GrogHeads Forum

Looks like some details for the eastern front....haven't picked up Market Garden yet, so not sure about this one either...but we'll see.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=112852

Tried linking the video but got an error...anyway that rumbling you hear for the first half is not a train :)

Sadly, this looks like the same old engine that we've seen for 10+ years  :(



<rant>

For $35 a pop, you'd think after all these years that they could show a little love toward their out-dated and un-optimized game engine. How about bringing it into 21st century standards? Even on high end systems the game runs terribly, with poor and eyesore effects. How about a particle system update? Physics update? Ragdoll? Anything!? FFS - JUST CONTRACT IT OUT TO SOMEONE - YOU CAN EVEN SELL 'THE ENHANCED ENGINE' FOR 50$ AND PEOPLE (LIKE ME) WILL BUY IT!!

</rant>

Sorry about that. Just some general frustration with this company and series. I do enjoy the authentic nature of the game, and the fact that the weapons/vehicles in game play much like their true-to-life counterparts. CM is truly a remarkable game, but it has some fatal flaws that I just cannot get over.

Quote from: Apocalypse 31 on December 21, 2013, 11:10:39 AM
Sadly, this looks like the same old engine that we've seen for 10+ years  :(



<rant>

For $35 a pop, you'd think after all these years that they could show a little love toward their out-dated and un-optimized game engine. How about bringing it into 21st century standards? Even on high end systems the game runs terribly, with poor and eyesore effects. How about a particle system update? Physics update? Ragdoll? Anything!? FFS - JUST CONTRACT IT OUT TO SOMEONE - YOU CAN EVEN SELL 'THE ENHANCED ENGINE' FOR 50$ AND PEOPLE (LIKE ME) WILL BUY IT!!

</rant>

Sorry about that. Just some general frustration with this company and series. I do enjoy the authentic nature of the game, and the fact that the weapons/vehicles in game play much like their true-to-life counterparts. CM is truly a remarkable game, but it has some fatal flaws that I just cannot get over.

Jeez - there are some odd people in this world.

CM is by far and away to most realistic, historically accurate, graphically thrilling tactical game about whatever it covers in existence. You would think we were deluged by games that come even close to what CM does by the way some people talk about it. So please - all the whining naysayers - point me to all the other games that do anything at all close to what CM does. Its pathetic.

I don't really have a problem with the price, I think you actually do get a lot of gaming for $35 based on the content included, plus all the user made stuff.  Many other games out there are more expensive than this game, even if they haven't changed the formula in a long time.

My biggest problem with continuing to support is the form of DRM they use......I understand the need for DRM, but can't stand DRM that ties to your hardware/software configuration.  Just too many issues come as a result, although they usually help you out.  Again, I am not a anti-DRM person or one that rants on the topic, its just this version that really has kept me from buying their latest products.

Quote from: Zulu1966 on December 21, 2013, 11:14:45 AM

Quote from: Apocalypse 31 on December 21, 2013, 11:10:39 AM
Sadly, this looks like the same old engine that we've seen for 10+ years  :(



<rant>

For $35 a pop, you'd think after all these years that they could show a little love toward their out-dated and un-optimized game engine. How about bringing it into 21st century standards? Even on high end systems the game runs terribly, with poor and eyesore effects. How about a particle system update? Physics update? Ragdoll? Anything!? FFS - JUST CONTRACT IT OUT TO SOMEONE - YOU CAN EVEN SELL 'THE ENHANCED ENGINE' FOR 50$ AND PEOPLE (LIKE ME) WILL BUY IT!!

</rant>

Sorry about that. Just some general frustration with this company and series. I do enjoy the authentic nature of the game, and the fact that the weapons/vehicles in game play much like their true-to-life counterparts. CM is truly a remarkable game, but it has some fatal flaws that I just cannot get over.

Jeez - there are some odd people in this world.

CM is by far and away to most realistic, historically accurate, graphically thrilling tactical game about whatever it covers in existence. You would think we were deluged by games that come even close to what CM does by the way some people talk about it. So please - all the whining naysayers - point me to all the other games that do anything at all close to what CM does. Its pathetic.

And that's EXACTLY why I get so frustrated over the CM series. There's not much else out there that comes even close. I just cannot get over the game performance.

Even watching this new trailer - you didn't see the game slow down a significant amount when the artillery came crashing in? Games made within the last 5 years shouldnt do that sort of thing.

Quote from: Grim.Reaper on December 21, 2013, 11:15:35 AM
I don't really have a problem with the price, I think you actually do get a lot of gaming for $35 based on the content included, plus all the user made stuff.  Many other games out there are more expensive than this game, even if they haven't changed the formula in a long time.

My biggest problem with continuing to support is the form of DRM they use......I understand the need for DRM, but can't stand DRM that ties to your hardware/software configuration.  Just too many issues come as a result, although they usually help you out.  Again, I am not a anti-DRM person or one that rants on the topic, its just this version that really has kept me from buying their latest products.

$35 is good for a game, but look at the Battlefront store. Each module is $35 dollars, and there are quite a few, if you count all the CMx2 modules. We normally complain about DLC's on Steam for $5 a pop, but Battlefront has the same thing going on. Regardless, I do own 90% of the CM bundles - from Shock Force down - to include the '2.0 Enhancement Pack'

I dont understand why the DRM doesn't auto-unlicense when you uninstall the game.

I've probably lost a handful of licenses because I forgot to 'un-license' a game before un-installing it.

Quote from: Apocalypse 31 on December 21, 2013, 11:10:39 AM
Sadly, this looks like the same old engine that we've seen for 10+ years  :(



<rant>

For $35 a pop, you'd think after all these years that they could show a little love toward their out-dated and un-optimized game engine. How about bringing it into 21st century standards? Even on high end systems the game runs terribly, with poor and eyesore effects. How about a particle system update? Physics update? Ragdoll? Anything!? FFS - JUST CONTRACT IT OUT TO SOMEONE - YOU CAN EVEN SELL 'THE ENHANCED ENGINE' FOR 50$ AND PEOPLE (LIKE ME) WILL BUY IT!!

</rant>

Sorry about that. Just some general frustration with this company and series. I do enjoy the authentic nature of the game, and the fact that the weapons/vehicles in game play much like their true-to-life counterparts. CM is truly a remarkable game, but it has some fatal flaws that I just cannot get over.

what?   ???  shush

its a TBS/RTS military sim not Call of Duty: Bagration

Ill skip it, East Front isnt for me although i see why people would be interested.

Never thought id say it but im a bet 'meh' for WWII, i am however looking forward very much to the Black Sea CMSF release

Quote from: undercovergeek on December 21, 2013, 11:22:41 AM

Quote from: Apocalypse 31 on December 21, 2013, 11:10:39 AM
Sadly, this looks like the same old engine that we've seen for 10+ years  :(



<rant>

For $35 a pop, you'd think after all these years that they could show a little love toward their out-dated and un-optimized game engine. How about bringing it into 21st century standards? Even on high end systems the game runs terribly, with poor and eyesore effects. How about a particle system update? Physics update? Ragdoll? Anything!? FFS - JUST CONTRACT IT OUT TO SOMEONE - YOU CAN EVEN SELL 'THE ENHANCED ENGINE' FOR 50$ AND PEOPLE (LIKE ME) WILL BUY IT!!

</rant>

Sorry about that. Just some general frustration with this company and series. I do enjoy the authentic nature of the game, and the fact that the weapons/vehicles in game play much like their true-to-life counterparts. CM is truly a remarkable game, but it has some fatal flaws that I just cannot get over.

what?   ???  shush

its a TBS/RTS military sim not Call of Duty: Bagaration

Ill skip it, East Front isnt for me although i see why people would be interested.

Never thought id say it but im a bet 'meh' for WWII, i am however looking forward very much to the Black Sea CMSF release

OHHHHHHHH - Since its a Military SIM, then its ok to have poor game performance?  :o

As the owner of a 5 year old rig that can't run Arma 2, 3 or other graphically high-end games my opinion is different than others who wish they would upgrade the engine.  I watched the video via the link in the first post (which links to another link in the Battlefront forums) and thought it looked pretty darn good.

Quote from: Apocalypse 31 on December 21, 2013, 11:23:29 AM

Quote from: undercovergeek on December 21, 2013, 11:22:41 AM

Quote from: Apocalypse 31 on December 21, 2013, 11:10:39 AM
Sadly, this looks like the same old engine that we've seen for 10+ years  :(



<rant>

For $35 a pop, you'd think after all these years that they could show a little love toward their out-dated and un-optimized game engine. How about bringing it into 21st century standards? Even on high end systems the game runs terribly, with poor and eyesore effects. How about a particle system update? Physics update? Ragdoll? Anything!? FFS - JUST CONTRACT IT OUT TO SOMEONE - YOU CAN EVEN SELL 'THE ENHANCED ENGINE' FOR 50$ AND PEOPLE (LIKE ME) WILL BUY IT!!

</rant>

Sorry about that. Just some general frustration with this company and series. I do enjoy the authentic nature of the game, and the fact that the weapons/vehicles in game play much like their true-to-life counterparts. CM is truly a remarkable game, but it has some fatal flaws that I just cannot get over.

what?   ???  shush

its a TBS/RTS military sim not Call of Duty: Bagaration

Ill skip it, East Front isnt for me although i see why people would be interested.

Never thought id say it but im a bet 'meh' for WWII, i am however looking forward very much to the Black Sea CMSF release

OHHHHHHHH - Since its a Military SIM, then its ok to have poor game performance?  :o

i think maybe you should upgrade your box of cogs and kitkat wrappers to something that doesnt need little hamsters in it - i havent seen any platform, ive ever owned or seen other people own that hasnt been able to run CMBN/FI or GL - allowing the game to be played on your rig is your responsibility not the developers

I have a great rig that runs everything beautifully - GTX 770 is a very nice card.

