What I think

[yapma]

I played the hell out of CMx1. Probably the best computer games ever made. Played CMSF, but nowhere near as much. I tried RT, but never did like it, and stuck with turn based.

In the past, I would buy BF products just on the basis of their name. After dealing with CMSF and its frustrations, I no longer do that. I looked for some reviews of CMBfN, could not find any. Pretty much zero interest in the product on the internets. So I downloaded the demo.

I think the graphics are a huge improvement over those in the first engine. I also thought the photographs used in the game are fantastic. Weapon sounds are fantastic. The game feels real, and is certainly intense.

On the downside, the graphics are lousy and laggy when compared to big production RTS titles. I got fed up with graphic representations not corresponding to what the computer sees (i.e., LOS being blocked by a wall that looks 3 feet tall, but the computer seems to treat as being 20 feet tall). I got even more feed up with whatever fluctuation in the space time continuum allows the enemy to have LOS to me, yet me not having reciprocal LOS. And I have no idea why my troopers refuse to stay put inside a building, and insist on running behind the building where they are useless.

In sum, I think the game is pretty good. But, it's hardly great in the way CMBO and CM BtB were. It seems schizophrenic to me -- it's either a pretty mediocre RTS that pales in comparison to what the big boys produce, or it's a turn based thinking game with a lot of the depth removed from the first iteration, and a lot of frustration added.

I think the game is good try, and I do not begrudge BF for trying to appeal to more gamers. But for me, the game is disappointing.

[ChrisND]

snip or it's a turn based thinking game with a lot of the depth removed from the first iteration... snip

This statement makes me curious. What depth was removed in the transition?

[yapma]

This statement makes me curious. What depth was removed in the transition?

For me, it was the removal of the movement delay. Also, the loss of the C&C indicator lines. And, in the first iteration, I clearly understood from the UI the differences in the capabilities of the troops (who was skilled and who was chaff, and what the particular squads were competent at). Maybe that information is still there somewhere, but I did not see it, and the troops became fungible for me.

[Childress]

That's funny. For me bringing command lines back into CMBN would be like putting braces on the Mona Lisa. Blechh.

[Battlefront.com]

On the downside, the graphics are lousy and laggy when compared to big production RTS titles.

There could be something on your end that can make this better, but yes... it's true that the lack of a $50,000,000 budget does mean we aren't going to be as good as the big boys. Especially since we pour our efforts into the game itself and not into flashbang or marketing.

I got fed up with graphic representations not corresponding to what the computer sees (i.e., LOS being blocked by a wall that looks 3 feet tall, but the computer seems to treat as being 20 feet tall).

Er... this is factually incorrect. What you see in the game, graphically, is what LOS sees within the limitations of 5 different possible unit heights within a given spot to a given spot. Most games, BTW, have 1 height for a unit to be at.

The only abstractions are with a very limited set of situations. Most noticeably with foxholes and trenches. This was a necessary compromise to have FoW rules apply to these things.

I got even more feed up with whatever fluctuation in the space time continuum allows the enemy to have LOS to me, yet me not having reciprocal LOS.

There is absolutely, in all cases, reciprocal LOS/LOF between any two Action Spots on the map. 100% of the time. Spotting does mean a unit may not react to another unit, but that's a huge part of why the game is so realistic feeling.

And I have no idea why my troopers refuse to stay put inside a building, and insist on running behind the building where they are useless.

I'll have to ignore this because TacAI behavior is situationally dependent and players tend to way overgeneralize (often wildly inaccurately).

In sum, I think the game is pretty good. But, it's hardly great in the way CMBO and CM BtB were. It seems schizophrenic to me -- it's either a pretty mediocre RTS that pales in comparison to what the big boys produce, or it's a turn based thinking game with a lot of the depth removed from the first iteration, and a lot of frustration added.

There's way, way, WAY more depth in CMx2 in any given portion of it than was in CMx1. Not seeing it, not understanding it, or not liking it doesn't change this fact.

I think the game is good try, and I do not begrudge BF for trying to appeal to more gamers. But for me, the game is disappointing.

We've always prided ourselves on going for more than the hardcore grog. Otherwise CMx1 would have been 2D with little counters, hit points, and CRTs. Yet we put in stuff that no other wargame company has even attempted to put in all at once. And CMx2 pushes both of these things forward.

For me, it was the removal of the movement delay.

A feature that is much hated by many hardcore CMx1 fans, which is why it was VERY deliberately left out. Do a search of this Forum and you'll probably see the pro-movement delay camp is "outvoted" in every thread where this topic gets brought up.

Also, the loss of the C&C indicator lines.

