Why do players not want to change from CMx1 to CMx2

[sburke]

Wait a minute, you mean to tell me there was a CM version before CMSF?

heh heh

Actually I keep my old discs as cool places to set my beer glass while playing Cmx2 games. I have no idea why anyone would still play the old ones over the new, but then again I have no idea why people watch reality tv either.

[Blazing 88's]

Wait a minute, you mean to tell me there was a CM version before CMSF?

heh heh

Actually I keep my old discs as cool places to set my beer glass while playing Cmx2 games. I have no idea why anyone would still play the old ones over the new, but then again I have no idea why people watch reality tv either.

Because lucky me I didn't burn myself out using those games over the years. I still have hundreds of scenarios / ops and the RobO's quick campaign generator to keep CMAK (CMETO) and CMBB spinning. I like very large battles and ops as well, CMx1 is great for that as Erwin has been mentioning in other threads.

I do like the CMx2 engine though, just not my favorite theatre... Normandy. Digging Italy though. Hopefully there will be a North Africa version down the road. Really looking forward to the Russian front as well.

[MikeyD]

Every once one in awhile, after reading a flurry of board complaints about CMx2 not being an exactly duplicate of CMx1 I dust off an old copy of CMBB or CMAK and fire it up. Ooooooh... after a few minutes of trying to maneuver the darned camera around a map that vaguely resembles a South Park cartoon I give up and close it down.

[CM1fan]

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.

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

Best regards,

Thomm

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

How can you possibly FINISH a scenario in half an hour? I've never been able to complete a CMx2 set up in less than an hour. A platoon size force involves at least four units, three squads and a platoon leader. Add in a few support weapons and dividing the squads into teams, and you've got a dozen or more units to place and issue commands. I haven't seen any scenarios smaller than that, and some are MUCH larger, with more than one hundred units to control.

[eltorrente]

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

How can you possibly FINISH a scenario in half an hour?

Maybe if the scenario is a half an hour long (?)..

[sburke]

Every once one in awhile, after reading a flurry of board complaints about CMx2 not being an exactly duplicate of CMx1 I dust off an old copy of CMBB or CMAK and fire it up. Ooooooh... after a few minutes of trying to maneuver the darned camera around a map that vaguely resembles a South Park cartoon I give up and close it down.

rotflmao

I need a sound mod "screw you, I'm going home"

[Blazing 88's]

Every once one in awhile, after reading a flurry of board complaints about CMx2 not being an exactly duplicate of CMx1 I dust off an old copy of CMBB or CMAK and fire it up. Ooooooh... after a few minutes of trying to maneuver the darned camera around a map that vaguely resembles a South Park cartoon I give up and close it down.

Says the beta tester that probably gets free copy's... no bias there what-so-ever...

Seriously, to each their own. I enjoy CMx1 and will for some time, no matter how much sburke and others dis it, I don't give a rats ass.

Having said that, firing up CMFI right now for some CMx2 action.

[ArgusEye]

CMx1 is more abstracted. It doesn't track individual soldiers. This is not less realistic, it is less detailed. CMx2 tracks individual soldiers and bullets, but its soldiers neither act fully realistic, nor can they be micromanaged to do so. There are, after all, limits to programming and computer power. For me this gives a choice between abstracted and quite well balanced, or very detailed with quite some bizarre behaviour. I just prefer the first.

[sburke]

CMx1 is more abstracted. It doesn't track individual soldiers. This is not less realistic, it is less detailed. CMx2 tracks individual soldiers and bullets, but its soldiers neither act fully realistic, nor can they be micromanaged to do so. There are, after all, limits to programming and computer power. For me this gives a choice between abstracted and quite well balanced, or very detailed with quite some bizarre behaviour. I just prefer the first.

Heh hehe I've seen quite a bit of bizarre behavior in CMx1 as well.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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.

True, but in CMx2 live vehicles block LOF in many circumstances.

[Fraech]

Can you see the two invisible armored cars? Guess where their hiding? :confused:

Thats right. In front of the destroyed armored car! :eek:

How does he not see the engine running car that should block LOS to the silent dead one?

Forgot to mention his orders are to pop smoke. He decides to give buddy aid instead.

He dies a few moments later after throwing away his smoke grenade into an open field (probably to block the gophers LOS to his impending death) .

Don't incourage me to get down there with a trouper eye view to see the details, CAUSE ILL DO IT!

