Dissapointed by CMBN

[sburke]

I, together with several of my PBEM opponents that have bought the game will most probably not play the game anymore and stay well clear of BF products, (with or without mods and/or patches) and not even close to the entertainment value of CMBBB and CMAK.

Best regards,

Fredrik

Sorry Steve, It sounds like you just got a Dear John letter, but in your case it is saying "It's not me, it's you".

Take it as a compliment. I have had games I've bought and after a bit felt "Dang this actually...well sucks". Honestly most RTS games leave me feeling that way, some initial excitement over the new relationship soon turning to bored apathy. I have however never felt that terminating the relationship required a letter. I just dumped em. Your relationship however must have gone to another level to include the "goodbye" letter. Feel proud and move on. There is a Mister Right out there waiting for you, just keep your chin up. However if you really feel this is the one, note he did leave the door open. He said most probably, not definitely so there may still be hope.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I wonder if there is another game involved or if Fred is just gonna fly solo.

[wolf66]

Yes, I agree with Fredrik. I've spent hundreds of hours playing CMBO/CMBB and always enjoyed them.

After the initial "first play" euphoria of CMBN wore off (couple days) I began to get a bad feeling that there were to many game design and/or coding problems (bugs) for me to ignore. At first I blamed myself for not being up to the mental athleticism that CMBN seemed to require. I even took the advice of BF-Steve and quit playing CMBN based on his suggestion that some people just can't play it (lacked the needed skills, I suppose?). However, I kept at it anyway and continued to read the forum daily in hopes of gaining the needed skill sets to be a better CMBN sim dude. Well, the outcome of my daily forum visits hasn't made me a better player, but it did help me get over feeling that I wasn't able to cut the CMBN mustard.

I need to have a sense that a tactical sim, like CMBN, is a cut above the COH game crowd in terms of coding reliability and accuracy of tactical AI. I felt that BFC offered this kind of "quality" because they always baked their cakes slowly and monitored the oven often. I think that from all that I've read here that it's quite obvious that CMBN wasn't polished enough before its initial release. I don't call for out of the box perfection, but I do expect obvious AI design issues, such as the OP has identified here, to be caught and corrected during routine alpha/beta test phases. Please BF, quit dancing around these problems with a bunch of esoteric gobbledygook. Produce a beta patch quickly so more of us can get on with playing the game and having some much needed (and missed) CM fun again.

Same here. Will wait for the patch though.

[Georgie]

I haven't read this whole thread, lotsa posts, so this may be a repeat. I am a single player and my only peeve is the absence of AI triggers. The absence of triggers in the CMSF series was not noticeable to me since the game is so asymmetrical that I just played it to see how few casualties I could take. I bought the first game of the series but never got into it because of this asymmetrical design. In CMBN I play to see if I can win at all which is much more enjoyable, and this works for the first couple of tries at a scenario until I figure out when the defensive AI is going to start haphazardly moving troops and tanks because of the timing of the script and then it's a pushover. I just wait till a tank guarding an area moves and then I advance through that area or my troops or tanks spot a formation of troops moving and shell them. Without AI triggers a well planned static defense seems to me to be the best bet for a good scenario. Of course there are scenarios that are difficult because of bad terrain but they get old quickly. This game needs the means to design an effective defense over good terrain. A counter attack? Yes that is a good element of the scripted AI that we presently have but every scenario doesn't have a counter attack. It seems to me that an effective defense is inherently impossible to design, unless it is a static defense, if you have to use guesswork in the absence of triggers to design it.

[Thin Red Line]

lack of obvious terrain features in Normandie such as (..) viniards

In Normandie ?

[Steiner14]

If I were to lodge a complaint about CMBN in general it would not be that the game doesn't work, but rather that figuring out how the game works is difficult at times.

The UI is functional once you get the hang of it, but getting to that point is not as easy as it should be. For example, being able to click on the C2 display to go to the HQ unit it represents is great, but I had been playing the game for several weeks before I discovered I could do this, because the UI doesn't make use of some basic UI conventions that have been standard for years, such as tooltips or highlighting clickable items when they are moused over. At the very least this should be in the manual, but I have not seen it in the relevant sections.

Although i'm part of the fraction, who has stopped playing, and while i'm patiently waiting for the first patch, i can only support your statement.

