Why do players not want to change from CMx1 to CMx2

[slysniper]

I am in the mist of playing Chance Encounter, a scenario that is a remake from the one that was part of the demo in the original CMBO game. As I play, it brings back many memories, since I played that demo many times, trying to decide if I liked the game or not back when CMBO was first released. I was a close combat fan at the time and even though I loved the fact it was a 3D game, I was having a struggle with how it played compared to what had become the model of play for me in the other game system.

Finally though, I saw the potential of the new system and that the system strengths outweighed some of the things I would be losing in the close combat system. So I dedicated my time to the new system, learned its methods and am glad I did. Now I am in the mist of becoming a CMx2 engine fan, again, I did not jump ship until CMBN came out. Knowing I would lose things I liked in the CMX1 engine, it still was not an issue, because for me, it appears to be so easy to see the strengths of the new system that adds so much more than what I was accustomed too in CMX1 engine play. So I have jumped in, learned the new methods, forget about what was and just have tried to learn to use what has been given to me. The CMx2 engine so outweighs what the CMX1 can do. It just blows my mind that there are so many that cannot see the improvements vastly outweighs things that are lost. Playing this battle again has just proven to me the improvements of the game; CMX1 is dying quickly for me as for any serious use in the future. Hard to eat potatoes when I have steak available to me.

So, I started wondering, what might be all the reasons why people truly are reluctant to change, I thought it would be fun to try to list them in this thread.

Here is a few of my own I have for different players.

Type 1 player

I Rule in CMX1,I generally crush all those I play and now this new system is beating me with the AI and my tactics are getting me creamed in head to head play, man this system s**ks. Forget it man, I stay where I rule

Type 2 player

I have been telling Steve on this forum for ten years how to make the perfect combat game and here is the new game and he has not implemented every concept I think is needed and has made the game by what he thinks is correct, man this game s**ks, . I will never play it; I will wait for the perfect game someone else will create that matches my likes. (This type of person has a long wait)

Type 3 player

Why did you Not make the interface just the same as what I am use too, I am way too old to relearn key strokes or new ways of getting information about my units or how to control them, forget it, I am not going to learn this new system, I will buy the game when you somehow add all the old game interface concepts to it.

This is just a few go ahead and add your own

[Thomm]

CMx1 was very well designed, plain and simple.

CMx2 is more fun for me, and that matters a lot.

The primary reason for this being the real-time mode as I play mostly against the AI.

With CM:AK, I played like three scenarios, acknowledged the achievements in terms of new features and content, and then simply stopped. Waaaay too time-consuming.

CMx2 I can fire up for half an hour whenever I have time and be confident that I actually finish a scenario.

And there are lots of cool things happening, also.

Best regards,

Thomm

[altipueri]

Type 3

Almost the opposite reasons for the reply before. I find CMBO BB AK are the ones I can just fire up a random short QB for an hour or so of fun on my laptop. I play WEGO, not realtime, although I don't do nearly as much reviewing as I could, once or twice and that's it.

I play Hearts of Iron if I want the big picture; Advanced Tactics for another type of random scenario; and Sudden Strike if I want to play real time blowing stuff up but with the fond memories that it looks just like the table top games I played in London with one of the forefathers of WW2 wargaming, Bish Iwaszko, in 1969. Oh, and we had an equipment look up book a bit like the CMx1 info - about 500 pages.

So yeah, way too old.

[slysniper]

Type 3

Almost the opposite reasons for the reply before. I find CMBO BB AK are the ones I can just fire up a random short QB for an hour or so of fun on my laptop. I play WEGO, not realtime, although I don't do nearly as much reviewing as I could, once or twice and that's it.

I play Hearts of Iron if I want big picture; Advanced Tactics for another type of random scenario; and Sudden Strike if I want to play real time blowing stuff up but with the fond memories that it looks just the table top games I played in London with one of the forefathers of WW2 wargaming, Bish Iwaszko, in 1969. Oh and we had an equipment look up book a bit like the CMx1 info - about 500 pages.

