So who here is enjoying this?

[PanzerMike]

Nice edit! Well, I await with baited breath the fire and flame thrower units, especially the crocs which simply must feature in the commonwealth module. But I've a feeling they wont

I really hope flamethrowers will be in. Not sure though. I think the Bren tripod will be in for sure.

And PIAT's! Definately PIAT's! I want the spring sound when it fires. Oh yeah!

[theFightingSeabee]

I love it. I really do have a lot of fun playing this game.

[dieseltaylor]

I have to fall into the faintly unhappy camp currently. But before I explain why lets look at Emrys analogy.

CMBO was a blockbuster and way way ahead of anything. However it soon became apparent [and if you play lots that is quite quickly] that infantry and HMG's were a problem.

CMBB arrived and had noticeable flaws with bogging, scaredy cat tanks, attack/defence points problem, and and the overdone Russians are rubbish rule. However it did offer huge range of terrain and lots of tank country.

CMAK was the pinnacle of the series and the flaws of CMBB were history. Not perfect but extremely playable from small scenarios like "By Tank Into Normandy- Gheel"

to giants like "Tiger Vally" and "Botrytis II".

The very large area available made tanks and light vehicles of value and also allowed timing of movement and ruses to become factors. Unfortunately I suspect a lot of people play on smaller maps where such refinementss never occur. In anyevent it added another level of play to the game.

So to come to CMBN. I had assumed it was a game system that had been refined by 4 years of CMSF tweaking and believing the guys knowledgeable about WW2 I expected a more polished product in terms of realism.

Tanks I regard as a very fundamental part of WW2 and they had not been sorted in several respects in Version 1. Also the interface clunky, no command lines ,etc etc . So a loss of goodwill and lets hope V1.01 has nailed most of the bugs.

There does remain a concern over how some of the design decisions have panned out like viewing from any part of the map by driving your vehicle by magical powers and then seeing what you should not be able to see.

The invisible walls whereby your fleeing routed troops , and your soft skin vehicles bounce back into artillery barrages. For realism I am afraid it is a big fat MINUS.

I am not sure players find this very believable.

Has BF compromised in some ways to include mucho small unit training, too much RT, to much solo and the AI, or has WEGO been the pain. Is there an argument that splitting might allow for a couple of products that work very well for their own markets. Only they know and it may never have become an item of serious discussion.

Of course I am going to play as I invariably play humans [ or people claiming to be human] and the game engines faults and virtues apply to us both.

PS. For those who are finding it tricky to play their is a 160 minute tutorial on YouTube - hit the Wiki link in my sig.

[MeatEtr]

You might compare it to your first experience of sex. However sweet subsequent encounters may be, and however much your skills improve over the years, there will never quite be anything to compare to that first time.

Michael

Did Emrys just compare his first CMBO experience with his first sexual experience? God help us all. :eek:

[para]

I'm happy as Larry.

[Holman]

In response to the thread title, I'm *really* enjoying it, warts and all.

I do think there's a sense of smaller stakes than we had in CMx1, but that's only because those games typically involved a Battalion while this one typically involves a supported Company. We feel like we're making less of a difference in the war.

But I don't think there's much of anything CMx1 actually allowed us to *do* in simulating a battle that CMx2 doesn't do better. When I have to think about not just "buildings" and "open space" but actual doors and windows, I'm in tactics heaven.

All that's missing, IMHO, is some further tweaking of AI behavior and (ideally) an overhaul of FOW to make us less certain that a Tiger is a Tiger. I'm not sure that this issue will be changed, but I'm confident that actual bugs will all be addressed in time.

[Pete Wenman]

Did Emrys just compare his first CMBO experience with his first sexual experience? God help us all.

Both were sole events though

P

[IMHO]

Now the dust has settled somewhat and we've got our hands on the first patch - what do people think? This isn't meant as a negative post by any stretch of the imagination, I'm just curious what other people think.

