Why do players not want to change from CMx1 to CMx2

[womble]

CMBN will be the best game ever in 10 years.

CMBN is already a contender for that, in my book. Even with its warts, and some of them are spectacularly carbuncular.

[Steiner14]

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.

If i imagine, i wouldn't have known CMx1 and how much fun it is, and if i tried as newbie the CMBN demo, i probably would have asked myself: "WTF?! Are they crazy?!"

I don't understand why someone doesn't see, that the interface is not good for attracting and keeping new players.

I believe, brand new players would benefit a lot from a guiding hand. If it takes too much efforts to implement a teaching/learning system, the minimum should be tutorial videos for the most basic things and what the player can expect from the AI and what not (i.e. explain how movement orders for vehicles on streets must be given for certain results).

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.

For example: the current interface without (any guidance system) seems to be a big barrier and we don't know, how many players have given up because of the first impressions of the interface.

[Vark]

Given BF, the actual makers of the game, have admitted they need an overhaul of the interface I might suggest it is not up to purpose. As has been pointed out before, it's not just moveable waypoints, but the whole way in which you interact (it is an interface after all!) with the game.

As I said, in a previous post, the combination of a far harder learning curve than CM1, coupled with a less intuitative interface might put of players digging deeper, especially those with familial responsibilties.

[Pheid]

I don't understand why someone doesn't see, that the interface is not good for attracting and keeping new players.

I believe, brand new players would benefit a lot from a guiding hand. If it takes too much efforts to implement a teaching/learning system, the minimum should be tutorial videos for the most basic things and what the player can expect from the AI and what not (i.e. explain how movement orders for vehicles on streets must be given for certain results).

I have to agree with this, CMBN is an excellent game but it's also really hard. The interface is totally servicable once you get used to it but until then it's quite daunting. The tutorial campaigns are a big step up from CMSF, but thats not saying much. I wonder how much new business BF loses by not being very accessible.

[Steiner14]

I think the best for BFC's business would be a tutorial system: the player being introduced and guided through the pre-setup phase with text and/or audio messages and/or pictures.

If such an info-system could be made available for scenario designers, i.e. like a script that is worked from top to bottom, before the setup phase begins, this even could be also used for interactive scenario-briefings, if the scenario designer wants that).

I'm thinking about a script, that can activate a text messagebox on the screen. With parts of the text being clickable. The Clicks can move the map to a predefined camera position (imagine how a gently, interpolated x-y-z-auto-move would impress completely new players), and the scripting module could offer to activate additional text on the map (maybe with a time delay - think of an auto-move of the camera and a second later a text on the map showing up). Maybe the scripting module could even activate the playback of included soundfiles or pictures. And ofcourse a simple "next" for the next step in the script and a jump to the end would be necessary.

If BFC would offer such a scripting-tool to scenario designers, i guess they wouldn't even need to make the tutorials on their own. The community would make them in no time.

[slysniper]

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.

oK, you say it sucks. along with others who agree with you. Plenty of others say its fine, including me. I just was willing to accept change and have found it to be even quicker than the old system. Can it use improvements, yes. But does it need to be like the earlier games. No. (That is much more of a issue to not accept change)

[slysniper]

I do agree with the comments that the interface is not easy, that for new players it could be too difficult and that there should be aids in helping new players understand all the data that is being feed to them. This is not just a problem for new players, old timers might be having a harder time of this because they want it like it once was.

[Redwolf]

The interface question as discussed here is still suffering from different bases.

The interface in CMBN doesn't suck enough to deter a person who has already decided to spend time and energy to learn it. Muscle memory will kick in, and there is an understand of the game mechanics that allow you to get the information you need from other sources than the UI.

But that doesn't change the fact that the UI does suck and new people who give this kind of game a shot are turned off. I made a pretty detailed thread about what sucks specifically (my only "this sucks about CMBN" thread I made) and there was agreement about many points from member of the first group.

Heads-in-sand is fine if you just want to play on, but if you want the community multiplier effect from CMx1 you won't get it this way.

[shredder]

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.