The CMx2 game engine is 10+ years old and is not meant for gaming or high performance systems.

Quote from: Zulu1966 on December 21, 2013, 11:14:45 AM
So please - all the whining naysayers - point me to all the other games that do anything at all close to what CM does. Its pathetic.

Achtung Panzer/Graviteam Tactics.

Boom.  Game, set, match.

CM isn't the only game in town for this sort of thing, anymore.  So no need for the melodramatics in it's defense.

Quote from: Apocalypse 31 on December 21, 2013, 11:19:19 AM

Quote from: Zulu1966 on December 21, 2013, 11:14:45 AM

Quote from: Apocalypse 31 on December 21, 2013, 11:10:39 AM
Sadly, this looks like the same old engine that we've seen for 10+ years  :(



<rant>

For $35 a pop, you'd think after all these years that they could show a little love toward their out-dated and un-optimized game engine. How about bringing it into 21st century standards? Even on high end systems the game runs terribly, with poor and eyesore effects. How about a particle system update? Physics update? Ragdoll? Anything!? FFS - JUST CONTRACT IT OUT TO SOMEONE - YOU CAN EVEN SELL 'THE ENHANCED ENGINE' FOR 50$ AND PEOPLE (LIKE ME) WILL BUY IT!!

</rant>

Sorry about that. Just some general frustration with this company and series. I do enjoy the authentic nature of the game, and the fact that the weapons/vehicles in game play much like their true-to-life counterparts. CM is truly a remarkable game, but it has some fatal flaws that I just cannot get over.

Jeez - there are some odd people in this world.

CM is by far and away to most realistic, historically accurate, graphically thrilling tactical game about whatever it covers in existence. You would think we were deluged by games that come even close to what CM does by the way some people talk about it. So please - all the whining naysayers - point me to all the other games that do anything at all close to what CM does. Its pathetic.

And that's EXACTLY why I get so frustrated over the CM series. There's not much else out there that comes even close. I just cannot get over the game performance.

Even watching this new trailer - you didn't see the game slow down a significant amount when the artillery came crashing in? Games made within the last 5 years shouldnt do that sort of thing.

Except on the largest maps it can do - and they have to literally have a couple of battalions on them as well and be covered in trees - I have NEVER had any performance issues with the CM games. And with the recent patch - not only do the draw distances for most everything now extend to the edge of the map - even those large heavily populated maps now run fine.

If the game runs slow on your machine - take it from me its your rig and not the game. And no - I didnt see any slow down - I think thats a case of you seeing what you want to see.

Quote from: Apocalypse 31 on December 21, 2013, 11:19:19 AM

Quote from: Zulu1966 on December 21, 2013, 11:14:45 AM

Quote from: Apocalypse 31 on December 21, 2013, 11:10:39 AM
Sadly, this looks like the same old engine that we've seen for 10+ years  :(



<rant>

For $35 a pop, you'd think after all these years that they could show a little love toward their out-dated and un-optimized game engine. How about bringing it into 21st century standards? Even on high end systems the game runs terribly, with poor and eyesore effects. How about a particle system update? Physics update? Ragdoll? Anything!? FFS - JUST CONTRACT IT OUT TO SOMEONE - YOU CAN EVEN SELL 'THE ENHANCED ENGINE' FOR 50$ AND PEOPLE (LIKE ME) WILL BUY IT!!

</rant>

Sorry about that. Just some general frustration with this company and series. I do enjoy the authentic nature of the game, and the fact that the weapons/vehicles in game play much like their true-to-life counterparts. CM is truly a remarkable game, but it has some fatal flaws that I just cannot get over.

Jeez - there are some odd people in this world.

CM is by far and away to most realistic, historically accurate, graphically thrilling tactical game about whatever it covers in existence. You would think we were deluged by games that come even close to what CM does by the way some people talk about it. So please - all the whining naysayers - point me to all the other games that do anything at all close to what CM does. Its pathetic.

And that's EXACTLY why I get so frustrated over the CM series. There's not much else out there that comes even close. I just cannot get over the game performance.

Even watching this new trailer - you didn't see the game slow down a significant amount when the artillery came crashing in? Games made within the last 5 years shouldnt do that sort of thing.

Not sure I understand the reasoning...it is OK if you don't like the game for its own merits, but not sure why your frustrated at Battlefront because no other developer has provided a better experience...not their fault.  Although others would probably say APOS is a worthy game to play, minus its lack of good UI.

At the end of the day, your certainly entitled to your opinion and wouldn't look to change that, but I think each module that comes out is more than your typical DLC you mentioned.  If they ever get rid of their form of DRM, these would always be day one purchases for me.

Quote from: Nefaro on December 21, 2013, 11:31:22 AM

Quote from: Zulu1966 on December 21, 2013, 11:14:45 AM
So please - all the whining naysayers - point me to all the other games that do anything at all close to what CM does. Its pathetic.

Achtung Panzer/Graviteam Tactics.

Boom.  Game, set, match.

CM isn't the only game in town for this sort of thing, anymore.  So no need for the melodramatics in it's defense.

In your opinion. And boy - thats some huge list. I have all the graviteam games - and while I like them the tactical AI stinks. You get no where near the kind of control you get in CM - and infantry dont take cover when they should. All the maps in those games are essentially just large wide open spaces with trees. I have mot seen a single wall in any of the maps in the games - and thats because the Tac AI - wouldnt know how to use them. The buildins while nice - are essentially just simple single storey boxes to put things in.

They look kind of pretty - but they are all essentially fights on a unflat billiard table - try to get a landscape any more complex than that - such as bocage for example - and the game falls apart.

Quote from: Zulu1966 on December 21, 2013, 11:33:39 AM
Except on the largest maps it can do - and they have to literally have a couple of battalions on them as well and be covered in trees - I have NEVER had any performance issues with the CM games. And with the recent patch - not only do the draw distances for most everything now extend to the edge of the map - even those large heavily populated maps now run fine.

If the game runs slow on your machine - take it from me its your rig and not the game. And no - I didnt see any slow down - I think thats a case of you seeing what you want to see.

Bottom line: I think you and I have different perceptions of 'good performance'

For me, textures that don't render correctly, and either non-existent shadows or poorly shadowed objects (how about blinking shadows) does not equal a game with 'good performance'.

Unrealistic as it may be, the IrisZoom engine, in my opinion, has 'good performance'. RUSE, Wargame:EE, Wargame:ALB. The engine for those games runs well on all of the systems that I own - both new/old, high/low end systems.

but theyre multi million dollar dev teams - at most BF is 4 guys - maybe victims of their own success but just because 4 guys sell a lot of games doesnt make them a massive dev team with a massive budget

ive seen a lot of complaints about CMBN - but this could be the first time ive seen someone unhappy with the graphics and performance, beyond the grass is too green or the sky is too dark

This cannot be the first time you've seen someone complain about the CMx2 graphics performance.

I've ran it on three different machines over the years.  It wasn't very optimized and ran sluggish an all of them.  The shadows had terrible looking lines running through them and would flash on and off all the time. 

If the graphics were great, then I'd expect the game to run so sluggishly but they weren't. 

I don't even frequent the Battlefront forums but I've seen these complaints often enough.

Quote from: Apocalypse 31 on December 21, 2013, 11:43:37 AM

Quote from: Zulu1966 on December 21, 2013, 11:33:39 AM
Except on the largest maps it can do - and they have to literally have a couple of battalions on them as well and be covered in trees - I have NEVER had any performance issues with the CM games. And with the recent patch - not only do the draw distances for most everything now extend to the edge of the map - even those large heavily populated maps now run fine.

If the game runs slow on your machine - take it from me its your rig and not the game. And no - I didnt see any slow down - I think thats a case of you seeing what you want to see.

Bottom line: I think you and I have different perceptions of 'good performance'

For me, textures that don't render correctly, and either non-existent shadows or poorly shadowed objects (how about blinking shadows) does not equal a game with 'good performance'.

Unrealistic as it may be, the IrisZoom engine, in my opinion, has 'good performance'. RUSE, Wargame:EE, Wargame:ALB. The engine for those games runs well on all of the systems that I own - both new/old, high/low end systems.

Well - personally I think the graphics in that game are nothing at all to write home about (stupid door stop hills for example)  - and if it performs better (though I still have no idea what that relates to in CM) thats because it simulates an environment orders of magnitude more simple than CM.

Quote from: Nefaro on December 21, 2013, 11:54:39 AM
This cannot be the first time you've seen someone complain about the CMx2 graphics performance.

I've ran it on three different machines over the years.  It wasn't very optimized and ran sluggish an all of them.  The shadows had terrible looking lines running through them and would flash on and off all the time. 

If the graphics were great, then I'd expect the game to run so sluggishly but they weren't. 

I don't even frequent the Battlefront forums but I've seen these complaints often enough.

No don't get me wrong - stripey shadows seen it done it..... sluggish systems - nope never had/seen an issue, I'm sure there are people that do but a dev simply cannot accommodate every nuance of system and there will be issues

What i meant is I've never seen a serious player of this game and let's face it we all know it's supposed to be more than just a game, complain that there's no rag doll physics, particle bollocks and probably lens flare - I would out these requests in the same bracket as 'why don't their heads explode?'

Until Battlefront get's rid of their god awful DRM (a license system based on a non-changing PC is stupid) and learn how to auto-update their games, it's no sale.

I'm in. I love the way those Russian soldiers sit calmly on the back of their tanks while the arty's landing all around them. Must be the vodka.

Or the armed Party officials keeping their rifles trained on their own men...