For me, I really, really want to love it, but there is something missing. I just can't put my finger on it - as it stands CMBB/CMAK were more enjoyable, and I feel bad for saying that. I'm not likely to ever play those games again in the future, but they still feel more 'epic' and I don't know why that is. Perhaps it was simply because they were much larger games. I do enjoy a lot about CMBN, and I can also see where improvements have been made - there's lots of things I like about it - the 1:1, the graphics and animations, but overall the whole experience is somewhat underwhelming

I think maybe the difficulty level has soured my taste a little - I find it almost impossibly difficult. I like a game I can win, at least sometimes, and going from mission to mission in the campaigns getting my rear-end handed to me (more often than not), just isn't fun. I think this is part of my problem; the game needs to be fun, and perhaps the fun factor has been removed for me. There seems to be too many little niggles that really ebb away at my enjoyment, and I'm not talking about the bugs. But I don't know what the answer is or why I feel like this really. I've been waiting for this game for 10 years. Perhaps my mind will change once the commonwealth module is out - and we get to see some variation in units. I was a late adopter of Shock Force and I joined the fray once the Marines module had been released, so perhaps I was a little spoilt for choice. But I find myself turning back to Shock Force once again. Yet I prefer the WWII theatre and I really want to immerse myself in the Normany hedgerows. I'm aboslutely positive I will continue to play Normandy, but more and more I find myself easily distracted.

Well... In CMBO you can take chances and still win. And in CMBN it's simple - if you have a slightest doubt you can risk doing something, don't do it as you will be punished 100%

[SneakyPete]

Nice thread!

I'm really having a blast with CMBN. It really is the best game I've bought for many years and is a total change for me as I'm a flight sim buff normally. I did tinker with the CMBO demo many years ago but I am a relative novice with CM. I've just finished the Road to Montebourg campaign on veteran level and enjoyed some truly epic battles. There were many tense and surprising moments and a few 'rage quits' along the way but I've had an immense amount of fun with CMBN since its release and look forward to many years of enjoyment with it in the future.

Strange that I prefer smaller engagements, possibly because it is easier to keep track of what's happening and who is firing at who etc. I'm starting to get to grips with larger battles but as I like to micro-manage a single battle can be a long haul sometimes.

I think there's some nice work under the hood with the patch although I'm still experiencing some odd occurrences with line of sight/spotting. My troops still seem to get slaughtered quite easily when inside substantial buildings and behind walls, and artillery and mortar fire veers between deadly accuracy and not even close. Niggles aside (hopefully they'll be sorted), I'm with CMBN for the long haul and am really looking forward to the release of the Commonwealth module and beyond.

I'm one of the ones that had a moan about CMBN being expensive and also the customs charges etc., but I have to say thanks to BFC as for me it's worth every penny :cool:

Cheers,

SP

[ClarkWGriswold]

I really enjoy CMBN, but the patch hasn't really fixed any of my major gripes with the game. It's great that lots of the minor bugs and niggles have been fixed, but the stuff that bothers me about CMBN is much deeper and probably won't be addressed until CMx3. I hate, hate, hate the C&C system and really miss the red/black lines from CMx1. Keeping squads under command takes way too much micromanagement. The camera control is workable, but frustrating. The movement commands don't allow enough control over units (the whole hunt vs. move to contact thing).

I still really enjoy the game and think it's light years ahead of CMBO/CMBB, but the complexity of managing my men and vehicles can often be grating. Because command bonuses/penalties seem to be so severe now, it's made even worse and can't simply be overlooked.

[Battlefront.com]

Thanks for the feedback. Over all, I don't see much new here. The criticism (and remember, criticism isn't a dirty word!) seems to boil down into three broad ranges:

1. "It's not like CMx1". Some people are far more wedded to features/conventions of the past than others. For example, we've had several long discussions about "Command Lines". The discussion shows that there's people that are very happy to be rid of them because, to them, they distract from game immersion. Then there are others who feel that it distracts them because they aren't as sure as they would like to be about how units are connected to each other. Which means the lack of Command Lines is a good thing for some, not a good thing for others.

