You win. I'll stop posting.

[JonS]

real time

Use the pause button. Everyone else playing RT is.

Besides, I thought the un-forced errors that result from the pressure of RT were the attraction, not a drawback.

[StellarRat]

Does pause work in multi-player? I haven't tried it yet, I'm purposely not using pause because I'm training to beat my friend in MP. I stand by my assertion that the terrain takes too long to read. Even simple contour lines would go a long way towards fixing the problem. I think even WW II maps had those. :-)

Another huge aid would be a button that highlights every part of the map that the selected unit has LOS to while darkening the parts it can't see. I've seen this function in other games.

[JonS]

Even simple contour lines would go a long way towards fixing the problem. I think even WW II maps had those. :-)

WWII maps did (except for the French and German maps, which didn't), but WWII didn't Get thee to a grid mod if you must.

I've seen this function in other games.

o_O

[SlapHappy]

Affirmative. Nearly every hedgerow I've come across has a break in it somewhere, a long one might have two or three. Some are harder to spot than others. The key, like womble says, is to get down in the "1" view and slowly move down the hedgerow from fairly close up. The trees and bushes are growing on top of an earthen berm and a break in the berm is a visual dead giveaway. You will also usually see a man-wide patch of daylight through the shrubbery as well. Men on foot can easily move through there. Movement through one of these breaks will be smoother if you split squads into teams and time the teams 10-15 seconds apart or more.

Michael

I think there is one scenario where the German HQ squad is trapped way in the back of the map from impassable hedgerows, but I agree this is pretty rare.

[DavidFields]

I tend to think some of the difficulties with terrain, and even the hedgerow, is intentional--FOW. I was fooled on an impassable hedgerow (University, left flank near the end of the board), but now I have learned. Never, I hope, again to make that mistake.

My guess is that BFC knows is player base:

1. Those salivating over getting Regiment size OOBs in a Kursk campaigns.

2. Those who argue over the location of the water containers on the tank models.

3. Current or recent military. (those who didn't think, like me, C2 was 1/2 a plastic explosive...wait...wait...see if they get it). [some of whom are now adapting to CMBN life]

And the rest. For the rest, I know BFC is not Blizzard, but it would not, it seems to me, to damage the brand and realism to have a campaign with a bunch of micro-scenarios like this:

Scenario 1: squad against a sniper in a building.

Scenario 2: squad and HQ against a 2 man scout team in a the woods.

Scenario 3: squad and HQ and MG against a squad...somewhere.

Scenario 4: toss in a mortar.

etc.

Throw in a back story, ala Saving Private Ryan, and make it seem as though they are picking up troops by winning along the way.

By 15-20 microscenarios, the player can move a couple of platoons around, with attached MG, artillery, and AFV platoon. Still ain't gonna beat Courage and Fortitude, but it is a start.

I got my 21 year old son through the tutorial firing range, but I knew I was not going to get him any further. Coming off Fallout 3, or Everquest 2, he just does not have the aculturation to understand a platoon sweep and assault with covering fire(now called Overwatch).

He could. The graphics are good enough, with reasonable soldier movements (and deaths). The urge to hunt is timeless. But how about a gentle ramp into CM2?--building to the future.

[Broken]

The visual information in CMBN does take some getting used to. Besides holes in the bocage, river fords are hard to find. You have to get down in the water and check, especially for deep fords.

LOS is a bit counter-intuitive as well. Sometimes you can "see" something in the camera view, but there is no LOS. Sometimes you have LOS, but the camera view shows nothing but a wall of greenery.

[lookeylou]

LOS can be tricky as well. If you test LOS just on the ground out from your position you are laid up at, you might think you have no LOS in spots, because of the subtle rises in the ground. But when a tank or squads is moving across the same area they will be visible, because of the hieght of units. something i picked up.