Wow! This post sums up my feelings exactly - it's what I've always wanted to say about CM1 vs CM2 but couldn't find the words. Thank you Navigator 37 for what is, IMO, the best comment to date regarding this game. I'm a fifty year old wargamer that absolutely loved CM1, and want to love CM2, but like you can go weeks without playing it. It's work, not fun.

[bracco_n]

The reason why I haven't changed yet is simply that it is way too expensive for me. Fifty five dollars equals two hundred and twenty argentine pesos, so that's why. Anyway I've played the demo and I really like it, there are some bugs and lots of things to be corrected/improved but in the end I think it'll be a great game. One thing that frigthens me is that I'm not sure if it will have all the historical background CMx1 has. What I mean by that is that IN cmx1 we have A LOT of historical scenarios with historically accurate maps.

I wonder if it barbarossa to berlin and afrika korps will also be converted to cmx2, I'd really like to see that!

[sburke]

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.

Now now, no need to go there.

Honestly not trying to be a "fanboy" but I really don't have fundamental issues with the UI. Yes there are some things I would like including moveable way points, but I guess from my perspective they don't ruin my gameplay.

Yes BFC has said they want to overhaul the UI, but that isn't the same as saying they feel it is fundamentally flawed as well. If they thought that I am sure we wouldn't have CMBN now. They'd have waited and done it first. That being said they do agree that it is something they would like to work on as CM is outgrowing the UI as they have it. In effect, we should all be winners in this. It will require some patience however as it is likely going to be a while.

[RockinHarry]

No change here. CMX1 and CMBN still coexist peacefully on my harddrive and it´s unlikely that CMX1 (..well...CMBB & CMAK) will be "replaced", until CMX2 WW2 went through the same year long evolvement, like CMX1 did. So many CMX1 projects yet in the pipeline and as long as I can´t work with big maps, large forces in CMBN (...OOM), CMX1 will do it for me some time to come.

I do not really have any issues with CMBN UI now. Cam control is purely mouse driven, with mostly playing (watching) at 1, 2 , 6-8, TAB locking units and orders given via SPACE unit command menu. Few key commands used is N+Y+G during setup and T+H+G while playing. No attempt yet to remember more, or using the command tabs at the bottom.

I´ll stick with WEGO, no matter how many efforts will be put in RT in the future or not. RT is for controlling small number of units and this sector is served to me by ARMA and MOW well enough. Beside "marketing" purposes, I can´t imagine why RT was implemented in CM at all, so I simply keep ignoring it.

I love CMBN mainly for what it promises for the (near) future, but I do not expect it to become "advanced CMX1". It´s rather "micro level CMX1", so I try to adapt and stop comparing.

[StellarRat]

It took me all of two games to figure out the interface, so I wouldn't call it "bad". It could use a couple more commands and some additional tools, but its quite useable.

[LemuelG]

The 'relative' hotkeys are all kinds of suck.

Otherwise fine.

[Michael Emrys]

The 'relative' hotkeys are all kinds of suck.

Otherwise fine.

Did you switch to the alternate setup? I found 'relative' unintuitive and foreign. I suppose it might work better for RT players, but that's not me.

Michael

[LemuelG]

Did you switch to the alternate setup? I found 'relative' unintuitive and foreign. I suppose it might work better for RT players, but that's not me.

Michael

Yes! Definately, 100x yes. It took all of five minutes of play - I could have clawed my own eyes out, I couldn't believe what I was seeing... my supposedly 'hunting' tank regurgitating it's crew into the teeth of an HMG. Worst idea ever; seriously!

Whoever has that one on their conscience owes themselves a slap on the wrist. Testers should have put their feet down... surely no-one out there thought that was a good default setup?

I will admit that there are a few occasions when I sorely miss the basic levels of polish which have been neglected here - little things - when I'm in the editor naming some guys, I assumed that I could maneuver my cursor inside the display with the arrow keys - like every other modern application in existence; wrongo (and no, it's not hard to code at all, this is laziness). You choose a scenario, instead of quickly loading the briefing and giving you an 'out' to the title-screen if you choose not to play, it loads the whole shebang, it takes minutes, and there's no way to change your mind.