Good gawd man... you equate a line that shows extremely unrealistic, highly abstracted C2 as being "deeper" than a vastly more expansive, realistic, and relevant C2 system that has a different method of displaying who is connected to who? Sorry... I can't take your argument very seriously. Any more than I could take a comment that a Ferrari would be so much better than a Chevy if it just had different color floor mat.

And, in the first iteration, I clearly understood from the UI the differences in the capabilities of the troops (who was skilled and who was chaff, and what the particular squads were competent at). Maybe that information is still there somewhere, but I did not see it, and the troops became fungible for me.

The information is displayed in almost the same way as it was in CMx1. So the confusion of what you're going on about continues.

Sometimes I'm baffled by how someone can look at something and come to the exact opposite conclusion of what is factually in front of them. I understand that somehow it's our fault, because it's always our fault that we can lead a horse to water and he thinks it's a pile of rocks

Steve

[sawomi]

It was funny for half a year but lately I find all these Moaning Posts of The Returning CMBO Deserter Zombies just annoying.

[Ranger33]

Command lines wouldn't really make sense any more, especially now when you can split each squad into three teams. Just one platoon would create a spider web across the map. The new system of highlighted icons works perfectly, I don't know why people get so hung up on this.

Not sure what you mean about the skills of the squads. I haven't played CMx1 in a while, but I'm pretty sure CMBN gives you all the same info (quality, leadership, morale) in addition to being able to see each individual soldier and what gear he is carrying.

I agree that there should be more reviews out there. I've asked about it several times but gotten no reply. Every hardcore genre type game out there gets fairly reviewed regardless of how niche it is. (The DCS sims, Paradox's grand strategy games, etc) I have a suspicion that not very many review copies went out, for whatever reason.

[Battlefront.com]

I thought of not responding, but it's been a while since I have. I figure I should from time to time. Plus, it's less annoying than turning on the news and seeing what politicians plan on doing to get us out of the Great Recession. At least this is about a game, that other stuff is about the fall of civilization as we know it. And with that, I'm off to bed to have some nightmares

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I agree that there should be more reviews out there. I've asked about it several times but gotten no reply. Every hardcore genre type game out there gets fairly reviewed regardless of how niche it is. (The DCS sims, Paradox's grand strategy games, etc) I have a suspicion that not very many review copies went out, for whatever reason.

Nope, lots went out. The primary problem is many reliable publications are GONE and much of the rest will only review you if you are an advertiser. We don't advertise any more because it is a huge waste of money based on our 12 years of experience. So no money, no reviews. Ooops... did I say that? I think it was supposed to be a secret, or somefink.

Steve

[Ranger33]

Nope, lots went out. The primary problem is many reliable publications are GONE and much of the rest will only review you if you are an advertiser. We don't advertise any more because it is a huge waste of money based on our 12 years of experience. So no money, no reviews. Ooops... did I say that? I think it was supposed to be a secret, or somefink.

Steve

Why didn't Rock, Paper, Shotgun do a review? They posted several previews, and even announced when the demo came out, but then not a peep. They pride themselves on covering every single obscure PC game out there, and have a pretty big following.

I'm not trying to criticize you guys on this, I know you don't have a massive budget, but I just love the game and wish that it was out in the spotlight a bit more. It seems the games biggest flaw is that no one knows it exists. I post about it on forums and every time at least a few people will go nuts saying how it is just the sort of game they have wanted to play since the days of Close Combat and such.

[Battlefront.com]

I don't know about that one. There's been some head scratchers here and there, that's for sure. I say that because if they hated the game they would definitely post a review. If there's one thing that any reviewer loves, more than all else, is getting a chance to prove how witty he can be while tearing apart something. Movies, books, games, sports... it's a time honored tradition.

But in general, we have always felt that whatever publicity we get should be earned. Bribing, cajoling, or otherwise pressuring places to do reviews isn't in our nature. We take what we get and keep trucking.

Despite the relative lack of reviews compared to CMx1 (not surprising given the implosion of game mags and retail), we're doing just fine. In fact, I'd guess we're doing better with CM:BN sales so far than we did with CMBB, despite months of really good press hype for CMBB. Once again proving to us that our sales are largely the result of what we do rather than what others do. Or don't do, in this case.

Steve

[Ranger33]

That's certainly a great attitude to have, and its awesome to hear that you guys are doing so well with CMBN! Keep up the good work!

(You guys might not want to pester them about a review because of principles, but I have no such inhibitions, off I go to write a persuasive email )

[TheVulture]

Command lines wouldn't really make sense any more, especially now when you can split each squad into three teams. Just one platoon would create a spider web across the map. The new system of highlighted icons works perfectly, I don't know why people get so hung up on this.

