You win. I'll stop posting.

[Mattias]

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 have a hard time imagining anything more easily achievable and instantly gratifying in a CM:BN seeting than for example having a US infantry squad spot a MG 42 in a building. Split the squad. Letting the BAR section hang back firing suppressive fire while the other two advance. Let one section fire into the house at short range and close in with the assault section, move order to the house, pause for ten seconds with area fire to get some grenades in there, BlackCat style, and then into the house with the next movement order. Victory, no losses, fantastic! And this is nothing special in CM:BN. In small battles you might experience it a few times, in bigger battles often.

And it all scales out beautifully. A tiny game is tactical a challenge with micro engagements like the one described. Bigger battles pose composite challenges where the dynamics of the different unit types makes the tactical considerations grow exponentially.

I´m the kind of player that has a hard time getting a lot of enjoyment out of games like War in the East. I can handle it and I can relate to those who love it, but CM:BN is so much more dynamic/exciting when it comes mixing cerebral with seat of your pants play.

I am an experienced player and I find CM:BN continually and hugely, both in detail and as a whole, rewarding.

Which would indicate that it is simply a matter of taste.

And I belong to the segment of the Forum that is frankly in awe of Battlefronts patience when it comes to dealing with the multitude of opinions and perspectives brought forward here. Sometimes they might appear to be a little too tolerant towards a rude poster, some times they might appear to be a little to intolerant towards a nice poster but looking over time you would have to have a fragile ego indeed to consider them bullish. Remember that they have to face the same issues about ten thousand times, often brought forward with the intensity and conviction of a fanatic spotting someone taking a dump in the holy grail. Each time they have to be prepared to methodically and humbly explain the basics and intricacies of the physical reality and human existence as seen in a world war two perspective, and as interpreted in a simulation (which by its nature has limitations). And all that to people that generally in the end "reserve their right to an opinion of their own". Sure it´s natural, but don´t pull other peoples strings if you are not able or prepared to accept in full, and without snide remarks, a perspective that goes completely against your own.

Mmm.. Bit of a rant that might not be completely relevant with regards to the OP but there it is...

M.

[gunnergoz]

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.

MOSwas71331: You did not directly say anyone was conspiring against you, but in point of fact the title of your thread and the first line of your post was "You win," so you yourself shaped the discussion as one of everyone's opposition against you with this "you against me" sort of language. Perhaps you see life as a zero-sum game?

Given the response your post got, with most people being far more eager than I to rush to your aid, I'd have to say that the majority of people here are not cheering your failure...to the contrary, they are on your side, wish you success and fell all over themselves trying to be of assistance to you.

Yet in your only response, above, I do not see you say even one word of thanks to the many forum members who posted earnest and heartfelt advice and encouragement in 70-some responses to your original statement.

As for your stated inability to use the forums private messaging system, have you checked your "User CP" to see under "Edit Options" to ensure that private messaging is turned on?

(See, in the end even I could not resist the human urge to give you helpful advice. )

I see that someone with the same logon name and similar biographical data was around the BFC forums as far back as 1999, before I got here for sure. If that was you, then you are almost a plank owner here and your departure would be a loss to this entire gaming community. Not to mention that you are one of our rare, actual combat veterans, not that you ever bragged about it.

I hate to see anyone leave this place all bummed out and feeling betrayed for whatever reason, be it game-related or otherwise. Personally, I'd rather you stay and contribute as you see fit to. But it is entirely your right to leave if you so choose.

You were (are) part of a community here and that community has stood beside you and asked nothing of you other than that you do right by yourself. If you take nothing else positive away from here, I hope that fact sticks with you.

I wish you good luck whatever you elect to do.

[Battlefront.com]

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.

You think we meant the game to be "stupidly hard"? That's a really silly claim to make. No game company does this, and we're certainly not an exception. The game is "stupidly detailed", if you want to put it that way. And those details mean the game is extremely complex. Complex games are not easy games by their very nature. Some can handle the complexity, some can not. Some get enjoyment from it, some do not. As my last post clearly stated, we're OK with the notion that not everybody on the planet wants to play CM. To expect otherwise would be silly.

That doesn't mean there aren't unintentional issues which could be massaged a different way to make the game easier for some. We've got a near 12 year history of trying to smooth off the rough edges over time. We're not going to change that philosophy now, so we listen and we adapt as best we can.

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.

Agree with the latter, but not the rest of this. The analogy of the pinball game design is not applicable. In that sort of game there is inherently no game EXCEPT for the blinking lights, bells, and "come close, try again" results of moving pins, increasing spring tension, etc. And guess what? Even then some people will try a pinball machine and walk away convinced the game is too hard, others will play it obsessively with massive scores. So even with an artificial, completely abstract game that is 100% up to the designers to tweak in any way they see fit... it's still not a game for everybody.