There's definately room to improve usability, my gripes have ZERO to do with gameplay though (unless you're stuck with 'relative' keys and accidentally dismount all your tanks).

[SlowMotion]

If we could use CTRL,SHIFT,ALT modifiers or at least keypad keys when defining keyboard shortcuts, then it would be possible to have a better working camera control using keyboard. I'd like to use either keypad keys for camera movement and rotate. Or cursor keys, say: rotate when pressing a key, movement when pressing a key with CTRL.

It's more accurate to rotate using keyboard. With mouse there's more back and forth rotating because rotation doesn't stop quickly enough. I don't know if this has to do with using a wide screen monitor. Do I have to move mouse pointer more to center to stop camera rotation? I mean: is the "rotation active" area's width fixed or some percentage of display width?

[Fraech]

What type am I?

I played the CMAK first then CMBB couldnt get CMBO to run correctly too old for my PC my guess.

Loved CMAK and CMBB.

Loved the scale. Loved the closeness to table top miniature gaming. Love turns equal 1 min of replay to watch over and over. Loved planing my simple strategy then watching my simple strategy succede or fail. Loved learning from old mistakes and understanding how to avoid them again.

With all that love imagine how excited I was to find out a new version had come out!

I missed it, I thought WWII CM was dead with the cancellation of CM campaigns.

I played the demo excitedly. New interface ok to learn had a basic working knowlege built throught the first few demo senarios THEN WHAM!!! (Linking up and breaking out) senario as German defender. First time through saw what the AI was doing and their composition after much casulties and mistakes I restarted with new plan of defence. This failed to work. too many variables to completely stop a 2 sided attack from a vastly superior force (tried to 3 times). So new tactic ambush to slow down allied attack so I can flee. I then started to notice things the old game would have told me i couldnt do with the interface before I watched in horror the slaughter of my men.

Example CMBB in a panzerschrek ambush from a side street in a town. LOS shows me if I have a good cover armor arch and the range and the penatrative qualities on the side armor of a tank about to drive by. It would let me know if i could fire from a building as well. I used this tactic a lot worked pretty well.

Example CMBN in a Panzerschrek ambush from a side street in a town. No LOS. No cover armor arch. How far away for range unsure. "Target" seemes to show if terrain blocks LOS of the team but not the rocket itself. Vague penatrative chart on (enemy) tank only, so no real idea. Fire Schrek in a building "Nien sis we caunt do". Only way to find that out is too late when they open up with Kar98s in the building that offers no cover (another suprise) disasterous.

Another comicly bad thing happened in this example. The schrek fired on an armored car on the oppisite side of the street emerging from smoke and hit a different (invisible) armored car that exploded directly on top of them. How could they see the further one if the nearer one was blocking LOS? The team promptly ran from the dead unseen armored car. Running down the smoke clouded street bumping into and pathing around 3 other (invisible) armored cars. They cowered into the river that was covered by EVERYTHING enemy and inevetably......

So im a bit frustrated that these unrealistic, illogical, nonsencecal things happen.

Please tell me theres a patch?

I have many more examples of similar.

Perhaps specific how to's? Or what not to's?

Perhaps just LOS tool?

[Karabekian]

Example CMBN in a Panzerschrek ambush from a side street in a town. No LOS. No cover armor arch. How far away for range unsure. "Target" seemes to show if terrain blocks LOS of the team but not the rocket itself. Vague penatrative chart on (enemy) tank only, so no real idea. Fire Schrek in a building "Nien sis we caunt do". Only way to find that out is too late when they open up with Kar98s in the building that offers no cover (another suprise) disasterous.

So im a bit frustrated that these unrealistic, illogical, nonsencecal things happen.

Please tell me theres a patch?

I have many more examples of similar.

Perhaps specific how to's? Or what not to's?

Perhaps just LOS tool?

I wholeheartedly agree with this. The base CMBN and CW left a baffling amount of stuff out from the CMx1 series. CMBB and CMAK ALWAYS did what I wanted it to. Much less micromanagement.