CMBN has a complexity less like a game, but more like a simulation. Since it seems to be way too much programming labour to include interactive learning-sessions, i think different video tutorials aimed from the bloody beginner to the experienced user, from fundamental game handling to handling tips for experienced users, from fundamental tactical explanations to tactical tips would help a lot to attract new gamers.

If these videos are made well, they could attract viewers only to learn more about realistical tactics - with indirect positive side effects...

[Battlefront.com]

If I were to lodge a complaint about CMBN in general it would not be that the game doesn't work, but rather that figuring out how the game works is difficult at times.

This has always been the case with CM and will, unfortunately, likely be the case forever. Documentation takes a tremendous amount of effort (as a programmer if he "comments" his code well enough ) and it would likely produce WAY too much information if everything was documented to the nth degree. That means we have to pick and choose what to document, then not overload the descriptions with too much detail.

The problem with this approach is it's difficult to know which things most players will "get" without documentation, which ones require some amount of explanation, and which need VERY detailed "hand holding" instructions. As with just about everything, the range of what people want/need runs the gamut from "never needed to read the manual" all the way to "if you printed a 1000 page manual it still wouldn't be enough". Same for UI features. Some say "I understood it the first time I played it" and another will say "I still don't understand it even after reading the description in the manual".

CMx1 was like this as well. The difference is that in CMx1 the simulation side of things was far more simplistic. Therefore the unexplained, subtle stuff was more about how those features were weighted and also how they interact with each other. Sometimes players manage to get behavior out of the game that we (Charles and me) didn't even know was possible! Sometimes those behaviors weren't bad for the game either

That being said, there is definitely more we can do with the UI. As I've said for some time now, UI improvements for the next major release are at the top of our list of things to do.

CMBN offers the player more tactical options and deeper gameplay than CMx1. This does add some complexity to the gameplay, but I don't think it requires a massive amount of brainpower to understand. Anyone who can understand real-world tactics is capable of playing and enjoying CMBN. What it does require is a lot of patience and persistence to understand the UI and undocumented game mechanics.

Obviously that is our point of view as well. Which is why when someone tries to say that CM:BN is like an RTS game... well... the poster's credibility is about the same as the faith Moody's has in the value of Greek bonds

Steve

[dieseltaylor]

I am a single player and my only peeve is the absence of AI triggers. ... In CMBN I play to see if I can win at all which is much more enjoyable, and this works for the first couple of tries at a scenario until I figure out when the defensive AI is going to start haphazardly moving troops and tanks because of the timing of the script and then it's a pushover.

For the life of me I cannot understand why people play games solo.* Ok PBEM takes longer but it does mean that two brains are involved. Solo play is a sort of necrophilia where you rely on the final twitches of a departed intelligence whereas you could be having a much more interesting/testing time wrestling against another live brain.

*Okay for getting the hang of the system

[Georgie]

For the life of me I cannot understand why people play games solo.* Ok PBEM takes longer but it does mean that two brains are involved. Solo play is a sort of necrophilia where you rely on the final twitches of a departed intelligence whereas you could be having a much more interesting/testing time wrestling against another live brain.

*Okay for getting the hang of the system

Now you've gone and done it. With that description I have to immediately go play another scenario, even with no triggers. But just to get the hang of the system mind you.

[Boo Radley]

Solo play is a sort of necrophilia where you rely on the final twitches of a departed intelligence whereas you could be having a much more interesting/testing time wrestling against another live brain.

oooookay....

Interesting analogy.

Anything you'd like to share with Group today?

[MengJiao]

For the life of me I cannot understand why people play games solo.* Ok PBEM takes longer but it does mean that two brains are involved. Solo play is a sort of necrophilia where you rely on the final twitches of a departed intelligence whereas you could be having a much more interesting/testing time wrestling against another live brain.

*Okay for getting the hang of the system

I play most games solo. I work on getting the AI to do sensible things.

It's really more like fine carpentry than necrophilia, I think. I know nothing about either, but that's my take.

[theFightingSeabee]

I think a few if you guys are on crack. What game are you going to play that is better? Its like you guys would rather drive a perfect condition geo metro than a corvette that hasn't had the wax (patch) applied yet. Cmbn isn't perfect, but there is no better alternative on the planet! Every release has its high horsed complainers when infact your horse has no legs. its a sign you dont undestand how to play the game.

