Why do players not want to change from CMx1 to CMx2

[Paper Tiger]

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

Heh heh! That's why some of us still remember him as 'Coaxial Ken'.

[Paper Tiger]

Players want predictable results. not the roll of the dice.

This is true. At the moment, it does feel like it is more random than it should be.

Things could be improved on how the game spots, but there will always be some randomness of who gets the first spot

.

Indeed. If a stationary, unbuttoned tank was given a significant bonus to spotting an enemy tank moving into its frontal arc, where everyone is supposedly looking, then we would see instances of tanks moving into LoS of a stationary tank and getting the first shot off happen less frequently. Of course there should be an element of luck involved. For instance, the stationary tank crew may have been temporarily distracted by a loud fart from the driver and missed the Pz IV driving into its LoS. But the element of luck should play less of a factor than it appears to do so at the moment. At the end of the day, the player can do everything right to maximise his chances of getting that coveted spot and first shot and the game should reward him for doing so but not make it a sure thing because there's no such thing in life.

So the issue will never be resolved.

So that it NEVER happens, no. I agree.

[Fraech]

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

Yes if you are not alert you are dead in vehicle combat. I remember CMbb1 senario "cracking the egg". It had soviet assault guns cresting a hill over looking a town with concealed AT guns. The Pak guns picking them off as soon as they show is the 80% first spot kill type. Not CM2's roll of the dice in head to head spotting.

In the air Luftwaffe pilots commented on early soviet pilots never turning their heads to look behind them. The key word is (behind).

A tank in a nonviewable area that cannot be seen is concealed.

A tank in a viewable area that cannot be seen is invisible.

Concealment = realistic

Invisibility = unrealistic

Like CM2 just waiting for the patches to make it more playable/ realistic.

[sburke]

Yes if you are not alert you are dead in vehicle combat. I remember CMbb1 senario "cracking the egg". It had soviet assault guns cresting a hill over looking a town with concealed AT guns. The Pak guns picking them off as soon as they show is the 80% first spot kill type. Not CM2's roll of the dice in head to head spotting.

In the air Luftwaffe pilots commented on early soviet pilots never turning their heads to look behind them. The key word is (behind).

A tank in a nonviewable area that cannot be seen is concealed.

A tank in a viewable area that cannot be seen is invisible.

Concealment = realistic

Invisibility = unrealistic

Like CM2 just waiting for the patches to make it more playable/ realistic.

Absolutes are unrealistic. And borg spotting is absolutely unrealistic.

[noob]

Unless players do extensive tests with a high level of scientific rigour, all we have, to gauge whether the game is flawed or not, is anecdotal evidence, and in my experience with CMx2, the one factor, that determines the outcome of a game is me, if i make more mistakes than my opponent i lose, if not, i win, or if the scenario is unbalanced, the level of the loss, which is the very least one can can ask of a game, so CMx2 feels right to me, and resonates with my perceptions of WW2 combat.

In regards to armour, i have never come across a flaw that repeated itself game after game, to such an extent, as to make me suspect there was something fundamentally wrong with any tank on tank actions, that could not be attributed to either bad tactics, or bad luck.

[Paper Tiger]

if i make more mistakes than my opponent i lose, if not, i win, or if the scenario is unbalanced, the level of the loss, which is the very least one can can ask of a game, so CMx2 feels right to me, and resonates with my perceptions of WW2 combat.

ah... how often the H2H/PBEM players are comfortable with issues that only really influence single play against the AI opponent. This is because, for them, most of these limitations can be overcome by human intelligence. At the end of your WEGO turn, you can move units from locations that mortar/artillery spotting rounds are closing in on, unbutton tanks that have been forced to button up, move forward and take a peek for 10-15 seconds to draw fire from an opponent before scuttling to safety, etc, etc, etc.