Quote from: Apocalypse 31 on December 21, 2013, 11:19:19 AM

And that's EXACTLY why I get so frustrated over the CM series. There's not much else out there that comes even close. I just cannot get over the game performance.

Even watching this new trailer - you didn't see the game slow down a significant amount when the artillery came crashing in? Games made within the last 5 years shouldnt do that sort of thing.

Try doing some reading.  They have made significant optimizations to the game engine, particularly with the release of Market Garden.  The video is from unreleased, pre-alpha footage.  You are being neither rational not fair in your assessment.

Quote from: panzerde on December 21, 2013, 02:24:18 PM

Quote from: Apocalypse 31 on December 21, 2013, 11:19:19 AM

And that's EXACTLY why I get so frustrated over the CM series. There's not much else out there that comes even close. I just cannot get over the game performance.

Even watching this new trailer - you didn't see the game slow down a significant amount when the artillery came crashing in? Games made within the last 5 years shouldnt do that sort of thing.

Try doing some reading.  They have made significant optimizations to the game engine, particularly with the release of Market Garden.  The video is from unreleased, pre-alpha footage.  You are being neither rational not fair in your assessment.

Um, hang on, bit of a contradiction there. Shouldn't even pre- alpha footage of a game built on an optimised engine show better performance than that shown on the video? I'd give you the pre-alpha explanation if it was showing the tank riders dismounting, as that would be a new feature, but Artillery has been in the game since year dot and it is still showing significant slowdown?

What keeps me from buying Combat Mission titles is that a) most battles depicted in AAR's seem to come down to an at least somewhat balanced meeting engagement, which isn't particularly interesting if one side has much better equipment and isn't historically accurate for the campaign in Italy or Normandy. b) tanks/AFV's seem be way too good at attacking. In a number of the recent AAR's, attacking tanks got the first shot in instead of the defending tanks, which makes very little sense. One player, playing as the Italians also consistently has his tanks load HE when engaging armoured targets.

The argument that Borg spotting is gone is also significantly weakened by people using scout teams without radios as their eyes and ears. It seems to be a standard move to send 1 or 2 guys into the enemy rear, who will you perfect information. That's the problem with most tactical wargames: even when your individual units can't spot a certain target, you might still know where it is and can point them in just the right direction or prepare an ambush for a unit that they would normally not have known anything about until heard/spotted.

Those things, combined with the strange spotting that seems to be going on from time to time, means I'm not going to jump in. To me, the series just loses too many points on realism by having meeting engagements and very effective attacking tanks.

The higher than historical casualty rates and the quick attacks are things you get used to when playing wargames, and they don't necessarily give the attacker or defender an advantage, but the way the attacker can use his tanks and scouts in particular keep me from buying the games. Punishing DRM or a fairly high price for new modules are things I can live with, provided the game is really good.

Also, regarding the performance: in the teaser video, you can clearly see the forested terrain on the right glitch for a couple of seconds after about 21 seconds.

The shadows in the latest CM games are a killer for me on my i7-920@4Ghz with a 660 Ti computer. I lose a good 10-15 frames per second if I leave the shadows on even for the latest version of CMBN.

{mod voice}
It's fine to have some strong opinions.

Let's please just make sure we focus on discussing games / rigs / performance / etc and not stray into any personal attacks please.

No one's done it yet; let's make sure we don't.

Thanks!

{/mod voice}

Quote from: bayonetbrant on December 21, 2013, 10:22:31 PM
{mod voice}
It's fine to have some strong opinions.

Let's please just make sure we focus on discussing games / rigs / performance / etc and not stray into any personal attacks please.

No one's done it yet; let's make sure we don't.

Thanks!

{/mod voice}

;D




:P


Considering all the past heated discussions, this one has been relatively level-headed.  Nicely done, sirs.

Quote from: Sir Slash on December 21, 2013, 12:37:53 PM
I'm in. I love the way those Russian soldiers sit calmly on the back of their tanks while the arty's landing all around them. Must be the vodka.

Yeah I'm still in. The way the game keeps moving forward and allowing previous iterations to be kept current with the improvements is a huge win. Vodka or not, I do question the unflappable Soviet tank riders during that barrage and their determination to stay onboard, since it was standard practice for the Germans to fire artillery in such conditions in order to separate the tank riders from the tanks. We'll have to see if that behavior remains.

Having put a yeoman's effort into Graviteam's games more than once (they are pretty), I wonder about people's motive's when they say somehow it is comparable to CM when everything about Achtung Panzer is 'lite'. It doesn't do a fraction of what CM does and that's reflected in the gameplay, or lack thereof. CM has a myriad of tactical nuances mirroring real life that make for a great simulation and great game. The simulation is real world physics, polygon based. I recall one interesting tidbit related by the developer early on when they were trying to find out why the Tiger tank was not reacting or performing as expected. It was discovered the simulated tank commander was oriented the wrong way in the turret so its 'eyes' were not seeing what was directly in front of the tank!

For those having performance issues, I suggest trying the latest patch. The BFC second programmer has optimized and improved things immensely across the board, even for those that weren't having any issue.

Quote from: ComradeP on December 21, 2013, 04:26:41 PM
snip...

All games are not 'perfect' and some games are just not for some people <shrug>. However, your specific complaints are highly selective, along the lines of poo-pooing a beautiful beach because of some garbage floating in the water. Bad analogy perhaps but all I am capable of this morning!

AARs by nature are meant to be balanced competitively else where would be the interest? I find your meeting engagement comment also very odd, since that battle type comprises only a small part of what's offered, and again usually, from my experience, a staple for head-head quick battles because (you guessed it) they are balanced competitively. Try playing one of PaperTiger's campaigns if you want some historically accurate, unfair and brutal battles. It will likely leave you crying in frustration if you play through or turn you into a constant reloader. ;)

I agree about CM's situational awareness of tanks in WWII being seemingly too good. However, the charge of attacking tanks being also too good is unfounded without understanding the context, ie spotting and C&C. This is based on many, many hours of gameplay not an AAR.

Relative spotting is miles better than the old Borg spotting, hands down. Your charge of using Scout teams to gather intel you wouldn't normally get was just as valid in CMx1 as it is in CMx2. If you have an elegant solution to this type of gaminess, I'm sure the developers would love to hear it.

Yep there are occasional spotting anomalies. It sure does not detract from the game as a whole and I would imagine most reasonable people would say the same. Again successful games will garner a following, that doesn't mean it is for everyone.

I agree there are still major issues with spotting.

In CMSF - you see your tanks firing and hit targets you don't see, happens all the time.

In CMBN/CMFI - your tank spots an enemy tank, you pause to target/fire  on the enemy but, it can't get the blue line on it, even though it's spotted, you un-pause, enemy tank fires, your tank is dead.  Seeing an enemy but, unable to target/fire on it seems to happen all the time.

Lol! Well then SgtRock with comments like 'major issues' and 'happens all the time' I profess you are in the unreasonable camp. Though that begs the question why you continue to purchase and play?? Here's a pro tip for you gratis, if your tank can spot something but you can't fire, it is likely the gunner has no los. Try shifting a little and I bet your tank will open up. :)

Quote from: Zonso on December 22, 2013, 12:38:07 PM
Lol! Well then SgtRock with comments like 'major issues' and 'happens all the time' I profess you are in the unreasonable camp. Though that begs the question why you continue to purchase and play?? Here's a pro tip for you gratis, if your tank can spot something but you can't fire, it is likely the gunner has no los. Try shifting a little and I bet your tank will open up. :)

Here's a pro tip for you gratis, try being a little less antagonist towards anyone who doesn't share your opinion.

For a fanbase that's infamous for lodging complaints about even the smallest little detail of the units portrayed, it's certainly a bit odd for one to call someone else "unreasonable" for pointing out some of the game's shortcomings.  ???

No Sale!
I'll stick to Graviteams APOS/GTOS game and the soon to be released Mius Front game which will have a newer engine to be released in early 2014 for my east front gaming needs.
There is even talk of adding a multi player aspect to Mius Front.

No one does east front tactical and grand tactical combat better.Nobody!
If they did then I would be buying and playing their product.
I seriously doubt anyone who actually learned to play APOS/GTOS will be looking to CMEF to fill their east front tactical gaming needs.

It looks like BF will be relying on the same old dwindling core customer base for sales of CMEF,per usual and no surprise there.
CMs glory days are over. There are much better products on the market today and CM hasn't been able to keep up and grasp that reality.

I hate to burst anyones bubble but micro managing individual soldiers and WEGO with a Gods eye view does not simulate real life WW2 tactics,especially at the platoon and above level and the tactical AI is no better in CM than APOS/GTOS it only seems that way because the CM maps are denser and smaller with no real room to manuever against the AI in CM.
Nice try though.

As far as 2 story buildings and hills. They are in APOS/GTOS if you really own and played it and bothered to look.
Another thing to consider is the game maps depict the Russian farmlands around Kharkov in the Ukrainian winter not Normandy summer bocage!
The maps are as close as possible to actual contour lines and terrain features for the battles that Graviteam has chosen.

The Devs live in Kharkov and have visited these battlefields countless times and used actual period 1/50,000 maps from the Russian Military archives to recreate them.

I'm sure if Graviteam wanted to add walls and bocage to their game they would do it right not because they can't do it or the game would fall apart because of it.

So what if all the houses look the same,at least you can destroy them and set them on fire. If and when Graviteam decides to go into the Urban combat environment you can be sure that every bldg. and brick wall will be portrayed as accurately as possible and deformable!
How can you accurately portray real life WW2 tactics and not have fire and blow up and destroy buildings or knock down trees.
And why are all the entrenchments and foxholes above ground?
Have they added cellars to the houses in CM yet?