[slysniper]

For the life of me I cannot understand why people play games solo.* Ok PBEM takes longer but it does mean that two brains are involved. Solo play is a sort of necrophilia where you rely on the final twitches of a departed intelligence whereas you could be having a much more interesting/testing time wrestling against another live brain.

*Okay for getting the hang of the system

That is not fair to those type of players, I can see why they play solo. But they should realize no AI is up to par if they are going to play the same scenario over and over again.

I sure hope they are able to beat it after playing multible times, sure there is weaknesses in it. but they did not find that out before playing it the first time. Some people just never want to face another person and be beaten, so they play a machine that has no comments, regardless of the results.

I do not mind playing the AI if that is what the designer intended, it is better than nothing and can help ones skills. But head to head is the only way to become a skilled master.

I must admit I am enjoying the campaigns, which is the only way to play is vs the AI

[Childress]

I think a few if you guys are on crack. What game are you going to play that is better?

None.

It's the fault of Battlefront getting into the simulation business. When you base a game on a vision of reality you're seeking anguish. Problem is, everybody considers himself an expert on reality. One suspects that few complain about the combat modelling in Starcraft. The carping is even more intense- and obnoxious- on the racing and flight sim boards.

[MengJiao]

But they should realize no AI is up to par if they are going to play the same scenario over and over again.

I think the AI in CMBN is pretty good if you give it something to work with.

If find the AI does fine with formations about the size of a reinforced company and these formations need to be given pretty explicit orders that don't leave them wandering over large distances between objectives, artillery support, room to manoeuver and a range of possible plans so you can't read them right away.

On a broad front with battalion-plus forces clashing in mixed terrain, playing in real time, there are moments when even the AI you've set up yourself can toss you some dynamically worrisome situations.

I steadily compexify the solo scenarios I work on so I sometimes get hit by old plans I've forgotten about.

[ClarkWGriswold]

"Drastically". Plse explain?

Quite drastically, yes.

Right now tanks fire on the move no matter what their speed, and their shots hit far more often than they should. This is evidenced by the many tests that have been done and by the fact that Steve has said the accuracy was too high and will be reduced.

v1.01 will give us reduced accuracy, but tanks still fire on the move regardless of speed, rather than stopping to give the best chance of a hit, as would happen in real life. This assumes that BFC reduces on-the-move firing accuracy (which they said they would) and doesn't change movement behavior (which from all reports seems to be a much bigger change and unlikely for 1.01). When using any movement command other than Hunt, your ability to hit will be much lower.

Sometime down the road vehicles will (hopefully) stop, take a well aimed shot, then continue when the target is destroyed. Steve has said they want to do this, but it's difficult (which I still don't understand since CMx1 did this).

Imagine for a moment you have a Sherman and you're trying to sneak up on an enemy Panzer behind a clump of trees ahead. The three behaviors above are likely to give very different results in the outcome of whether or not you win the engagement. If your tank fires on the move and is very accurate then the stationary, ambushing vehicle does not have as much advantage as it should (shooting from a non-moving platform). If on-the-move accuracy is reduced to where it should be, then the only way you have a good chance of a first shot kill is by using the Hunt command. Unfortunately, the Hunt command will make your tank stop at the first threat. If you're lucky, the first threat will be the enemy tank and you'll get off a good shot. If you're not lucky your tank could stop when it is engaged by some other unit, making it a prime target for the enemy. Or, worse, you might stop and engage the unit you wanted to, then end up sitting there for the next 40 seconds while the enemy advances on your position.

Now imagine that you've got a Panther breathing down your front lines and nothing more than an AT gun and a bazooka to deal with it. If on-the-move fire is accurate (as it is now) you're in trouble. Your AT gun has to get a good shot against a target that doesn't need to stop, and the target will more than likely kill your gun crew with its first or second shot (since even a reasonably close shot will do). Your bazooka will have a slim chance of being employed unless he's in exactly the right spot, because the Panther has no reason to stop to take a shot (time that would allow you time to move your bazooka closer; You'd also have a better chance to hit since you're firing at a non-moving target). In this type of situation the defender really needs to get that tank to stop, even for a moment, so his bazooka/AT gun can get a good shot. If tanks never stop to fire, that's unlikely to happen.

Whether a tank moves or not is going to have a drastic effect on both the ability of the moving tank to hit AND of the ability of enemies to hit it. If AFVs can just drive along, firing at will and hitting without stopping it can severely unbalance the game. If you require tanks to stop to get a good shot (which you should), then you also really need to give commanders the tools necessary to employ those tactics. The current Hunt command doesn't cut it because it's the only way to get a vehicle to stop, but it then punishes you by not moving again until the following turn.

