Why do players not want to change from CMx1 to CMx2

[C'Rogers]

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.

I think this is probably the best explanation. I think it's just human nature not to want to relearn a system. If I already have a WWII sim I like (or a train sim in this instance) why invest the time learning another one?

Steve has talked many times about the difficulty in keeping series going. Stray too far from the original material and you'll lose your fans. Keep too close to the original and people will be wondering why to buy it.

I think that CM:BN is an improvement over CMx1, but if you're still playing CMx1 (which I tried somewhat recently and hated it), why change? Given the learning curve sim games have it can seem like a lot of work to learn to do something you were already enjoying.

However, I thought Railroad Tycoon 2 was an improvement over 1, and 3 was an improvement on 2, but I knew many who just couldn't "get into" the latter games.

Games like Myst are different though (story based, or RPGs). You're playing the game for a story. In a sense, Myst is one really long game that just gets better graphics. Sim games repeat the same thing. They don't have as much room to change as other games would.

[xian]

Except that Myst 4 was a bit rubbish - it strayed too far from the original beautifully pre-rendered environments just for the sake of it.

[skelley]

I agree...and have accepted it, but still gotta push for a better sim. I also agree that not seeing the enemy rings true, its just the not shooting in general direction of the enemy that gets to me. I'm not looking for a battalion of Rambo's who expose themselves while mowing down enemy soldiers by the hundreds. i think most small arms fire was fired with no targets in sight, but with the intention of pinning the enemy so that an assault can be made on the position.

[Nidan1]

Still can't look at yourself in the mirror,

Michael

At least I can still see myself Vlad!

[slysniper]

I agree...and have accepted it, but still gotta push for a better sim. I also agree that not seeing the enemy rings true, its just the not shooting in general direction of the enemy that gets to me. I'm not looking for a battalion of Rambo's who expose themselves while mowing down enemy soldiers by the hundreds. i think most small arms fire was fired with no targets in sight, but with the intention of pinning the enemy so that an assault can be made on the position.

But we do want to have our little pixel men act like Rambo's, so that is part of the fun of it since they generally do the other now.

One trick I love now is throwing grenades over hedgerows without the unit seeing the enemy on the other side. works really well.

but I like the aspect that all of the factor in my infantry unit now will have a big impact as to if they are going to shoot. What is their morale, what is each mans line of site, has the unit panic before now and are in a broken state, what ammo is left and who has it. The game is now challenging in new fun ways if you accept it. The infantry has really come to life for me and the armor is still about the same. Some good things, some bad things there

[sburke]

The point BFC has always tried to stress is Cmx2 isn't just an upgrade, it's a new game so we are really asking why folks like one game over another of two similar types. Might as well ask why someone likes PC over CMBN or vice versa. Different game, different features etc. It's all subjective.

Personally I like CMBN as it "appears" more realistic. I won't argue whether it is or isn't. That I can't control what every individual in a squad is doing doesn't bother me. I give an order and hope they accomplish it, I don't want it to delve into being an FPS with me managing every soldier. I like the fact that my plans can go completely sideways at times. Tactically I would rate myself as mediocre at best and am probably giving myself too much credit at that, but I like the learning process.

[Vark]

Surely the very nature of the new game counts against it, for some gamers? The more the engine tries to capture the frictions of war the harder it is for the player. In CM1 your platoon HQ was a super unit and hub that magically dispensed combat advantages to its squads. In CM2 relative spotting and command control, force players ever closer to the dilemmas faced by their historical counterparts, without the attendant risks, of course, but it still means a greater work load. Trouble is, in CMBN, you play normally at company level, with attached assets, so you are playing a company HQ, plus numerous platoon HQ's, without the aids of CM1 (command lines, firing lines) or simple interface.

It's a tough ask that undoubtedly puts off some players, but delights others, at least no one is forcing us to fight, unlike our poor pixel soldiers!

[skelley]

How do you get them to grenade other side of hedgerow? Are they also firing weapons? In my scenario the terrain is mostly light and heavy wooded and I have been on the receiving end of the grenade toss. Did the Germans have more grenades than Americans? I have taken a lot of casualties from grenades it seems.

