View Full Version : Advice on CMAK?
Looking for some advice on how veteran CM players like you guys view the series at this point. Which of the three do you find yourself playing the most? Did CMAK draw much of your gaming time from either or both of its predecessors? I have CMBO and CMBB, but have not yet purchased CMAK.
Also, did you find either the CMBB strategy guide and/or the CMAK backgrounder book worthwhile?
Thanks for any thoughts on this.
I had a friend introduce me to CMBB. I got CMAK and have played it since. I have since bought CMBB and CMBO and only played the AI due to patch problems.:freak: :mad: :censored: :curse: But It seems CMAK is a far cry better in graphics and less quirks. The book I think may be good but I bet if you ask for help and look at past posts on topics about the game you will find it blow away books.;) When you have CMAK I would love a game. If you want CMBB or CMBO ask and you will be surprised:scream: at how you can get your a$$ handed to you.:supper: :violin: :nofear: :whlchr: :smoke:
I believe it! (re the ass-detachment-and-presentation)
But sounds as if you are enjoying CMAK, perhaps above the first two. That's encouraging.
Thanks for your note.
Eugene
An interesting topic where you will receive quite varying responses. Here is my synopsis:
CMBO is the grand daddy. IMO it's a purer form of the game where everything was tweaked pretty well to give the best play balance and the German armor and infantry were not watered down to badly. However, infantry is super tough and has great stamina, MGs are feeble as are rifle units (mostly because of the 'super' inf status), tank and gun HE isn't effective enough. Still, if you select SMG heavy types as German and AB and Glider as Allies then you get an excellent balance with more realistic attrition rates. The artillery is much better in CMBO in it's accuracy. Over all it has the best balance of the three games, but it's share of flaws.
CMBB is the wildest of the three in it's abundance of different unit types and selections. Because of this it's also the most difficult to balance. A proper year/month is necessary, or agreed upon restrictions set in advance, otherwise you could easily get a very unbalanced match up.
It corrects some cmbo flaws and includes covered arcs, better infantry movement orders and AI, and properly stronger support weapons (HE, small arms). The infantry is much weaker than in cmbo and pin very easily. After giving it some thought it probably has the most realistic infantry modeling in terms or morale.
It also artifically tweaks (weakens) various German infantry unit firepower factors without any apparent logic other than perhaps to give the allies an edge, or even footing at least. Infantry units such as SMG types have very low ammo loads and if engaged at close range will run out of ammo quite quickly. Not too realistic IMO.
Some of the best German TDs have had their armor watered down to a curved status, rather than the steeply sloped armor they had in cmbo. The hull rotation times are also much slower. Russian vet tanks have virtually equal footing with German to hit potentials, so the lop-sided gunnery I've come to expect from WWII readings isn't apparent. There are many improvements in the game system but also some ill designed tweaks.
CMAK has stronger infantry then CMBB but not as super as CMBO. The allied tank penetration ratings were also upped quite a bit over CMBO. Over all it's about on par with CMBB in all it's designs, including the questionable tweaks with the Germans, but it's much easier to play balance. Another point to note are the monstrous dust clouds billowing high above tree lines when ever any vehicles move, even if it's not a desert setting.
BB and AK are the favorites and are played far more often, though I still favor CMBO.
Nemesis Lead
04 Aug 06, 20:26
Good analysis by Lurker. The only thing I would add is that Machine Guns are more powerful in CMAK than in CMBB.
Despite what many say in the forums.....real life tactics work in CMAK. You should read good books on the subject and then try to play what you read.
The game related books you mention are good.....but reading about real life tactics is better.
I like the theme/topic CMBB the most, CMAK is too limited in scope, not enough cool toys etc.
However, CMBB went completely overboard with some things that disturb me about CMBB and CMAK. CMAK corrected, at least partly, many of them. There are not so extreme command delays as in CMBB. Vehicle turn rate is much faster in CMAK (still the CMAK Tiger on a road doesn't turn as fast as a real Tiger in mud on history channel), bogging chances are reduced and I think some of the less desirable infantry supression/exchaustion has been reduced.