[slysniper]

I think the AI in CMBN is pretty good if you give it something to work with.

If find the AI does fine with formations about the size of a reinforced company and these formations need to be given pretty explicit orders that don't leave them wandering over large distances between objectives, artillery support, room to manoeuver and a range of possible plans so you can't read them right away.

On a broad front with battalion-plus forces clashing in mixed terrain, playing in real time, there are moments when even the AI you've set up yourself can toss you some dynamically worrisome situations.

I steadily compexify the solo scenarios I work on so I sometimes get hit by old plans I've forgotten about.

HEY, I am not knocking that a person can make the AI into a good competitor. I am glad to see it is much better than it once was, I do not mind those that are asking for more tools in how to make it work. I like designing scenarios myself, but I normally focus on them for head to head play. I could make them play ok vs the AI if the AI was defence in the old CMX1 system. Now I look at what there is to work with and have no clue as to how to get the AI to work, have not really tried. But I think it is great that its there for those that want to work with it.

But the truth is the human challenge is by far the most satisfying expereance, plus times that by 4 because of the type of game we have here.

I am playing a few PBEM's right now. No where in the AI will you see it make a adjustment once you crush one of its flanking probes as you would a real person. No AI is going to adjust for a enemy defensive line and bring all the support it can muster to break that line as a real player would. No AI is going to realize you are sneaking to new positions and start area firing where they anticipate you are going to move to like a real person would. No AI can hold everyones fire until the enemy is right on top of them before releasing their ambush fire on the enemy troops. And that is just a few things that I can think about enjoying in just one of my email games.

There is the aspect of playing a game twice, Many times I would play the game from the other side against someone after our first match because they felt the scenario was one sided and that they did not have a fair chance.

The point being, the same battle played, totally different tactics used and results would vary generally alot. The battle would have a total different feel to it. Try that with the AI, maybe now, you can give it some options, but in general it is always limited. A human might even set up for who they are fighting, they have played you for awhile, they know you style, so they set traps just for the way you like to play.

I guess it just comes down to how much competition someone wants, what is the point of winning if its not a worthy opponant. That is how I see the AI, but I will admit it is getting better

[strelok]

I think a few if you guys are on crack. What game are you going to play that is better?

Achtung Panzer

But they should realize no AI is up to par if they are going to play the same scenario over and over again

Try Achtung Panzer Operation Star

(Yes, yes - AP fanboy here )

[Sgt Joch]

Limiting the ability of tanks to fire on the move will not have a major impact, its been in all CM games since CMBO and most players did not even realize it.

In CMBN 1.00, the ability of tanks to fire and hit while moving is low, they usually miss. In general, a stationary tank will spot, shoot at and hit a moving tank first. In all the PBEM games I have played so far, I only saw one instance where the moving tank scored first.

[The_Capt]

Quite drastically, yes.

Well, let's boil this down and let me try summarize your position as I am hearing it.

In all three of your broad examples we should see a reduction in a tanks ability to deliver lethal effect and movement at the same time. This should slow tank manoeuvre as it will force players to Hunt-to-Stop more often as oppose to racing from A to B and still be able to spot-hit-kill effectively. In effect for armour vs armour the advantage will swing towards the stationary vehicle.

In amour vs ATG and infantry the advantage should also swing towards the stationary platforms (here the ATGs and infantry by definition) as tanks can no longer hit them effectively on the move.

Have I got this right?

Here is my problem with "drastically" and these types of terms being tossed around.

First off CMBN is primarily close terrain combat. You can open it up in QBs but as is we are talikg a knife fight in a phone booth in the bocage of the Normandy country-side.

Tank manoeuvre is already heavily attenuated as a result. Tank on tank combat is less about swinging into positions of advantage but peekaboo with a shotgun at near point blank range. Considering the spotting issues in close terrain the advantage is already with the stationary tank. So this will push it more in that direction.

ATGs and infantry already have a heavy advantage and if employed properly are absolutely lethal against armour. Go ahead ask Bil H sometime So giving them more (and here I would say MORE realistic) advantage will have an effect but it is not going to be earth-shattering as it is already damn hard to spot ATGs (actually here I think the game could do a bit better) and zooks.