Still frustrated with the supposed realism.

Come on patches, need me some patches.

[slysniper]

oops, double post

[slysniper]

So we have turned this into a CMX1 vs CMX2 debate once again.

face it they are not the same, they are never going to be the same. At least you are getting some of the controls back so that how you order units are more similar.

As for which you want to play, great, whichever it is go play it but the other side reallly does not want to hear about it, because they like the other better.

I think it comes down to you mastered a way of playing the game, it became natural for you and when them same skills sucked in the new game, you figured the game had problems, I know I did.

But after a while, I decided to invest in some time on the new system, changed my style of play and learned how to get the results I wanted out of the new system. I figure many will never want to do that since they are good with their old ways. (Which is fine)

For me what I found, after I started becoming good with the new engine, I started to see how it required much more of the skills I was taught in RL in the service, that I could do more real life tactics. So for me, I have went with the new and really do not like playing the old much more.

But unless you are willing to change, you will never like the new game, because no matter how many adjustments they make, it will never play like the old.

It seems pretty clear to me anyway.

[c3k]

Can you see the two invisible armored cars? Guess where their hiding? :confused:

[ATTACH]1531[/ATTACH]

Thats right. In front of the destroyed armored car! :eek:

[ATTACH]1532[/ATTACH]

How does he not see the engine running car that should block LOS to the silent dead one?

Forgot to mention his orders are to pop smoke. He decides to give buddy aid instead.

He dies a few moments later after throwing away his smoke grenade into an open field (probably to block the gophers LOS to his impending death) .

Don't incourage me to get down there with a trouper eye view to see the details, CAUSE ILL DO IT!

Still frustrated with the supposed realism.

Come on patches, need me some patches.

Fraech,

I like what I've read of Slysniper's thread. I cannot imagine playing CMx1 anymore. Nor can I understand anyone who holds CMx1 as being better than CMx2. Having said that, no, CMx2 is not perfect.

Looking at what you describe:

The soldier is helping his wounded comrade, right in front of him, rather than continuing to pop smoke. That's what I'd want my buddy to do for me. Why should he pop smoke? There's no one around. Or so he thinks. That makes PERFECT sense to me. You, the player, may not like a soldier stopping to bandage his buddy instead of fighting, but it happens.

The LOS is not a problem. The wreck blocks his LOS to the one armored car. The fact that he is crouched down means the wall blocks his LOS to the other armored car.

If you think I'm one to cover up any flaws or warts in the system, you need to search out my posts.

Now, would it be BETTER if engine sound could create "curiosity" and possible spots? Sure. How noisy is a stationary armored car? How deafened by incoming or outgoing fire is that soldier? What other noises are around him? How about a screaming comrade, pumping out his lifeblood? Kind of an attention getter.

Ken

[Doug Williams]

Well, as I stated on another forum, I'll never go back to CM1, unless it's in a fit of nostalgia.

There are, however, a couple of things I miss from CM1 that I wish were in CM2: computer generated QB maps and command lines.

[Baneman]

...

The LOS is not a problem. The wreck blocks his LOS to the one armored car. The fact that he is crouched down means the wall blocks his LOS to the other armored car.

Uh no, it seems that the AC is failing to block his LOS to the wreck ( by being invisible )

[War RaVeN]

So we have turned this into a CMX1 vs CMX2 debate once again.

face it they are not the same, they are never going to be the same. At least you are getting some of the controls back so that how you order units are more similar.

As for which you want to play, great, whichever it is go play it but the other side reallly does not want to hear about it, because they like the other better.

I think it comes down to you mastered a way of playing the game, it became natural for you and when them same skills sucked in the new game, you figured the game had problems, I know I did.

But after a while, I decided to invest in some time on the new system, changed my style of play and learned how to get the results I wanted out of the new system. I figure many will never want to do that since they are good with their old ways. (Which is fine)

For me what I found, after I started becoming good with the new engine, I started to see how it required much more of the skills I was taught in RL in the service, that I could do more real life tactics. So for me, I have went with the new and really do not like playing the old much more.

But unless you are willing to change, you will never like the new game, because no matter how many adjustments they make, it will never play like the old.

It seems pretty clear to me anyway.

Yep, 100 % agree!!

[Vanir Ausf B]

Wrecks only block LOS if they are on fire/smoking.

