Jump to content

So who here is enjoying this?


Recommended Posts

I never played CMx1, so I have no real baseline to compare my experience to (besides my previous experience with the TW and COH franchises). I am playing the German campaign and two scenarios (both German vs. AI) and I really enjoy both. I've found I've had to unlearn bad habits learned in previous games to be successful in CMBN (although I find I am still far more often unsuccessful than the alternative). I think the best analogy I can use is that when I played COH, I always felt like I was 10 years old playing with my Airfix soldiers (and that was a good thing for me at the time). However, the concept of just throwing a mass of flesh and material against an objective doesn't work in CMBN and I find myself now feeling like I am leading real people (they even have names!) instead of my Airfix 1/72 fallshimjagers. And that takes an emotional drain on me than I've ever experienced. I know I like it and I think I might start to love it.

Two things that probably would enhance the game for me:

1. I play WEGO and I almost NEVER review the replay. I really need to start doing that more to get the cinematic aspect of the game.

2. I still have a horrible time managing C&C, particularly with artillery and mortars. I'm not blaming the game...user error clearly is the root cause but I would like to figure that out sooner rather than later.

Otherwise, I love the game and will be a Battlefront customer for life.

Danke und Prost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 158
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Oh, I did forget about a pet peeve of mine though....

Please BF can you do something about Vehicle crews carrying out the vehicle orders once the vehicle is destroyed. Its become a real pain in the arse. Cats chasing dogs, my Pumas knock out 3 US greyhound. A while later some more show up, but at the same time all these crews start running by my Pumas, who immediately start to turn and fire on the crews, exposing their flanks to the new Greyhound threat.

Is there anything to be done about this gamey AI tactic?

Hmmm... that was a problem earlier in development, but was fixed. I'm wondering if something got unfixed or if the fix was only applied to Human controlled vehicles. I'll see what can be done because bailed out crews should never be treated like they have a role to play in a battle.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What i feel is lacking, is the long campaigns.. I want to follow an platoon through the entire war if that was ever possible, and ofcourse i must admit that tne eastern front is by far more intruiging.

Moreover, a typical soldier did not encounter total devastation contact with the enemy every single time, so i woudl wish for some easy going missions in between the hard ones, thus making the campaign easier this way, i mean often you took a town with barely more than a sniper in i it.

O am an old rpg player perhaps this is the reason i think liek this. Wish i could manage my soldiers between battles decorating with medals making them tougher etc.. this is not really what this game is about but had this been within the game i think this game would have been my all tiem great!

Still enjoying this game tremendously though, any wargamer really miss out big stuff not playing this title! ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that there are two incompatible wishes that are being expressed. One is for realistic behavior of both equipment and men at very detailed levels. The other is for more complexity, along with larger and more varied units.

In reality: what is the largest number of individuals you can control in detail in a battle? I would say a squad, maybe a platoon if you are lucky. How much will you know about what's going on beyond that level? Only what you get second and third hand, with increasing delay. So, if people truly really want realism they should probably be content with *very* small battles or at least minimize their micromanagement of most units.

I have no problems with recognizing that this is ultimately a game, so I see no conflict with me being able to fly all over the battlefield at any height, peer into any location and generally mess around with each unit as I please. As a result I am happy with the game and its inherent contradictions (though I do still miss randomly generated QBs as in CMBO)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A wargame, at least a good one, has to balance realism and simplicity. This is always a very, very difficult thing to do because the two are inherently at odds with each other. Even more relevant, however, is that everybody has their own personal opinion as to where that balance should be. Nearly all gamers (we're talking tens of millions of people) see the line as being way on one extreme. As a group, generally speaking, they don't like anything we would consider a "wargame". On the other extreme are the guys who don't care about graphics, UI, playability, etc. and instead only care about virtualized spreadsheets. This group numbers in the hundreds or maybe thousands (and they likely will still complain about whatever they play). Obviously we plan accordingly :D

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very good review, BB. I never played CMx1 beyond a couple of stabs at the demo; I never watched the original True Grit from beginning to end. CMBN WOWed me (well, actually, CMSF did), and it's Jeff Bridges all the way!:D

Sniper!, Patrol, SL, Up Front, plastic soldiers...you sure you weren't describing me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

after the patch, game seems much more stable, am able to have more larger battles without it crashing (yet) lol

have also tried LAN / INTERNET match in real time, is fun and i like it,

but i'd still prefer WEGO in 2 player and the ability to save the completed game file.

doe's get a bit hectic and everywhere when playing anything bigger than a company,

and you tend not to pay attention at placing units in the exact spot you want them at, just select and click,

is a bit of a mess..lol

but all n all. i am enjoying it. want more ! lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very good review, BB. I never played CMx1 beyond a couple of stabs at the demo; I never watched the original True Grit from beginning to end. CMBN WOWed me (well, actually, CMSF did), and it's Jeff Bridges all the way!:D

Sniper!, Patrol, SL, Up Front, plastic soldiers...you sure you weren't describing me?

it almose describes everyone on this forum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First I really like CMBN, and I entered it being skeptical because I had no interest in CMSF and I prefer larger battles. Been playing CMx1 since 2000, and foresee playing it in 2020. Wego Pbem player.

