CM Red Thunder page is up

[GDS_Starfury]

Eastern Front is the most interesting to me, so this will be my first CM game. Ever!

I thought you said the East Front held no interest for you?

[SgtRock]

Did they ever tone down the death of tank commanders? It seems the tank command dies 85-95% on the first hit of any (buttoned/unbuttoned) tank.

The only thing I ever recall reading about this was early on in the Easter Front, where most Soviet tanks (1 in 200), didn't have radios so group tank commanders had to standup and wave flags & use had signals to direct other tanks. When you stand up in a T-26, T-70, T-60, etc. over half of your body is exposed! Needless to say this provided one a hell of a target.

I just don't see this happening a lot on German tanks (PZIV, Tiger, etc) where just the top of head of the commander is exposed, just look at the size of the cupola on those tanks.

[Gusington]

Not me Star. The Eastern Front is the most interesting to me, WWI and WWII. And the Russian Revolution and Civil War. Must be my Ashkenazi blood!

[KyzBP]

I'll preface this by saying that I haven't played CM since CMBB but I played a metric ton of the first two and was one of the first 200 people on the original Battlefront board (in case you think I just play sports games).  But this iteration may bring me back.  I love the looks of it and the AAR has me in it's grip already.  I may even splurge and pick up the CMBN bundle.  DRM be damned, I'm excited about this.

[MengJiao]

I skipped over Market Garden, but this is looking like one I will need to pick up.  Not a huge fan of the Eastern Front, but do like some of the features they are introducing.  Hoping they do make these features available in the other lines, even if they are a few dollars.

  Me too.  I mean skipping MArket Garden and so on.  I'm not much of an East Front fan, but I do think there haven't been very many good East Front games lately, particularly for summer 1944.

   Anyway, I'll be playing this Red Thunder thing as much as I possibly can.

 

[undercovergeek]

As a cmsf 2 beta tester...

What what WHAT? I didn't even know this was in the works!!!

seriously? i thought you would have been all over it

[Zonso]

Well, PC:O has its arcadey elements where the design direction wasn't entirely clear, but it highlights the advantages of a properly positioned defending force. None of the CMx2 AAR's I've read have the defending force's armour perform nearly as well as what would happen in PC:O or presumably in a historical engagement. You see that differently, which is fine, like you said: agree to disagree, I can only comment on what the AAR's show me and I'm not as impressed by the engine as you are.

Yes quite, I'm not getting these sweeping generalizations from you which seem to be based on limited readings of CM AARs and not having played the game. I'm not sure either exactly what your expectations are re armour combat. As I said elsewhere CM is a serious simulation of tactical combat; it is physic's based, not arranged around a set of dice rolls, but it is still a game. It's basis is backed by real world military tactics and principles, including the people who 'know', as well as never ending peer review. It is a little more involved than an arbitrary advantage to a defending force.

Here is a link to another of Bil Hardenberger's AARs - Wittman's Demise. You can see initially how the defending Allied armour has the advantage over the attacking Axis armour and strikes some telling blows. A couple things flow from that first clash to turn the table on the initial Allied advantage - Axis flexibility based on intel analysis and the inability of the Allied side to respond to changing circumstances. The shaping battle and outcome seem very realistic to me. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=110128

Hardenberger's comments on tactics are interesting and his AAR's are quite good, but he's also the guy who uses combat replay to precisely pinpoint where shots came from and uses recon units without realistic means of communicating with the rest of the on-map force to move his units precisely where he would get the most advantage out of them (which seems to be a standard tactic, which is sort of weird: the players who wanted realism were happy to see Borg spotting go, but now they're using a mechanic that's nearly as ahistorical).

