CMN- deal busters?

Palantir

Member #86
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Messages
4,877
Reaction score
1,706
Location
The Heartland
Country
llUnited States
Some place someone commented "just because CMN is missing "X" (one little thing) won't stop me from buying it."

So, exactly how many "little" things WILL it take to be missing from or wrong with CMN to make it a no-buy for you?

So far, IIRC, we have US troops only (UK etc in a later modular), SS & Tigers where they shouldn't be, no beach landings, no hidden defenses, Real-time, 1:1, poor defensive terrain, no unit information "screen," unknown Combat Resolution Table, limited unit count, & others I'm sure.

First, I won't even consider buying anything from BFC especially CMN until "real" players, who are daring enough, get it and give a true account of it's condition.

Then,
#1 for me is Real-Time: if I have to hit pause every 5 seconds to control my troops properly forget it. My only interest in BFC anyway is because they are getting back to WW2 not their 1:1 or RT or outstanding customer service.

After that it's just what all those little things do to playability: if they make it a step-back from CMx1 no matter how cool it looks, I won't get it.

Is there ONE issue that would do it for you or is it the whole package?

PS- we can't let Leto take over the forum! :p
 

Redwolf

Member # 3665
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
5,113
Reaction score
44
Location
MA, USA
Country
llUnited States
I stated this before, but I must have foxholes and/or little trenches that are placeable by the defender in setup and that are subject to FoW (can't been seen by the attacker unless properly spotted with units near enough).

That's an actual dealbreaker, as in I won't buy.

There are many more in CMx2 that make me not play it but buy it.
 

mOBIUS

Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
650
Reaction score
4
Location
Kalifornia
Some place someone commented "just because CMN is missing "X" (one little thing) won't stop me from buying it."

So, exactly how many "little" things WILL it take to be missing from or wrong with CMN to make it a no-buy for you?

So far, IIRC, we have US troops only (UK etc in a later modular), SS & Tigers where they shouldn't be, no beach landings, no hidden defenses, Real-time, 1:1, poor defensive terrain, no unit information "screen," unknown Combat Resolution Table, limited unit count, & others I'm sure.

First, I won't even consider buying anything from BFC especially CMN until "real" players, who are daring enough, get it and give a true account of it's condition.
Wow! Tough crowd.

So for Normandy you would like all of Normandy, US, British and Canadian?
 

dalem

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
2,298
Reaction score
62
Location
Columbia Heights, MN
Country
llUnited States
Same deal breakers as for CMSF: QBs and random maps.

I'm not saying it has to be exactly like what CMx1 has in those two areas, but it has to be darned close.

Even with those I still might not buy it, but those are absolute deal breakers.

-dale
 

Geordie

CM Moderator
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
2,111
Reaction score
13
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
If its like SF but with good terrain and a realistic match up between the forces to hand, then Ill get it. Foxholes arent a game breaker for me on their own.

Things like AT Guns will be interesting, especially if you cant dig them in. Unit kill info is being brought back though, which I always liked.

Incidentally, WEGO is in SF now, you dont have to play it in RT. The demo will be interesting though. If you stuck some Shermans and PzIV into SF it would probably get you a decent N Africa game in ww2.
 

Sgt_Kelly

Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2002
Messages
296
Reaction score
6
Location
Ghent
Country
llBelgium
I'll try the demo first.

After TOW BFC are never again getting a penny out of me for a game sight unseen.

There is no one thing that will make or break this game for me. The CM:SF demo did nothing for me, but I couldn't put the finger on any reason in particular other than the subject matter didn't interest me in the slightest.

Coming into CMx1 I didn't know a whole lot about WWII. But CM got that interest going. I wanted to give CM:SF the chance to do the same for the modern era but it didn't happen.
 

McIvan

Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2008
Messages
193
Reaction score
1
Location
Auckland
Country
llNew Zealand
Wow! Tough crowd.

So for Normandy you would like all of Normandy, US, British and Canadian?
No (re the tough crowd), its a list of issues and a question as to how MANY of those issues all together would stop you buying the game.

Lot's of us here will probably end up trying it.

As for force compositions.....well yeah.....call me unreasonable, but if you decide to release a game based on Normandy, then...wait for it....I would like to see the forces that fought in Normandy. I know, I know....ridiculous really to want to see the actual forces. How silly of me.