2. "The UI is harder to use". This is a combination of what we think of as legitimate issues and resistance to playing the game the way it works instead of the way CMx1 (or others) work. We had the same problem when CMx1 came out, BTW. There's a lot we can do to improve the UI, no doubt, and so that's a prime focus for us going forward. But it will always come down to people using the tools they are given in the way they were designed. The degree people can do that the better their game experience will be, the opposite is also the case.

3. "The game's got quirks". All games, including even the final version of CMAK (which had nearly 7 years of development into it), still has quirks. People got used to many of them and forgot about them, but they're still there. Although CM:BN is largely based on CM:SF/CM:A code, there's so much new about it that from a practical standpoint it's a brand new game. Depending on each individual's perceptions, the quirks range from not very important to downright horrible. Same game, same quirks, different reactions.

CM:BN has been out for about 2 months now. On the CMx1 scale of time that's hardly even off the starting block. We already have v1.01 out now that addresses many of the "quirks" that have been identified here. 70+ revisions, in fact. There will no doubt be several more patches to further refine the issues raised.

As for the "limited" variety of stuff in CM:BN. Well, again this comes down to individual preferences. There are people who measure things by quantity, there are others who measure by quality. Neither point of view is inherently wrong or right. For many, and that includes us at Battlefront, the depth of CM:BN is what makes it a great game. Having twice as many tanks, nearly none of which people actually used (see last point), doesn't compare to having the greater detail that CM:BN offers. And by the end of CM:BN's expansion, it will not only be a much deeper game but it will most likely have more content than CMBO did when measured from June to October timeframe.

Lastly, I do understand the perception that breadth is important. People really loved the huge amount of stuff that was in CMBB, for example. When asked they would say it's awesome to have Romanians, Italians, a dozen different varieties of T-34, etc. When asked what they selected for QBs, they would usually say "Panthers and IS-2s, of course. Why would I want to play with crappy Hungarians? That would be really tough to win with". Which taught us that we wasted a ton of resources on stuff that was, for the most part, not adding real value to the game for most people most of the time. Which is where the seeds of the Module concept came from.

As far as we're concerned none of the issues raised are major issues. They will all be dealt with in time. Will all of you still be here in a year? Probably not. We lost almost 50% of our customer base between CMBO and CMBB, and 50% of that between CMBB and CMAK. For those few who bought CMAK and still enjoy it, just remember that you're in the minority. Maybe this time you'll be in the majority and lose interest after time, just like most people who bought CMBO. It's just how it goes.

Steve

[Bradley]

I'm enjoying CMBN immensely. Its the game I hoped would be developed and has come to fruition. Having played CMx1, its not close to what CMBN has to offer. As said above, can't wait for Commomwealth! Hadn't had this much fun in over a decade of gaming.

[Battlefront.com]

I hate, hate, hate the C&C system and really miss the red/black lines from CMx1. Keeping squads under command takes way too much micromanagement.

See previous comments of mine about this. For many, and that includes me, I don't miss Command Lines at all. Yet I manage to keep my forces under command very easily. Same game, different approaches to playing it. There's only so many ways we can cater to. But we agree, we can cater to more in some areas than we do now. But we're not going to rush into anything in reactionary mode. Which is why we're not going to be putting Command Lines back in any time soon, if ever. Something else better? That's our target.

Steve

[bodkin]

I think CMx1 were simpler and perhaps more accessible games, basically just capture the flag and it doesn't really matter if you waste half your forces doing it. Now with all the extra victory condition parameters available to a designer there's alot more that a player needs to consider and manage.

I also think there is quite a difference between playing RT or WEGO, something designers now need to be constantly aware of when trying to balance scenarios.

[phil stanbridge]

Lastly, I do understand the perception that breadth is important. People really loved the huge amount of stuff that was in CMBB, for example. When asked they would say it's awesome to have Romanians, Italians, a dozen different varieties of T-34, etc. When asked what they selected for QBs, they would usually say "Panthers and IS-2s, of course. Why would I want to play with crappy Hungarians? That would be really tough to win with". Which taught us that we wasted a ton of resources on stuff that was, for the most part, not adding real value to the game for most people most of the time. Which is where the seeds of the Module concept came from.

