Why do players not want to change from CMx1 to CMx2

[REVS]

I've had CMBN since soon after its release, and I still haven't got into it at all. I just don't have the time either to learn it, or to play it. It seems cumbersome to me. Overly detailed. Clunky.

It feels like a much "bigger" game to administer, with lots more micro-management of units. And so it's the time-consuming nature of the game which has led me to decide not to bother with it for the meantime.

It looks nice, but as a Mac user it has also been annoyingly buggy so far, and that hasn't helped either. I'll come back in six months, download patches 2,3,4 and 5, and see what happens.

[winkelried]

But I have a issue when time is longer than ammo supplies, of course now the trucks with ammo help alot.

First: the ammo issue is the same on both sides.

Then the behaviour depends on the tactical situation (and therefore on scenario design). for example without additional ammo:

in one battle (three infantry coys, two heavy coys) one reinforced inf coy takes an intermediate objective and a second reinforced inf coy (with full ammo) pushes through to the primary target while the first one holds the intermediate target against counter-attacks. the player then has to decide if the coy in the primary target has the ammo required to take even a third target or to stay put in the primary target.

another reinforced inf coy takes a minor objective in parallel and then has to secure the flank against counter-attacks. here it is crucial to keep a inf platoon and some MGs in reserve in the initial attack so they can be used to hold the flank.

So one approach is to use echelons (or waves?) and the second is that you try to use your assets to a minimum and keep some reserves.

Another approach is to manage the fire discipline with cover arcs where necessary. In night battles visibility is already limited, so the infantry will keep the fire discipline quite well.

[Guest]

It looks nice, but as a Mac user it has also been annoyingly buggy so far, and that hasn't helped either.

I'm sorry to hear that. If you come across any bugs that haven't been reported yet please drop me a line - or make a forum post - and let me know, so I can fix them.

[Sixxkiller]

CMx1 was ahead of it's time and BFC just can't live that down. And we all miss the auto map maker I think from Cmx1. Rest of the stuff in CMx2 is light years ahead of CMx1. (I also miss Operations, dont tell anyone).

I prefer CMSF to CMBN overall, but QB's in CM Afghanistan usually have better auto picking. Auto picking on SF and BN can be frustrating and since I am far more interested in infantry only battles, I think CMSF has the edge in infantry styled combat but CMBN makes up for it with combined battles where the countries involved are just about equal and the battlefield is far less deadly.

But i think the thing most people over look the most about why Cmx2 is better is the artillery realism. I mean you can actually turn the tide of a battle now with proper handling of arty below 105's. I dont recall being that bothered with arty in CMBO or BB.

But I enjoy all these games anyway, testing or just playing. We moved in the right direction but it's hard to live up to a legend.

[womble]

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.

Very true. That's what Area Targets are for. If you just have a bunch of troops facing at the TacAI's will at each other from behind cover, they'll plink away for ages, causing little or no casualties, and only a bit better suppression. If you organise their area fires to suppress where you know the enemy are, you'll achieve enough suppression to advance close enough for the application of decisive firepower. Costs a lot of ammo, that.

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

Get them within 1 AP of the hedgerow and area target just the other side. Even if the enemy are hiding/cowering (which status you should have previously arranged before trying this stunt... )or the squad just hasn't spotted them yet, they'll chuck grenades if they have them, and fire their weapons.

Did the Germans have more grenades than Americans? I have taken a lot of casualties from grenades it seems.

I generally only try this with the "Assault" team of a squad, and they have all the grenades in the world... 20 or more if you split 'em while the squad is fresh.

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.

Actually, it's not abstract. They go where 1) they'll have cover from the direction you've pointed them, a) they'll be able to shoot in the direction you've pointed them, alpha) they maintain the best separation they can given the limitation of the AP system. I don't know what priority they use for the 3 things, or if there are other considerations as well, but I'm fairly sure they use them in the order I've written them. See how if you put a 2-man team in an AP with a shell hole in each of 2 diagonally opposite corners, the 2 men head for their own little nest. That's not abstracted, is it?

...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?

Not since my early games when I found out that Face gets them to consider a particular direction, and it's not such a problem with split squads anyway, especially when the AT team is being kept out of harm's way most of the time.

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?

Nope, cos I operate with split by default.

Ever had a 3 tile squad down to 3-4 men and they still spread out over 2-3 tiles?

That's not an abstraction. It's a limitation. It may be an inaccuracy, or an omission, but it's not abstracted.

...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.

What you're after strikes me not as less abstraction, but more control. A lot of what you're complaining about is down to team management, and that control is available to you, at the expense of some micromanagement becoming necessary. This would be the case if you wanted more options, say in the formation of a 3-team squad; you'd have to select a formation and orientation from a dropdown or something. So just split your teams and you've got an additional level of control.

"Yes, the inability to drop acquired equipment is simulating the Nazi roboclaw 5000... without batteries.".