You forgot the Poles and the French btw. Although they basically used Brit/Us equipment respectively....they did have some quirks in equipment though, especially the French.

I can live with the module system though, if the game play is good.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,586
Reaction score
2,506
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
I'd have to wait and see. I will try the demo, but I can't honestly see myself not buying it - but I am also a collector of games as much as a player, so it would not be an endorsement of the game.

If the question is really "what would make me uninstall it" or "not play it", that is a different kettle of fish. Probably the same stuff as dalem. I want a decent QB experience, and also the ability to PBEM conveniently.

I also want a scenario editor that is easy to use, and preferably one that I can use to create not just reasonable company-size battles, but go up to battalion size if I want, and run them on my 2 year old rig. I want to be able to recreate old ASL battles (not necessarily on the unrealistic maps which I would redo from scratch), and hopefully old CM battles in the new engine, and get the feeling that it was fun and somehow an improvement on the old CM.

I would want to feel engaged by the new game, with an easy to use interface, the ability to name troops in the editor, and I want the sound effects to be as evocative as that MG42 sound effect in CM:BO was. When you heard it cut loose, you knew something bad was happening to your GIs.

What I do not want to see is a bunch of abstracted crap such as tanks running through the corner of buildings, GIs milling in the middle of streets looking for doors, impenetrable orders of battle in the scenario editor that make no sense and have no application except to make it impossible to get a good matchup in a QB, poorly written scenario briefings with modern words ("overwatch" probably wasn't used in 1944, ditto stuff like "Alpha Company" or FRAGO) and spelling errors and obviously untested scenarios.

I guess we learn to live with that broken campaign system and the notion that there will be no close combat, infantry formations, house interiors, close-assaults of tanks, scouting, prisoners, climbing walls, etc. but I would be disappointed to see Shermans simply "glide" through bocage or watch an 88mm gun get set up with a bunch of mistimed animations among the crew - only to see the fanbois go apecrap on the forum about ArseMonkey5904's wonderful new Luftwaffe SplinterGrau44 Uniform Mod and how it "transforms the game into something spectacular" when the game has possibly fallen well short of the mark.

Again.
 

Sirocco

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
255
Reaction score
0
Location
England
Country
ll
A long time ago Dorosh was kind enough to send me his copy of whatever-the-GI-Combat-followup-was-called. Among its many flaws I remember storming a house with my hearty Canadians and discovering a German squad lounging in the clear ground behind it. Not in the stone building, using it for cover.

I pretty much feel the same about a lack of properly represented prepared positions in CMN as I did about that. A foxhole without FOW is just a death trap, as entrenchments are for Syrians in CMSF. What are you going to do as defender in a rural setup? Leave your foxholes unoccupied and hope your opponent dumps his artillery on them? Wouldn't that be gamey? Put your infantry in a ditch? Perhaps the ditches aren't where you need them - that is the point of foxholes and entrenchments; you put them where you need them.

That would be my deal breaker. It will be interesting to see how Steve approaches QB's and campaigns, but if something so basic is still FUBAR'd gameplay just becomes a little too abstract and firepower centric.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,586
Reaction score
2,506
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
Hmm - just did a google search on "overwatch" and "1944" and found a copy of ARTILLERY JOURNAL that uses the term in an article on the Tunisian fighting. I find I may be in error, though I don't know if it was simply a colloquialism only, or if it was a common military term in vogue. Anyone have access to period manuals in which it was in use?

Do I digress much?
 

Nidan1

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
31
Reaction score
1
Location
New York, USA
Country
llUnited States
Yes you do digress alot Mike....but no biggie, I bought TOW and knew I made a mistake when I first attempted to play it. I may have been spoiled by CMx1 to the point that even the flashy graphics of TOW could not make up for the lack of WEGO game play.

CMSF looked very promising...I wasn't crazy about the setting, and I found the weapons far too lethal to really have an enjoyable battle. The numerous bugs in the early releases made it impossible for me to play and enjoy. Its somewhat better now, but I really long for the WW2 version. I will try the DEMO first before I buy this time, but I probably will get it. I just enjoy gaming in general too much to just let it go by. It may not be everything that I'm looking for, but I'm hoping it will be enjoyable.