Different people have very different ways of processing information. I find the highlighted icons to be pretty uninformative, although obviously they have their uses in finding the disparate elements of a command structure. But I found the CMx1 command lines gave me much more of a feel for e.g. a platooon as a complete unit rather than as a collection of sub-units. And perhaps more importantly, it combines the command structure with an indication of which units are in and out of command, as opposed to the CMx2 UI where you have to then go and click on each individual unit to find out its command state. The simple in/out of command doesn't apply in CMx2 though where units can be in different levels of communication with their HQ unit, but I still think there could be a spectrum of colours (from red through to black) on a command line to give an impression of how good C&C to that unit is.

I'd love such a system (it'd give me a much better feel of the structure and status of my forces), other would find it horrible (a nasty mess of uninformative lines spread over the map). Vive la difference. I suspect the majority would like something similar since the command lines (and the UI making information less immediately available in general) is one of the more frequently raised features that people miss from CMx1 (along with cover armour arcs and the old hunt command).

Usual caveats apply, along with the standard disclaimer that any individual improvement might be relatively easy to do, but they all take time which is in short supply, and so aren't going to all appear at once.

[yapma]

This board has always reminded me of the emperor with no clothes.

I played the demo 3 times. On 2 different occasions my tank got shot repeatedly by a tank on a hill, but could not return fire because it was "reverse slope" for return fire. So my tank just dicked around elevating its gun over and over until it died. And multiple rifle squads kept running out of houses I put them in, so they could hide behind them, then I would tell them to run back in, and then would run out again. I find it hard to believe that I am the only one to notice this.

And you guys seriously like the instantaneous movement? I remember people complaining about why driving down a twisty road should not add huge delay, but I hardly recall people demanding troops move immediately upon the ubermind thinking of it.

I have no idea whether the C&C is new and super improved. What used to be a simple process to determine whether a unit is within control radius now requires multiple clicks and looks in multiple places. Not an improvement.

And your leader thinks the game is not being reviewed because BFC does not spend enough money on advertising? Seriously? Derek Smart ring any bells?

[Vanir Ausf B]

I don't miss the command delays.

The lack of command lines is an interface issue. The underlying C2 model is actually deeper than in CMx1 regardless of how non-intuitive the interface may be, and I agree it could use some improvement in that area especially with regard to documentation of how it works.

Specific examples of strange unit behavior need to be documented with saved game files to be of any use. Or at least some screen shots or Youtube clips.

And your leader thinks the game is not being reviewed because BFC does not spend enough money on advertising? Seriously? Derek Smart ring any bells?

I'm curious now. Why isn't it being reviewed?

[__Yossarian0815[jby]]

What i don´t get: Why are reviews important to people who already have a strong opinion on the game based on the demo?

[GreenAsJade]

Because they are too weak minded to form their own opinion?

Because they have low self esteem and want to have their opinion validated?

Somefink like that.

GaJ

[GreenAsJade]

I have no idea whether the C&C is new and super improved. What used to be a simple process to determine whether a unit is within control radius now requires multiple clicks and looks in multiple places. Not an improvement.

You seem to be assuming that "within command radius" is a simple yes/no answer.

What the heck is a "command radius" on the battlefield? I never say a real soldier with a command radius. What is real is a complex network of information flowing to units.

This is now modelled more realstically. Spend some time getting used to it. Take a look at what each unit can see and importantly what it knows - which enemy contacts it is aware of and how old they are. You will start to see that the C&C system makes sense, and realise that "yes/no" "in command/not in command" is a simplistic thing best left behind. And you might stop trying to operate your soldiers at 89 metres from their CO because at 90 metres they will be out of C&C...

GaJ

[LJFHutch]

... with a lot of the depth removed from the first iteration ...

I really don't see what depth has been removed, if anything much more depth has been added: compared to CMx1 BN is a much greater fidelity simulation with more options and less gamey aids (regardless of how you feel about those aids).

I think the game is good try, and I do not begrudge BF for trying to appeal to more gamers. But for me, the game is disappointing.

Trying to appeal to more gamers? I can see that with RT [somewhat], but again, CMx2 is in my eyes a much more hardcore bunch than the previous games.

And I have no idea why my troopers refuse to stay put inside a building, and insist on running behind the building where they are useless.

That would be due to morale, morale was in CMx1 as well wasn't it?

[GreenAsJade]

Plus have you read the threads about rifle penetration of buildings? Go read them, look at the movies they point to.

I wouldn't stay in a building either...

GaJ

[womble]

Different people have very different ways of processing information. I find the highlighted icons to be pretty uninformative, although obviously they have their uses in finding the disparate elements of a command structure. But I found the CMx1 command lines gave me much more of a feel for e.g. a platooon as a complete unit...

