CMBN is released

Sgt_Kelly

Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2002
Messages
296
Reaction score
6
Location
Ghent
Country
llBelgium
and it they were third party "after market" scenarios, it wouldn't be an issue.
I agree. Although I still don't understand, if you're going to go to the trouble of making a scenario, why not go that extra yard and check your briefing and (for christ's sake) your title for typo's.

As far as the boxed scenarios go, it just shows there is no quality control, which is weak.

I'm not too impressed with the quasi-humorous elements I encountered in one scenario either.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,575
Reaction score
2,487
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
As far as the boxed scenarios go, it just shows there is no quality control, which is weak.
Yeah, that's what I'm getting at. Pete Wenman uses ALL CAPS in his in-game, on-map landmark descriptions for example. Another person used all lower case, without capitalizing the initial letters. The majority used a mix of capital and lower case. I would have thought there would be some consistency there in the release scenarios.

I'm not too impressed with the quasi-humorous elements I encountered in one scenario either.
If you mean the Mustache one, it did seem a bit out of place. I'm still going through the scenarios and documenting authors, game dates, etc., but the proportion of fictional ones is almost surprising.

But then again...when I sat down to do a scenario in the editor, I pulled my references and scouted for interesting situations. Every time I found one involving U.S. troops that looked good, it seemed like the German unit or vehicle I needed wasn't in CM:BN yet. German paras? No. Waffen SS? No. Luftwaffe Field Divisions? No. I came across the action near Kraut Corner at Cloville, just down the road from Purple Heart Draw; two different companies had put out ASL scenarios on it. Nice small action. A company of infantry defended the village with a PzKpfw IV and...a Hornet. A quick check, and I can't find the Nashorn in CM:BN either. Just as well, because the infantry were German paratroopers. I'm not saying you can't make a decent scenario from what is included in the game, I can just understand why so many are fictional because finding reasonably interesting "vanilla" matchups in the bocage seems challenging.
 

Tanker

Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2004
Messages
702
Reaction score
4
Location
New Hampshire
Country
llUnited States
Jaws is Dutch. You might like to bear that in mind while commenting on his English.
And yes, there could perhaps have been more proofreading, but:

could possibly be correct.
Good point Capt, but he could employ an editor or English speaker to help him before it's released officially, no?
 

dalem

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
2,298
Reaction score
62
Location
Columbia Heights, MN
Country
llUnited States
But then again...when I sat down to do a scenario in the editor, I pulled my references and scouted for interesting situations. Every time I found one involving U.S. troops that looked good, it seemed like the German unit or vehicle I needed wasn't in CM:BN yet. German paras? No. Waffen SS? No. Luftwaffe Field Divisions? No. I came across the action near Kraut Corner at Cloville, just down the road from Purple Heart Draw; two different companies had put out ASL scenarios on it. Nice small action. A company of infantry defended the village with a PzKpfw IV and...a Hornet. A quick check, and I can't find the Nashorn in CM:BN either. Just as well, because the infantry were German paratroopers. I'm not saying you can't make a decent scenario from what is included in the game, I can just understand why so many are fictional because finding reasonably interesting "vanilla" matchups in the bocage seems challenging.
Maybe they should have called it Combat Mission: Battle for Cherbourg. Plenty of vanilla-ish units in the Utah sector.

-dale
 

wengart

Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
238
Reaction score
3
Location
Knossos
Country
ll
I'm still going through the scenarios and documenting authors, game dates, etc., but the proportion of fictional ones is almost surprising.
I'm not sure why this would be surprising to anyone.

I mean if I sit down to make a historical scenario first I need to find a battle that will be fun in CM. Then I need to find the location on google maps, or preferably a 40s era map and I would probably also need a topographic map of the location. Then I need to research the units present at the battle. After all of that I would need to test the map to make sure I could get historically accurate results most of the time, and I would also probably need to look into AAR if I wanted to design it with the historical approaches for one or both sides.

Alternatively I could spend a day or two hammering out an interesting map, throw in some troops and build AI plans. As long as it plays well and is fun I'm done.

Just looking at the workload I feel like the number of fictional scenarios would outweigh historical ones, both at release and post-release.
 

dalem

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
2,298
Reaction score
62
Location
Columbia Heights, MN
Country
llUnited States
wengart-

Do you have a lot of experience with traditional historical wargames like SL, ASL, Panzer Leader or Panzer Blitz?

-dale
 

wengart

Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
238
Reaction score
3
Location
Knossos
Country
ll
No, I've only ever played the CMx1 demos, obsessively mind you, CM:SF and CM:BN.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,575
Reaction score
2,487
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
I'm not sure why this would be surprising to anyone.

I mean if I sit down to make a historical scenario first I need to find a battle that will be fun in CM. Then I need to find the location on google maps, or preferably a 40s era map and I would probably also need a topographic map of the location. Then I need to research the units present at the battle. After all of that I would need to test the map to make sure I could get historically accurate results most of the time, and I would also probably need to look into AAR if I wanted to design it with the historical approaches for one or both sides.