I hate the lack on LOS in prepared trenches in the current version, and if that continues it would really suck in a WW2 setting. I'm willing to give BFC the opportunity to create a decent WW2 game with the new CM engine. Like I said the DEMO will probably make or break it for me.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,586
Reaction score
2,506
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
Yes you do digress alot Mike....
To a New Yorker like you, a hero is some kind of weird sandwich - not some nut who takes on three Tigers! :mad:

But welcome, anyway. :)

"Welcome"...you've been here longer than any of the rest of us!
 

Nidan1

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
31
Reaction score
1
Location
New York, USA
Country
llUnited States
Thanks...I joined here years back because of the CM ladder and some tournaments which were hosted here.

Its been a while since I visited here, but now I see a lot of the crew from the BFC Forum. Lots of discussion on the new game with new perspective. Dissent has received quite the negative response lately over at BFC.
 
Last edited:

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,586
Reaction score
2,506
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
Thanks...I joined here years back because of the CM ladder and some tournaments which were hosted here.

Its been a while, but now I see a lot of the crew from the BFC Forum here.
Well. Some haven't been banned from BFC yet. I see you still have "Conscript" under your name.

Now drop and give me twenty. :mad:

I hate the lack of LOS in prepared trenches in the current version, and if that continues it would really suck in a WW2 setting. I'm willing to give BFC the opportunity to create a decent WW2 game with the new CM engine. Like I said the DEMO will probably make or break it for me.
It will indeed be interesting to see - this will indeed be the make/break point. Combat Mission is their bread and butter, and the World War II era is their raison d'etre, their reason for being. If they mess up the first title, they may not get too many more chances to make it up to the faithful.
 
Last edited:

jwb3

Just this guy, you know?
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
4,393
Reaction score
258
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Country
llUnited States
Some place someone commented "just because CMN is missing "X" (one little thing) won't stop me from buying it."

So, exactly how many "little" things WILL it take to be missing from or wrong with CMN to make it a no-buy for you?
I think at this point it would be easier to discuss what WILL cause me to buy it. There are dozens of WWII games out there I haven't played. CMx2 has already strayed far enough from the things that most attract me to CMx1 that it's far from being a given that I'll buy it "unless they screw it up".

Probably the most important things for me are:
1) Scale. Single-company actions are the smallest that I find interesting in CMx1. I much prefer ones closer to battalion-size. I also prefer larger maps, with multi-stage battles.

2) Persistent campaigns. I love a good CMx1 Operation; a campaign that's just a series of linked scenarios has very little interest for me. At the very least I want the same force to carry over from one scenario to the next.

3) Historical value. I don't do QBs, I don't do Fictional scenarios; what interests me are the lovingly researched Historicals. If it's not possible to take an account of a real action, and some maps, and do a fairly good recreation of it in the game, then to the game I will be forced to say,
"You are dead to me!" :angry: ;)

4) Variety and flexibility. I like playing the Germans once, the US the next, then the Brits, and so on. Hey, let's make it a FJ formation this time! The whole module concept sounds like a potential nightmare to me, because each one seems to contain so little.


John
 

Geordie

CM Moderator
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
2,111
Reaction score
13
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
No (re the tough crowd), its a list of issues and a question as to how MANY of those issues all together would stop you buying the game.

Lot's of us here will probably end up trying it.

As for force compositions.....well yeah.....call me unreasonable, but if you decide to release a game based on Normandy, then...wait for it....I would like to see the forces that fought in Normandy. I know, I know....ridiculous really to want to see the actual forces. How silly of me.

You forgot the Poles and the French btw. Although they basically used Brit/Us equipment respectively....they did have some quirks in equipment though, especially the French.

I can live with the module system though, if the game play is good.

Ah but its that 'Saving Private Ryan' appeal again. The whole of the US knows that they won Normandy and that all the Brits did was to drink tea. Even in that movie, Tom Hanks boys take out an HT that is Recon for 2nd SS. I wonder where 2nd SS were on D-Day +1?