It is unfortunate that CMAK's topic can't just capture me but that CMBB drives me nuts, sometimes it feels like walking through half-molten rubber. In the end I play neither anymore. It doesn't help that BFC artificially limited the maximum resolution to 1600x1200 so that I can't make use of my widescreen display.
Playing Panzer Command I now realize that thing don't have to be that way, but of course the scope is even more limited.
I just wish we could hack up some of the parameters in CMBB the way we can in PZC's XML files.
Good analysis by Lurker. The only thing I would add is that Machine Guns are more powerful in CMAK than in CMBB. I never noticed that. I'm curious how you found that out - not that I'm doubting you. If that is true then that must mean that CMAK inf are much stronger than CMBB. Maybe quite close to CMBO?
Despite what many say in the forums.....real life tactics work in CMAK. You should read good books on the subject and then try to play what you read. An interesting point. From my experience the designers did a good job in that area. I found that in order to regularly suceed I do better with a combined arms type of set up then I do with something that is quite unbalanced, such as mostly infantry or mostly armor. I usually always play unrestricted selections, even though I end up picking a fairly well balanced force.
Thanks, guys! This is excellent, thoughtful analysis for which I am grateful.
I take it that none of the games allow db modding as in, say, Falcon 4.0 so that the larger community of modders can implement tweaks to weapons, "flight models" (platform characteristics I guess), and so forth. That's too bad, since this community appears to really understand the precision of the real world compared to the parameters of the sim. The beauty of the Falcon (and I imagine some other sims as well) is that Lurker, Nemesis and Redwolf could implement changes they prefer - or others who chose to act on their observations could do so - and offer the tweaked models to the community for evaluation and enjoyment. It's amazing what the *has* been done by scenario and graphic/skin modders.
Please forgive my ignorance about these CM sim aspects - but is this the case? Redwolf is saying I think that CM isn't made in a way that allows the kind of tweaking you all have wished for in this thread?
By the way, your comments make me more interested in getting CMAK, overall. The price is quite reasonable (I'm assuming the manual is only provided in PDF form, unlike the preceeding games?).
Nemesis thanks for the comments on the game-related books. I do enjoy reading/collecting real world books on this and other eras of military history, and agree on the value of them. In fact, that is a significant part of what makes me attracted to the two CM books - maybe more good stuff on tactics and background of the two areas in the games.
Thanks again guys!
I think the BB manual works equally well for CMAK. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on that.
CM does not allow outsider tweaking. If it did then things would get very interesting around here - particularly with a ladder and all. :surprise:
It's probably a good thing that it doesn't. I just wish the developers were more sympathetic to our wishes and listened more to their public.
Don't take advice from Lurker.... It would be like taking swimming lessons from a guy with no arms and legs.:laugh: :laugh: :smoke:
Don't take advice from Lurker.... It would be like taking swimming lessons from a guy with no arms and legs.:laugh: :laugh: :smoke:
Fish have no arms and legs and they're not too bad at swimming. :p :cool:
It's your turn to move mister numbers. Are you going to keep me waiting all night? :blab:
I'm waiting for a desert set too! :D
I'm waiting for a desert set too! :DI think he's out clubbing seals again. Or maybe a polar bear is chewing on his head. Say that might help him think better! :laugh: :nuts:
KGPanzerschrecK
05 Aug 06, 03:48
Ill play Devils Advocate Eugene.
For all their few flaws, ill take CMBB & CMAK over CMBO any day.
As far as im concerned, CMBO is good for a drink coaster or an extra clay pigeon if you run low and thats about it. But if it wasnt for that game we wouldnt have the other two so i am grateful.
mangus2000
05 Aug 06, 05:50
Welcome aboard Eugene:salute:
The CMBB book has an excellent unit database showing all the stats for the units and is worth having just for that but as for strategy help it is quite limited, you can find all you need to for that on the forums.
I tend to play mostly CMAK now though i think CMBB has the best scenarios, havn't played CMBO in ages but have fond memorys of it as it was my first exposure to the CM world.
Just don't ask me for advice as I'm crap at all three of them:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Thanks, guys - these posts have all been helpful. I had a feeling the tables might be the only real timeless stuff in the strat book, but you never know.
Does CMAK's manual only come as a pdf file? I'm wondering whether there is any reason to get it as a mail order rather than a download.