Alternatively I could spend a day or two hammering out an interesting map, throw in some troops and build AI plans. As long as it plays well and is fun I'm done.

Just looking at the workload I feel like the number of fictional scenarios would outweigh historical ones, both at release and post-release.
I think I get where dalem is going, but those games also had less "fidelity", particularly in terms of geography. I think the trend may be that greater attention to geographic and OOB detail results in fewer historical scenarios and/or the lesser possibility of same.

I haven't had a chance to analyze the PzC scenarios yet, but I think the new ones for Ostfront are - ostensibly - "semi-historical" in the main, but the definition of what constitutes "historical" has always been amorphous.

Even at that, though, the CM:BN designers are coming right out and just declaring their work to be outright "fiction." They may simply be more honest than others have been. :D
 

BlitzCanuck

Pretend Command Sgt. Maj.
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
228
Reaction score
5
Location
Great White North
Country
llCanada
It seems a scenario being labelled 'historical' opens it up to all kinds of criticism.
When it's fictional it's hard to screw up because it is what it is.
 

[hirr]Leto

Varmint Croonie
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
1,124
Reaction score
13
Location
Saskatoon
Country
llCanada
It seems a scenario being labelled 'historical' opens it up to all kinds of criticism.
When it's fictional it's hard to screw up because it is what it is.
If that is the case, could you please convince my wife that I am fictional as well?

It may alleviate some of the pressure in the "screwing up" area.

: )

Cheers!

Leto

*actually, my wife is a sweetheart... I use the character of the stereotypical wife as the necessary foil for that humour.
 

dalem

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
2,298
Reaction score
62
Location
Columbia Heights, MN
Country
llUnited States
No, I've only ever played the CMx1 demos, obsessively mind you, CM:SF and CM:BN.
Historical scenarios are the bread and butter of such games. Are they harder to make than fictional ones? Yes. Do I prefer them? No. But they are very, very common.

-dale
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,575
Reaction score
2,487
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
Here's a good post from one of the CM:BO old timers:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=97696

I tried to get used to it but i'm noticing, that there are so many clicks necessary, that wouldn't be necessary, if the interface would have been developed further.
Clicking on movement paths does not select the unit.

No info in the unit panel, if a unit is hidden, or if a tank is buttoned or unbottened. I'm already getting really frustrated, to zoom in to check that out, instead that the interface shows that info.

Another huge step backbward is, that there are no target lines. So you can easily overlook important action. Three steps back from CMx1.
But that's not only a bad interface decision, IMO it also reduces the thrill: In CMx1, it was part of the thrill, to be noticed about the dangerous fight, that is going to play out, but there was no need, to watch the unit all the time. Now, in the best case, you hear a tank shooting. Or you hear the impact. You are not noticed, when the unit gathers a new contact. Big parts of the rising tension due to the notification of the player, that a unit has engaged another unit are missing (i think that's one psychological key aspect, why CMx1 firefights between tanks were more thrilling and why they lack that tension in CMx2).

Another pain in the ass for me are the missing C2-lines: it forces the player either to click like crazy on every unit to check, if the units are in C2-range or to bunch them up unnecessarily, or not to click like crazy and accept that they could be out of range. Shouldn't graphics be there, to support the gamer?

That there is no window for unit data and no kill stats is ten steps back.

Way to much info about foreign units.

Camera movement is blocked way too early on the map edges. Often i would like to move more freely over the map edges (i.e. viewing level of 8 or 9 above units at the edges of the map) but since the movement is blocked, additional movements with the mouse have to be made.

Or that waypoints still cannot be moved, is also not really a step further from CMx1. How long has CMSF been out now?!
And, btw, the path endpoints with their circles without any 3D-look, look really amateurish and do not fit into the 3D-map.

When CMx2 was announced, it was claimed, that dynamic lighning will allow to judge terrain undulations. That was not true. But what is much worse, that in all the years nothing was done, to give the player a tool to judge terrain undulations. Like in CMx1 days, you have to choose a grid-mod for that and you can't switch that off...

After having played many hours now, the interface to me feels like being incomplete and in some aspects the amount of clicking and mouse movements, that could easily be avoided with certain interface improvements, therefore make it partially a really bad interface.

I don't think,with that interface, CMBN will reach the praise CMx1 received and i think a fair amount of possible gamers, tactically really interested in WW2, will not buy the game, after they tried the demo, because of the interface shortcomings.

Although i like the action and the tactical modeling, the interface frustrates me so much, that my wish to play more and more is kept at a quite low level.
And the first beta tester to arrive:

Camera movement stops too soon beyond the map edges? Really? You're really going to complain about that?
I noticed this as well...you back up the camera and then just hit the wall, particularly noticeable when trying to take a screenshot of the entire map in order to do a thumbnail for a scenario depot or something, but other times as well. Not a major problem, but thought I was the only one who noticed this. Two others chimed in on that thread to agree that they notice this as well.
 