So Combat Mission Normandy hits the market right where BF wants it to hit. Im surprised that they will even bother with a Brit module for it as Im sure the US interest in any Brit involvement in ww2 is pretty low. And of course Tigers and the SS are oh so sexy at selling ww2 games. In fact the macabre interest in all things Nazi just doesnt seem to go away, in fact it seems to grow rather than fade with time.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,586
Reaction score
2,506
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
Ah but its that 'Saving Private Ryan' appeal again. The whole of the US knows that they won Normandy and that all the Brits did was to drink tea. Even in that movie, Tom Hanks boys take out an HT that is Recon for 2nd SS. I wonder where 2nd SS were on D-Day +1?

So Combat Mission Normandy hits the market right where BF wants it to hit. Im surprised that they will even bother with a Brit module for it as Im sure the US interest in any Brit involvement in ww2 is pretty low. And of course Tigers and the SS are oh so sexy at selling ww2 games. In fact the macabre interest in all things Nazi just doesnt seem to go away, in fact it seems to grow rather than fade with time.
Well, there is always:

British Involvement in The Big One according to your typical Yankee:

Declared War a couple months before Pearl Harbor.

Sat around mostly, got ass shot off in Poland.

Fought against Rommel at Tobruk, got ass handed to them. War changed in 1942 when the Sherman Tank arrived on the scene and suddenly they had a war-winner to do battle in.

Once Patton landed in Morocco, it was all over for Rommel; pincer move in Africa cleans them out.

Invasion of Sicily, Patton does an end run while the British slug up from Syracuse. Not very good at fighting - probably tired from the long battle in Africa. They're also taking a beating in the Pacific, but luckily they can get the Americans to take over the war there after losing Hong Kong and Singapore and some battleships getting sunk.

British beg until Americans invade Italy with them. Salerno is a rough go, Anzio is worse. British don't know what they're doing.

Montgomery is put in charge of D-Day because Eisenhower wants good PR for the end of the war. He's the only British general who has won a battle in the war so far, but he comes ashore in Normandy and immediately does nothing. Three months later, they finally let Patton get into it and kick some ass.

Eisenhower takes over the ground forces in September but Monty gets one last kick at the cat with Arnhem. His men drink tea instead of fighting. Antwerp is captured, but no one thinks to clear the water leading to it. Months of fighting follow to rectify that mistake. The Americans are stuck slogging through the Hürtgen and Ardennes forests and battling for Metz fortress instead while Monty is stuck on the North German Plain having squandered opportunities to break out into tank country. German counter-attacks on Antwerp relieve any thoughts of the war ending for Christmas.

New offensives in February go forward with typical British slowness, and when it is time to cross the Rhine, Patton and Bradley do in 6 hours what Montgomery needs 2 weeks of planning and a press gallery to accomplish.
 

Peek

Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
78
Reaction score
0
Location
Brighton, UK
Country
ll
Hmm - just did a google search on "overwatch" and "1944" and found a copy of ARTILLERY JOURNAL that uses the term in an article on the Tunisian fighting. I find I may be in error, though I don't know if it was simply a colloquialism only, or if it was a common military term in vogue. Anyone have access to period manuals in which it was in use?
I have a copy of US field manual FM 100-5 Operations from 1942. I've had a look through the sections which deal with movement and assault but couldn't find any mention of overwatch. One paragraph which describes conduct of an attack stated:

"Until the main hostile resistane is broken, attack units advance by bounds to successive terrain lines on each of which the fire support for the next bound is organized. Fire and movement are altered in such manner that an attack unit, whose advance is made possible by the combined fire of adjacent and supporting units, moves forward to an advaned position and by its fire from the position assists the advance of the adjacent units"

I'd assume that if the term overwatch had been in vogue in 1942 they would have used it in that paragraph.
 

mOBIUS

Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
650
Reaction score
4
Location
Kalifornia
I'd assume that if the term overwatch had been in vogue in 1942 they would have used it in that paragraph.
In the WWII Field Manuals I have the word "cover" is used where one would expect the word "overwatch" would be used today.
 

dalem

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
2,298
Reaction score
62
Location
Columbia Heights, MN
Country
llUnited States
I've always thought that "Advance by bounds" was the "overwatch" of the day.

But then I've always preferred Bailey Quarters over Jennifer Marlowe on WKRP in Cincinnatti.

-dale
 
Top