[LeadMeister]

Correct, CM is not for everybody. My advice for someone who's gone through the manual and the Tutorial, but still can't figure out how to do much with the game, probably needs to move onto something else. I could stare at differential equations all day long, with some sort of Math for Dummies book in hand, and I'd still not get it. And why would I want to when there's so many other things to do with my time that I would enjoy for sure . . . Steve

Well, I just sent my brother an email and told him that I'm throwing in the towel on trying to learn BNF. I made this decision based upon your (Steve) statement "My advice for someone who's gone through the manual and the Tutorial, but still can't figure out how to do much with the game, probably needs to move onto something else." Hell, I've read the manual twice (minus the scenario building) and have trudged through the tutorial at least 5 times, and I'm still getting my ass in a crack at every turn. It's too bad because my Bro and I have had tons of fun with CMBO and CMBB over the years and I was really hoping that this would be a continuation of that great experience. He has a lot more time on the ground with CM and isn't having nearly as much trouble learning BNF as me. His extensive WWII weapons knowledge is his strongest point and allows him to maximize on his CM tactics. But, in light of this latest BFC advice, which I tend to believe, I'm shelving BNF. It's time for me to hang my head and shuffle back to Steam and do some run&gun COD and Brothers In Arms. Later guys ...

Good old days for my Bro & I ...

=====

[LemuelG]

LOS can be tricky as well. If you test LOS just on the ground out from your position you are laid up at, you might think you have no LOS in spots, because of the subtle rises in the ground. But when a tank or squads is moving across the same area they will be visible, because of the hieght of units. something i picked up.

Also, mortars, zooks and rifle-grenades will be able to draw LOS and fire on spots riflemen next to them can't. Try it out with Shermans at long range targets as well, they lob it pretty high and occasionally fire over walls or banks you might not have expected them too.

[Bradley Dick]

I have been playing this series for a while and there was definitely a jump in the learning curve as I transferred from CMx1 to CM:SF. The thing is, CMx2 is just better. It really is. There are bugs, sure. There were bugs in the first few games too. This game is a great tactical simulator for those willing to learn it and I highly recommend sticking with it.

It's not perfect but it is perfectly fun.

[Macisle]

I think Steve pretty much summed it up. It's not everyone's cup of tea--even if you have some CMx1 experience.

For my part, I have CMx1 and ASL experience, but am not a hardcore gamer/wargamer. In fact, I'm coming off of two years without any gaming at all.

I'm having no issues winning on Elite against the AI, or with map info/terrain features. The only surprise is that I've lost my taste for WEGO. RT with tons of pausing is my style.

So, I think it really boils down to the individual. Some connect, others don't.

[Broken]

I have been playing this series for a while and there was definitely a jump in the learning curve as I transferred from CMx1 to CM:SF. The thing is, CMx2 is just better. It really is. There are bugs, sure. There were bugs in the first few games too. This game is a great tactical simulator for those willing to learn it and I highly recommend sticking with it.

It's not perfect but it is perfectly fun.

Yes CMBN is definitely more meaty as a tactics simulator than CM1. CM1 was more finely tuned, but that is probably because I remember the later versions better than the earlier ones. CMBN has tremendous appeal to us grog-types, but new customers used to the instant-gratification mind-candy of the big-title games will find it tough going.

[Broken]

I think Steve pretty much summed it up. It's not everyone's cup of tea--even if you have some CMx1 experience.

For my part, I have CMx1 and ASL experience, but am not a hardcore gamer/wargamer. In fact, I'm coming off of two years without any gaming at all.

I'm having no issues winning on Elite against the AI, or with map info/terrain features. The only surprise is that I've lost my taste for WEGO. RT with tons of pausing is my style.

So, I think it really boils down to the individual. Some connect, others don't.