[dieseltaylor]

Interesting thread but with very little in the way of people saying how they played the game, for how long etc. Trying to evalaute the worth of the comments becomes difficult if I look at the two games from a WEGO point of view and only play against humans.

I suppose I have been playing for 12 years, and very little in the last year. I reckon easily 500 games ogf CMBB and CMAK and getting on for 100 different opponents which seems to be quite a lot by what records I can see.

I play humans because AI's suck. I also like to play tournaments because you can have fun discussing the battles before and after the event if it is team play. What I think I see in CMBN was a game brought to the market a year too early with a crappy armour module from CMSF stuck on.

However until I get the finishing patch for Version1.10 to convert it to 2.00 I can only go by comments on the CMFI forum as to whether it will finally float my boat. Unfortunately I think I am seeing that the finer detail of CMX2 with huge spotting time differences means tournament play is probably dead for CMx2. I have carried out many tests with matched tanks in fire lanes and when in identical lanes there can be over a minutes spotting differnce you realise that battles really are going to go via the engines spotting routines and that if 20 players start the same battle the differences in scores may well come down to spotting.

Looking at Big Dorks AAR where his moving Sherman in two incidents nails two waiting MkIV's certainly confirmed my doubts about trying to run a tournament. CMX1 was reasonably reliable and you could make reasonable guesses as to what should happen. By allowing for so many possibilities CMX2 may certainly appear more realistic but as a game it is not as good.

I thought this apt from Wiki in trying to distinguish the puzzle side of playing.

Single-player games

Most games require multiple players. However, single-player games are unique in respect to the type of challenges a player faces. Unlike a game with multiple players competing with or against each other to reach the game's goal, a one-player game is a battle solely against an element of the environment (an artificial opponent), against one's own skills, against time, or against chance. Playing with a yo-yo or playing tennis against a wall is not generally recognized as playing a game due to the lack of any formidable opposition.

It is not valid to describe a computer game as single-player where the computer provides opposition. If the computer is merely record-keeping, then the game may be validly single-player.

Many games described as "single-player" may be termed actually puzzles or recreations.

[altipueri]

Yep, 100 % agree!!

Another reason I play more CMx1 than 2. Realism is too tedious.

[slysniper]

Unfortunately I think I am seeing that the finer detail of CMX2 with huge spotting time differences means tournament play is probably dead for CMx2. I have carried out many tests with matched tanks in fire lanes and when in identical lanes there can be over a minutes spotting differnce you realise that battles really are going to go via the engines spotting routines and that if 20 players start the same battle the differences in scores may well come down to spotting.

Looking at Big Dorks AAR where his moving Sherman in two incidents nails two waiting MkIV's certainly confirmed my doubts about trying to run a tournament. CMX1 was reasonably reliable and you could make reasonable guesses as to what should happen. By allowing for so many possibilities CMX2 may certainly appear more realistic but as a game it is not as good.

I think you have a good point here in that in tournament play, most players are very competative by nature.

Now introduce a game that places a new concept into gaming. "Spotting, which in the Armor aspect of the game becomes more important at times instead of good tactics. The game reflects that who sees and fires first is at a greater advantage than any other aspect. Which as you point out, with how the game presently works. Might be a large varence in time for no apparent reason other than that is how the sighting works in the game.

not a good format for someone that winning really matters and the game just cost you a tank because they could not see the enemy tank that was right in the open. Players want predictable results. not the roll of the dice.

Things could be improved on how the game spots, but there will always be some randomness of who gets the first spot. So the issue will never be resolved.

As for tournament play. I am sure there are those that would do fine with it, it just might not be the same people that prefer how CMX1 presently plays.

IT reminds me I have a game right now where I have a panther that has taken 6 hits from a M4 Sherman because of for the life of me I cannot get my tank to spot his tank. I have infantry right next to my tank that sees it clear as day. I have reprositioned twice trying to get sight. Nothing.

Now I can live with that, But if all that matter was the win, then maybe not. In CMX1. That sherman would have been dead long ago, no questions asked. In this game, My panther has damage now that I dont want, I am afraid I dont want to risk much more, so I might need to pull back and try something else.

Which seems more realistic. The almost gareenteed win (CMX1)

OR bad luck, taking hits and getting nervious , so I am pulling back (cmX2)

which sounds like the stuff you read about in combat. I find many a story that talks about lucky guys that see a Tiger or Panther and get the first shot off and pull off some great stuff, Or course I also read the logic of position warfare that gives one tank a major advantage so that they dominate the field of battle. because of armor strength and fire power. Both have there place.