Only they didn't, so that was an illusion. If a squad from a different platoon wandered near the HQ in question, it'd suddenly become part of that 'complete unit'. If one of your platoon's squads wandered off and got into the 'command radius' of a higher HQ, you'd never notice unless you counted the lines radiating from your pltHQ, and you'd be forced to click all over the place to find where the AWOL squad had gone.

...rather than as a collection of sub-units...

This is rich. A "collection of sub-units" is all any of the "formations" in x1 was. In x2, they're tied into their command structure and are infinitely more of a 'platoon' than they were in x1.

...it combines the command structure...

What structure?

...with an indication of which units are in and out of command...

There are half a dozen states of C2 which have varying effects. How is a line going to represent that? Different colours? Really?

...as opposed to the CMx2 UI where you have to then go and click on each individual unit to find out its command state...

No you don't. You click the platoon. It highlights. If they're all near one another, there'll be some sort of C2. Maybe you click on the furthest away or most exposed, just to make sure. There's enough micro in this game without trying to manage the C2 to that level. If you've got your squads all in voice and sight C2, they're probably too bunched up for the inevitable artillery stonk.

...I still think there could be a spectrum of colours (from red through to black) on a command line to give an impression of how good C&C to that unit is.

It is to laugh. 10% of the player base can't tell the difference between a dark red and a black line. And umpteen other combinations. You'd be adding a large amount of screen clutter for almost no functionality. Lines were necessary in x1 because any nearby HQ might be commanding the element. This is no longer the case, so mere proximity is entirely adequate, as an indicator.

I played the demo 3 times. On 2 different occasions my tank got shot repeatedly by a tank on a hill, but could not return fire because it was "reverse slope" for return fire.

Without savegames/screenshots/video no one can even comment on this.

And multiple rifle squads kept running out of houses I put them in, so they could hide behind them, then I would tell them to run back in, and then would run out again. I find it hard to believe that I am the only one to notice this.

Believe it. If your troops were in poor state and came under significant fire, this is entirely expected and desirable behaviour.

And you guys seriously like the instantaneous movement? I remember people complaining about why driving down a twisty road should not add huge delay, but I hardly recall people demanding troops move immediately upon the ubermind thinking of it.

Here, you're missing half the role of the player. The player is intended to be the various minds of all the units in the game, as well as the directing intelligence behind coordinating them. Why should there be a command delay for a Sergeant backing his squad the hell out of a killsack? Or a tank starting to advance down the road?

Your point about troops being 'fungible' and undistinguished, I agree with. There are no specialist troops with Stealth bonuses for the squad or whatever. So you won't find them in the interface. There are specialist individuals, and they have their specialisms noted by their names in the unit display: Gunner; Leader; Assistant Leader; Antitank etc. But the 'RPG' elements are mostly not present in the new game.

[Thomm]

Regarding the reviews. I just checked the website of my former favorite gaming magazine PC Games, and all CM related reviews pointed to the websites of the retail partners of the CM games, not BFC.

Since CM:BN is not in retail yet, perhaps this is why there is no review there. And if Steve says that you get a review only if you are advertising, it sure sounds plausible in this context.

They gave CM:AK a 61 %, by the way, with the remark that BFC should ditch the "antiquated" CMx1 engine and start over.

Best regards,

Thomm

[noob]

This is now modelled more realstically. Spend some time getting used to it. Take a look at what each unit can see and importantly what it knows - which enemy contacts it is aware of and how old they are. You will start to see that the C&C system makes sense, and realise that "yes/no" "in command/not in command" is a simplistic thing best left behind.GaJ

Also the fact that there is now not only a visual element to the C&C but an aural one makes the new system superior, now, if you want to risk it, you can have your commander within earshot of your troops and keep them in command without needing a LOS to them.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

This board has always reminded me of the emperor with no clothes.

i think it's common amongst computer game boards, especially if sequals are quite different from the original games.

I remember people complaining about why driving down a twisty road should not add huge delay, but I hardly recall people demanding troops move immediately upon the ubermind thinking of it.

it's the same with many other things, but i think it's more productive just to let it pass.

Derek Smart ring any bells?

lol, i have thought about that many many times during the years, but i always thought it would be far too nasty remark to make.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

A feature that is much hated by many hardcore CMx1 fans, which is why it was VERY deliberately left out. Do a search of this Forum and you'll probably see the pro-movement delay camp is "outvoted" in every thread where this topic gets brought up.

well, you said command delays would be brought back with CMBN and you appeared to have a positive opinion about command delays. this change regarding command delays is somewhat surprising but naturally not something totally unheard of.

for what it's worth i don't recall seeing much opposition to the delays in those threads, but perhaps that's just blissfull senility on my part.

and yeah yeah, this is pretty useless discussion.