Steve

Now that's interesting - I must be in the minority because I used to love a QB with a 'minor' nation - and I loved the scope of the original game. You felt like you were getting value for money - it's not that I don't feel that now, but perception is a funny thing. I can see where your ethos comes from this day and age however, priorities have changed to meet the demand.

[ClarkWGriswold]

See previous comments of mine about this. For many, and that includes me, I don't miss Command Lines at all. Yet I manage to keep my forces under command very easily. Same game, different approaches to playing it. There's only so many ways we can cater to. But we agree, we can cater to more in some areas than we do now. But we're not going to rush into anything in reactionary mode. Which is why we're not going to be putting Command Lines back in any time soon, if ever. Something else better? That's our target.

Steve

I think there's lots of options that would work. For me, personally, the key is that I should know if someone is under command or not without having to select the unit. If that means that the unit icon changes (perhaps changing colors or shapes) depending on command status, that would be just fine too. I don't really care if a unit is under command via radio, close view, long view, vocal only, etc., since the effect is basically the same. But I need to know at a glance if a unit is under command or not. Really, the more information we can tell about a unit without having to actually select the unit, the better. It would be really great if the unit icons could not only show command status, but morale, fitness, suppression, etc. You'd have to be careful not to make things too cluttered, but between different colors, shapes, sizes, outlines, etc. there are a lot of options. Many of them could probably be implemented without major changes to the game engine.

[sburke]

Will all of you still be here in a year? Probably not. We lost almost 50% of our customer base between CMBO and CMBB, and 50% of that between CMBB and CMAK. For those few who bought CMAK and still enjoy it, just remember that you're in the minority. Maybe this time you'll be in the majority and lose interest after time, just like most people who bought CMBO. It's just how it goes.

Steve

I was kind of shocked to hear this one. With some of the comments I have heard on the forum it seemed the eastern front was the draw, yet from your comments that doesn't necessarily hold water from your experience with the customer base. Am I reading that correctly or are you just covering folks who stayed with the product through all 3 releases? Personally I wasn't a big fan of CMAK until I finally caught on to the Mods and realized I could have the shoot and scoot command etc with units in NW Europe. I promptly went and got myself all set up, modded etc and continued to enjoy the heck out of CMx1, but never went back to CMBO.

[sburke]

Just out of curiosity, for folks out there really not happy with the C&C set up, the UI and lack of targetting info, do you play WeGO or RTS?

I play Wego myself and spend so much time reviewing action anyway as that is one of the big draws in the game for me, that most of the C&C and targetting info just kind of comes naturally. I am already spending an inordinate amount of time looking at what is going on for each unit.

While there are aspects of RTS style I find very interesting, I don't generally play in that mode.

[ClarkWGriswold]

I also play WeGo and, honestly, can't even imagine playing a game this complex with this many commands in realtime. That sort of overwhelming clickfest is not at all attractive to me.

[LemuelG]

I am one of these that hates to see the red cross when your' guys get hit - so I end up saving more or less every turn and replaying. It sucks to be honest, but I feel so bad about losing my units.

Well that doesn't sound like much fun, you should really take your licks, come back swinging - it will be much more gratifying than tearing your hair out and interrupting the battle for several minutes if one of your gunners treads on a mine or a platoon leader is killed by a bullet ricocheting off a tank.

No wonder you're not enjoying it, an actual combat commander in Normandy with that attitude would probably melt-down within a few minutes of action. Make yourself some rules - one save every five/ten turns or something. Cut back your re-loads until you don't do it at all unless there is a crash or some-such, it's like weening yourself off the dope.

Keep playing if you're bad, it'll pass - I remember how rough a time I had with Close Combat the first time I played it, that seems laughable now.