Kind of ruins the real life protection and LOS aspects of these defenses.
So I'm not buying the whole mirrored RL tactics point.
That's like someone telling me Budwieser is the best beer because they drink it and like it!

CM is so sanitized it's like watching cartoon mission!
The graphics are crap and the so called "superior" gameplay doesn't alleviate that perception either.
So I'm also not swallowing that BF propaganda.

I could write pages of all the things I found unrealistic in CM and they may have addressed a few things since CMBN but I doubt any of the fixes are even close to actual realism or would make me care for that game anymore.
CM became a tedious chore to play and I'm much happier with Graviteams rendition of WW2 tactical combat.

BF is a slowly sinking ship and playing the band louder isn't going to cover up that fact or save it. Most of us jumped and abandoned the BF CM ship after CMBN was released and if BF can't update its game to more modern standards then it won't be long before the rest of the hanger ons get sucked under the waves along with it.
Maybe if BF is lucky Slithereen/Matrix will buy them out. Hell,they're like the same peas in the same pod anyways.

As far as I'm concerned Graviteam has no competition from CMEF and I'll wager it will hardly make enough money to support any of the other add ons that BF has planned for it either,much like how CMFI is now.

I get more bang for the buck from Graviteam then I could ever expect from a BF or Matrix product. You want to shell out the big bucks for a "superior" labeled branding with no basis in fact go ahead if you think that gives you some kind of an elite status.
I save money,play a quality product regularly that I enjoy and don't feel like a tool. That's what is more important to me.

Not going to argue..... You're obviously on the other side of the fence and that's cool.... It's what makes discussions great but I'd reckon your argument would carry more weight if it wasn't spotted with facts you can't possibly know!

I'd listen to your counter argument more without the inside knowledge of battlefronts bank statements and customer numbers... none of which you dont have access to but I applaud your impassioned loyalty to your game as much as those that defend theirs

Quote from: Zonso on December 22, 2013, 12:38:07 PM
Lol! Well then SgtRock with comments like 'major issues' and 'happens all the time' I profess you are in the unreasonable camp. Though that begs the question why you continue to purchase and play?? Here's a pro tip for you gratis, if your tank can spot something but you can't fire, it is likely the gunner has no los. Try shifting a little and I bet your tank will open up. :)

Oh, too late the enemy shoots and your tank is dead!


I haven't purchased anything beyond CMFS but, have played the demos and the full versions of CMBN at a friends. The issue of LOS the enemy is spotted (Enemy Icon highlighted) still can't shoot it, but the enemy can shoot you, happens all the time but, fan boys always have an excuse! I guess the sun must have been in the gunners eyes! ::)

Seriously?

Herp a derp derp, haterz
Herp a derp derp to you, fanboyz

IT'S A GAME.

(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwiki.urbandead.com%2Fimages%2F9%2F92%2FGoodgrief3.jpg&hash=fe3c2f49f427e7f39d2d6858bf385d3cd11a41c1)

There. You've made me go Charlie Brown...and I HATE CHARLIE BROWN.

Lmao - thanks arctic

You hate Charlie Brown??     I didn't think anyone hated Charlie Brown.

This revelation diminishes my faith in humanity, ever so slightly...

Sigh. Any CM thread surely attracts it's staunchest defenders (and opponents). Anyway, just like many of the people in this forums, I too stopped at CMSF.  There is just something missing from the later titles. I can't say what it is. Maybe it's WW2 theme, or the tedious baby sitting of your troops, or it may just be the graphics. I still play CMSF once in a while but I find the experience exhausting after a few missions.

I also forgot that I can't access the BF forums when I clicked the link in the first post. This is because they have subscribed to a spammer repository that wrongly included my IP address. I tried to get help from them but nothing happened. Blanket exclusion of a nice customer like myself leaves very negative impressions.

So I happily moved on without much CM and didn't feel that I missed so much. As someone said, it is just a game anyway.

Heh I like how Battlefront is destined to fail because no one plays their games.  They seem to be able to make enough money to do damn well what they please and I would love to be in the F.U money position.  Typically the signs of success in my books being able to say we are going to DRM or what ever we want.  If these things were hurting their bottom line so much then either they would have changed them or folded by now.

I play both games a lot and I like APOS/GTOS having put in countless hours learning the interface but just like CMBN it has its ups and downs.  I particularly find myself coming back to CMBN more for the breadth of gaming individual battles though I like APOS/GTOS for the tactical grand scale.  Mostly I come back to CMBN to play against other humans in PBEM and that is where right now I am particularly happy with continuing to play CMBN.

I think it might be more relevant to wait until more information and screen shots are released by CM East Front before making up an iron clad opinion and telling the world.  But based on the negativity that trying to show anything new seems to endanger in this franchise I wouldn't be surprised if they keep it under wraps until it is ready...........  And then go FU as they count their cash.

Con

After battling irrational haters over Rome2 and X rebirth (not saying everyone who didn't like them is an irrational hater of course) I am glad that I have no interest in WW2 and no opinion one way or another about CM. I have bought them all and really only play Shockforce. I've been pretty happy with it. The engine is dated but it seems more and more, gaming companies are updating engines to be  more streamlined and simple...so I'm not sure I want a new engine.

Unfortunately, CM and battlefront are - for whatever reason- emotional topics which makes conversation about the game difficult. I PROMISE you that there are people out there (and perhaps on this forum) who have already decided this game sucks and will grasp at any bug or design change in The game to declare it a "mess" or "unplayable"

Meanwhile, I will stick to playing "unplayable" games like rebirth and Rome2 .

Quote from: mikeck on December 22, 2013, 11:22:13 PM
Unfortunately, CM and battlefront are - for whatever reason- emotional topics which makes conversation about the game difficult. I PROMISE you that there are people out there (and perhaps on this forum) who have already decided this game sucks and will grasp at any bug or design change in The game to declare it a "mess" or "unplayable"

Meanwhile, I will stick to playing "unplayable" games like rebirth and Rome2 .

Well put! I'll do so too! ;) And enjoy me some solid CMBN games too while I  at it.
Grown men start to act like girls whenever BFC or CM comes up.

Yeah, Paradox and Battlefront (and related topics) seem to be real magnets for criticism and people jumping into the fight to support them. That has been the case for years, not sure when it started.

Anyway,

QuoteI find your meeting engagement comment also very odd, since that battle type comprises only a small part of what's offered

...but the majority of the AAR's cover that kind of battle, hence my comment. I can only judge what I can see/read about on the internet, not having played the games.

-

Panzer Command also has odd spotting from time to time, but at least in those cases it's often clear that terrain blocks the target from being spotted. I've seen too many cases of odd spotting in CM AAR's for my liking. It might not be as much of a problem in the actual game, that's possible, but as stated: I base my impressions on AAR's, and if they don't provide an accurate overview of the game, that's not something I can influence.

It is weird on how much passion this game brings up......if I would have known just mentioning a future eastern front version had some preview available would stoke the fire so much I would have passed on posting it here:)  we have a great community over here and excellent discussions on games, whether we agree on them or not, but cm really seems to ignite tough conversations here and other places for some reason.  To me it's just another game where some people like it, others don't, no different than any other games we discuss.

Quote from: Dolan50 on December 22, 2013, 01:21:04 PM
No Sale!
I'll stick to Graviteams APOS/GTOS game and the soon to be released Mius Front game which will have a newer engine to be released in early 2014 for my east front gaming needs.
There is even talk of adding a multi player aspect to Mius Front.

No one does east front tactical and grand tactical combat better.Nobody!
If they did then I would be buying and playing their product.
I seriously doubt anyone who actually learned to play APOS/GTOS will be looking to CMEF to fill their east front tactical gaming needs.

It looks like BF will be relying on the same old dwindling core customer base for sales of CMEF,per usual and no surprise there.
CMs glory days are over. There are much better products on the market today and CM hasn't been able to keep up and grasp that reality.

I hate to burst anyones bubble but micro managing individual soldiers and WEGO with a Gods eye view does not simulate real life WW2 tactics,especially at the platoon and above level and the tactical AI is no better in CM than APOS/GTOS it only seems that way because the CM maps are denser and smaller with no real room to manuever against the AI in CM.
Nice try though.

As far as 2 story buildings and hills. They are in APOS/GTOS if you really own and played it and bothered to look.
Another thing to consider is the game maps depict the Russian farmlands around Kharkov in the Ukrainian winter not Normandy summer bocage!
The maps are as close as possible to actual contour lines and terrain features for the battles that Graviteam has chosen.

The Devs live in Kharkov and have visited these battlefields countless times and used actual period 1/50,000 maps from the Russian Military archives to recreate them.

I'm sure if Graviteam wanted to add walls and bocage to their game they would do it right not because they can't do it or the game would fall apart because of it.

So what if all the houses look the same,at least you can destroy them and set them on fire. If and when Graviteam decides to go into the Urban combat environment you can be sure that every bldg. and brick wall will be portrayed as accurately as possible and deformable!
How can you accurately portray real life WW2 tactics and not have fire and blow up and destroy buildings or knock down trees.
And why are all the entrenchments and foxholes above ground?
Have they added cellars to the houses in CM yet?

Kind of ruins the real life protection and LOS aspects of these defenses.
So I'm not buying the whole mirrored RL tactics point.
That's like someone telling me Budwieser is the best beer because they drink it and like it!

CM is so sanitized it's like watching cartoon mission!
The graphics are crap and the so called "superior" gameplay doesn't alleviate that perception either.
So I'm also not swallowing that BF propaganda.

I could write pages of all the things I found unrealistic in CM and they may have addressed a few things since CMBN but I doubt any of the fixes are even close to actual realism or would make me care for that game anymore.
CM became a tedious chore to play and I'm much happier with Graviteams rendition of WW2 tactical combat.