Combat Mission has always been, and will always be, about modeling real life combat as closely as possible. Therefore, do not make the gameplay follow some abstract sense of fun/challenge (which itself is deeply personal anyway). We are, in a sense, not in control of our own design outcomes. We are judged by if the game is realistic, not if it is fun. If you don't believe that, let's see what happens if we put in Hit Points, Power Ups, and Spawn Points. Trust me, it won't be pretty

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.

If that were true then we'd have been out of business in 2000 since we are mostly pitching our games to the "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 think it's more unpleasant to see people trying to make martyrs of themselves. Look at the reaction to this "different drummer". Who has treated him unfairly? Who has been rude to him? All I see here are people genuinely trying to help a struggling player. I suppose you expected everybody to just say "you're right, this game is impossible to play. Bully for you for saying so"?

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)

Perhaps I could make the same claim of you after a statement like this? Look at my previous post and tell me where I was rude, lacked tact, or diplomacy? I humbly admit that the game I've worked very hard on is not for everybody and genuinely suggest that if someone isn't enjoying the game, despite an obvious strong effort to, that he go and find something else that is enjoyable. Life is too short to be voluntarily spending one's free time on something that is unenjoyable.

How does this fit in with your characterization of my personality? Especially when I do, in fact, have the power to ban anybody I don't agree with?

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 you are projecting your own self on this sort of discussion more than you are looking at what really goes on here. The only thing wargamers do more than criticize is complain. Not exactly the same things, but it's often very hard to tell the difference sometimes. So if I wasn't capable of handling literally 10s of thousands of criticisms and complaints about the games I am a part of making, well... I'd have gone into another vocation long, long, long ago.

What I don't do is kiss ass. Which means if a customer voices a criticism that I don't agree with, I will challenge it. Not the person, the criticism. Some customers don't understand this because in their minds they are always right because they are the customer. And that leads to complaining. Complaining is an unproductive, often immature, behavior that leads to nothing productive. Even if people try, very hard, to redirect the complaints into criticisms. As people have tried to do in this thread.

I'm confident that we've made a damned good game for the market we are aiming for. I'm equally aware that means we made a game that pretty much nobody outside of that market will like. I'm OK with that because it is a choice we made and a choice will are happy with. If that's not a humble position to take, I don't know what is.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Yet in your only response, above, I do not see you say even one word of thanks to the many forum members who posted earnest and heartfelt advice and encouragement in 70-some responses to your original statement.

It is my experience, after reading hundreds of thousands of posts here over many years, that some people don't post with the intention of being helped. They post for other reasons. Therefore, when they are helped they don't feel gratitude any more than an old lady is grateful for a Boy Scout helping her across the street when she was, in fact, waiting at a bus stop for a bus As has been pointed out, the subject line of this thread offers some interesting insights.

Steve

[gunnergoz]

It is my experience, after reading hundreds of thousands of posts here over many years, that some people don't post with the intention of being helped. They post for other reasons. Therefore, when they are helped they don't feel gratitude any more than an old lady is grateful for a Boy Scout helping her across the street when she was, in fact, waiting at a bus stop for a bus As has been pointed out, the subject line of this thread offers some interesting insights.

Steve

Exactly, which was why my first post (and the first response he got) was so negative since I sensed that fact. I subsequently moderated my tone a bit when I did some homework and realized that the OP is/was an old timer here and perhaps deserves some recognition for that fact.

There's an old saying that goes, "All that I can really change about life is my attitude."

[lookeylou]

In CMBN the question is " am I going to be able to win at all". .

I know that's you opinion, obviously you posted. But I couldn't disagree more. I don't think there is enough of "am I going to win at all". I get too many "surrender, surrender". I was going to post in the would be nice thread that the CPU wouldn't surrender so much, but that would have been selfish

I like the feeling of "pulling it out". i don't know anyone that doesn't.

Maybe a map maker should make "training wheel" maps where its lop sided and all the mistakes don't matter. If the black smith don't make the fire hot enough you will never be forged into a mighty sword.

[sburke]

I like the feeling of "pulling it out". i don't know anyone that doesn't.

If the black smith don't make the fire hot enough you will never be forged into a mighty sword.

Little too much of Anthony Wiener there....

Seriously though I agree. Without the challenge, there is no feeling of accomplishment. The game is obviously "winnable" though I can't claim to being one of those who can walk over the AI at Iron mode. However in a certain sense that makes me happy. If I could the ONLY time the game could really give that level of excitement is against another human player. While fun that has it's own limitations on time etc.