I play this game exclusively against the AI because I design content for BFC to include on the disk. I am not the best 'tester' on the team as running hundreds of tests bores the crap out of me and I really have got better things to do with my game time than that. But what I do do is test my own AI plans in great detail. In the course of running tests I see how handicapped the AI side is in the game. When I'm testing, I AM the AI player and I get frustrated watching AI-controlled vehicles sit in place as the US 60mm mortar hones in on its position forcing the crew to button up rendering it next to useless for the remainder of the scenario. Or an AFV fire off a shot at some enemy infantry firing on their supporting troops and seeing the first shot fall short, kick up a small dust cloud that temporarily breaks LOS thus ending the threat to the defending infantry. And when LOS is re-established, it has to re-spot the infantry all over again before it can get off another round.

I do feel that the game doiesn't sufficiently punish a unit that is moving quickly when spotting. The faster you move, the less likely you are to spot threats at distances. I know that when I'm running, I am mostly looking at the terrain in front of me and for traffic in my immediate vicinity while doing so. I'm seeing slit US Infantry squads (4-5 men) using FAST movement instantly spotting enemy infantry and vehicles moving nearly 1 km away on a thick hazy day. That doesn't seem right to me.

[MikeyD]

Some people sound like they're just not having very much fun. It rather sounds like they wouldn't be having fun playing their imagined 'ideal' game either.

[dieseltaylor]

Some people sound like they're just not having very much fun. It rather sounds like they wouldn't be having fun playing their imagined 'ideal' game either.

MikeyD. People had a lot of fun with CMX1 and for me it was not far off ideal when played at the right scale which was lots of units and huge maps where combined arms really worked and soft-skinned vehicles had a reason to want to live and be used.

The two most glaring game design errors were vehicles reversing as fast backwards as forwards [repeated in CMBN V1.00] and the laser range finders that equipped all troops and then was teamed with a mode that meant you could see precisely out to x yards in various weather/night conditions. And snipers would not fire at 98metres to a target but would at 101metres.

HOWEVER perhaps BF ought to consider that perhaps there is an opportunity to market the game with a dial down option on the spotting variance. This obviously after the current problems with moving spotting is tweaked to make it more difficult.

The worst case I had was in a trial Sherman that was hit three times on the front glacis and the TC stayed up and still could not spot a MKIV at range firing. Both tanks in the open. AFAIR it never spotted it in a couple of minutes. I would never argue that this would be impossible but for it to occur in a test series of around 50 was a shock. And it was not the only example where some units would spot in small sconds and others would go to minutes and not at all. IF the variance was reduced to say 40 seconds , and huge bonuses/miuses against firing/moving units etc then it may be more playable as a game where people have a roughly similar experience.

If it can be a dialable feature that would be excellent and I don't care if the choice is extreme realism, average realism, and baby play.

[SlowMotion]

Tank getting hit 3 times and TC still staying up in turret sounds weird.

[slysniper]

Unless players do extensive tests with a high level of scientific rigour, all we have, to gauge whether the game is flawed or not, is anecdotal evidence, and in my experience with CMx2, the one factor, that determines the outcome of a game is me, if i make more mistakes than my opponent i lose, if not, i win, or if the scenario is unbalanced, the level of the loss, which is the very least one can can ask of a game, so CMx2 feels right to me, and resonates with my perceptions of WW2 combat.

In regards to armour, i have never come across a flaw that repeated itself game after game, to such an extent, as to make me suspect there was something fundamentally wrong with any tank on tank actions, that could not be attributed to either bad tactics, or bad luck.

Have you looked at some other threads lately. I just reported on some testing that shows flaws in spotting with moving tanks. There is plenty of room for improvement with the CMx2 engine. So I do think there is a logical reason there is many players that do not like how it functions to what they have in CMX1, I just think some of us are more accepting of its flaws for what we see as its benifits.

[noob]

Have you looked at some other threads lately. I just reported on some testing that shows flaws in spotting with moving tanks.

Could you link me to the thread with the test results please ?

[Fraech]

Absolutes are unrealistic. And borg spotting is absolutely unrealistic.

Yes I agree "borg spotting" is absolutely unrealistic. Self contradiction? Purposefull?