I bought CMBB and CMAK together and I did not recieve a CMAK manual. I just got the CMBB one which is good enough for me.
Tim
Welcome aboard Eugene:salute:
The CMBB book has an excellent unit database showing all the stats for the units and is worth having just for that but as for strategy help it is quite limited, you can find all you need to for that on the forums.
I tend to play mostly CMAK now though i think CMBB has the best scenarios, havn't played CMBO in ages but have fond memorys of it as it was my first exposure to the CM world.
Just don't ask me for advice as I'm crap at all three of them:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
HE IS CRAP ON ALL THREE!!!!:laugh: :laugh:
mangus2000
06 Aug 06, 07:45
I hope you have remembered our little bet with our current game!
You will be prostate at my feet begging for forgiveness soon my friend!!!!:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
I hope you have remembered our little bet with our current game!
You will be prostate at my feet begging for forgiveness soon my friend!!!!:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
I understand that England has some wacky mushrooms.;) :supper: :drink: :smoke:
BRO Sapper
06 Aug 06, 11:04
Hey 2054172, where's the beef? I know losing all those tanks had to hurt, but you should've mustered the courage to send a file back by now! :laugh:
You will be prostate at my feet begging for forgiveness soon my friend!!!!:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: I think that's prostrate. Prostate sounds pretty painful! :laugh:
mangus2000
06 Aug 06, 11:35
uuughhh:crosseye: :crosseye: :crosseye:
I take it that none of the games allow db modding as in, say, Falcon 4.0 so that the larger community of modders can implement tweaks to weapons, "flight models" (platform characteristics I guess), and so forth. That's too bad, since this community appears to really understand the precision of the real world compared to the parameters of the sim. The beauty of the Falcon (and I imagine some other sims as well) is that Lurker, Nemesis and Redwolf could implement changes they prefer - or others who chose to act on their observations could do so - and offer the tweaked models to the community for evaluation and enjoyment. It's amazing what the *has* been done by scenario and graphic/skin modders.
Please forgive my ignorance about these CM sim aspects - but is this the case? Redwolf is saying I think that CM isn't made in a way that allows the kind of tweaking you all have wished for in this thread?
Actually CM is one of the most-closed popular computer games. They only allow you to change textures (no 3D model messing), change sounds. Everything else is out. That's really sad since some thing are not only wrong, some wrong things from CMBB have been corrected by BFC in CMBB but of course for lack of time there was never another patch for CMBB.
Panzer Command allows you to edit these things, just as Falcon4 does.
And don't get me started on every bloody Quake clone on the shelfs which allows you to do all 3D models, program a new AI, program new multiplayer modes, write editors and whatnot.
Not sure whether the designers have explained in the past their decision to keep the modding so closed. I guess the game as a series continues to survive, so long as they release new entries in the series. From what I have seen, an individual game has a lot longer life if it is not only good initially to a core of gamers, but allows for significant modding.
KGPanzerschrecK
08 Aug 06, 01:19
One thing about not releasing code, it keeps the cheating on the down low.
Well, that is absolutely true! However, my (limited) understanding of some of the other sims' structures is that .exe edits and use of the code are not required to make what are handled as database edits: changes in the performance of the various items simmed. I guess the CM structure is not done this way, or at least cannot be seen and accessed by modders.
That said, you might be right that if I could edit the characteristics of my tank or its weapons, it would perform differently than yours in MP, which could be cheating of a sort (intentionally or not). The kind of people involved in this and other sim forums I take part in (Falcon, for instance, and Steel Beasts) do not seem to be the sort who cheat, nor are complaints about cheating rampant. Seems to be more of an issue with first person shooters - death matching and so forth, rather than with co-op tactical and flight sims, and presumably essentially two person games like CM. But I may well be wrong, and cheating is a factor here.
Modification of the performance characteristics/database does have another downside - it splinters the community of users into various groups, sorted by which or whose data they are using. It can complicate scenario design, some being only usable by one mod's adherents, others by another group's mod.
Still, the more open approach does keep sims like Harpoon and Falcon going for years.
One thing about not releasing code, it keeps the cheating on the down low.
Nobody is talking source code.
A few file loadable that override things, that's all.