[TexasToast]

1. I'm on a Mac, so I haven't played CMx_anything for about 7 years.

2. I primarily play PBEM WEGO scenarios against people, very few QBs.

I have had a blast in the half dozen or so games I have completed or have in progress. I have not run into any game-breaking bugs or any other issues above the "quirk" level, which I would say is remarkable for a 1.0 product. I can see how it could feel like more work in some areas, but overall the level of detail and realism adds way more on the positive side. I have adjusted to the interface fine and don't really have any complaints there other than that you can't 'Clear Target' with a keystroke on the Mac (no, Delete doesn't work).

I'm really looking forward to seeing this system evolve and improve further!

TT

[Michael Emrys]

Believe me, I've tried the QB generator and I can instantly see the appeal - it's powerful for sure, but it isn't exactly 'quick' is it? I miss the days of creating a random map, and cherry picking a very small force within a couple of minutes. Now you need to add this, remove that, change this; I found the generator quite time consuming actually. But I like it's addition for sure.

Yes, I posted a gripe about this a week or two back. The thing about picking a formation and then having to eliminate the unwanted parts can be a pain. I know it's necessary to establish a chain of command, but there must be a better way to do this. One suggestion I made was to present a graphic with a chart on which all the units you chose are depicted. Then you could move them around as needed to establish lines of subordination. I don't know how much of a pain it would be to code this, and it is doubtlessly not something BFC would want to take up at the present moment. But something along those lines might be a bit more user friendly.

The only thing I'll say for the current system is that it gets easier to use as you become more familiar with it. But why add to the learning curve of an already complex game if a simpler way that is equally effective can be found?

Michael

[DavidFields]

The campaigns seem broadly regarded as at least "challenging", and C&F (the only one I've played so far) really throws some curveballs at you. QBs against the AI seem a lot easier, and I suppose against a human you're at least on an even playing field.

I have to agree a bit here. I am, emphatically, still having fun; I've always liked my fun serious, but what's eroding it is the so many "nearly" moments. Moments which seem to be "as far as it's going to get until the Bulge game".

I've been trying to force the 3/314th's way into la Haye du Puits for must be a fortnight now. It's not like I'm reloading all the time, either, just that each minute has to be thought about for so long I hardly get anything 'done' in any given session (not helped by the distances that need to be traversed, slowly to get to grips with the enemy), and it's starting to inhibit my starting the game up, not to mention making me unnecessarily reckless of my pTruppens' pLives...

I am at the same place, just starting the scenario. 100 minute scenario--both exciting and exhausting to think about.

If I had to do it over with (and I may do it over) I would have started C and F at Veteran rather than Warrior. In any case, I hope to do a Commentary on it when I finish this last battle--whatever the outcome.....whenever that may be......indeed I may have already lost by losing Ridge, but the campaign seems to let me play the last scenario anyway.

[Michael Emrys]

For example, we've had several long discussions about "Command Lines". The discussion shows that there's people that are very happy to be rid of them because, to them, they distract from game immersion. Then there are others who feel that it distracts them because they aren't as sure as they would like to be about how units are connected to each other. Which means the lack of Command Lines is a good thing for some, not a good thing for others.

Maybe make it a toggleable feature?

Michael

[Mattias]

Which taught us that we wasted a ton of resources on stuff that was, for the most part, not adding real value to the game for most people most of the time. Which is where the seeds of the Module concept came from.

What you did get was wargaming immortality. Anyone with a genuine interest in the subject matter would sense the profound gravity of the work put into CM:BB.

As for CM:BN my pet theory is that most of the people who find it hard to get into it belong to the group that for different reasons didn't play CM:SF, the true biological parent of CM:BN. It took me literally years and two modules to accept CM:SF. But having assimilated the lessons from that game I find that I have had no trouble at all getting out of my Belleville 500´s and slide into the 1943 Uniform Ensemble.

As it stands today I love CM:BN, and for those of you who belong to the aforementioned group, chances are you will too given time. If the evolution of CM:SF is any indication CM:BN+modules will end up at least one order of magnitude better within two year.

Just another garçon de fanatique happy to be along for the ride!

M.