[womble]

The game is obviously "winnable"...

CM isn't a game. It's an environment that allows people to create games... It's scenarios or battles created within the game that are winnable (or, quite feasibly unwinnable ). It's like you can't "win football", you win a game played under the appropriate ruleset which determines things like scoring, players, pitch size, handling and procedures... In with the CM 'box' there are some ready-made games which have been designed to be winnable, for various levels of challenge, but CM itself is not, inherently, winnable.

[user38]

Perhaps I could make the same claim of you after a statement like this? Look at my previous post and tell me where I was rude, lacked tact, or diplomacy?

Steve

This reference was in respect of a series of posts on another thread. You criticised Australia for imposing a handling fee to deal with the additional costs of complying with Homeland Security regulations. When it was pointed out to you (by several Australian forum members) that the fee was not imposed by Australia but by Australia Post (and that Australia Post was an autonomous non government controlled organisation and Australia imposed no export duties) you replied by criticising Australia for not having a government run postal service (the theme of you post was America has one so you should too).

Some examples of tactless and offensive comments:

Well, I'm going to keep on insulting Australia...

and

This makes User38's misplaced national pride...

I was offended by these comment. Australia may not be the best and greatest country in the world, but it is my country and I get offended when Americans tell me that something we do in Australia is wrong because it is done differently in America. I feel offended when people intentionally insult my country and I especially feel offended when people assert my country is not worthy of my national pride. But these are your opinions and it is your business whether you express them or keep them to yourself. As for me, my criticisms of you personally were tactless and motivated by an intention to offend (and therefore inappropriate). I could as easily have said that you were a man of strongly held beliefs and a straight talker and I now feel belittled that my straight talk has succeeded in causing offense. Given that mendacity is the oil that lubricates the gears of social intercourse I appologise for the personal nature and bluntness of my comments.

As to the other stuff, I was not imply that CMBfN was designed to be unnecessarily hard (that is, complexity for the sake of complexity). Rather, what I was trying to say was that CMBfN was unforgivingly hard. I have no real issues with the interface (except for that bloody red button). I was referring to the simulation aspects of the game. CMBfN simulates something that is very hard to do. I image it takes several years to learn how to plan and execute a company or battalions sized assault on a defended position. The design ethic in CMBfN seems to be directed towards a faithful simulation of the operational aspects of that command process. The fidelity of the simulations necessarily makes CMBfN a very hard game.

In making a reference to the game design philosophy expressed by the pinball table designer I did not intend to analogise wargames and pinball machines. I was making an oblique reference to the shaping and reward aspects of operant conditioning. The point I was trying to make is that there is not a lot of shaping going on in this game, the rewards are hard to come by and mistakes are brutally punished.

The solution of course is to turn CMBfN into Company of Heroes. It is not a solution I would advocate. I like the fact that CMBfN faithfully simulates company and battalion sized combat. I like the fact that CMBfN faithfully models the weapons and equipment used in the historical period. I don't like the fact that I suck at the game. But that particular failing is mine. I don't want Battlefront to change the game to turn it into a game. I don't want them to change it at all. What I want is to get better at it, and I will either continue my study of WW2 era small unit tactics or I will admit defeat and turn to Halo 4.

[Speedy]

I get offended when Americans tell me that something we do in Australia is wrong because it is done differently in America.

Do you get offended when Australians say that some things are done better in America? Because i reckon they do quite a few things better than the nannies we have running things here.

I read the thread you are referring to and honestly mate you are being precious.

[sburke]

CM isn't a game. It's an environment that allows people to create games... It's scenarios or battles created within the game that are winnable (or, quite feasibly unwinnable ). It's like you can't "win football", you win a game played under the appropriate ruleset which determines things like scoring, players, pitch size, handling and procedures... In with the CM 'box' there are some ready-made games which have been designed to be winnable, for various levels of challenge, but CM itself is not, inherently, winnable.

Not sure what you are getting at. I did use quotes around winnable. Perhaps too subtle? With this game I don't even rate being the victor in any given scenario as necessarily "winning" however campaigns generally require you win to move forward. If the battle is interesting enough it doesn't much matter to me.

The point I was responding to was the original OP who was complaining that the game was too difficult to achieve victory in the demo- what most people would I think agree could be considered "winning".

[sburke]

I don't like the fact that I suck at the game. But that particular failing is mine. I don't want Battlefront to change the game to turn it into a game. I don't want them to change it at all. What I want is to get better at it, and I will either continue my study of WW2 era small unit tactics or I will admit defeat and turn to Halo 4.