Anyhow I agree that FOW and spotting are a fun part of the game. I just wish it was more logicly programed so that close at hand armored cars wouldnt be invisible. As for my definition of Invisible please refer to the previous post.

I agree that there may be a link to the way the game is played to how realistic it is percieved.

I play exclusively single player vs AI turn based. I love to watch the replays over and over. Perhaps thats why CM2's flaws bug me more?

I see them more. Also over and over again.

Still waiting on the patches.

[stikkypixie]

Yes I agree "borg spotting" is absolutely unrealistic. Self contradiction? Purposefull?

Anyhow I agree that FOW and spotting are a fun part of the game. I just wish it was more logicly programed so that close at hand armored cars wouldnt be invisible. As for my definition of Invisible please refer to the previous post.

I agree that there may be a link to the way the game is played to how realistic it is percieved.

I play exclusively single player vs AI turn based. I love to watch the replays over and over. Perhaps thats why CM2's flaws bug me more?

I see them more. Also over and over again.

Still waiting on the patches.

Just curious, but why doesn't the bug in CMx1 where a tank that has just moved by behind cover can still be hit? That was always a game breaker for me, or artillery falling down at the end of the turn while everything on the map is "on pause".

[Redwolf]

Just curious, but why doesn't the bug in CMx1 where a tank that has just moved by behind cover can still be hit? That was always a game breaker for me, or artillery falling down at the end of the turn while everything on the map is "on pause".

A game breaker? Come on, it had to be visible when the shot left the barrel.

[stikkypixie]

A game breaker? Come on, it had to be visible when the shot left the barrel.

And then the shot magically tunnelled through the obstacle hitting the tank in cover. No big deal at all.

[sburke]

Yes I agree "borg spotting" is absolutely unrealistic. Self contradiction? Purposefull?

Anyhow I agree that FOW and spotting are a fun part of the game. I just wish it was more logicly programed so that close at hand armored cars wouldnt be invisible. As for my definition of Invisible please refer to the previous post.

I agree that there may be a link to the way the game is played to how realistic it is percieved.

I play exclusively single player vs AI turn based. I love to watch the replays over and over. Perhaps thats why CM2's flaws bug me more?

I see them more. Also over and over again.

Still waiting on the patches.

yes, you've got to have some humor thrown in, after all if the Olympic stadium can have everyone singing "Always look on the bright side of life" with Michael Palin....

The problem at the heart of a lot of complaints about the game and spotting I think center to a degree from a mis conception as to how spotting is handled. It is not a constant in the sense that as a vehicle moves in to what should be within your LOS, you should immediately have a chance to see it. Instead the game takes periodic LOS checks (how often I do not know) so that tank that just crested the hill might have crested it IN BETWEEN your LOS checks. So you end up with occasional oddities where something happens that you would swear to be impossible. In real life you would be correct, but those rules do not apply here.

And then the shot magically tunnelled through the obstacle hitting the tank in cover. No big deal at all.

Not necessarily true. As I understand it the game actually functions on mini snapshots. It is not this smooth action that you see as you watch the replay. As with everything else that has to be handled with a compromise, the trade off is you could not run the game if it took LOS checks too often. So while CM is a darn good tactical warfare simulator, you do still have to deal with the computing limitations we have. That same compromise with inherent computing limitations and game play is that border line I think for those folks who accept and love the game regardless and those who get totally frustrated. Nope it is not perfect, but the alternative would be a game even a high powered rig would choke on.

The upside is in CMx2 you can carry out an ambush far more successfully than you ever could in CMx1. My first PBEM battle saw a JgPz ambush 2 Shermans neither of which saw it until after one was destroyed and the other already hit and soon to be destroyed.

In addition there are allowances made for the AI to allow it to be competitive and that is BF's primary audience. If we put too many restrictions on functionality, the AI gets further and further behind as an opponent or BF spends all it's time trying to develop an uber AI and ends up going under.