Imho you simply cannot compare x1 to x2, they really are totally different games. For no other reason than because of the 1-1 in CMx2. CMx1 shines at the the large scale, and x2 on the smaller scale. I am enjoying CMBN in many respects due to it's difference to x1.

Overall I really like the UI (especially camera movement), struggled with it mightily initially, but then one day it just clicked and suddenly wished x1 had x2s UI. It is now normal for me to try to do x2 UI commands in my x1 games.

I am enjoying the more abstract nature of x2, it seems more realistic to me, and I lean towards realism in war games. Like the C&C in x2. Without a doubt x1 allows unrealistic control, not that I mind being a god on the battlefield.

I agree that picking units for a QB is a Pita in x2, but appreciate the level of control and detail, but there has to be a better way of implementing it.

Because I'm a big battle freak in x1, was not sure I'd be able to enjoy the smaller scale of x2. But what I've discovered is that the 1-1 representation is filling that need. (WARNING: Some persons may find the following comment hearsay or blasphemous.) My level of enjoyment and in particular immersion in CMBN reminds me of my experience, pre-CMx1, with Close Combat: A Bridge To Far (my first CC game). Both are small scale and 1:1. I cared about every broken/bloody blob in CC:ABTF and I feel the same way about my wounded soldiers in CMBN (except now I might be able to administer First Aid!).

Couple of opinions:

Forget playing the computer, the real enjoyment of CM is H2H. There are numerous good CM clubs online, I can personally vouch for We Band of Brothers, seeing as I've been a member for 10 years.

If you have not played x1 at the Battalion+/Regiment level you've never experienced the true nature of x1.

When I first read the comment about CMBB having the largest following I was surprised. Then I thought about and it made sense. Of course Eastern Front buffs are hardcore. You have to be. The sheer scale of the conflict is massive. Number of square miles involved, number of personnel, equipment, and Nations involved. Size of single battles. 4 years, brutal winters, partisans. Progression of equipment and strategy/tactics. I don't think it's possible to be a casual Eastern front fan. There are countless WWII games on the Western Front, but the number of Eastern Front is very small, and the number of good Eastern Front games is tiny. CMBB, Red Orchestra, IL2, and... Well, I'm sure there are others. Eastern Front gamers don't have much to get distracted by versus Western Front.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couple of opinions:

Since it is opinions we are discussing, I can respect yours while holding the complete opposite.

Forget playing the computer, the real enjoyment of CM is H2H.

Cordially disagree. Especially in CMBN the AI is capable of putting up a pretty stiff fight, at least on defense. I haven't gone against it when it's on offense, but rumor is that it does not do that so well. But in any event, to each his own.

If you have not played x1 at the Battalion+/Regiment level you've never experienced the true nature of x1.

I semi-agree with that. In CMx1 I got into the habit of nearly always playing with a reinforced battalion, at least when attacking. Playing with a regiment would have strained my computer's resources, to say nothing of my own. It would have been more of a job than a pastime. For me, playing a regiment-sized force would have required the basic units to be platoons rather than squads, which would have changed the whole nature and scale of the game.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "trick" with Regimental sized forces (in addition to a decent machine) is to move as a platoon, not so much as as squads, and certainly very rarely splitting into teams - kinda the way one should, except in smaller scenarios you generally don't get enough units to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(WARNING: Some persons may find the following comment hearsay or blasphemous.) My level of enjoyment and in particular immersion in CMBN reminds me of my experience, pre-CMx1, with Close Combat: A Bridge To Far (my first CC game). Both are small scale and 1:1. I cared about every broken/bloody blob in CC:ABTF and I feel the same way about my wounded soldiers in CMBN (except now I might be able to administer First Aid!).

Heh heh, my first impression after firing it up in RT and watching my troops carry-out their first orders: this is like a 3D CCV; sweet.

Would have been better with castles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A wargame, at least a good one, has to balance realism and simplicity. This is always a very, very difficult thing to do because the two are inherently at odds with each other. Even more relevant, however, is that everybody has their own personal opinion as to where that balance should be. Nearly all gamers (we're talking tens of millions of people) see the line as being way on one extreme. As a group, generally speaking, they don't like anything we would consider a "wargame". On the other extreme are the guys who don't care about graphics, UI, playability, etc. and instead only care about virtualized spreadsheets. This group numbers in the hundreds or maybe thousands (and they likely will still complain about whatever they play). Obviously we plan accordingly :D

Steve

I would have to disagree there, you could have an incredibly realistic game that was also simplistic.