So yeah, way too old.

actually this makes you a TYPE 4 PLAYER

TYPE 4 PLAYER

The QB system is better at producing good match ups, able to generate maps and play competative games in the CMX1 engine, CMX2 has messed that up, even selecting units is a much more complex task.

(I agree that QB is much better in CMX1 at the moment, I will not fault anyway for staying with CMX1 for this reason)

[LemoN]

CMx1 games are superior for the same reason as they are inferior to CMx2 games. The amount of abstraction.

There is no doubt that the Cmx1 engine has more abstraction, but certain things also worked better in that regard. Less reliance on the TacAI for instance, path-finding issues of single soldiers, etc. On the other hand, the tile system is often times very annoying for me, especially with fortifications. Heck, the way the tile system is set up is a bit strange anyway. The LOS is drawn from a single soldier, yet you have no say over the way the squads set up in the selected tiles, often making it a fiddly action to get them all perfectly set up only to find out that only a few guys have LOS to the interesting area and the rest are never firing a single shot.

Basically, the approach of "90% engineered design instead of design for effect" in CMx2 presents a whole boatload of new, often times more obvious, problems than the original abstraction.

[slysniper]

CMx1 games are superior for the same reason as they are inferior to CMx2 games. The amount of abstraction.

There is no doubt that the Cmx1 engine has more abstraction, but certain things also worked better in that regard. Less reliance on the TacAI for instance, path-finding issues of single soldiers, etc. On the other hand, the tile system is often times very annoying for me, especially with fortifications. Heck, the way the tile system is set up is a bit strange anyway. The LOS is drawn from a single soldier, yet you have no say over the way the squads set up in the selected tiles, often making it a fiddly action to get them all perfectly set up only to find out that only a few guys have LOS to the interesting area and the rest are never firing a single shot.

Basically, the approach of "90% engineered design instead of design for effect" in CMx2 presents a whole boatload of new, often times more obvious, problems than the original abstraction.

So we can classify this as a

Type 5 player

Someone that cannot tolerate aspects of the cmX2 engine that do not work correctly due to the graphic limitations. What I find interesting with this type of person is, they are fine in beleiving in abstract aproach in CMx1 But CMX2 is never given to letting somethings be abstract.

Example, you bring up the fact how hard it is to get a squad now to locate and get everyone firing. You can see this as a problem, I see it as a abstract issue that actually protrays real life to some extent. It has been shown that in RL only about 1 in 10 soildiers actually make a effort to find, aim and attempt to kill the enemy while the rest are in a mode of trying to stay alive, only until you get to highly skilled and selected units does this ratio change. So in the game, if I see only half my squad able to see and fire at the enemy, I have no problem with that. Plus if you play more traditional terrain maps, this problem goes away to a great extent. So in CMX1 you get everyone firing all the time, we think anyway. Sure easy to get that firepower going, but likely less like the r/l situation as it is now fighting at times to get units able to see and fire when needed.

[finalcut]

Type A positive.Oh,thought we were talking Blood type here.I bleed a lot when I play a PBEM game in CMBN so knowing my Blood Type is a plus.

[MikeyD]

One reason may be that CMx1 players are simply getting OLD. If you were 32 when CMBO came out in in 2000 you're 43 now and dealing with multiple children. Statistically, older players play fewer games, pay less often and aren't particularly enthused about game advancements. I would suspect the proportion of new purchasers playing CM:BN who are unaware of the CMx1 'classic' is increasing rapidly.

[mike_the_wino]

I would say I started as "Type 1" but with the tips and tricks that the kind folks of the forum have provided I am holding my own against AI in medium meeting engagement playing as the Krauts.

Gearing up to kick off some PBEMs against real people so we will see what I have really picked up.

[slysniper]

Type A positive.Oh,thought we were talking Blood type here.I bleed a lot when I play a PBEM game in CMBN so knowing my Blood Type is a plus.