LOL man can I ever relate to that, though in my case I'd probably just take up gardening or maybe finish that wooden model of HMS Endeavour.

[MikeyD]

Maybe its a personality thing.

"Goal oriented" players do seem to take not winning extremely personally. They actually become angered, as though they have been personally affronted by the game. Its got to be the fault of the game designer that they've been playing the game for almost two weeks and haven't mastered it yet. Alternate personality type "experiential players" - players who are just in it for the 'WWII movie' experience - tend to be more layed-back. "A Panther knocked out my Sherman and three HTs with one shot! COOL!" Its not considered by them to be a judgement on their manhood, its no more complicated than cool stuff "gettin' blown up real good".

[xian]

"Oh look Peregrine - it's those damn ex-colonies squabbling again!"

"I know dear boy - they just can't help themselves. inferiority complex, you know.

I mean, it's absolutely clear who is really the best..."

"Yes?"

"Us - of course."

"Haw haw haw. Yes, yes, Peregrine... very good! Silly ex-colonies."

PLEASE SEND ANY COMPLAINTS VIA THE ROYAL MAIL POSTAL SERVICE.

[SlapHappy]

What MikeyD said - Basically the point is in experiencing the game - winning is simply a bonus.

But one has to remember that in the world of many on-line head to head or even co-op games, there exist a plethora of methods to "game the game". Silly tricks and exploitations that these players rely on for an edge - "base rushing", etc.

When these methods fail to produce fruit in a more serious simulation like the CMX2 environment, these players become irate. As opined above, they become offended and pissed off. How DARE this game not conform to the same crappy, copycat mindset that has plagued strategy games for the last several years?

Or has no one else noticed the over the top hostility laced comments left on other game forums about CM and BFC in general?

And no, I'm not talking about Dorosh

[user38]

Do you get offended when Australians say that some things are done better in America? Because i reckon they do quite a few things better than the nannies we have running things here.

I read the thread you are referring to and honestly mate you are being precious.

I get offended when people say "I have just insulted your country and I am going to keep insulting your country" and I get offended when people say that my pride in my country is misplaced. I know I should be big enough not to be affected by the opinions of others, but I am. I actually agree that Australia Post (and Telstra) should not have been privatised. The reason I felt offended by Steve's post was the context of his suggestion that Australian Post should not have been privatised. To break it down for you, this is what I understood to be the point of Steve's posts:

• I am annoyed at Australia for levying a Homeland Security fee
  
• I don't care that the fee was levied by Australia Post I am still annoyed at Australia
  
• I am now going to insulting Australia by unfavourably comparing it to the USA
  
• Australia is not a country worthy of national pride
  

Put in that context, if one likes one's country it is hard not to to take offense to an assertion that the Australian government has made a bad policy decision.

I know Australia isn't perfect. If Steve had of expressed his sentiments in a less pejorative fashion I would have agreed with it. But what upset me was Steve's statement that he intended a deliberate insult to Australia by suggesting that Australia Post should not have been privatised and what really really upset me was his statement that my national pride was misplaced.

My country is not perfect. I welcome any rational and objective criticism of the shortcomings of my country. But I am still proud of it and I find it hard to tolerate deliberate and premeditated insults of Australia.

[SlapHappy]

User 38

People like a little socialism in the US too, they just don't know it because half of them don't know what socialism is........

If you ask some US citizens what form of government America utilizes, a large portion of them will probably say "Capitalism".

Even though they don't know what that is either.......

[Vanir Ausf B]

I fart in Australia's general direction.

No, really, I do. Unless I'm standing up, then I try to blast Canada.

[user38]

SlapHappy, I edited out my comment that "Australian's like a little socialism" because it was a non sequiter. But I agree that a lot of people don't know the difference between communism and socialism and conflate the two terms and they also conflate capitalism and democracy.

[MikeyD]

If, theoretically, a proud patriotic Australian Beta tester were to find that his nice CM:BN steelbook had been run over by a truck before delivery (we're talking crunchy-crunchy) would you not say that customer satisfaction-wise that might rank up there with finding a dead mouse floating in your cup of upscale barista coffee? Theoretically speaking, of course.

[Doug Williams]

OMG, you mean I can't Zerg Rush in CMBN! WTF??!!

No offense intended to Starcraft fans. I'm one myself.

No I don't read other game forums, so I can't say that I have noticed what the gaming community in general thinks of CMBN. I will be interested to read the reviews when mainstream gaming sites get around to publishing them.