Yes, RT with the pause key is the way to go against the AI. RT is not as practical or fun against fellow humans as WEGO is. WEGO PBEM allows you to grab a beer at the end of the day, watch the latest CMBN "movie" and then plot some righteous-but-devious blows upon your evil opponent.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Not very, but be honest ... you need the little patch of red to notice that big freaking hole in the otherwise solid wall of green vegetation? :confused:

Yes, at higher elevations the gaps can be harder to see because of the plume of the bocage, but if you look at the cast shadows it is again pretty easy to see where the gaps are.

shadows are usable for cues only in some cases (there are large enough shadows, shadows are cast on right direction, you are viewing from right angle, you are close enough to be able to spot the difference easily).

And, you know, these gaps are supposed to be hard to spot. At least a little. They aren't the kind of things marked on any map, and they don't show up in aerial photos. The only way to find them is to go out and look for them. I imagine commanders in Normandy would have given their left bollock to have the 'problem' of zooming around anywhere in there AO at any elevation looking for routes of advance

the men sure know where they are. i would know as well if i was there. but it's just a game and it's just one battle out of many going on. the search for the actual location of the gap you know to be there is just an annoyance, especially if one's playstyle is not to zoom in at low altitude.

yes, it can be solved by scenario designers.

[Georgie]

Correct, CM is not for everybody. My advice for someone who's gone through the manual and the Tutorial, but still can't figure out how to do much with the game, probably needs to move onto something else. I could stare at differential equations all day long, with some sort of Math for Dummies book in hand, and I'd still not get it. And why would I want to when there's so many other things to do with my time that I would enjoy for sure. Math just isn't my strong suit. Fortunately, this is not true for Charles and Phil

Steve

Don't be discourged MOSwas71331 by the first part of Steves post. In the old days when a new player was breaking in to war gaming he was usually playing with a veteran player. The veteran player was able to coach the new player in person and address the particular area or areas that he was having problems with. The manual itself for CMBN is daunting and dry. I suggest that you download the demo for CMBO if it is still available or if it isn't then buy the game. Play it and see how you do. It isn't the same as CMBN by a long shot but it is a fun game, I played it for thousands of hours, There is in game information about the weapons that you and your opponent are using that can be accessed with a click of the mouse and is available rite when you need it instead of having to go to desk top and look it up which will break the immersion. This will give you a good basic understanding of the forces that are portrayed in CMBO and CMBN and the strategy. The portrayal of these forces has changed a little between CMBO and CMBN but they are for the most part the same. CMBO is in my opinion the best way compared to CMBN to break into war gaming. Obviously you have an interest in war gaming or you would not have gone so far as to attempt to learn the game and then post about your discouragement. As I said before I'm having a devil of a time learning CMBN but I'm not giving up. Hope this helps.

[MOSwas71331]

gunnergoz said, "Neither we as a forum, nor BFC, have conspired against you in any way," and a few other posts in this thread have said essentially the same thing. Be assured, I have NEVER made such a claim, although YankeeDog, a known BFC insider, did tell me Steve had intentionally rigged the game against me. I took YD's statement as the joke it surely is.

Many of the postings on this thread and others have offered to help me directly, but, as another source of frustration, I can't get the forum facilities claiming to enable private communication to work. I believe this disobeys forum rules, but here's my email address: harry.pool@hotmail.com . Anyone who wishes may use it.

[finalcut]

I think Steve pretty much summed it up. It's not everyone's cup of tea--even if you have some CMx1 experience.

For my part, I have CMx1 and ASL experience, but am not a hardcore gamer/wargamer. In fact, I'm coming off of two years without any gaming at all.

I'm having no issues winning on Elite against the AI, or with map info/terrain features. The only surprise is that I've lost my taste for WEGO. RT with tons of pausing is my style.

So, I think it really boils down to the individual. Some connect, others don't.

2 Years.Prison ?

[YankeeDog]

gunnergoz said, "Neither we as a forum, nor BFC, have conspired against you in any way," and a few other posts in this thread have said essentially the same thing. Be assured, I have NEVER made such a claim, although YankeeDog, a known BFC insider, did tell me Steve had intentionally rigged the game against me. I took YD's statement as the joke it surely is.