Well I am (B Negative) so I am in trouble, it is hard to find a donor, so I might not be around long. So far in PBEM games I seem to getting beat up also, but that is part of the game, sometimes you are given the poor hand, sometimes the other guy out plays you, sometimes it can be bad luck. In the CMX1 I won about 70% of the time, in the new system. I feel I am playing well but wins are not coming easy in H/H

[slysniper]

One reason may be that CMx1 players are simply getting OLD. If you were 32 when CMBO came out in in 2000 you're 43 now and dealing with multiple children. Statistically, older players play fewer games, pay less often and aren't particularly enthused about game advancements. I would suspect the proportion of new purchasers playing CM:BN who are unaware of the CMx1 'classic' is increasing rapidly.

this a interesting insight

So Type 6

older player, no time to want to pick up new game

I am actually 50, I seem young compared to many in the hobby, for me, my family now takes less of my time so I am not sure this would be a general truth but for sure there is a bracket of player that has found real life is more important than picking up the latest computer game. So for sure a reason to some

[slysniper]

I also found a Type 7 player from another thread

This type has not jumped into CMBN because of the cost of the game, there is a portion of players that seem to have to figure out where to get the money for such past times. For sure, some have a hard time owning a machine that is up to date, that can run the program. But if one has a machine I find it hard not to justify the game purchase if you think you would like it.

There is only a handful of computer games that have managed to get me to invest hundred, but more likely thousand of hours playing and working with.

this game would be at the top of that list. So I know my cost is pennies for each hour of enjoyment

I know I have spent 200 plus hours on this game already and have barely played what is available, So I am already down to .30 cents per hour. Just tell me what else you can do for that type of invertment, that is cheap entertainment.

[skelley]

CMx1 games are superior for the same reason as they are inferior to CMx2 games. The amount of abstraction.

There is no doubt that the Cmx1 engine has more abstraction, but certain things also worked better in that regard. Less reliance on the TacAI for instance, path-finding issues of single soldiers, etc. On the other hand, the tile system is often times very annoying for me, especially with fortifications. Heck, the way the tile system is set up is a bit strange anyway. The LOS is drawn from a single soldier, yet you have no say over the way the squads set up in the selected tiles, often making it a fiddly action to get them all perfectly set up only to find out that only a few guys have LOS to the interesting area and the rest are never firing a single shot.

Basically, the approach of "90% engineered design instead of design for effect" in CMx2 presents a whole boatload of new, often times more obvious, problems than the original abstraction.

I 100% agree. I knew generally what I was gonna get on any given situation in CMX1. I REALLY, REALLY can't stand that half a squad will sit back doing nothing while the other half is getting slaughtered in CMX2. CMX1 didn't allow you to see the individual soldiers doing what they should be doing in combat, which is getting into a position to fire on the enemy. CMX2 is engineered far too much for the limitations of the game engine. If the soldiers won't move themselves into position then abstract it. Who really needs to know that every single bullet is tracked?

[Michael Emrys]

First of all, I need to say that I like CMBN and wouldn't go back to CMx1 even if I had a machine that would run it.

But that said, it is taking me much, much longer to get comfortable in the new game than it was before. Some of that, as MikeyD pointed out, is no doubt due to the fact that I am now over a decade older and that does effect how quickly you pick up new things. But it is also true that there is a whole lot more to learn in this game than there was in the older game. Not so much in the area of learning tactics and such, but just basic things, like how to move your troops around in an efficient manner.

CMx2 is a more accurate and detailed depiction of WW I combat due to the reduced level of abstraction. But that reduced level of abstraction also means that there is more stuff to think about and to deal with. It is a more complicated game to play and the work load is correspondingly heavier. As I have posted before, in CMx1 I regularly played with a reinforced battalion-sized force. Now I wouldn't dream of doing so. In CMx1, I would play a game of about 30 turns and could finish it in one day easily. At present, I am playing a game with a reinforced company. It is 60 turns long, of which I have played 17 turns after nearly a week of playing. I am a slow player, that's obvious, and am happy to be so, but the point is how much longer it takes me to play with even a smaller force. Some of that I expect is that I have as yet not fully adapted to the new system and will improve when I have. But I am not expecting any dramatic improvements. CMx2 is still fun, but it is a very different kind of fun. As Bill Hardinberger said, "It ain't your grampa's CM." Given all that, it doesn't surprise me that some of the older players are not finding it exactly their dish of tea. It also doesn't surprise me that newer players will come along to lap it right up.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