Last edited:

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,575
Reaction score
2,487
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
Actually, the same beta tester is also active in this thread:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=97646
Steve P posts:

One of the things that I did not like to see in CM1: when the AI was on the attack, it wasn't unusual to see the assault being led by HQs, or specialist teams, or the like. Who immediately got killed, thereby giving the AI something of a handicap for the rest of the scenario. It's also ugly to see, though playing at a high difficulty level does spare one some knowledge of this until you reconstruct things at the end.

I had hoped that this problem was solved in CM2, but apparently not. Perhaps it's just not on the list.
Beta Tester reply?

I thiink the AI is coded to keep some units types behind the other but as the old saying goes **** happens. The guys up front get surpressed or have to move around an obstacle and the guys behind catch up to 'em.
In my experience, I've seen HQ units take the lead off the bat, with the LOD out of sight of the enemy, and just go full bore, so this suppression thing is a fantasy. And why is he talking about game code in the first place?
 

Elvis

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
2,918
Reaction score
14
Location
Pennsylvania
Country
llUnited States
Actually, the same beta tester is also active in this thread:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=97646
Steve P posts:



Beta Tester reply?



In my experience, I've seen HQ units take the lead off the bat, with the LOD out of sight of the enemy, and just go full bore, so this suppression thing is a fantasy. And why is he talking about game code in the first place?
I'm not looking to pick a fight here but did you read the entirety of either thread? I just skimmed through and saw the in the first thread you posted Phil and Dan came in and made a couple of real and helpful points/observations. The post has helped my with my "what CMx1 has that CMx2 doesn't" list that I have been working on.

And Steve, correctly, tells SteveP about adjustments in the code that were put in in to specifically address what SteveP is talking about. And in most cases the game behaves as SteveP would like it to and as Steve explains. Also, as Steve explains, it's easy enough to see when running the game in Scenario Author Mode.
 

Speedy

Recruit
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Location
Australia
Country
llAustralia
I noticed this as well...you back up the camera and then just hit the wall, particularly noticeable when trying to take a screenshot of the entire map in order to do a thumbnail for a scenario depot or something, but other times as well. Not a major problem, but thought I was the only one who noticed this. Two others chimed in on that thread to agree that they notice this as well.
I thinks it up to five or six commenting on the camera wall now, so it seems we are definately not alone.
 

thewood

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
12
Location
Boston
Country
llUnited States
It has been like that in CMSF as well, I think.

Also noticed that automated OOBs are as poopy as CMSF. Also see the issues with screwed up sides in QBs still around. The main reason I would buy now is for manual selectin for QBs and being to actually bypass that stupid random unit selection.
 

thewood

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
12
Location
Boston
Country
llUnited States
As was mentioned in this forum, there is a lot of grousing and shock at "missing" features from CM1. But a good sign for BFC is this thread...

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=97825

These are the types of issues you would expect on a release (even after 8 years of development of the engine). To me, this feels a lot more like CMBO issues, than CMSF. That is a good thing.

I am a little surprised at seeing a few things crop up that I thought were fixed in CMSF. Some spotting issues and QB auto-select. But at least they will have four more years to fix them. It's like a head start compared to what CMSF had.

I broke down a couple hours ago and bought it. I wish I could donate the $55 to charity or make sure only Kdog gets it. It frosts me a little to pay for moon's or Steve's groceries. Just kidding (a little).
 

Redwolf

Member # 3665
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
5,113
Reaction score
44
Location
MA, USA
Country
llUnited States
Well Steve also said pretty clearly that the UI is looked into, in fact might be up for a major overhaul and that he can only do it all together since the fixes are interdependent.

I am not happy about that. IMHO the most urgent thing in the UI is adjusting the camera controls so that they behave more naturally and useful, in particular compared to other games. I think that is most urgent since it easily ends up the reason for throwing out the game after trying the demo. And adjusting individual camera speeds and angles can obviously be done independently of everything else. I would be great if BFC would simply allow people to set camera parameters themselves in a file like the hotkeys file but this probably not gonna happen.
 

thewood

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
12
Location
Boston
Country
llUnited States
I didn't see anything at BFC...is there any kind of timetable on the next module? Are we going to wait a year or more between modules again?
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,575
Reaction score
2,487
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
I didn't see anything at BFC...is there any kind of timetable on the next module? Are we going to wait a year or more between modules again?
That would imply they have control over their timetable. They've never demonstrated that kind of control in the past. In fact, the premature release of CM:SF and the prediction of a 2009 release of CM:BN indicates exactly the opposite.

Current projects now known to be immediately on the drawing board are:

a) V1.01 CM:BN patch
b) V1.01 Demo
c) CM:BN module 1 (British?)
d) CM:SF patch (final?)

With other long term projects including one more module in this title/family and an additional module with special weapons vehicles? And then the first family of Eastern Front titles.

Lots on the plate even if just looking at the immediate stuff.
 
Top