There are many things to like about the game but the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

[Vark]

The stick grenade could be thrown farther but unless it had the fragmentation sleeve fitted it was a blast only weapon, so should not cause casualties beyond its blast radius.

Does the game differentiate between the German stick grenade and the egg grenade?

Does the game replicate in anyway the more sophisticated arming system of the Allied grenades?

[winkelried]

I played CMx1 quite a while. The jump from CMBO to CMBB was pretty though. To CMAK from CMBB then was a smaller step.

I just played around a bit with CMSF and am now in the middle of the learning curve with CMBN. And I like it - although I get thrashed in my PBEMs (as Allied attacker). The added realism makes it tougher to play, but IMHO also more realistic - and I always liked the semi-historical/historical battles more than the "artificial" ones. Maybe just to answer the questions "could I do the same? be better/worse?".

An I currently develop two campaigns which work with reinforced batallions. Here a few findings to share:

• Added realism comes with larger maps (2x2km and larger) and longer battles (2-4hours). A company may attack with a front of 1 km for example. a battalion with 2-4 km. I appreciate also the possibility for flanking movements and some freedom of maneuvering.
  
• Larger battles lead to parallel company+ sized battles. Therefore I prefer WEGO - you can check what happened at other hotspots (maybe this implies that battles with more than a company+ cannot be easily handled in RT and this is the limitation to play larger battles). The game can become pretty intense when you have to manage two or three smaller encounters in parallel AND be aware of other developments - but this was also true in the larger battles/campaigns in CMx1.
  
• You will have to manage the batallion assets (artillery/armor/reserves) to create the "Schwerpunkt". And you will be screwed when you choose the wrong one - since it will take time to shift assets (except for arty due to the distances involved)
  

I think the CMx2 approach requires more discipline and planning - but to me the new possibilities mean also more realism on the battle level and therefore more fun.

BTW: I still struggle to keep my infantry losses low ...

[LemoN]

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.

Actually, no.

All I was pointing out that with the generally more abstracted approach the CMx1 engine simply worked better in some aspects. In others, not so much. For me it's pretty much a 50-50 fun and smoothness wise.

Overall I consider the CMx2 engine the better on its own, but it IMO requires more work in order to be truly trashing the CMx1 engine. Mainly fortifications, lack of TCP/IP WEGO and some of the TacAI behaviour.

[LemoN]

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 think that's a pretty cheap shot. We have suppression (which already covers your entire point), individual LOS, RT bullet tracking, etc; all designed for 1-1 representation, yet there is an abstracted system in place that dictates the basic placement of the units.

Sure, I can live with it and it's not bugging me too much, but it does get slightly annoying from time to time, especially with fortifications and other natural cover. Ever ordered a squad of infantry into a trench only to find that half of the guys aren't sitting inside the trench but actually outside - on the side that's facing the enemy, just to get slaughtered? Ever tried to place a squad that occupies 3 tiles in a way that the game simply doesn't like and you have to split the squad in order to properly place them? Ever had a 3 tile squad down to 3-4 men and they still spread out over 2-3 tiles?

What I'm pointing out is nothing too big, and I can cope with it just fine, but often times I simply wish for either a less or more abstracted way of doing it. Either let me place the squad without limitations, or abstract it, this 50-50 stuff that's abstracted in an environment with 95% non-abstracted mechanics is often times a bit frustrating, especially if there are diagonal tiles of terrain.

All this boils down to is to see why some (many) people dislike the new engine. I nearly stopped playing CMx1 games, but many others haven't and I'm well aware of the downsides the CMx2 engine has from a player's POV, and anyone that disregards it's downsides and applies the usual "Yes, that graphical artifact and the CTD are the game's way of simulating the fog of war!" or the "Yes, the inability to drop acquired equipment is simulating the Nazi roboclaw 5000... without batteries.".

[Steiner14]

I don't fit into one of the categories. I tried to like CMBN, but was repelled from several things that it became unplayable for me.

With v1.01 i gave it a new try and the represented action i saw, suddenly made perfect sense. I still think, the interface is not really good, but what this game now tactically delivers is incredible. I can even say, that the old CMx1 feeling is back for me.

[slysniper]

How do you get them to grenade other side of hedgerow? Are they also firing weapons?