BF is a slowly sinking ship and playing the band louder isn't going to cover up that fact or save it. Most of us jumped and abandoned the BF CM ship after CMBN was released and if BF can't update its game to more modern standards then it won't be long before the rest of the hanger ons get sucked under the waves along with it.
Maybe if BF is lucky Slithereen/Matrix will buy them out. Hell,they're like the same peas in the same pod anyways.

As far as I'm concerned Graviteam has no competition from CMEF and I'll wager it will hardly make enough money to support any of the other add ons that BF has planned for it either,much like how CMFI is now.

I get more bang for the buck from Graviteam then I could ever expect from a BF or Matrix product. You want to shell out the big bucks for a "superior" labeled branding with no basis in fact go ahead if you think that gives you some kind of an elite status.
I save money,play a quality product regularly that I enjoy and don't feel like a tool. That's what is more important to me.

Well, attempting a rational rebuttal to your somewhat ittational post.

You can destroy - buildings. Infact - individual floors in buildings so what are you talking about ?

No you cant knock down trees in combat mission. This of course is the single most vital issue in portraying tactical combat - especially given it was something any real TC would have avoided doing in real life - so the fact you can drive through trees with impunity makes APOS more realistic ? You can knock down walls in CM - can you in APOS ? erm no  - because there arent any.

Yes - battlefront is sinking - its been about ten years now and they are producing more stuff than ever. So that must be some tiny hole in the ship. Most of "us" jumped ship ? Whoose us ? you and - Who ? precisely ? where do you get your info from - you seem to know so much ...

The new eastern front CM game will allow maps up to 30 km Sq, - and whether or not a map is constricted is due to the number of forces on the map as well ... something APOS rarely has to worry about because there are never more than a few platoons in any battle.

Your view is they choose their maps based on where they live. Mine is they choose them because they fit the engine. Lets see what the new Muis front delivers - a proper town with urban fighting or yet more wide open spaces.

Well - when graviteam get to urban fighting lets see if they do it better - basing an argument on what may or may not be the  case is not an argument.

Advanced squad leader had cellars, and foxholes - neither of which appeared under the ground - its they effect they have in the game - not where they appear graphically. And as far as I know - graviteam dont have cellars in their one stroy all the same houses either.

So yes - CM doesnt have fire. Well - thats important - but it has a scenario editor you can make new maps with - virtually any terrain you can think of, it has an interface you can understand after one playthrough - not one that is a mess of poorly documented muddle, it has ammo sharing, simulates battlefield casualty first aid, it already has multiplayer, it has controls that mean your units actually go where you want them to rather than vaguley end up in the location then mill about in a huddle not taking up any sensible positions . I could go on if you want to start comparing things.

And yes - there are some occaisions where CM has spotting issues - though nowhere near to the extent some people try to portray - and thats because the complexity of the environments its dealing with ARE light years ahead of anything the only other similar game attempts to do.

I like the APOS games - graphically they are excellent - but saying CM is a piece of crap because the graviteam games are so many light years ahead in both the nature of simulation and what you get is why people who like the game leap so hard to defend it - because for what ever reason there just seem to be some people so irratinal in their hatred its the only way to defend it.

I think like all games us guys invest a lot of time into our hobby and we choose our favourites..... someone dissing those choices is like been told your girlfriend is ugly or you've clearly made the wrong decision!

Quote from: Con on December 22, 2013, 09:21:40 PM
Heh I like how Battlefront is destined to fail because no one plays their games.  They seem to be able to make enough money to do damn well what they please and I would love to be in the F.U money position.  Typically the signs of success in my books being able to say we are going to DRM or what ever we want.  If these things were hurting their bottom line so much then either they would have changed them or folded by now.

I play both games a lot and I like APOS/GTOS having put in countless hours learning the interface but just like CMBN it has its ups and downs.  I particularly find myself coming back to CMBN more for the breadth of gaming individual battles though I like APOS/GTOS for the tactical grand scale.  Mostly I come back to CMBN to play against other humans in PBEM and that is where right now I am particularly happy with continuing to play CMBN.

I think it might be more relevant to wait until more information and screen shots are released by CM East Front before making up an iron clad opinion and telling the world.  But based on the negativity that trying to show anything new seems to endanger in this franchise I wouldn't be surprised if they keep it under wraps until it is ready...........  And then go FU as they count their cash.

Con

Gotta admit, the "everybody's gotta buy everything" to be able to play each other kind of sucks!!  :o

Quote from: undercovergeek on December 23, 2013, 06:18:14 AM
I think like all games us guys invest a lot of time into our hobby and we choose our favourites..... someone dissing those choices is like been told your girlfriend is ugly or you've clearly made the wrong decision!

Haha.  It's simple really. The more time and money you spend on a game, the more you'll defend it.  We don't want our time and money to go to waste right?

Sure it is just a game though I think the issue remains of individuals using hyperbole regards problems in the game, whether from ignorance or just malicious, and/or outright misinformation like the 'gotta buy everything' post above. Passionate, yep, especially in light of it continues to be the same individuals doing so. Anyone playing CM regularly is quite aware of its limitations. Hell most posts on BFC's forum are along those lines and ways to improve or correct them. The developers listen and respond; CM today (BN or FI) is far removed from CMSF, and its not just due to the era. But let's not let facts interfere with a good brew up right?

Quote from: Tuna on December 23, 2013, 07:08:05 AM

Quote from: Con on December 22, 2013, 09:21:40 PM
Heh I like how Battlefront is destined to fail because no one plays their games.  They seem to be able to make enough money to do damn well what they please and I would love to be in the F.U money position.  Typically the signs of success in my books being able to say we are going to DRM or what ever we want.  If these things were hurting their bottom line so much then either they would have changed them or folded by now.

I play both games a lot and I like APOS/GTOS having put in countless hours learning the interface but just like CMBN it has its ups and downs.  I particularly find myself coming back to CMBN more for the breadth of gaming individual battles though I like APOS/GTOS for the tactical grand scale.  Mostly I come back to CMBN to play against other humans in PBEM and that is where right now I am particularly happy with continuing to play CMBN.

I think it might be more relevant to wait until more information and screen shots are released by CM East Front before making up an iron clad opinion and telling the world.  But based on the negativity that trying to show anything new seems to endanger in this franchise I wouldn't be surprised if they keep it under wraps until it is ready...........  And then go FU as they count their cash.

Con

Gotta admit, the "everybody's gotta buy everything" to be able to play each other kind of sucks!!  :o

I think where battlefront have done themselves a disservice is the confusion around the modules; base game; game 2.0 and patches.  They really should have called them different games and stopped supporting the base game.  It would have possibly pissed more people off in the short term but made it cleaner and simpler to understand. 

That being said it is a developer decision and only impacts gameplay if you are in a PBEM game when  one person upgrades to a different version and the other doesn't (hint hint have you finally cracked open your tight wallet to drop some xmas dough on  the Market Garden Module Tuna so we can start a new game??)

Con

lol, you two still going at it?

Not to take things too far off topic, but was thinking about re-installing CMBN, CMFI Gustav, and possibly buying Market Garden...as someone mentioned above, one of the confusing things is installed its patches/upgrades/modules.  If I own every module/patch/upgrade, can someone tell me what is the correct order of installing all of this stuff if I was installing from scratch?  Which module First?  which patch next? which upgrade module? etc.

Quote from: undercovergeek on December 23, 2013, 09:33:12 AM
lol, you two still going at it?

No, we had to stop when MG came out, cause we were no longer compatible.  :P

I will someday Con, y wallet has been wide open to FSX recently, and believe me, that is expensive!!!

Quote from: Grim.Reaper on December 23, 2013, 06:06:17 AM
It is weird on how much passion this game brings up......if I would have known just mentioning a future eastern front version had some preview available would stoke the fire so much I would have passed on posting it here:)  we have a great community over here and excellent discussions on games, whether we agree on them or not, but cm really seems to ignite tough conversations here and other places for some reason.  To me it's just another game where some people like it, others don't, no different than any other games we discuss.

Well...who knew?  It's hard to keep track of what games are currently triggering the weird preemptive sour grapes nobody wants (to explain this obscure attempt at understanding why anyone wants to work at working out all the problems with a game they don't want to play -- there is this AESOPIAN fable:  A fox can't reach some grapes so he resigns himself to not having them by saying they are undoubtedly sour grapes)
scenarios.  I still blame the uncanny valley effect for all this.  The preemptive sour uncanny grapes valley.
ANYWAY -- down to plain old unmitigated opinion:

I thoroughly enjoyed the GRAVETEAM games, but CM in all forms has been one of my absolute favorite gaming traditions for over a decade.  I'm far far beyond fanboi on this (as with ARMA or total war in any form).  I accept my ludicrous love of CM stuff.  There's nothing I can do.  I've spent so many happy hours with the editor (as in the ARMAs or the TW mods such as Third Age).

Anyway.  All that aside, I'm taking a CM break until the East Front game comes out.  Frankly (and perhaps ludicrously) I expect it will be one of the most engaging games of all time.

Quote from: Grim.Reaper on December 23, 2013, 06:06:17 AM
It is weird on how much passion this game brings up......if I would have known just mentioning a future eastern front version had some preview available would stoke the fire so much I would have passed on posting it here:)  we have a great community over here and excellent discussions on games, whether we agree on them or not, but cm really seems to ignite tough conversations here and other places for some reason.  To me it's just another game where some people like it, others don't, no different than any other games we discuss.

The empassioned points of view didn't just happen overnight, either.  It's had a long formation period over the years, and much of the debate is in regards to the CMx2 era.