Simply put, BF is in a constant balancing act of creating a game that we can actually run and still keeping the AI competitive. It kind of goes back to BF's response to the recent 8x8 review. The reviewer stated he didn't see much difference in the models in Version 2.0. What the reviewer was too blind to see is that was exactly what BF was hoping for. If the new models looked pretty much close to the old they had in effect reduced the computing demands while still retaining the graphics and could now expend that computing power on something else...like fire maybe.

Getting back to the OP though. Why shouldn't some folks still play CMx1? From my perspective they are essentially 2 completely different tactical wargames on the same topics. I personally am not interested in CMx1, but then again neither am I interested in PCO. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation.

[Redwolf]

And then the shot magically tunnelled through the obstacle hitting the tank in cover. No big deal at all.

It looks odd but it's a very minor reduction in realism since the tank had to be visible for the actual shooting.

[dieseltaylor]

sburke - how much CMx1 have you played?

[sburke]

sburke - how much CMx1 have you played?

Since CMBN came out, none. Prior to that a lot. I have to admit though that once I had my hands on CMSF I was counting the days until BF went back to WW2 with CMx2. CMSF really ruined it for me. I just couldn't get into (as another poster recently put it) going back to WW2 in South Park.

[Fenris]

I don't play all time but when I do I am still playing CM1 here. It's familiar and easier to use and covers most of the war in every theatre. With ROCQ campaign system I'm still enjoying it a lot.

Am waiting for CM2 to mature a bit, both the engine and the available theatres/units before giving it a serious effort.

So even though CM2 hasn't swept me off my feet yet I'm in no rush. By the time I really want to play there'll be lots of goodies available. I've got plenty of games on my list to keep me busy and I'm one of those people who's happy to wait for a game of the year type edition with the bugs patched and all the add-ons in one package.

So for me it's all good from where I sit.

-F

[Blazing 88's]

...(as another poster recently put it) going back to WW2 in South Park.

I am glad it does not affect me in that manner.

[z1812]

I can't re call a "type" being listed that would be a person who simply enjoys cmx1 more than cmx2.

There are still many things to enjoy about BO, BB, AK. Some have been mentioned such as large battles, random maps, command lines and greater and more convenient access to game information.

I sometimes think that CMx1 was more a labour of love. That is that business sense took a bit of a back seat to passion for the game. While CMx2 is more about business with an eye to attracting new players. Also very important if you want the only company making the best tactical wargames to stay profitable.

I regret that moving forward has also brought more complexity to certain parts of the game.

As the scenario/mapmaker becomes more refined and labour intensive I fear less people will have the time or inclination to make scenarios.

New file types that support improved graphics may require more work and skill that will, I think, lead to less mods being made. I hope to be wrong however more complexity in a game does tend to require more time and effort to construct maps and scenarios.

In any case I continue to enjoy the older games along with the new.

[GSX]

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.

That's me your talking about! A one time in CMx1 I had 50+ PBEM on the go, now I have a huge 2 and struggle to play them. Growing kids, promotion at work, more deployments are just a few to name.

However, I'm definitely in the CM2 camp, I haven't played a CM1 game since the year after SF came out. If only they would include some infantry squad formations I'd be a happy man.

[Chek]

The only thing that put me off CMSF was no MAC version.In a bizarre twist of fate,at about the time CMBN came out I switched to windows 7 and finally managed to get my hands on SF as well(love them both btw).

I certainly fit into Mikey D's getting old category but I relished the change and have very much enjoyed familiarising myself with CM2.I did find that up untill recently the AI was regularly giving me a good drubbing.

Most of my improvements have to do with sharpening up on my tactical 'nous' and of course there is always the familiarisation of the limitations of the computer modeled environment.Every PROGRAM regardless of it being a game or not has it's vaguries as the programmers struggle to deal with those limitations.To get the most out of whatever program you are using you MUST learn and come to terms with them.

This is how I approach everything that I do with computers as coming from a time when they never even existed and into a time where I can't even survive without them,I am well aware that it's ME that has to adapt to them.

I see them as an elaborate tool.

[Erwin]

One of the best aspects of playing CM2, is that vastly improves one's CM1 game, as the more lethal CM2 environment teaches one to be a lot more careful and detail-oriented.