I 100% agree. I knew generally what I was gonna get on any given situation in CMX1. I REALLY, REALLY can't stand that half a squad will sit back doing nothing while the other half is getting slaughtered in CMX2. CMX1 didn't allow you to see the individual soldiers doing what they should be doing in combat, which is getting into a position to fire on the enemy. CMX2 is engineered far too much for the limitations of the game engine. If the soldiers won't move themselves into position then abstract it. Who really needs to know that every single bullet is tracked?

Okay, I get it. You want every soldier in your squad to aggressively take the enemy under fire. But can you not see that the reason that they do not is not just a limitation of the system but a reflection that in the real war, that was the norm for most soldiers in most units? They were not indifferent to their survival, in fact that was likely to be their first priority. Now, in many cases the most rational course to ensure their survival might have been to return fire. But in combat with the lead flying, instinct takes over and the instinct for most is to get behind something solid and offer the lowest profile possible.

Michael

[Nidan1]

Emrys you were old when CMx1 came out, you didnt play that either.

I must say though that I am an older player as well (not as old as Emrys thank God), and while I didnt care much for CMSF, I played it, learned the system faiirly well and purchased all the mods.

I love the Normandy game so far, and while the play level is different and more managing is required, I am playing just as much , if not more, now than in the heyday of CMx1.

So I personally dont buy the age thing, and I find it insulting to suggest that older players arent willing to invest time and brain power to learn a new game system.

[Michael Emrys]

So I personally dont buy the age thing...

Still can't look at yourself in the mirror, eh? Well, in your case I can't say that I blame you.

Michael

[MarkEzra]

It could be as simple as some folks like checkers, others like chess.

[Childress]

A bit early to judge, but I suspect that the new system with its 1:1 representation and massaged spotting and morale parameters has turned CM into a game where the defence is at a distinct advantage. Even the ease with which squads can split into various teams and the much more flexible artillery options favour, I believe, the defending side.

Unfortunately, the relative odds- numerical and otherwise- faced by the attacker has retained the same ratio since CM1. Hence the 'unforgiving' or 'punitive' complaints about CMBN heard on the forum. This has been exacerbated by the rash of brutally challenging scenarios that have popped up after release.

Just a theory.

[Cymru]

I am mainly type 4. Nearly all my play is QB, which is not nearly as much fun as it was in CMx1. At 68 I am biased about declaring whether or not us old codgers have the wits to play anything new, but I probably spend as much time playing as I did 10 years ago.

On a more general note: I have noticed many games tend to get more complex, have better graphics and more options with each issue. I am not sure they necessarily are better games (as in fun). I remember the first Railroad Tycoon as being far more fun than the later versions, as was true for Wizardry. I don’t think it is simply the novelty factor wears off, Myst got better with each round. If I had a magic wand, I would combine the playability of CMx1 with the graphics of CMx2 but have resigned myself to trying to learn how to play better under the new system.

[skelley]

Okay, I get it. You want every soldier in your squad to aggressively take the enemy under fire. But can you not see that the reason that they do not is not just a limitation of the system but a reflection that in the real war, that was the norm for most soldiers in most units? They were not indifferent to their survival, in fact that was likely to be their first priority. Now, in many cases the most rational course to ensure their survival might have been to return fire. But in combat with the lead flying, instinct takes over and the instinct for most is to get behind something solid and offer the lowest profile possible.

Michael

I get what you are saying and agree in part. Sometimes there is nothing you could do (overwhelming enemy fire), but I also think that in real combat most would try to move forward to try to extract their friends who are pinned down. At the very least they would be shooting in the general direction of the enemy to help their buddies help themselves out of a bad situation. The only way to do that at this point is to split the teams and try to move forward...but then I gotta deal with only being able to move to the center of the action spot. Who knows whether they will be too exposed at the center of said action spot. Not saying its broken or anything but this has been my biggest complaint since CMSF. I think a shift toward abstraction would really help because It would be impossible to get every soldier to act in a realistic way.