Only one of the two games provide you with something that is a mix of both.

[Erwin]

"So we have turned this into a CMX1 vs CMX2 debate once again."

Not sure what "again" means when you look at the title of this thread, you can see exactly what it's about.

The only real issue here iis that the CM2 fanatics insist that CM1 fans join them in the lovefest for CM2. The question is, why?

It doesn't bother me that people prefer CM2, why does it bother CM2 fans that many people still play a lot of CM1?? They are essentially completely different games. If you want to play large-scale maneuver scenarios with 3+ battalions and numerous companies of armor etc on each side, CM1 is the ONLY game that offers that superb experience. (Oh, and BTW, some us hated the little infantry-centric scenarios that were so prevalent originally in CMBN.)

I used to think it was only drug addicts or alcoholics who just have to get everyone else to copy their example.

To each their own, and that's the way it should be.

[Redwolf]

At the end of the day, leaving all details about spotting and concealment aside, I think a core issue is this:

CMx1 was one of the most efficient wargames of all times. The amount of "paperwork" you have to do to run your command was very small. The UI was snappy and had useful keyboard shortcuts. You could see what you needed to see very quickly. I think the only more efficient game I have played is TacOps. And CMx1 was also learning-efficient. Learning enough game mechanics to not lose your battle due to one of the unavoidable engine oddities was pretty straightforward. Testing was also very quick due to hotseating and autonomous AI.

CMx2 has a lot of inefficiencies. The UI/panning is sluggish, the keys originally suck and you can't entirely unsuck them with the bindings file. As far as learning enough game mechanics to ensure you against engine oddities, well CMx2 mostly is one big engine oddity. It can still be a fun game experience, and probably a realistic one. but for sure it is not having good efficiency wrt learning time. You can make a full-time job out of following every bit of action point information posted on the forum. The game hides a lot of information that was previously displayed and to make things worse testing with test scenarios is slower because of more map detail, odder unit selection and no autonomous AI.

Now, this doesn't make CMx2 a bad game at all. But CMx2 is no longer more efficient than other wargames, and CMx1 was pretty much an efficiency superstar.

[John Kettler]

slysniper,

I think you have a good point here in that in tournament play, most players are very competative by nature.

Now introduce a game that places a new concept into gaming. "Spotting, which in the Armor aspect of the game becomes more important at times instead of good tactics. The game reflects that who sees and fires first is at a greater advantage than any other aspect. Which as you point out, with how the game presently works. Might be a large varence in time for no apparent reason other than that is how the sighting works in the game.

.

Dueling theory and the U.S. Army's own analyses both in house and outside contracted consistently showed that spotting first and accurately shooting first were the critical aspects of the tank engagement. The one who got off the first shot had an expectation of winning in something like the 80% range. Interestingly, this solidly tracks with air-to-air combat experience, in which 80% of the kills were inflicted on unaware opponents. This is why fighter pilots have, as they say, "their heads on swivels." Rubberneck and live!

Regards,

John Kettler

[slysniper]

slysniper,

Dueling theory and the U.S. Army's own analyses both in house and outside contracted consistently showed that spotting first and accurately shooting first were the critical aspects of the tank engagement. The one who got off the first shot had an expectation of winning in something like the 80% range. Interestingly, this solidly tracks with air-to-air combat experience, in which 80% of the kills were inflicted on unaware opponents. This is why fighter pilots have, as they say, "their heads on swivels." Rubberneck and live!

Regards,

John Kettler

I know, but many gamers are not wanting a game to do that, it does not sit well with them when they lose their big bad tank to a enemy unit for no better reason than it spotted them first. exspecially if their logic tells them that their Tank should have spotted the enemy first.

I hope I am not coming over as that I think everyone should want to play CMX2

I can see the competative player in certain ladders prefering CMX1 for just the reasons brought up. Your expected results will be much more forthcoming. You have a system that is much more predictable.

I also am pointing out that for some of us we prefer CMx2 because even with its flaws, it does a better job of reflecting the mayham of battle. That being able to play and see consistant winning results is just as sweat and for some of us, just as enjoyable. because for some, controling a battle without having complete control of the units is even more satisfying. Because for us, that represents more what real conflict is about.