KGPanzerschrecK
08 Aug 06, 23:56
Nobody is talking source code.
A few file loadable that override things, that's all.
Overriding a few things starts it, then the Djin is out of the bottle. BF should of done the right thing and released more patches and we wouldnt be having this conversation, lol.
Overriding a few things starts it, then the Djin is out of the bottle. BF should of done the right thing and released more patches and we wouldnt be having this conversation, lol.Agreed. I don't think it would take that much to bring cmbo up to cmak standards.
Overriding a few things starts it, then the Djin is out of the bottle. BF should of done the right thing and released more patches and we wouldnt be having this conversation, lol.
That's a dumb statement.
There are hundreds of games (not wargames) that allow many kinds of user-defined overrides of things like values, maps and AI. In no case that let to the release of the source code. You don't know what you are talking about.
BFC is sometimes out of touch with what is required for the "hardcore" community, and they say so on their own because it is not what is making them money. They wouldn't make a patch "fixing" all the values the hardcore community want because they disagree with what that group on what certain values should be.
Panzer Commands approach is just smarter and nobody cried for a release of the PZC source code yet.
KGPanzerschrecK
14 Aug 06, 02:45
That's a dumb statement.
There are hundreds of games (not wargames) that allow many kinds of user-defined overrides of things like values, maps and AI. In no case that let to the release of the source code. You don't know what you are talking about.
BFC is sometimes out of touch with what is required for the "hardcore" community, and they say so on their own because it is not what is making them money. They wouldn't make a patch "fixing" all the values the hardcore community want because they disagree with what that group on what certain values should be.
Panzer Commands approach is just smarter and nobody cried for a release of the PZC source code yet.
For the most part i do know what im talking about, you just choose not listen.
Your referance to the Panzer Commands approach might as well be in Greek to me because ive never played the game before so i dont know what your talking about by your comparisons of that approach and what you want to do in your supposed approach for the CM series. As far as the 100's of others games you are talking about the point is moot because im talking about the CM series, not the plethora of games you are refering to.
As for what i was refering to, let me make it absolutely clear what i was talking about for you and any other curious parties.
Most people who make mods, at least in the games i have played, do it for only for a few reasons. One is just your basic graphics mods, like you have with the current batch of mods you have in the CM series. Two is data mods that change the power of weapons and speed of vehicles for example. Third and lastly would be a full conversion mod which would be a combination of the first two above to change the invironment of the original game to something completely different. You have to have source code to do the last two items. Im no PC guru by any stretch of the imagination and i could be wrong. Im willing to admit that. But please tell how you can do #2 and #3 if you dont have access to source code?
And to get to my point about patches, if someone wanted to do a mod fixing the worthless MG's in CMBO for example, well, if BF was on top of their game they should of fixed it themselves with a patch. Thats the point i was trying to make. Someone shouldnt be trying to come up with a mod to try and fix their unwillingness to make a decent patch. And i still dont see how you can do it without the source code. Im not trying to be difficult, or be an A$$, please explain it to me is all im asking.
That's a dumb statement.
Thats really nice.
But please tell how you can do #2 and #3 if you dont have access to source code? You can't, unless the game is driven by easy to mod config files like command and conquer for instance, or built-in programmer hot-keys that allow instant tweaking of values. Another option is a game hack/trainer method. I've never heard of any of those for CM. As far as I know CM is strictly source driven at this point.
I hope that helps.
KGPanzerschrecK. you are doing circular reasoning.
First you say that good moddability (not CM) is not enough because it will lead to more and more moddability demands that would be equal to source code access.
Then you go on and use the non-moddable CM as an example why that is so.
KGPanzerschrecK
14 Aug 06, 22:22
You can't, unless the game is driven by easy to mod config files like command and conquer for instance, or built-in programmer hot-keys that allow instant tweaking of values. Another option is a game hack/trainer method. I've never heard of any of those for CM. As far as I know CM is strictly source driven at this point.
I hope that helps.
Thank you very much Lurker sir. That is exactly the answer{s} i was looking for.
Ive messed around with the game making minor graphics mods for my own personal use. Its quite fun, if not time consuming. I have found no way to get into the the other parts of the game.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.