If the unit is close enough for a hand toss, you just target the other side whereyou know or suspect the enemy is. It allows you to area fire,so they will area fire, and grenades are part of that, exspecially since the unit cannot make a clear line of site. Since I play wego, they will always toss some within that time frame if they have them to use. If you target light, I am not sure, but I think they may not use them.

[slysniper]

I played CMx1 quite a while. The jump from CMBO to CMBB was pretty though. To CMAK from CMBB then was a smaller step.

I just played around a bit with CMSF and am now in the middle of the learning curve with CMBN. And I like it - although I get thrashed in my PBEMs (as Allied attacker). The added realism makes it tougher to play, but IMHO also more realistic - and I always liked the semi-historical/historical battles more than the "artificial" ones. Maybe just to answer the questions "could I do the same? be better/worse?".

An I currently develop two campaigns which work with reinforced batallions. Here a few findings to share:

• Added realism comes with larger maps (2x2km and larger) and longer battles (2-4hours). A company may attack with a front of 1 km for example. a battalion with 2-4 km. I appreciate also the possibility for flanking movements and some freedom of maneuvering.
  
• Larger battles lead to parallel company+ sized battles. Therefore I prefer WEGO - you can check what happened at other hotspots (maybe this implies that battles with more than a company+ cannot be easily handled in RT and this is the limitation to play larger battles). The game can become pretty intense when you have to manage two or three smaller encounters in parallel AND be aware of other developments - but this was also true in the larger battles/campaigns in CMx1.
  
• You will have to manage the batallion assets (artillery/armor/reserves) to create the "Schwerpunkt". And you will be screwed when you choose the wrong one - since it will take time to shift assets (except for arty due to the distances involved)
  

I think the CMx2 approach requires more discipline and planning - but to me the new possibilities mean also more realism on the battle level and therefore more fun.

BTW: I still struggle to keep my infantry losses low ...

One question for you on this. I use to stay away from real large battle but found that when I did start playing larger ones that it does protray some of these aspects you mention better or just add things that cannot be done in small battles. But I have a issue when time is longer than ammo supplies, of course now the trucks with ammo help alot. But for a unit to fight for the amount of time you are talking about would take major supplies. So how do you make a scenario like that and manage to keep units supplied to carry out the fighting if needed for any extended time.

[slysniper]

Actually, no.

All I was pointing out that with the generally more abstracted approach the CMx1 engine simply worked better in some aspects. In others, not so much. For me it's pretty much a 50-50 fun and smoothness wise.

Overall I consider the CMx2 engine the better on its own, but it IMO requires more work in order to be truly trashing the CMx1 engine. Mainly fortifications, lack of TCP/IP WEGO and some of the TacAI behaviour.

Well, I am not trying to disagree with you, actually I agree with you facts about some short comings in how the CMX2 engine works. I think it is good to point it out to battlefront but also learn to accept the fact that it is a computer program that no matter what will have limitations as to what it will do. So I just smile at the fact that many thinks it can be programmed to everything we dream of. The fact is, they can make code that might protray many things, other coding is tricks that shows results similar to real things but comes about by math that likely is just factored odds.

Then there is things they just have not figured how to wright code into the system to protrays what is wanted.

[slysniper]

I think that's a pretty cheap shot. We have suppression (which already covers your entire point), individual LOS, RT bullet tracking, etc; all designed for 1-1 representation, yet there is an abstracted system in place that dictates the basic placement of the units.

Sure, I can live with it and it's not bugging me too much, but it does get slightly annoying from time to time, especially with fortifications and other natural cover. Ever ordered a squad of infantry into a trench only to find that half of the guys aren't sitting inside the trench but actually outside - on the side that's facing the enemy, just to get slaughtered? Ever tried to place a squad that occupies 3 tiles in a way that the game simply doesn't like and you have to split the squad in order to properly place them? Ever had a 3 tile squad down to 3-4 men and they still spread out over 2-3 tiles?

What I'm pointing out is nothing too big, and I can cope with it just fine, but often times I simply wish for either a less or more abstracted way of doing it. Either let me place the squad without limitations, or abstract it, this 50-50 stuff that's abstracted in an environment with 95% non-abstracted mechanics is often times a bit frustrating, especially if there are diagonal tiles of terrain.