Many of the postings on this thread and others have offered to help me directly, but, as another source of frustration, I can't get the forum facilities claiming to enable private communication to work. I believe this disobeys forum rules, but here's my email address: harry.pool@hotmail.com . Anyone who wishes may use it.

Yeah, that was most certainly a joke; glad you took it that way.

For the record, I'm not really a "BFC insider"; I don't have any special avenues of communication with BFC. I just spend an unhealthy amount of time on these forums because I work a job that involves a lot of hurry up and wait time in front of a computer, and the rest of the internet increasingly bores me.

But if you are feeling like you want to give things another crack, I'll offer whatever tips I can... I'll shoot you an email so you can contact me if you want to.

[user38]

MOSwas71331, you make some good points. This game is stupidly hard. I think it was meant to be that way. It is hard and long and in many ways unrewarding.

I once read a book about pinball machines. In it a pinball machine architect discussed his design philosophy and he said he tried to incorporate into the design a feature he called "come close, try again". He designed tables so that there were a range of targets that were progressively harder to hit. Players would have some successes early on, and as they learned the table they would hit more and more of the harder targets. Players were rewarded with flashing lights, bells, extra balls, etc. In this way players received positive reinforcement and were motivated to continue playing (and pumping more dollars into the machine).

This "come close, try again" feature seems to be lacking in the design of CMBfN. I think it was done deliberately. Battlefront could have made an easy game that was a joy to play. But I think they had a different design ethic and were creating a game for a different market. They were clearly creating a game for that small segment of the population that enjoys sweat and toil and misery and suffering. It is not for everyone and kudos to you if you have come to the mature decision that you don't like it.

I myself have mixed feelings about it. I find I like the idea of playing the game more than I like playing it. It is hard and there a few rewards for even experienced gamers.

And kudos to you also for resigning as a forum poster. It can be unpleasant here if you march to the beat of a different drummer. I know at times Steve's posts seemed to be very rude and opinionated. I assume the explanation for this is that Steve is a rude and opinionated person, and it is his forum so he doesn't see the need for tact or diplomacy (it's his game and screw you if you don't like it) (smiley face, wink icon). I can understand this. He is a passionate man and he is free to act on his impulses. I myself get mightily pissed off when people criticise my work. Unfortunately I work in an environment that doesn't reward free expression. As in life so it is in this forum.

I think someone said that the key to happiness is finding what you like and then doing it. I would guess another key is finding what you don't like and not doing that. MOSwas71331, best of luck in not playing this game and not posting to this forum. I wish I was as sensible as you.

[StellarRat]

I think the point to take away from this that the UI is not user friendly in many respects because it's lacking some features that would make the game a lot easier to take in. Note that MOS didn't complain about the concepts and tactics of WW II fighting being too complex he complained that it too hard to figure out basic information when looking at the map. This is also my biggest frustration with the game. I know the tactics and understand the weapons just fine, the problems start when I'm trying to play an RT game and I have to spend five minutes out of my one hour mission time trying get a tank into a hull down position, etc... because there are not visual cues to help me other than changing my view to ground level and basically experimenting. A real tank crew would have no problem doing this themselves and rather quickly I'd imagine. I'm sure someone has figured out a better way to do this, but the point it shouldn't need much figuring in the first place. Complexity because the subject is complex is OK, but complexity because the you aren't given adequate tools is quite another. I still love the game and have spent a bunch of time playing, but it could definitely use some help in the UI department.

[gunnergoz]

Strikes me that this engine was designed with desert environments in mind, with much sparser distribution of foliage, etc. Now that it is being used for N.Europe, we are seeing some of its limitations. I think if people are very specific about their issues with how it fails to meet their needs in understanding the fighting environment, the more likely BFC is going to look into them. It probably is true that RTS is especially difficult here - I don't know because I don't play that way, but I could see how it forces the player to make quick judgements about what he is looking at. And I know that some RTS players hate to pause the game, complicating matters further.