What this will do is tighten up the already-snug restrictions on armour play in the context of CMBN. Will it be more accurate and realistic, absolutely. If you thought armour slogs thru the dense bocage was fun before..well you get the picture.

"Drastically" is an adverb I would apply if the game is set on the Eastern Front but in CMBN I am willing to bet it will be incremental vice a fundemental shift in game play.

Now I am not disagreeing with you at all on the fact that the current method is unrealistic. It is an abstraction that has to be accepted. BFC will have to tweak it and maybe in the next modules we may see a realistic SHOOT-SCOOT command. But when people start throwing around "fundemental", "drastic" and "totally", well I for one kind of tune it out but that is just me.

So many of these "fatal flaws" are really quite minor in terms of overall gameplay.

LOS vs targetting. Ok maybe the crew commander can spot but the gunner can't...happens all the time in RL...Sgt says "I see tank"...Pvt says "I can't see sh#t Sarge"..."It's right there you dolt!!" "Sorry Sarge...just see a branch"..."Bind usesless @#(*$@()*$...diver push up a *&() hair before we all get killed!!!"..."See him now Sarge"...."Well why dont' you shoot at him then (*&(*(!!!!!!!"

So push up a bit and try for a better position...not the "END OF CMBN AND BFC MAY THE EARTH BE SALTED ON THEIR VERY MEMORIES!!!"

Short walls don't give sufficient cover. Oh dear....stay away from short walls or accept some risk until the patch comes out, not "I WILL NEVER SPEND A RED CENT ON BFC PRODUCTS NOR WILL MY CHILDERN OR MY CHILDRENS CHILDREN!!!"

Iron Trees. Pain in the ass so move a few feet, not a game killing bug. Again wait for the patch, not "A FATWAH OF BANKRUPTCY ON STEVE AND BFC!!!"

MGs, oh don't even get me started on this one.

[George MC]

Achtung Panzer

Try Achtung Panzer Operation Star

(Yes, yes - AP fanboy here )

If it's so good why you hanging out here? :confused:

[slysniper]

Limiting the ability of tanks to fire on the move will not have a major impact, its been in all CM games since CMBO and most players did not even realize it.

In CMBN 1.00, the ability of tanks to fire and hit while moving is low, they usually miss. In general, a stationary tank will spot, shoot at and hit a moving tank first. In all the PBEM games I have played so far, I only saw one instance where the moving tank scored first.

Boy, I wish that statement was true, I might have played 40 battles by now in cmbn. But even though I really have no issue with it, there is events happening much more in the CMX2 engine than I never saw in the CMX1 as to first to shot kills that do not feel right.

IN RL, the first side to fire generally wins in a duel the majority of the time. The same seems true in the CMX2 engine, the problem being. the first to fire happens to be the guy moving in a large Tank. Now I understand I should think of it as that the tank is actually stopping , firing and then moving out again, because of programming issue. but still, lets see if this sounds likely.

Enemy tank 600 yards out moving through terrain with woods and hedges, hard to get clear view. Stationary tank for reasons unknown never seems to get a view and able to lock on target. but moving enemy tank seems to spot my tank in woods and brush, while on the move, aim and fire within some small window of terrain that my unit could not even spot them at for some reason. That is why people are complaining, something is wrong. How many times have I seen that type of thing play out. Maybe 10 times already, stopped counting because I JUST EXPECT IT MIGHT HAPPEN NOW. You can say it always has been a problem, but it was hard to notice, likely because of the fact MY CMX1 tanks could miss hitting a target at point blank range even when they were not moving and firing more than once. So my issue has just changed from one to another.

[strelok]

If it's so good why you hanging out here? :confused:

I was checking what's new on battlefront forum - besides, answering in such a fanboy-ridden place is fun Especially when such statements are made:

Cmbn isn't perfect, but there is no better alternative on the planet!

Well, there is an alternative and I'm bringing it to your attention, as a fanboy to fanboy

[Agua]

MY CMX1 tanks could miss hitting a target at point blank range even when they were not moving and firing more than once.

HA AHAHAA..... Mine seemed to have that recurring "bug" too.

[George MC]

I was checking what's new on battlefront forum - besides, answering in such a fanboy-ridden place is fun Especially when such statements are made:

Well, there is an alternative and I'm bringing it to your attention, as a fanboy to fanboy

Whatever