All this boils down to is to see why some (many) people dislike the new engine. I nearly stopped playing CMx1 games, but many others haven't and I'm well aware of the downsides the CMx2 engine has from a player's POV, and anyone that disregards it's downsides and applies the usual "Yes, that graphical artifact and the CTD are the game's way of simulating the fog of war!" or the "Yes, the inability to drop acquired equipment is simulating the Nazi roboclaw 5000... without batteries.".

I have to agree, these things can be frustrating. My own most recent was. Foxholes set up for my squads to fall back to in a village. so I send them there and only a few will get in the fox holes and the rest are huddled against the outside walls of the buildings next to them holes. No it is not perfect, and might not even be able to be corrected, But I figure all this is beyond my knowledge as to how to get something like this protrayed in a game and working. I figure there has to be short cuts to things like terrain so that the game even runs without some type of super computer. all I know is a FPS can handle a limited number of people and perform the needed task. Whereas we on one computer are generating very large maps, hundred and hundred of units which are now spoting, keeping communication links and tracking all their shots independantly. Giving us large amount of results in a very smooth system. So however Steve acheives that, he does seem to understand how to make a program that does it better than what we have seen anywhere else, So I am not going to point out the short coming to much.

[hoolaman]

It's probably a false dilemma in the first place. I still play both but honestly the games are similar enough that I'm kinda burned out on both. But I've been playing CMBN long before May this year.

There are many many things in CMx2 that are immature and need a lot of serious testing and tweaking to get right. It's not a failure of the game system, and it is now down to the community really because no beta testing team can ever cover this amount of detail.

Things CMx2 does a lot better that now really annoy me in CMx1:

*The camera interface

*Squad morale - Not routing as a unit

*Units not routing off the map

*Squads not all firing at the same target

*Vehicle sub-system damage (though it often makes no sense atm).

Things I think CMx1 does better that really annoy me in CMx2:

*The dynamic AI gives a consistently more satisfying opponent.

*Finer resolution of vehicle hull down than CMx2. Try getting a true hull down in CMBN, or even a turret-down. It depends if the LOS trace is in the right spot or not.

*Finer resolution of movement than CMx2. Even though this is false for infantry because all squads occupy a singularity in space.

*Less esoteric system for vehicle penetrations.

*TCP/IP WEGO

*Autosave

*It is about 1000 times easier to make a scenario.

*Quick Battles are quick, and they are 100% consistently playable, even if they give you an unwinnable game.

[Michael Emrys]

Ever ordered a squad of infantry into a trench only to find that half of the guys aren't sitting inside the trench but actually outside - on the side that's facing the enemy, just to get slaughtered?

Nope. I heard about the trench/foxhole problem and have so far avoided using them until it gets fixed.

Ever tried to place a squad that occupies 3 tiles in a way that the game simply doesn't like and you have to split the squad in order to properly place them?

I nearly always split squads now for that and other reasons. This allows me to place teams pretty much where I want them.

Michael

[nik mond]

Maybe they just see it as a completely different game and just not interested in anything else.

A 12 year old game will never remotely resemble the new rendition, Every improvement, tweak in graphic resoluton, improved sound, and AI efficiency, just turns it into something else. You keep hearing the same song, if it aint broke don't fix it. Fine. personally I have never played the same game longer than a year and a half, but thats me.

[Ithikial_AU]

Old CMBO player since Beta demo. Moved to CMx2 with CMSF.

The big change for me was the 1:1 ratio. It meant I had to go back and relearn CM which isn't a bad thing. But the level of detail I now had with my units (infantry especially) I quickly learnt that WEGO had become more of a liability. Though it's still fun to sit back and watch a minutes worth of action, I really don't want to waste valuable scenario time by having squads mount up in a half-track sit tere for 50 seconds when they could be acquiring a panzerfaust or more ammo.

Things can change more quickly in this new engine compared to CMx1 days that not being able to quickly hit escape and make adjustments to your plans puts you at a serious disadvantage. When CMBN came out I didn't think twice in going for real time play option. Still tried WEGO a few times to see how it was different but just got annoyed and kept reverting back to real time.

[Erwin]

Firstly I think of CM1 and CM2 as different games rather than an evolution. CM2 is more of a simulation, CM1 is a fun game.