As a WEGO player, I seem to have fewer problems than many posters here, but then too my gaming pace is probably glacial compared to theirs.

[StellarRat]

Strikes me that this engine was designed with desert environments in mind, with much sparser distribution of foliage, etc. Now that it is being used for N.Europe, we are seeing some of its limitations. I think if people are very specific about their issues with how it fails to meet their needs in understanding the fighting environment, the more likely BFC is going to look into them. It probably is true that RTS is especially difficult here - I don't know because I don't play that way, but I could see how it forces the player to make quick judgements about what he is looking at. And I know that some RTS players hate to pause the game, complicating matters further.

As a WEGO player, I seem to have fewer problems than many posters here, but then too my gaming pace is probably glacial compared to theirs.

i was going to bring up exactly these points in my previous post but ran out of time. I completely agree with you. If i was playing WEGO i wouldn't complain about having to hunt around for hull down, etc... but it sucks when the clock is running. You ought to try RT sometime with no pauses. I think it will give you a better grasp of the issues.

IMO, the two biggest improvements that could be made are a button that shows every tile a unit can see from it's current position and a button that overlays contour lines the map. These would save me a huge amount of time and frustration.

[Georgie]

I think that BF underestimated the difficulty of learning CMBN based on the difficulty in learning SHOCK FORCE. If you play the US side in Shock Force it isn't "am I going to win" it is " how can I win with the least amount of losses. If you play the Syrian side it isn't "am I going to lose" its how many casualty can I cause. In CMSF virtually all of the US weapons are vastly superior to the Syrian weapons. For the most part you just have to be careful with your Strykers and their ilk. The US troopers wear body armor and the Syrians don't. In CMBN the question is " am I going to be able to win at all". A slight misstep and you have lost a squad or a tank, remain in the same place too long and the mortars or artillery can take out several squads. Some LOS aids , buttoned/unbuttoned UI indication, and some of the other simple status indication aids that forum members have recommended would simplify playing the game and leave more time to concentrate on strategy. It would, after you learn the game, allow you to progress faster thus avoiding at least some of the mortar barrage losses. But even with its shortcomings CMBN is still an excellent game and in my opinion the best there is out there.

[Doug Williams]

I love Steve's reply earlier in this thread.

Yes, CMBN (and the other CM games) are definitely not for everyone. I play only WEGO, and I play at a slow pace. Even a tiny battle on a tiny map against the AI can last over an hour. This would drive some people crazy, but it allows me to concentrate on the game and forget my RL concerns and worries for an hour.

Thanks BF, for a great game.

[Blackcat]

Georgie,

It wasn't always easy to win playing the allies in CMSF, at least not when playing scenarios and campaigns - asymmetrical victory conditions saw to that. You cold take the objectives and kill every last enemy out there and still lose. Furhermore as scenario designers became more experienced in the nuances of the game even playing against the AI could be a real challenge.

In CMBN asymmetrical victory conditions have yet to rear their head (they will in time, and the squeals of complaint will be marvellous to hear). The other issue is the return of the quick battle - this was not a major feature of CMSF, and those that played it tended to play Red V Red - and the return of a lot of people who skipped CMSF (who not unreasonably come with CMx1 mindsets). QBs, especially the ever popular meeting engagement, are artificial constructs which bring with them their own imperatives if played in real time that don't really fit with the rest of the game.

A lot of the points you raise (e.g. "remain in the same place too long and the mortars or artillery can take out several squads") applied equally to CMSF, especially if you were playing the Red side. And given the leathality of the modern battlefield you could lose at tank there even quicker and for a smaller mstake than in CMBN.

Finally, the game is just over one month old. We are all still learning how it really works. Even the most dedicated gamer has yet to rack up that much time with it.