User38, like others have pointed out, CMBN is a sandbox. If all you are trying to do is beat the AI in the demo, that is just a tiny tiny part of it. And yes, the learning curve is steep. I played CMx1 for years, and never played CMSF. For me, learning the CMx2 engine has been a challenge. I have now reached the point that I can regularly beat the AI in small to medium QBs. Time for me to find a human opponent so I can be appropriately humbled.

What MikeyD said - Basically the point is in experiencing the game - winning is simply a bonus.

But one has to remember that in the world of many on-line head to head or even co-op games, there exist a plethora of methods to "game the game". Silly tricks and exploitations that these players rely on for an edge - "base rushing", etc.

When these methods fail to produce fruit in a more serious simulation like the CMX2 environment, these players become irate. As opined above, they become offended and pissed off. How DARE this game not conform to the same crappy, copycat mindset that has plagued strategy games for the last several years?

Or has no one else noticed the over the top hostility laced comments left on other game forums about CM and BFC in general?

And no, I'm not talking about Dorosh

[ASL Veteran]

I actually agree that Australia Post (and Telstra) should not have been privatised.

I would just like to point out that America has plenty of private post and it generally does much better than the US Post Office. It's called UPS and Fed Ex among others. With parcels the US Post Office can't really compete because of their cost structure. The only reason that you can get parcels delivered for less by the US Post Office is because it's subsidized by the government and the US Post Office doesn't need to be profitable. If the US Post Office wasn't subsidized (or continuously raising stamp prices on regular letters to help with parcels) nobody would send parcels by US Post Office because it would be more expensive or it would have gone out of business years ago.

Would privatized regular mail work? Maybe, maybe not. The post office has a mandate that it must stop at every residence no matter how remote, but a private company may not feel it's cost effective to do that. With regards to Australian Post, the question isn't necessarily whether the company is private or not, but how many regulations the Quasi Governmental Organization has in place. A government can control private enterprise through regulation just as effectively as it can by owning it outright. Was this Homeland Security fee imposed by the private company all on it's own or was it forced to impose it due to some regulation or law it's complying with? I'm just asking a rhetorical question here because I don't intend to get involved in a big political debate. In fact, I'm pushing the eject button now.

[Zonks54]

I get offended when people say "I have just insulted your country and I am going to keep insulting your country" and I get offended when people say that my pride in my country is misplaced. I know I should be big enough not to be affected by the opinions of others, but I am. I actually agree that Australia Post (and Telstra) should not have been privatised. The reason I felt offended by Steve's post was the context of his suggestion that Australian Post should not have been privatised. To break it down for you, this is what I understood to be the point of Steve's posts:

• I am annoyed at Australia for levying a Homeland Security fee
  
• I don't care that the fee was levied by Australia Post I am still annoyed at Australia
  
• I am now going to insulting Australia by unfavourably comparing it to the USA
  
• Australia is not a country worthy of national pride
  

Put in that context, if one likes one's country it is hard not to to take offense to an assertion that the Australian government has made a bad policy decision.

I know Australia isn't perfect. If Steve had of expressed his sentiments in a less pejorative fashion I would have agreed with it. But what upset me was Steve's statement that he intended a deliberate insult to Australia by suggesting that Australia Post should not have been privatised and what really really upset me was his statement that my national pride was misplaced.

My country is not perfect. I welcome any rational and objective criticism of the shortcomings of my country. But I am still proud of it and I find it hard to tolerate deliberate and premeditated insults of Australia.

I'm an aussie, and I can honestly look back 30 years ago and compare it to now and I don't like the way things are heading, the govenment seem intent on ruining this country.

How can you be proud of what this country has become ?, I served in our armed forces, I was prepeared to give the ultimate sacrifice for my country, not now, not a chance, all I care about now is my family and the kind of life my children will have in this multicultural country, were the people we are letting in hate our guts.

[Ssnake51]

You asked for novice tactical gameplay advice, we sincerely gave the best advice we could. CM:BN is a detailed historical combat sim with no deliberate corner-cutting (except maybe artillery lethality is a bit light). The game's like chess, the learning process isn't finished once you've learn how the pieces move. Most players find the ongoing learning to be the fun part. I've been playing this game engine for five years more-or-less. Every scenario's a new challenge and I still get my butt kicked by it on a regular basis. In other words, I'm having fun!

I'd say the game is very different from chess. Chess has no randomness built into. Except maybe the random element of one player being better than the other:)

Not saying this makes CMBN a bad game. It just is not a game like chess and I think the OP wants a game more like chess.

[gunnergoz]

I fart in Australia's general direction.

No, really, I do. Unless I'm standing up, then I try to blast Canada.

Sig material there, classic (and classy) stuff Vanir!