Another really big difference is that one can easily create and play a CM1 scenario with a regiment of inf and a Bn of vehicles on a "Huge" map, while in CM2 it seems MUCH more complex and takes a lot of work to create a scenario (hence the far fewer CM2 scenarios and mods than has CM1) and the practical max is maybe one battalion of inf and a platoon of vehicles on what would be a Medium" map in CM1.

CMBN's OMAHA BEACH and FIRE BRIGADE scenarios would be easy in CM1. In CM2 you need a Cray, or a lot of patience to wait 10+ minutes while it loads, saves etc.

Also, once you get to level 4 and above, a well-modded CM1 looks as good, perhaps better than the often toy-like CMBN graphics.

I think that CMBN appeals to those who enjoy very small scale engagements with a platoon or two and a few vehicles. However, many of us like the huge scenarios that can only (currently) be enjoyed in CM1.

I don't see why the two systems and their respective fans cannot simply "get along." Both games are amazing and "classic." Not sure why CM2 fans are so upset that others still consider CM1 to be the better "classic."

[Chek]

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.

Well I definitely fall into this category except for one thing,I absolutley love CMBN and couldn't imagine going back to CMx1.

It did take longer to learn simple because you can do so much more.I find the game exciting and enthralling,CMx1 was just fun.

[BloodyBucket]

What about those of us who stuck with CMX1 for some time because of the difficulty in counting to CMX2?

[Navigator37]

Fascinating discussion. This is the first time I‘ve ever written in this forum, though I’ve followed it daily for months.

I was first turned on to PC war games with the Close Combat series. Then came Combat Mission, and I thought I had died and gone to heaven. I was hooked, and spent countless hours immersed in the CMx1 experience. After that I drifted, sampling ToW and CMSF among others, but none of them grabbed me, and I reverted to board games for a decade. Needless to say, I the arrival of CMx2 was anticipatedwith great excitement – I checked the website constantly, pre-ordered, and counted the days until it was released.

Now that it’s here and I’ve played for a while, I’d have to say that I like it, but don’t love it. Whereas I couldn’t get enough of CMx1 and played it every free moment, I can go for weeks without playing CMx2. Somehow it’s...just…not the same. Of course it’s not the same game, that’s not what I mean - it’s not the same experience, it doesn’t create the same feeling, the same excitement – it’s not as fun.

[Note: I always play WEGO against the AI – just like I did CMx1.]

I don’t mind that CMx2 is different than CMx1 – what disappoints me is that in important ways it’s not as good. Things that should be easy – that were easy in CMx1 - are difficult (or impossible) in the new game: it should be easy to read terrain, to see the contours of the land, to tell the difference between a shrub and an impenetrable hedge row; it should be easy to find friendly units on the map, to alter their paths, to know what they are shooting at, and what their status is; it should be easy to pick out and occupy a sturdy Norman farm, knowing its stone walls will provide cover. In CMx2, things are hard that don’t have to be: ambushing a tank with a bazooka team; making a squad fire through upper floor windows; having a spotter with a line of sight call in an artillery strike; moving a tank to a hull-down position.

Paradoxically, aspects of CMx2 that are improvements over CMx1 make it less playable, less enjoyable than the older game: the lush, dense foliage makes it very difficult to find friendly units, so I play with trees turned off; the more realistic spotting rules make it harder to know who’s been seen, who can see what, and what they are firing at, if anything; calling in indirect fire is so exquisitely realistic and complex that I’ve just about given up on it.

I don’t mind learning new key strokes; I don’t mind that the camera commands are different; I like that the game is more challenging, that the AI beats me sometimes. What I don’t like is that the system itself is often an impediment to game play, it gets in its own way (and mine), inducing frustration and making CMx2 less fun than the original.

The arguments that I’ve seen on this forum that “it’s waaay better than TOW because…”, or “we’ve already dealt with this issue in the CMSF thread...” are meaningless to me: I never played those games because I didn’t like them.

I do like this game, I appreciate the creativity & support provided by Battlefront, and I plan on buying all the expansions to fill my steel box. I’m rooting for Battlefront’s success - no one does WWII tactical war games better than they do. I just expected CMx2 to be better than it is.