[slysniper]

A bit early to judge, but I suspect that the new system with its 1:1 representation and massaged spotting and morale parameters has turned CM into a game where the defence is at a distinct advantage. Even the ease with which squads can split into various teams and the much more flexible artillery options favour, I believe, the defending side.

Unfortunately, the relative odds- numerical and otherwise- faced by the attacker has retained the same ratio since CM1. Hence the 'unforgiving' or 'punitive' complaints about CMBN heard on the forum. This has been exacerbated by the rash of brutally challenging scenarios that have popped up after release.

Just a theory.

Agree with you here, but I still classify this as a type one player.

They cannot accept the fact that new tactics are needed to play this game, so they dont like the game or think something is wrong with it.

but like you said, defence can at times have much more bite to it, one needs to use more realistic tactics are needed to get the job done in the new system that is all.

One simple example, I hated how guys could stack tanks in columns and move up on a corner, getting them to fire through each other and gain fire supremacy very easaly. Now it is a real trick to get your units to crest or expose themselves at the same time without being picked off one at a time because the lead unit is the only unit to be able to see and fire. Much more realistic tactics are needed. No longer do you want to be behind each other, rounds able to take you out after passing through the first unit, also no longer do you want to be to close to friendly destroyed tanks. I love the fact you have to deploy units more correctly.

[skelley]

Maybe a possible solution to my problem is if the team not in contact would fire toward the enemy even if they had no LOS or LOF with a large reduction in chance of hitting enemy but would raise the suppression of the enemy. This could lower the volume of incoming fire and allow the pinned team to pull back.

[slysniper]

I am mainly type 4. Nearly all my play is QB, which is not nearly as much fun as it was in CMx1. At 68 I am biased about declaring whether or not us old codgers have the wits to play anything new, but I probably spend as much time playing as I did 10 years ago.

On a more general note: I have noticed many games tend to get more complex, have better graphics and more options with each issue. I am not sure they necessarily are better games (as in fun). I remember the first Railroad Tycoon as being far more fun than the later versions, as was true for Wizardry. I don’t think it is simply the novelty factor wears off, Myst got better with each round. If I had a magic wand, I would combine the playability of CMx1 with the graphics of CMx2 but have resigned myself to trying to learn how to play better under the new system.

I must agree with this, the more complex it is, the less fun it is. It is more like work at times. But I am finding now that the quicker I am getting around and issueing commands because the commands are becoming more instictive and I know what to hit on the interface, the faster my play is, actually It might be faster than it was for me in CMX1, I know I can do set ups much faster in this version. the more I am enjoying the game. but the slow play can be unenjoyable, that is why I went and tried chance encounter to see how a old scenario played and felt. The armor is Tons better, the action around the church is great. Every wall, door, bldg and level of the tower has a tactical importance. Where each unit is placed in the complex is important. These are things you did not expearence in cmX1. now I focus on my infantry and every aspect of their fight, whereas before. They were a unit of firepower to bring on the enemy, and i could do it from almost any location.

[slysniper]

Maybe a possible solution to my problem is if the team not in contact would fire toward the enemy even if they had no LOS or LOF with a large reduction in chance of hitting enemy but would raise the suppression of the enemy. This could lower the volume of incoming fire and allow the pinned team to pull back.

your point is valid, maybe some adjustments could be made. But learning to deal with the present results is not a major issue, I just like pointing out some of us have accepted the results as ok, not because of good game programming, but just accepting the fact it is hard in R.L to control these things, so the game having a hard time with it is OK also.

When I was in the Marines, the one truth I learned was I could never see hardly anyone to fire at, either they are concealed or my cover or concealment was preventing me from being able to see well. Then how exposed are you going to make yourself, because when you do, what you will see is the gun flash of guys trying to kill you. So situational awareness is very hard to adcheive, so having many guys not able to seethe enemy in the game rings very true to me.