I see you're joking, but this does illustrate where there will always be limitations. The inventory system is quite limited, certainly, and I'm sure it's from a judgement that the additional coding and complexity wouldn't be worth it compared to the number of people who want to be bothered with a detailed supply and inventory control system. You and I may differ from each other and BFC on where that line gets drawn, but for me, having it at all and the chance to resupply my ammo-depleted teams is a huge step forward compared to CMx1. A step which can be built upon, hopefully

[Georgie]

Need to be able to give "driverless" vehicles/passengers multiple commands. Such as, drive to point "A" dismount and walk to point "B". It works that way now for a vehicle that has an assigned driver and passengers but not for a vehicle that does not have an assigned driver.

[Michael Emrys]

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.

Yeah, I think those are points worth considering long and hard. Especially the part about being able to read contours at a glance. For me, that is a biggie.

Michael

[slysniper]

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."

Actually, back in the old days, I had to wait that long for cmX1 turns also in huge maps, but in 10 years, my computers have improved many times. Now there is nothing that slows my machine down in CMx1, I figure with time cmX2 huge battles will run smooth for me also once my hardware gets the ability.

[slysniper]

Now to try and get this thread back on topic.

This was a discussion as to why some do not want to switch from CMx1 to CMx2,

I feel we are up to 8 reasons now, can we add some more, here is the present list

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.

Type 4 player

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

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

Type 5 player

Someone that cannot tolerate aspects of the CMx2 engine that do not work correctly due to the graphic limitations. They are fine in believing in a abstract approach in CMx1 But CMX2 needs to show it perfectlty.

Type 6 player

Any player, no longer having the time to want to pick up a new game

Type 7 player

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. Others just cannot justify the cost of software for that machine they own.

Type 8 player

The game is getting too complex; I want it to be simple

I think that covers pretty much what has been brought up so far

[George MC]

What about those who think the game as is kicks ass? I'm having a ball with it (Ok always stuff to improve and I have my own wee pet wish list) - but seeing a zug of panzergreandiers dismount from their SPW with their platoon SPW giving support fire (and the other guys inside fire their own weapons) and assault a small village in the early dawn - man it rocks! No more pumpkin heads twizzling about.

I don't get anyone who says a modded CMX1 looks better. ****e I say!

[slysniper]

What about those who think the game as is kicks ass? I'm having a ball with it (Ok always stuff to improve and I have my own wee pet wish list) - but seeing a zug of panzergreandiers dismount from their SPW with their platoon SPW giving support fire (and the other guys inside fire their own weapons) and assault a small village in the early dawn - man it rocks! No more pumpkin heads twizzling about.

I don't get anyone who says a modded CMX1 looks better. ****e I say!

I agree, but I figure most on the forum that reply, have the game, play the game and to some extent enjoy the game. I just wanted to have fun coming up with a list of why people cannot or do not want to change in the game systems.

[Blazing 88's]

I like all of them, well CMBB, CMAK and CMBN (before CMBN the mod CMETO). Never got into the modern stuff, but have it.

I am a big Ostfront and Desert fan, so until the mods or modules come out for those theatres... i will be an avid CMx1 addict as well.

[George MC]

I agree, but I figure most on the forum that reply, have the game, play the game and to some extent enjoy the game. I just wanted to have fun coming up with a list of why people cannot or do not want to change in the game systems.

Yup there is probably a clue to the intent of your thread in the title of the thread eh?

[Bruce Robert]

I second, or I suppose third, Navigator37's position. His position states it about as clearly as I might state for myself. If this game is about so much detail and 1=1 simulation, why can I not easily tell things that I could if I was walking about in the French countryside?

Bruce G

[slysniper]

I second, or I suppose third, Navigator37's position. His position states it about as clearly as I might state for myself. If this game is about so much detail and 1=1 simulation, why can I not easily tell things that I could if I was walking about in the French countryside?

Bruce G

I have heard this complaint plenty, really is not what this thread is about. but will say, I agree on only one aspect. that is buildings. I see no issue with the different bushes and such. Maybe right at first for the first few games I had the typical complaints like others, but now I can tell pretty easily. terrain elevational changes is not that hard to figure out either. But for both issues, if you do not like it, I am sure there is mods out there to solve the problem. I know I have seen a grid on some photo's. so mod away and solve your problems

But the buildings really do lack what is needed. Many have pointed out how there is no infomation as to the type of protection they can give. It is a good point, but in general they all S**k, even the large churches allow to little in protection from large cal. gun fire. The sad thing is, I have yet to see any comment that they will look at making changes or improve the protection or inform us in what is a heavier structure of a building. My new style of play is to stay behind a building, not in it. and rounds still get to me, its a joke.

All I can do is hope this gets better in the future, but my hope might be in vain.

[Michael Emrys]

terrain elevational changes is not that hard to figure out either. But for both issues, if you do not like it, I am sure there is mods out there to solve the problem. I know I have seen a grid on some photo's.