Again I'm not sure I follow your example and how it relates to CM at all. No information is shared with other on-map units unless there is a valid C2 link, ie radio, visual or sound. If you are talking overall God-view, then that is not a CM problem. It happens in every game. There have been suggestions at house rules to limit what the player can realistically see, but that is pretty hardcore. I would not play like that, but there is nothing restricting a player from doing so, except maybe finding other like minded players! :) Because the player is wearing all hats then the overall command flexibility (battalion level) is much too generous. It is something CM has never attempted to model, though there have been many calls for some form over the years. It is why I said earlier PCO could have had a niche to fill with a more command type game. Another scale, but Command Ops attempts to model this on the surface, though there still, there is nothing preventing the player from circumventing it at the lower levels. We are playing games after all. <shrug>

[SgtRock]

Although I like the new features that are being added, I find it disappointing, that no one on the Battlefront forums even asks if they are any changes to their god awful DRM. :(

[ComradeP]

I'm not getting these sweeping generalizations from you which seem to be based on limited readings of CM AARs and not having played the game.

The impressions of any future customer can only be based on what he can find out about the game on the internet, from a demo or from people he knows. None of the AAR's I've read over at Battlefront, and I believe I've read all of the recent ones for both Normandy and Italy show anything that would change my views. It's quite possible that the problems I see are much less of a problem in the actual game and that the AAR's are not representative because they show uncommon situations. However, as stated before I can only base my judgment on those AAR's for the moment.

If you are talking overall God-view, then that is not a CM problem. It happens in every game.

"It happens in every game" is not a good reason why it has to apply to CM. In a tactical level game, such a problem can become much more severe than in more operational or strategic level games and in my opinion it ruins a large part of the immersion and historical accuracy, together with the high casualties that are also present in virtually wargames.

Maybe I should put it differently: based on what I read in AAR's, I'm not excited about the game and I get the impression that there are parts of the tank vs. tank combat system that I don't think I'll like. It could be that the opinion is incorrect, but that is what the AAR's show me.

[undercovergeek]

Although I like the new features that are being added, I find it disappointing, that no one on the Battlefront forums even asks if they are any changes to their god awful DRM. :(

i think for those that are fans of the game they dont care, for those that arent - they complain about the DRM

[Grim.Reaper]

Although I like the new features that are being added, I find it disappointing, that no one on the Battlefront forums even asks if they are any changes to their god awful DRM. :(

i think for those that are fans of the game they dont care, for those that arent - they complain about the DRM

And I think it is pretty safe to say they have no plans to change it...if they did, I am sure that would be part of the news.

[Con]

Here is my take on it

DRM is an operational choice.  It does for the most part not impact gameplay and the features of this title thus is not relevant to a discussion on merits of this game versus others of the genre.

I am not saying that DRM does not play a role in whether the individual wishes to purchase the game or not but in terms of impact it is already baked into the choice upfront.  Its like taxes.  For the most part its not going to change and the merits and problems of DRM are out of scope since it is a known quantity.

Con

[undercovergeek]

how did you get on the CMSF beta testing gig?

they asked me a while back for CMFI and just stayed with it

[Zulu1966]

Although I like the new features that are being added, I find it disappointing, that no one on the Battlefront forums even asks if they are any changes to their god awful DRM. :(

Well, maybe thats because no one cares ?

Never had any issues with the DRM in 7 years of buying from them, so not sure what you percieve as so god awful.

If it the idea of their DRM you dont like rather than the reality of it - then thats a different question.

[MengJiao]

Maybe I should put it differently: based on what I read in AAR's, I'm not excited about the game and I get the impression that there are parts of the tank vs. tank combat system that I don't think I'll like. It could be that the opinion is incorrect, but that is what the AAR's show me.

  Well, as a fanboi(sp?) or apologist for the system, I suppose I should explain myself (if nothing else).  CMBB was an astounding game and it was only maybe one tenth as well-constructed as CMBN or CMFI or this Red thunder thing (CMRT?).  I can recall some games in the CMBB system in the dawn lighting that looked really amazing and the later iterations of the system are even more visually interesting.  I have played many versions of the game system and I don't recall any tank vs tank battles that seemed implausible.  I can recall a few in CMSF long ago, where I was surprised to have my tanks knocked out at long ranges, but that was years ago and in battles of a different stripe than East Front Summer 1944.
   I haven't seen how CMRT deals with tanks, but it probably isn't too different from how CMBN deals with tanks and I found that that game did a convincing job of dealing with tanks.