But to be fair, the Italy module seems to remedy a lot of problems, maybe you should check it out. There is also a patch coming for CMBN and CW that gives you the new stuff.

[Cymru]

One reason may be that CMx1 players are simply getting OLD. Statistically, older players play fewer games, pay less often and aren't particularly enthused about game advancements. .

Try telling that to my wife. At 70 I am probably playing more than I did in the past, BTW I still work full-time, so it is not because of retirement.

I am Type 4 (I think) CM1 was more fun because you could be a little more careless than in CM2 and the QB system was great. Those two provided a level of enjoyment I don’t get from CM2. Now the QB system is a pain, and I have to pay a lot more detail to every move by every unit. I am sure that is what the designers intended, and what most players wanted: it just isn’t my preference.

[slysniper]

I wholeheartedly agree with this. The base CMBN and CW left a baffling amount of stuff out from the CMx1 series. CMBB and CMAK ALWAYS did what I wanted it to. Much less micromanagement.

But to be fair, the Italy module seems to remedy a lot of problems, maybe you should check it out. There is also a patch coming for CMBN and CW that gives you the new stuff.

I dont think anything they do with the new engine is going to solve the problems you guys have with the game. CMX2 engine is never going to work with the same aspects as the old game. If you cannot figure out how to get your troops to spot and fire as you would like, THE NEW LITTLE FIXES ARE NOT CHANGING THE BASIC WAY IT FUNCTIONS

[Redwolf]

I wholeheartedly agree with this. The base CMBN and CW left a baffling amount of stuff out from the CMx1 series. CMBB and CMAK ALWAYS did what I wanted it to. Much less micromanagement.

Just to address one specific thing in that big post: live vehicles do not block LOS in either CMx1 or CMx2, never have. In CMx1 there was the exception of dead vehicles that burn, in that case the smoke did block LOS.

Otherwise I think most agree that the LOS mechanisms are too complicated and unintuitive for fun gameplay and some agree that the LOS mechanisms are partially broken/unrealistic, not counting the issue of live units not blocking LOS. In fact one commonly mentioned problem is the other way round with multi-person infantry units not seeing large vehicles right next to them.

[Fraech]

Just to address one specific thing in that big post: live vehicles do not block LOS in either CMx1 or CMx2, never have. In CMx1 there was the exception of dead vehicles that burn, in that case the smoke did block LOS.

Otherwise I think most agree that the LOS mechanisms are too complicated and unintuitive for fun gameplay and some agree that the LOS mechanisms are partially broken/unrealistic, not counting the issue of live units not blocking LOS. In fact one commonly mentioned problem is the other way round with multi-person infantry units not seeing large vehicles right next to them.

Invisible tanks just bother me. I wish there was a (?) indicator or somthing if it was concealed.

I think even if there was no light i would hear the tank or feel the ground shake (before I walked into it)

If a wall doesn't conceal within a certian distance neither should smoke.

Am I a new number or does my complaint fall under a previous number?

[Fraech]

But to be fair, the Italy module seems to remedy a lot of problems, maybe you should check it out. There is also a patch coming for CMBN and CW that gives you the new stuff.

Thanks I hope it helps.

[eltorrente]

When CMBN came out, I found it more difficult to do things I used to do, and had gotten used to, in the older games. Moveable waypoints was one of the things that I really missed. As time went on, I realized how much more detailed this game was though, and I thought it was a big step forward. I never used to like abstracted soldiers, for instance, and I felt like CMBN took place on an actual battlefield. It just feels more "real" to me.

I think it was easier to pick up the older games and just start playing. It was easy to give my friends a few minutes of instruction, and they'd be able to start playing right away.

This game just takes more time, and punishes you more for mistakes and bad tactics. That's fine with me. I've always liked games with more detail and nuance, because it takes longer to master and offers more replayabiity. Some people are opposite, and don't want to be bothered with more stuff to worry about. Luckily, the people that prefer the older games can still play them and find plenty of opponents for PBEMs. As for me, I haven't even looked at the older games since CMBN came out, and they don't exist on my harddrive anymore.