I personally don't like the looks of a grid and so don't use it. What I would prefer is something like the contour lines of a standard topo map. Also a bit more shading of the slopes. What's needed is not only to be able to read major elevation changes, but also the minor swales and rises in the ground that can provide a measure of cover.

Michael

[MikeyD]

Can't say I've ever had a real problem reading terrain in CM:BN. Of course I don't often play 20 feet up and 20 feet back like a lot of players do. Even in the 'real world' if you overlook an expanse of farm field from 20 feet up you're simply not going to 'read' terrain details. CMSF had worse problems in this regard but that was barren monocolor desert. So sure. Spotting terrain details high noon in the desert really does suck.

[Michael Emrys]

Can't say I've ever had a real problem reading terrain in CM:BN. Of course I don't often play 20 feet up and 20 feet back like a lot of players do. Even in the 'real world' if you overlook an expanse of farm field from 20 feet up you're simply not going to 'read' terrain details.

But even down in the 1 and 2 views, where I spend a lot of my time, it can be a real pain. I'm not saying they should take all the work out of it, just that it seems to me to be harder in the game than I remember it being in real life.

Michael

[Childress]

What's needed is not only to be able to read major elevation changes, but also the minor swales and rises in the ground that can provide a measure of cover.

Michael

Swales?

Inevitably, Michael Emrys has contributed le mot juste.

(I think...)

[Redwolf]

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

CMBO was drawing an entirely different crowd of competitive gamers than CMBB and CMAK.

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)

It isn't asking too much that if I play a Normandy game I find the defenders in positions that are hard to spot and hard to defeat. This is simply not implemented to a sufficient degree in CMBN at this time. Add to it problems like tanks on the move being too accurate compared to stationary ones and ambushed become even less realistic.

It's a fine meeting engagement game.

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.

But the interface *does* suck, there is no question about it. Specific reasons were outlined many times.

That doesn't kill the game as such. If you like the game and play it muscle memory will kick in. But it creates a big problem when trying to keep people in when they try the demo or game for the first time. This is one factor limiting the community diversity.

Community diversity has been the real strength in CMx1, CMBO in particular. Community diversity in CMx1 meant that the play fun multiplied with the number of people instead of just summing up. There are a number of problems that hamper diversity in the player base in CMBN, the interface is just one.

[MikeyD]

But the interface *does* suck, there is no question about it.

Patent nonsense.

This board seems to attract a fair proportion of people who can't seem to see the forest for the trees. Real-scale realtime combined arms historical warfighting with accurate ballistics and penetration models. But there's no ballistics chart shovelware included and you can't move waypoints after placing them. Oh the humanity! I recall all those CMBO players who wereutraged (!) that BFC would produce an eastern front game where none of the combatants spoke English. Why dId so many CMBO players refuse to play CMBB?

[sburke]

Patent nonsense.

This board seems to attract a fair proportion of people who can't seem to see the forest for the trees. Real-scale realtime combined arms historical warfighting with accurate ballistics and penetration models. But there's no ballistics chart shovelware included and you can't move waypoints after placing them. Oh the humanity! I recall all those CMBO players who wereutraged (!) that BFC would produce an eastern front game where none of the combatants spoke English. Why dId so many CMBO players refuse to play CMBB?

lol I would agree, maybe not so dramatically though. I don't have a problem with the UI. I realize different playstyles can impact how you function with the UI, but personally once I figure out what it is I want to do, I can usually figure out how to do it pretty simply. The fact that what I want to do turns out to have been a bad decision I can't blame on the UI. Doesn't keep me from trying. :-P

Having fought on the defensive on a couple PBEMs I'd have to say I think it does work. Making use of cover and concealment to disguise your forceis possible. I find it harder to work the offensive as by the time I have forces in place to try and achieve fire supremacy the artillery strikes are starting to fall. Trying to put together a good combined arms attack and maintaining your momentum is really difficult. Pretty true to real life.

[LemoN]

Why dId so many CMBO players refuse to play CMBB?

CMBB was the best one in the series IMO.

[Jaws]

CMBO sucked, CMBB sucked and CMAK sucked..... 10 years ago. Check forums about negative comments then.

And now (10 years later) it was the best game ever.

The real problem. whiners get all the attention, like in the real world. Good news don’t sell papers.

Let’s wait 10 years and start this discussion again. CMBN will be the best game ever in 10 years.

[womble]

Patent nonsense.

This board seems to attract a fair proportion of people who can't seem to see the forest for the trees. Real-scale realtime combined arms historical warfighting with accurate ballistics and penetration models. But there's no ballistics chart shovelware included and you can't move waypoints after placing them. Oh the humanity! I recall all those CMBO players who wereutraged (!) that BFC would produce an eastern front game where none of the combatants spoke English. Why dId so many CMBO players refuse to play CMBB?

You're throwing up straw men. The problems with the interface are so much more basic than moveable waypoints and lack of information. You'd do the game greater service by admitting, as BFC have, that the interface needs a serious upgrade. Right now you sound like a misty-eyed fanboy, which does you no justice.