Quote from: Grim.Reaper on December 23, 2013, 10:22:28 AM
Not to take things too far off topic, but was thinking about re-installing CMBN, CMFI Gustav, and possibly buying Market Garden...as someone mentioned above, one of the confusing things is installed its patches/upgrades/modules.  If I own every module/patch/upgrade, can someone tell me what is the correct order of installing all of this stuff if I was installing from scratch?  Which module First?  which patch next? which upgrade module? etc.

CMBN ... http://www.battlefront.com/helpdesk/index.php?_m=knowledgebase&_a=viewarticle&kbarticleid=240&nav=0,10

Quote from: Zulu1966 on December 23, 2013, 11:31:43 AM

Quote from: Grim.Reaper on December 23, 2013, 10:22:28 AM
Not to take things too far off topic, but was thinking about re-installing CMBN, CMFI Gustav, and possibly buying Market Garden...as someone mentioned above, one of the confusing things is installed its patches/upgrades/modules.  If I own every module/patch/upgrade, can someone tell me what is the correct order of installing all of this stuff if I was installing from scratch?  Which module First?  which patch next? which upgrade module? etc.

CMBN ... http://www.battlefront.com/helpdesk/index.php?_m=knowledgebase&_a=viewarticle&kbarticleid=240&nav=0,10

Excellent...thank you.

i have no problem with CM, i have fun playing it even though the machine and gunfire smoke does not correspond with wind direction on some occasions. i get the same problem with HPS games.

what i really hate is the direction Nintendo took with Nintendogs. They never delivered the Deutscher Schäferhund module but instead went for small gay dog modules... milking those bitches to death. those aren't simulations anymore. at least in my book.

Quote from: Grim.Reaper on December 23, 2013, 10:22:28 AM
Not to take things too far off topic, but was thinking about re-installing CMBN, CMFI Gustav, and possibly buying Market Garden...as someone mentioned above, one of the confusing things is installed its patches/upgrades/modules.  If I own every module/patch/upgrade, can someone tell me what is the correct order of installing all of this stuff if I was installing from scratch?  Which module First?  which patch next? which upgrade module? etc.

I just did this myself and here is the order that I did it in

1. Install CMBN original from disk
2. Install CommonWealth forces from Disk
3. Download Version 2.0 of the patch (I had a previous email with the serial number for the patch)
4. Apply patch and make sure it is checked form CMBN AND Commonwealth forces
5. Install Market Garden
6. Install update patch from Market garden
7. Download all my mods and reinstall

Took a little while but I am back up and running as of now

Con

Conrad

So we all bitch and moan about anything CMx2 related, but we play it no less.
Strange relation to have with a game in my view.

Quote from: Con on December 23, 2013, 02:28:07 PM

Quote from: Grim.Reaper on December 23, 2013, 10:22:28 AM
Not to take things too far off topic, but was thinking about re-installing CMBN, CMFI Gustav, and possibly buying Market Garden...as someone mentioned above, one of the confusing things is installed its patches/upgrades/modules.  If I own every module/patch/upgrade, can someone tell me what is the correct order of installing all of this stuff if I was installing from scratch?  Which module First?  which patch next? which upgrade module? etc.

I just did this myself and here is the order that I did it in

1. Install CMBN original from disk
2. Install CommonWealth forces from Disk
3. Download Version 2.0 of the patch (I had a previous email with the serial number for the patch)
4. Apply patch and make sure it is checked form CMBN AND Commonwealth forces
5. Install Market Garden
6. Install update patch from Market garden
7. Download all my mods and reinstall

Took a little while but I am back up and running as of now

Con

Conrad

I think you missed the 1.11 patch - the CW module only takes it to 1.10 - and the 2.0 patch needs 1.11

Quote from: Yskonyn on December 23, 2013, 03:07:12 PM
So we all bitch and moan about anything CMx2 related, but we play it no less.
Strange relation to have with a game in my view.

  It's the uncanny valley -- you're looking at events in the game and scrutinizing them not just for realism but for an ultimately
undefinable relation to reality and all kinds of assumptions about every little piece of reality.  I think this started in Flight sims, but I think
it has even turned up in the wierd hating Rome II industry.
  The original uncanny valley was supposed to be a problem with robots that seemed very human, but still made people feel very queasy -- the same kind of thing seems to be happening with "clickable cockpits" as an infinitely "debatable" thing in flight sims or Rome II which inexplicably
seems to be triggering the same kind of queasiness.
  Anyway, I seem to be immune to the uncanny valley, perhaps due to using editors a lot in games.

Quote from: Zulu1966 on December 23, 2013, 03:14:38 PM

Quote from: Con on December 23, 2013, 02:28:07 PM

Quote from: Grim.Reaper on December 23, 2013, 10:22:28 AM
Not to take things too far off topic, but was thinking about re-installing CMBN, CMFI Gustav, and possibly buying Market Garden...as someone mentioned above, one of the confusing things is installed its patches/upgrades/modules.  If I own every module/patch/upgrade, can someone tell me what is the correct order of installing all of this stuff if I was installing from scratch?  Which module First?  which patch next? which upgrade module? etc.

I just did this myself and here is the order that I did it in

1. Install CMBN original from disk
2. Install CommonWealth forces from Disk
3. Download Version 2.0 of the patch (I had a previous email with the serial number for the patch)
4. Apply patch and make sure it is checked form CMBN AND Commonwealth forces
5. Install Market Garden
6. Install update patch from Market garden
7. Download all my mods and reinstall

Took a little while but I am back up and running as of now

Con

Conrad

I think you missed the 1.11 patch - the CW module only takes it to 1.10 - and the 2.0 patch needs 1.11

You're right

Just checked the game and I was at version 2.10.  Downloading the all inclusive patch that should get me to 2.12

Thanks for the heads up

Con

Quote from: Apocalypse 31
For $35 a pop,

LOL! I sadly pay $39.99 for old DOS graphics from Tiller/ HPS  :-\

I don't play it enough, but I love firing up CMx2 and getting kicked to the curb by the AI  :) I have been waiting for this title since Shock Force  ;D

Quote from: sandman2575 on December 22, 2013, 06:18:41 PM
You hate Charlie Brown??     I didn't think anyone hated Charlie Brown.

This revelation diminishes my faith in humanity, ever so slightly...

He's just so utterly bland and uninteresting, and yet people are still fans? It makes no sense!  ;D

Quote from: Arctic Blast on December 23, 2013, 05:24:59 PM

Quote from: sandman2575 on December 22, 2013, 06:18:41 PM
You hate Charlie Brown??     I didn't think anyone hated Charlie Brown.

This revelation diminishes my faith in humanity, ever so slightly...

He's just so utterly bland and uninteresting, and yet people are still fans? It makes no sense!  ;D

I'm with 'The Blast' on this one.

I always thought Charlie Brown was dull as hell.  Didn't see the amusement in it.  Watching an episode was like watching paint dry on a crippled snail.

I enjoy the CMX2 series.  Nothing follows.

I will be getting this because I am interested in the Eastern Front. It will be my first CM title so I have none of the baggage. I like the uncanny valley metaphor...good way to describe the undescribable. If you traverse the uncanny valley successfully, do you reach happy valley? Or hidden valley? Maybe tin pan alley.

As long as you don't end up in the Valley of Death, either by your self or with the 600, it's all good.

If you survive the Uncanny Valley you will enter Happy Happy Joy Joy Valley, otherwise known as the Infinitely Having Fun Valley.
It's a good place! I have been there before, but I tend to get drawn to the Valley of Gorgeous Women more often.

Anyway, I'd like a PBEM match against you once you're settled in on the Ostfront later!

In the mean time for anyone who'd like a long tutorial on the gameplay of CM(BN) watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbE8795rt2s

It's a long (2h43m!) video about a guy explaining how CM works. His tactics are (admitted by himself) up for debate, but the point is that he shows off some great tips and explanations about how CM thinks and how the interface works along with some pr0-tips.
Recommended to watch (smeared over a few sessions).

the uncanny valley does kind of relate here but also too much with CGI in movies, once a game starts trying to unpack the nifty abstractions that usually make strategy and wargames so playable for people who arent studying at some military college, then it seems to be constantly measured by what it has failed to do as opposed to what it does do. if it wants to also show everything graphically well ... as shown with Rome 2 such promises need a lot of time in development so as to come good.
I thought the main problem with Rome 2 was its pisspoor AI - or is that no being worked on and improved by CA?

I dont need a game to do everything graphically, i prefer my imagination still and just am happy for a game to represent what is happening rather than try to show it in detail - the latter will always be met with disappoint against what one's own imagination can create in more than just a mental image sense.

for CM eastern front, i will be interested to get it if it offers a good single player challenge and has good FOW and modelling of communication difficulties - well the latter less so, if CM still does teh WE go 60seconds of realtimne thing that the CM1 games did - i have those games.

Quote from: Yskonyn on December 24, 2013, 08:48:52 AM
If you survive the Uncanny Valley you will enter Happy Happy Joy Joy Valley, otherwise known as the Infinitely Having Fun Valley.
It's a good place! I have been there before, but I tend to get drawn to the Valley of Gorgeous Women more often.

Anyway, I'd like a PBEM match against you once you're settled in on the Ostfront later!

In the mean time for anyone who'd like a long tutorial on the gameplay of CM(BN) watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbE8795rt2s

It's a long (2h43m!) video about a guy explaining how CM works. His tactics are (admitted by himself) up for debate, but the point is that he shows off some great tips and explanations about how CM thinks and how the interface works along with some pr0-tips.
Recommended to watch (smeared over a few sessions).

  I always forget how much learning and re-learning the CM series takes.  There's a lot of different modes and levels and they change really fundamental things about how the game flows.  I can remember absolutely loving everything about the primary iteration (I got Barbarosa to Berlin and Afrika Korps wasn't out yet) and being very disturbed with SHock Force until I  let go of WEGO and went with the flow.

