was a bit daunted at first but now that I am getting used to it really love it. Only complaint is not enough content. Normandy is too small of a scope. Not enough scenarios and campaigns-although I know the community will flesh that out in time.

Biggest gripe and I think it is a good one. I can't see the damn units. My eyes are old and need help. Please let me toggle bases (in very bright colors) on my troops so that I can actually see them. I played all the old CM games with bases on and need them here to. Not everybody has great vision.

[Barrold]

Bah...a couple drops of Grecian Formula in Charles's brain jar fluid and he'll be good for another 30 years.

BFS5

[Anjelus]

I was a bit daunted at first but now that I am getting used to it really love it. Only complaint is not enough content. Normandy is too small of a scope. Not enough scenarios and campaigns-although I know the community will flesh that out in time.

Biggest gripe and I think it is a good one. I can't see the damn units. My eyes are old and need help. Please let me toggle bases (in very bright colors) on my troops so that I can actually see them. I played all the old CM games with bases on and need them here to. Not everybody has great vision.

You know this is a good idea. I would like this too. I also miss being able to enlarge units in cmx1.

[bruhntasaur]

Ahh, my first post! Hi all! Been a really long time lurker (since 2006 at least)! Own all the CM games (except the expansion modules for SF) an yaddaly yaddaly what not...

Anyway:

You know this is a good idea. I would like this too. I also miss being able to enlarge units in cmx1.

I don't think that's possible. The whole point of CMx2 is getting rid of the abstractions. If units were to change sizes, that would automatically mean they would also, for example, become larger targets for the game mechanics at the same time. That's because units are no longer just abstracted points on maps with 3D models being only their representation (UI) to the player, but actual models are used in calculations.

So, basically, what you see is what you get. It's the same thing with trees, as mentioned before.

Regards

[Mord]

+1

I would want the terrain to be simplified to fewer types and drawn to be unambiguously recognizable, or (preferred) passing the cursor over an action spot with Shift pressed brings up an info box with all the terrains in that action spot listed.

Michael

Bad Emrys...bad..bad! Go sit in the corner while I clean up your mess!

LOL man, noooo...not good...more terrain types not less!!! The maps are just incredible looking!

Mord.

[TheBlackHand]

a small icon to show what terrain a unit is in

I wondered about this in the demo. In the CMx1 games it was important when moving tanks to know if the ground was "soft" or not. You certainly didn't want to put the pedal to the metal over soft ground or you would bog. How does CM:BN display the type of terrain that your armored vehicles are expected to move across? In the real world, it would make a difference. I do hope that there is some indication of boggable (new word?) terrain in the game . . . since, you know, I can't actually get out of my tank and stick my finger in it.

[Mord]

Take a look at a CMX1 map...you can have a grass tile, you can have a brush tile, you can have a mud tile, side by side...now in CMX2 you can have a tall grass tile with brush overlay, bleeding into a mud tile, that bleeds into a grass tile with a single tree and brush overlay and light forest tile. How do you tell a player all that info in a picture?

No. You can't jump out of a tank and stick your finger in the ground...but what you can do is study the terrain you are in (because it is what it is), check the weather in game, check the conditions in your menu tab and use a common sense decision as to whether or not moving your tank through that area is a good idea.

C'mon man...be a little more positive!

Mord.

[TheBlackHand]

Soooo, what you're saying is that in CM:BN there's actually nothing that will give me the type of answer that I would actually get in the real world as to the type of terrain I was currently driving my vehicle through . . . or considering driving my vehicle through. I basically have to make a best guess based on computer abstractions?

Hey, I'm all about abstractions . . . but I thought the terrain information in CMx1 was pretty useful and I could easily rationalize it in a real-world sense.

It sounds to me as if I will have to get used to not using a useful and realistic feature . . . I certainly hope that CM:BN has replaced this information with something as useful and realistic.

Again, your rationalized answer doesn't sound quite as, er . . . realistic as being able to look at my boots on the ground, or my buddy's vehicle to determine what kind of terrain I was in or about to be in. (That's what I felt I got in CMx1.) Instead . . . I'll have to look at the computer screen . . . and guess. I guess.

We'll see. The game should be at my door within days.

[Mord]

I think you'll like it if you let go of some of the CMX1 expectations...it's a different game with different fidelity. There's no rationalizing in what I said...it's just fact...there's no way that BFC or anyone else could give you an accurate example with a pic of what kind of terrain you are in when there are probably a couple thousand variations, easy. Then people would be bitching that the little pic showed grass but on the map there were two trees, some brush, some grass and tree stumps...

If it's raining, and the ground conditions are rated wet or damp or whatever that's enough to tell you there's a good chance you are gonna bog once off road. You'll have a better chance of bogging in wet dirt than you would wet grass, yes? That's pretty much known by most people that have driven a vehicle. I see what you are saying, but honestly, I never noticed or missed it since I started playing CMX2 games...I go by what I see on the screen and the surrounding conditions.

Mord.

[c3k]

A good map-maker will give the player cues regarding the location of bocage breaks; a dab of dirt will do ya'. Use the dirt, instead of grass, where the break is located to represent the wearing of a path on the ground.

Likewise, a good scenario designer will include a clue about ground conditions such as, "watch out for the boggy, wet, mucky, mire, down by the river."

[Thin Red Line]

My eyes are old and need help. Please let me toggle bases (in very bright colors) on my troops so that I can actually see them.

There is a mod for bright bases in the Repository.

Best

TRL

[Holman]

Soooo, what you're saying is that in CM:BN there's actually nothing that will give me the type of answer that I would actually get in the real world as to the type of terrain I was currently driving my vehicle through . . . or considering driving my vehicle through. I basically have to make a best guess based on computer abstractions?

Where do those types of answers come from in the real world?

I really think the terrain types--along with all the many many possible combinations of them--will be second nature after a few games. Sure, we'll misread the terrain a few times, but it won't be long before we can read the ground like a ranger. I'm sure the incidence of real tankers in Normandy misreading terrain was far higher than what an experienced CM player can expect.

In a few weeks, I don't think you'll find any experienced player who would prefer to trade back to CMx1's dozen or so terrain types from CMx2's hundred combinations.

[MengJiao]

I think wargamers are conditioned to think the terrain a unit is in is all important as it grants cover and concealment bonuses. However this is not the case in BN as the path from the shooter to the shot matters much more. Also, it matters whether the unit is in front or behind the tree you can see etc.

So really you're much better using what you can see.

Yes. I'm extremely happy with a game that essentially has a model world and not a game map, just as I am with a game that has processes that move away from frequentist models of how events happen.

I play in RT and I just order formations to go do things. If they get lost or confused or shot to bits, well, I must have read the terrain wrong

or the formation (usually as it happens the hapless Company C) is just not very fortunate.

Essentially, the game can be played as a model more than a simple war game.