lookeylou Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 I actually find CMBN on the easy side once you get tactics down. The bocage works both ways. I stay ambushing the CPU. Wish it was easier to play multiplayer. Tougher user created maps are now trickling in.NICE! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 It's heretical perversity to say that CM should be Nerfed; where are this generation's Inquisitors!! I don't think a single person is calling for this. What would be nice, though, are adjustable actual difficulty levels for the people that want to enjoy the game and who aren't hardcore grognards that like being spanked with a giant paddle that has the words "CM" embossed on it in dull spikes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincere Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 I don't think a single person is calling for this. What would be nice, though, are adjustable actual difficulty levels for the people that want to enjoy the game and who aren't hardcore grognards that like being spanked with a giant paddle that has the words "CM" embossed on it in dull spikes. Dude- drop the Normal and I think you and your CM embossed spike paddle could trial for Inquisitor. No really. Seriously, yeah I know. Honestly, it took me a while of coming back to it. Even now if I am tired I can't start a game. And I often boot up the next mission for quick recon, save and let it stew for a day or so. Once contact is made though the turn rate pick up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookeylou Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 I don't think a single person is calling for this. What would be nice, though, are adjustable actual difficulty levels for the people that want to enjoy the game and who aren't hardcore grognards that like being spanked with a giant paddle that has the words "CM" embossed on it in dull spikes. most scenarios that ship with the game come with so many reinforcements, you really have to be a dolt tactically to piss away that many men. It's like have a "free man" left, after you get em killed. They should just rank missions to give people a heads up what they are in store for. After jumping around from scenario to scenario i said let me go in Alphabetical order. big mistake, i walked into a buzz-saw called a delaying action. If I was to noob war gaming that would have been the end for me lol. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 I remember how people were complaining about how easy the CMSF basegame was. That was partially true because everyone who initially touched it was guaranteed to be a 'novice'. We didn't want the game to start out utterly impossible. By the NATO module, though, we figured anyone who bought it was guaranteed to be a 'veteran'. So the gloves came off. Honestly, there's a few battles in the CMSF NATO module that can make a grown man cry. But in a good way. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 most scenarios that ship with the game come with so many reinforcements, you really have to be a dolt tactically to piss away that many men. It's like have a "free man" left, after you get em killed. The difficulty levels could work the other way as well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xian Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 Yes, it might be nice to add a layer of AI difficulty too (as an menu option, of course) - I think that the AI could definitely do with being able to 'area target' you if they suspect your troops to be in a certain location, or even at potential hot spots during an AI attack. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 Rather than tinker with the game's levels of AI competence or artificial reinforcement, I prefer we just let new players learn the hard way, with all the game features as is (they can start with borg spotting on Recruit level, though) and give them scenarios where they just have fewer, and less lethal enemies and enemies sure to break sooner than their own troops. I'd prefer BFC spend its programming resources making the overall game Tac AI smarter, not spending time and effort making different AI levels just to accommodate varying player competence levels or preferences. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 I'd prefer BFC spend its programming resources making the overall game Tac AI smarter, not spending time and effort making different AI levels just to accommodate varying player competence levels or preferences. Hear! Hear! The AI has a few advantages in terms of its 'knowledge' of the situation, but even with that it's never going to be as good as a human. Until it is, nerfing it is a waste of resources. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgie Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Rather than tinker with the game's levels of AI competence or artificial reinforcement, I prefer we just let new players learn the hard way, with all the game features as is (they can start with borg spotting on Recruit level, though) and give them scenarios where they just have fewer, and less lethal enemies and enemies sure to break sooner than their own troops. I'd prefer BFC spend its programming resources making the overall game Tac AI smarter, not spending time and effort making different AI levels just to accommodate varying player competence levels or preferences. I agree with gunnergoz. I'm having a slow slow start but I like it that way and when I become proficient at this game I don't want it to be because the AI has been dumbed down. The challenge of the game is the attraction for me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 I took the time to read over most of the posts the concensus seems to be CM:BN is demanding but in a good way. Requests to reduce lethality were mostly only meant to cover the initial learning curve. Requests to 'simplify' for easier gameplay seemed to have got voted down. I think everyone agrees bocage fighting kind'a sucks, like it sucked historically. The 'historical recreationists' player types rather enjoy reexperiencing realistic June 1944 suckiness. The alternate personality "winning is everything" player types oscillate between triumph and despair depending on which side got eaten alive by the bocage monster that game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Embrace the suck...that's the ticket. So, about that patch... :D 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrailApe Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 I think everyone agrees bocage fighting kind'a sucks, like it sucked historically The annoying thing is that if Hitler hadn't interfered we would not be stumbling about in these dratted hedgers getting shot to pieces. Everybody (including Erwin himself) thought that Rommel would fall back and do the dancing about and twatting the Allies routine in terrain that suited his armour and well out from the umberella of naval gunfire. Hitler interfered. So because of that dog loving veggie we have got a endless series of killer hedges, when instead of which we could be rumbling through the rolling french countryside, having the fresh early summer breezes cool us in the bright french sunshine - getting picked off at 1000 yds with nauseating frequency whilst dreaming of tight claustrophobic countryside that would negate the long range advantage of the Killer Kitties. Bourguébus Ridge anyone? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MengJiao Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Bourguébus Ridge anyone? The next installment is going to be quite awesome. This one is good too, but Epson and Goodwood and Jupiter (are there two operation Jupiters?) and Bluecoat are going to be brutal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MengJiao Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Yes, it might be nice to add a layer of AI difficulty too (as an menu option, of course) - I think that the AI could definitely do with being able to 'area target' you if they suspect your troops to be in a certain location, or even at potential hot spots during an AI attack. they can do that if you give them a support plan. And even without one, they will fire at areas where they spot your stuff, even if they don't see very much. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MengJiao Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 I usually beat the AI with small loss - not claiming any special skill as I don't play HTH! - and of course in practice I do more complicated "proper" tactics but I work from pretty basic basics and hopefully they may be useful to someone new to the game as they are to me. Your methods sound good to me. I'm always getting sucked in a bit too fast when I attack. It goes like this. I think "Hey, that's a good spot for a forward observer. " so I send up the observer and then whatever miscelaneous stuff is at hand: breach teams, bazooka teams, MGs, ammo teams, the XO group, a few tanks. This mob runs into the enemy and then the main infantry companies have to hurry up to get them out of trouble. Then I get that straightened out and the main battle begins with all my stuff all jumbled up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Everybody (including Erwin himself) thought that Rommel would fall back and do the dancing about and twatting the Allies routine in terrain that suited his armour and well out from the umberella of naval gunfire. Er, no. Rommel wanted to put everything on the beaches to try to kill the invasion forces before they reached dry land. He figured that a classic German mobile defense would not work due to Allied air supremacy. He had encountered that in North Africa and knew first hand what it was like. Hitler interfered. Well, yes, but not in the way you are thinking. Rundstedt and others were not convinced by Rommel's argument and believed that holding the Panzer divisions back and then committing them en masse was the way to go and they convinced Hitler to order it so. Ironically, neither strategy had much chance of succeeding. Rommel's would have failed due to the naval gunfire you mention, and von R.'s due to Allied airpower. The war was lost and von R.'s best advice was to make peace. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.