   Even so...CMBN was a difficult way into a tricky world.  It was fun, but I'm taking a CM break until the East Front arrives.  the only exception has been the first stage of CMFI.  Another rather disturbing look at a disturbing world.

   The AAR/DARs on the battlefront site can be very helpful.  I think they are all wego, but still a lot of the mechanics of fire and movement and spotting come through.

I thought this series of videos was also very good on tactics for using within the game.....

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/combat-mission-battle-for-normandy-tactics-a-video-series

Quote from: agathosdaimon on December 24, 2013, 08:50:37 AM
I thought the main problem with Rome 2 was its pisspoor AI - or is that no being worked on and improved by CA?

  The AI thing in games -- I think you can always find something "pisspoor" about the AI in a game.  As far as I can tell, what people
put forward rhetorically in the cottage industry of hating Rome II, was that the AI could not sense that you needed to be destroyed
right away diplomatically.  Which seems unfair to the player if they work on their diplomacy.  Another thing that was brought up about the
AI was the usual complaints about what happened in the battles -- which was more about the battles than the AI.  The AI has varied a lot
since then (I recall that in Patch2, the battle AI seemed okay, but everthing else was nutty in a way that allowed me as the Normal Parthenians to overrun the world pretty fast) and there are lots of mods that change the battles.
  As for me, I try not to use the AI's problems against it in most games.  I try to put myself in the place of a commander at the time and give orders as they could be given:  deploy your forces, have them do what troops of the time could do and so on.
  In CMBN, I did occasionally over-manage things in real time, but usually not in a way or scale that would alter the overall conditions of a battle.
I can recall cornering an AI Panther and killing it pretty unfairly by pinning it with small arms fire and sneaking up with a 6 pdr from behind and various slightly doomed rescues of troops or crews that had gotten too far into enemy territory.  But I don't blame the tac AI for being defeated by second-to-second micro-management.  Similarly, in Rome II, there are things the AI does that make sense most of the time, but that can be used (rather unfairly I think) against the AI pretty often.

If though the ai literally just stands at its starting place and lets,you approch its units and destroy piecemeal and does even bother to stop it, not use even its arhcers that are just standing there, that is a bad ai. I like to play from the position of the commander too and all the limitations that imposes, but few games reallly d this well.

Quote from: agathosdaimon on December 24, 2013, 11:58:10 PM
If though the ai literally just stands at its starting place and lets,you approch its units and destroy piecemeal and does even bother to stop it, not use even its arhcers that are just standing there, that is a bad ai. I like to play from the position of the commander too and all the limitations that imposes, but few games reallly d this well.

I've never seen this happen - unless and its a big unless you're playing a user made scenario with no AI plan for the enemy - it happens

I have heard that Uncanny Valley description used before for CMx2 and never fully grokked it in terms of the game. There are no jarring moments when playing, in fact only more immersion from my perspective. I guess I am immune also. I just think that term was used as a 'point' of contention during the transition to the newer engine to give some something to talk about. I do have moments when I see people on TV or on magazine covers who have had varying degrees of plastic surgery to their face. <shudder>

Only got snips throughout, but that's an interesting video from the Games Pusher. Sometimes I forget or overlook where people who play CM are coming from, in this case it appears a more general RTS background. My preference gravitates more towards the excellent videos from Col. Paulding, all of which I have watched in entirety. It's not elitism but a difference in background, and generally why CM appeals so much to me. Yes it is work to play well, sometimes unforgiving even when you do everything 'by the book' but in the end that work is also the reward. I think that was one of my hang-ups with the Achtung Panzer game; it felt too much like a more serious version of Company of Heroes and not reflecting real life tactical WWII situations. As I recall, the best 'tactic' was simply round up your troops in a big group and engage the enemy in turn, who simply died piecemeal. The scarcity of units on the maps simply reinforced that RTS feeling of play.

I think the tactical AI in CM is excellent. Units, both yours and the AI's, act and respond in an appropriate manner for the most part, down to the individual soldier. There is a bit of randomness to account for the unique type of individual. :) CM's strategic AI is scripted by the designer and I know that carries a lot of negativity regards replayability and even responding realistically to the situation at hand. However for me, I find the single player scenarios and campaigns much more rewarding with the newer engine, largely due to the excellent scenario designers. I would guesstimate about 75% of my play now is single player, with the rest being pbem, whereas with CMx1 it was 95% pbem as I found no interest or challenge in the AI. The next step forward would be some form of AI trigger. I think that would take the play to another level.

Anyways, the house is alive to the sounds of children doing their thing Christmas morning. Time to join them. Merry Christmas everyone.

Quote from: undercovergeek on December 25, 2013, 03:19:29 AM

Quote from: agathosdaimon on December 24, 2013, 11:58:10 PM
If though the ai literally just stands at its starting place and lets,you approch its units and destroy piecemeal and does even bother to stop it, not use even its arhcers that are just standing there, that is a bad ai. I like to play from the position of the commander too and all the limitations that imposes, but few games reallly d this well.

I've never seen this happen - unless and its a big unless you're playing a user made scenario with no AI plan for the enemy - it happens

Oh sorry, it wasnt an example fro Rome2 - i dont have Rome 2, the example was from Legion Arena, which did happen exactly like that and made me glad i bought that game only second hand on ebay and never paid the large price at Matrix games for it. - i just meant it as a general example of ai specifically being bad.

scripted AI is okay, if it is scripted with some room to move - i would have to imagine that in CM the ai must at least respond to new threats,

The tac ai in cmbn makes the enemy and you do the right things with the right guns.... the ai gets you to that spot

If the enemy has no ai it will wait for you in it's set up zone and then use the tac ai when you're in range - the enemy is only as good as the programmer and without leading you down a linear path it's anyone's guess where you decide to attack and if it's where the programmer figured you wouldn't be then you'll steamroll the ai

I found that out when I tried the training scenario from the German side. I waited for quite a while, running turns, to see how the Americans would advance. I finally got tired of it so I advanced a squad up along the road a ways. Nothing. Then I advanced them almost to the trees in front of the farm. Still nothing. finally, figuring that the scenario was completely broken playing from that side and that there were actually no allied units in game I marched my little Pixelmacht guys through the trees and into the farm yard...


... where they were promptly dispatched by all the M-4s sitting there in a bunch.

Most, if not all scenarios have a description mentioning how suitable it is to play in a given setup e.g. H2H only, or German vs AI only.

Quote from: Yskonyn on December 25, 2013, 11:18:57 PM
Most, if not all scenarios have a description mentioning how suitable it is to play in a given setup e.g. H2H only, or German vs AI only.

Doesn't "recommended for H2H" generally mean the scenario creator didn't bother putting in an AI plan?

It does - but there's a uge difference between 'didn't bother' and couldn't or didn't want to

I use to make maps, loved it, did the whole of carentan once, made a few others, but putting AI into them is a whole other skill altogether. There are people who love making the maps and there are people that love plotting the AI, very rarely are they the same person - my suggestion was always to have a team of makers and a team of AI bods and the map guys hand their work over to the ai ones

Quote from: undercovergeek on December 26, 2013, 03:57:19 AM
It does - but there's a uge difference between 'didn't bother' and couldn't or didn't want to

I use to make maps, loved it, did the whole of carentan once, made a few others, but putting AI into them is a whole other skill altogether. There are people who love making the maps and there are people that love plotting the AI, very rarely are they the same person - my suggestion was always to have a team of makers and a team of AI bods and the map guys hand their work over to the ai ones

  I've used the following tricks for getting fun small battles out of the editor:
1) get a quick battle map (these have (AI) objectives for both sides as near as I can understand)
2) get a general idea of what the attack and defend areas are on the map (the notes will say, interestingly enough....perhaps to help AI design?)
3) put in forces (not too big and not too taylored for what you think the battle will be)
4) play as either side

  Either because the AI does have some understanding of objectives (though seemingly better on the offense), the AI will attack or defend after a fashion.
   Of course you can (and I have) do a lot to script the AI, the Ai will do some basic stuff with nothing more than objectives, set up zones and friendly and unfriendly directions (I think, though maybe there is more in the quick battle AI than meets the eye)

Quote from: Zonso on December 25, 2013, 08:36:43 AM
I have heard that Uncanny Valley description used before for CMx2 and never fully grokked it in terms of the game. There are no jarring moments when playing, in fact only more immersion from my perspective. I guess I am immune also. I just think that term was used as a 'point' of contention during the transition to the newer engine to give some something to talk about. I do have moments when I see people on TV or on magazine covers who have had varying degrees of plastic surgery to their face. <shudder>

Only got snips throughout, but that's an interesting video from the Games Pusher. Sometimes I forget or overlook where people who play CM are coming from, in this case it appears a more general RTS background. My preference gravitates more towards the excellent videos from Col. Paulding, all of which I have watched in entirety. It's not elitism but a difference in background, and generally why CM appeals so much to me. Yes it is work to play well, sometimes unforgiving even when you do everything 'by the book' but in the end that work is also the reward. I think that was one of my hang-ups with the Achtung Panzer game; it felt too much like a more serious version of Company of Heroes and not reflecting real life tactical WWII situations. As I recall, the best 'tactic' was simply round up your troops in a big group and engage the enemy in turn, who simply died piecemeal. The scarcity of units on the maps simply reinforced that RTS feeling of play.

I think the tactical AI in CM is excellent. Units, both yours and the AI's, act and respond in an appropriate manner for the most part, down to the individual soldier. There is a bit of randomness to account for the unique type of individual. :) CM's strategic AI is scripted by the designer and I know that carries a lot of negativity regards replayability and even responding realistically to the situation at hand. However for me, I find the single player scenarios and campaigns much more rewarding with the newer engine, largely due to the excellent scenario designers. I would guesstimate about 75% of my play now is single player, with the rest being pbem, whereas with CMx1 it was 95% pbem as I found no interest or challenge in the AI. The next step forward would be some form of AI trigger. I think that would take the play to another level.