A lot of the realistic elements don't have to be managed by the player, at the extreme you could have a game that was 95-99% realistic and that modeled thousands of individual elements of a battle yet required only minimal input from the player, he might control three companies of infantry and only needed to give very simple orders like "A Company advance NE to secure that hill" and that company would then carry out those orders.

Furthermore I don't think the idea of "spreadsheet junkies" being one extreme works either. I would welcome all steps toward more realism but I don't envision spreadsheets at any point, I would love a Combat Mission that was 99.9% accurate to real life. Does that mean it would be a totally different game? Of course not, it just means the way things unfold would be more realistic (although CM is pretty mind-blowing when it comes to realism as it is).

A lot of the realism can be behind the scenes or out of the player's control. Take the relative spotting of CMx2: that is a very advanced and realistic feature yet if you picked up a random person off the street and had them play two games of CM they almost certainly wouldn't notice any increased workload or complexity with that feature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have to disagree there, you could have an incredibly realistic game that was also simplistic.

A lot of the realistic elements don't have to be managed by the player, at the extreme you could have a game that was 95-99% realistic and that modeled thousands of individual elements of a battle yet required only minimal input from the player, he might control three companies of infantry and only needed to give very simple orders like "A Company advance NE to secure that hill" and that company would then carry out those orders.

This has been discussed several times over the years and yes, would be highly desirable. The thing is, there is no personal computer on the market as yet that is nearly powerful enough to run such a game. At least not in any sort of acceptable time span. Imagine giving your orders and clicking Go, then going to bed. You wake up the next morning to find it hasn't quite finished calculating your turn. Maybe after breakfast...

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been discussed several times over the years and yes, would be highly desirable. The thing is, there is no personal computer on the market as yet that is nearly powerful enough to run such a game. At least not in any sort of acceptable time span. Imagine giving your orders and clicking Go, then going to bed. You wake up the next morning to find it hasn't quite finished calculating your turn. Maybe after breakfast...

Michael

Haha certainly! The thing that hardware limits though is the number of things that can be simulated to attain a realistic result - even now combat mission manages to reach very similar results to real-world battles (the CMA AAR in particular comes to mind). As hardware becomes more powerful the number of simultaneous simulations that can be run will increase, though I would say the realism (broadly speaking of course) won't increase by much, it's the obscure situations that will benefit from this.

An extreme example might be this: perhaps eventually CM would be so powerful in terms of simultaneous simulations that a soldier could be shot based on the traction of a German infantry boot, the amount of soil accumulated during the soldier's run across the muddy field and the amount of rain that has drifted through the open door of the small Norman house. He may be distracted by gunfire and slip on the floor before being shot by a waiting American. The level of realism and detail in that situation is extreme and likely not achievable in our lifetimes, however two things should be noted: firstly, the overall outcome of the battle would be largely unaffected by a tiny chance of a single soldier tripping as he enters a house and secondly that the additional effort and complexity on part of the player would be absolutely nothing compared to a current game of CM - the player would not process additional information, wouldn't have to sift through more menus and go about attacking the house in the same way they would in a game of CMBN now.

It's almost impossible to come to a realism percentage, though I would say off the top of my head Combat Mission is probably somewhere between 70 and 90%, which is very high. DCS Black Shark was said to be 90%, though that is much easier to define since it's far less difficult to measure performance to the real aircraft than measure realism in a WW2 battlefield, for a number of reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already enjoyed CMBN before, but I just got me a new gaming rig. It is lightning fast (it should be, this baby was expensive). I now play CMBN with all bells and whistles on maximum and it looks glorious! Everything is silky smooth. Oh boy, this game is going to provide many years of fun. A real winner! Now bring on Commonwealth will ya! I know the Crocodile flamethrower will be in, you will not dissappoint :-)

Okay, I don't know, but one can hope...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Now bring on Commonwealth will ya! I know the Crocodile flamethrower will be in, you will not dissappoint :-)

Okay, I don't know, but one can hope...

Your hope is going to be dashed, I fear. Steve said months ago that flame and fire might make it into the third module, but not before. Still you can enjoy your wonderful rig whilst waiting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I play on iron level difficulty and win against the AI quite a bit. range varies from minor to major victory. maybe i find the loop holes? 105mm howizters are great on an attack against armor - mu hu hahaha top shot a tiger is quite fun =).

for me the game is great - playing a lot of blood bowl at the moment, and can't wait for further expansions into CMx2....

cheers~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...