Anyways, the house is alive to the sounds of children doing their thing Christmas morning. Time to join them. Merry Christmas everyone.

I believe I wrote a rather contentious review of CM:SF using the term "uncanny valley". I recreated it here:

http://boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/5811/combat-missions-wrong-left-turn-into-the-uncanny-v

I used the term in this manner: "In fact, I think we've reached the Uncanny Valley in CM, where it is so close to real life as to heighten expectations about game performance unrealistically, but not close enough to be convincing in actual play." Stuff like seeing every man in every squad, but finding out that, for example, whole squads would shoot at the same 8m grid on the map even if attacked by a men coming at them on a 200m front.

I discussed the move to 1:1 representation and concluded it wasn't the wrong way to go, but the method of implementation wasn't optimal. My opinion hasn't really changed. BFC has a very popular product in CM, of which there is no doubt. My personal opinion is that the product could be much better. The developers obviously agree, which is why they continue to work on improvements. These improvements have been hailed by the fanbase every time they are introduced. Yet the rallying cry (we have seen it in this very thread) is "who else does it better?" It's not much of an endorsement, frankly.

I think long-time fans of the series were most disappointed to see so many common sense features stripped out for what they saw as trivial reasons, or for principle. And other things added in which added little value for them. But above all of it, the commentary by the developer was handled with less tact than some of the fans would have liked circa 2007; essentially saying "we're moving on with or without you." I don't doubt that was a decision they had to make - they could not keep updating the original game engine ad infinitum - but there was some alienation expressed by a few fans at the time at the harshness of the message.

The good news is that the series is an ongoing work in progress, and those features are slowly working their way back in; things like vehicle covered arc commands, and new features like scenario testing tools. Some of the earliest promises have yet to be realized - the random map generator is apparently gone for good, but in its place, they postulated that some form of geomorphic map "tiles" would be possible. We're still waiting on that one, so that semi-random terrain would be possible in the quick battles. A minor point, given the availability now of pre-made quick battle maps. But, the list is long.

My only reaction to the Eastern Front announcement is that for those who enjoy playing the Germans, they really haven't seen much new. The equipment in CM:BN, CM:FI and now the eastern front module, are all set in roughly the same time frame. CM:FI had some slightly earlier model tanks (PzKpfw III) and I don't suppose we will see much new in Russia. It will certainly ease the development budget for BFC. My favourite scenarios in CM:BB were early war matchups, where early-war tanks had much less chance of first-shot kills. PzKpfw II vs. T-70 or seeing some of the Italian and Romanian tankettes in action were always nice changes of pace. But, there is something to be said for bouncing shells off of T-34s as well.

I passed on the Italian modules as I thought they were too similar in content to the Western Front modules, but I will be picking up the eastern front. I am hoping that there will be a little more 'flavour' to the depiction of the combatants (and terrain), and if tank riders are an example of that, so much the better. (I will be pleased when this capability is added to CM:BN and the western front as well, as Michael Doubler talks about the Americans using this tactic in Normandy as a response to the problem of tank-infantry co-operation in the bocage, at least in specific units. Riding on tanks was also common in non-tactical situations throughout north-west Europe, and not unimportantly, was a capability CMX1 players enjoyed. Riding the tanks was done even when contact was imminent - see the U.S. Army's famous writeup on the battle at Singling, for example.)

I'm not sure what other tactical elements to expect; I would suspect the 1944 time frame eliminates some tactical options such as human waves and makes the Russians more equal to the Germans in terms of things like artillery response times - perhaps even superior. In other words, play much like an American force. I think the Soviets may be limited in their ability to split squads, and I would expect incidences of surrendering to be lower, particularly when Waffen-SS troops are present.

The sale of new modules seem to have been linked also to major engine developments - I thought there was talk on the official forums about anti-aircraft weapons being given the ability to engage aircraft in this next iteration. The plan seems more tied to coupling universal engine developments to the new games as a hook, rather than concentrating heavily on flavour specific to individual theatres or combatants other than equipment types.

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on December 27, 2013, 08:56:00 AM
I have heard that I believe I wrote a rather contentious review of CM:SF using the term "uncanny valley". I recreated it here:

http://boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/5811/combat-missions-wrong-left-turn-into-the-uncanny-v

I used the term in this manner: "In fact, I think we've reached the Uncanny Valley in CM, where it is so close to real life as to heighten expectations about game performance unrealistically, but not close enough to be convincing in actual play." Stuff like seeing every man in every squad, but finding out that, for example, whole squads would shoot at the same 8m grid on the map even if attacked by a men coming at them on a 200m front.

I discussed the move to 1:1 representation and concluded it wasn't the wrong way to go, but the method of implementation wasn't optimal. My opinion hasn't really changed. BFC has a very popular product in CM, of which there is no doubt. My personal opinion is that the product could be much better. The developers obviously agree, which is why they continue to work on improvements. These improvements have been hailed by the fanbase every time they are introduced. Yet the rallying cry (we have seen it in this very thread) is "who else does it better?" It's not much of an endorsement, frankly.

   This might be a problem with niche games compounded by an encounter with the uncanny.  There's not many games in the battalion-level-show-every-man-and-machine in real time in fairly realistic terrain etc. category.  As far as I know its just GRAVITEAM and CMxx.  There aren't any cinematic conventions covering battalion-level man-by-man events.

    It's odd that FPS shooters don't seem to have the same kind of uncanny problems, perhaps because they resemble films somehow.  You don't see many movies where the camera lingers over some suspicious hedges because there might be something behind them, but you do see plenty of films where blasts of autmatic fire sweep the scene.  It's too bad Orson Wells never made --- actually Carol Reed's Agony and Ecstasy opens with about the only CMxx level battle scene I can think of as Pope Julius II (Rex Harrison) storms some tidy town in Italy with thousands of mercenaries.  But...as the Total War series shows all too well...what works for Rex Harrison in the 16th century, may not work for your average gamer in 2013.

    And there's another paradox: in the FPS world you are a camera, in CMxx and its ilk (wherever they may be), you have a quite definite role to play (roughly command of a battalion), but no definite location.  Rome II has the same problematic viewpoint combined with a definite role problem and it solves it sort of by letting you be a camera.  I guess in CMxx, you can lead a camera-like existence and I often do -- with results that resemble the results in Rome II: you lose track of the battle and the AI give you a lot of trouble.

Interesting comments. I'd never heard the flexibility of the camera described as a deficit before.

There has been criticism of the new breed of CM fans being too wrapped up by pretty graphics and explosions rather than gameplay. It is perhaps unfair in some cases, but there was a certain conceit when the original game came out too, only the opposite. When FPS players scoffed at Combat Mission players and the ugly graphics of the original game engine, the standard response was to laugh at the 'twitch crowd' and take pleasure in the fact that the game required strategy and deep thought rather than hand-eye coordination.

Then BFC went and incorporated a real-time option, and stripped down the order menus, which was as mixed a message as any ever sent by a publisher to its own fanbase.

I'm all for a decent graphical presentation and I can't imagine anyone not being in favour of detailed 3-D models, realistic terrain, etc., with the caveats that they don't slow down system resources to unmanageable degrees and don't interfere with the gameplay.

I'm not sure what I would think about a game if I were to ever think that its own camera controls were considered too flexible.

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on December 27, 2013, 01:40:10 PM
Interesting comments. I'd never heard the flexibility of the camera described as a deficit before.

There has been criticism of the new breed of CM fans being too wrapped up by pretty graphics and explosions rather than gameplay. It is perhaps unfair in some cases, but there was a certain conceit when the original game came out too, only the opposite. When FPS players scoffed at Combat Mission players and the ugly graphics of the original game engine, the standard response was to laugh at the 'twitch crowd' and take pleasure in the fact that the game required strategy and deep thought rather than hand-eye coordination.

Then BFC went and incorporated a real-time option, and stripped down the order menus, which was as mixed a message as any ever sent by a publisher to its own fanbase.

I'm all for a decent graphical presentation and I can't imagine anyone not being in favour of detailed 3-D models, realistic terrain, etc., with the caveats that they don't slow down system resources to unmanageable degrees and don't interfere with the gameplay.

I'm not sure what I would think about a game if I were to ever think that its own camera controls were considered too flexible.

  Perhaps a thing can be problematic without being a deficit or defficiency.  For example, what makes people queasy in the uncanny valley in the robot case is as much that the robot looks human as that it isn't.

   Similarly, with Rome II and CMxx, the fact that the fundamental inteactions of the troops with the terrain work very naturalistically (if not necessarily realistically, or flexibly or authentically) seems to cause a strange "it's bland" reaction which seems to be caused by not seeing what works so well that it looks "natural".   the ARMAs used to cause something like that BUT being an FPS meant that people's eyes had been trained cinematically to actually see what they were seeing on the computer screen and extract its analytic components for reflection rather than saying "It's not the game that it is not" over and over in a kind of state of post-hypnotic decompression.

   Except for the strange case of The Agony and the Ecstacy, there is no cinematic training in battalion level events so Rome II and CMxx probably run into the same uncanny state in the minds of many a disappointed player.

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on December 27, 2013, 08:56:00 AM
My only reaction to the Eastern Front announcement is that for those who enjoy playing the Germans, they really haven't seen much new.

  You mean there's probably not much new German equipment.  I'd heard a rumor that the Germans might get Luftwaffe field divisions, with Luftjagers und luftmenschen.  Also, for those who enjoy playing the Germans, they may see a lot of Russians, which is kind of novel in CMx+1.