I hate PzIVs

[Westland]

I have a different approach:
I assume each scenario was made with an intention and the scenario designer with a high degree of probability knew why he was chosing certain units. So if I only have StuG or PzIV or no tanks at all, then there is a reason for it and I must make the best from it.
So far I have not found a scenario which could not be won with adequate adaptation. The points usually are always determined the way, that there is a chance to win (even if it is a tough scenarion and the chance is small).
I personally like difficult scenarios more. To be very restricted with adequate weapons and the need to find a way way to achieve the given task, is something I prefer over the ability to have everything I need at my disposal. I grew tired of this kind of battles already at CMx1 times, which was the reason why I stopped playing ladder. I prefer to play an impossible mission over a balanced QB.
But to each his own.

CMBB was the best CMx1 game. Especially the time of 1941- early42 was tactically and operationally very demanding.KW-I and II against Pz.III and Marder.It was always balanced and exciting.Or only with Hungarian 4,7cm AT Gun and Romanian 3,7cm AA Gun win against T-34/76.There were so many possibilities with bad stuff to win.In CMx2 Guns are useless.
Very expensive.Little ammunition.Put up long and tedious.

[Steiner14]

Westland,
don't you glorify CMBB too much? I am not aware that guns had survived borg spotting for long.
IMO guns in CMx2 have become useful since they cannot be spotted that easily - but ofcourse once they are spotted, their time is running out. But not as quickly as with borg spotting in CMx1. Overall I find it feels not unrealistic.
I am also not aware that the guns have unrealistically low ammo. My guns seldomly survive long enough anyway. And with the supply possibilies in CMx2, it's also something a scenario designer can overcome if he wants to. So this is nothing to be blamed on the game.

I think the best approach is to see the negative AND the positive aspects.

The CM community is not so big anymore, therefore I think that a well and objectively argued letter written as (continuing?) customer to the developer will not be ignored and maybe will have at some point an impact, if more people reach their ears and raise similar concerns.
I believe, the more products a customers has bought and the longer he is part of a CM-community, the higher the weight such a letter will have.

The next game has not been announced yet and the latest one recently has been released. Probably its not the worst time to tell them what long time customers and experienced PBEM players are missing.
Maybe I can encourage some of you to write them a letter?

[Westland]

@Steiner14

The Borg Spotting does not bother me.Is not realistic but increases the gameplay.I do not need dry ultra-realistic style of play when no fun coming up.Important are the features of the Units.Realistic fire and armor values.Steel Panthers is implementing the very good.Unfortunately, the game is only in 2D.CM takes a Steel Panthers be 3D.I would like that.
The new graphics of CMx2 is unfortunately completely outdated.And very hungry Hardware.Old Strategy Games games for example "World In Conflict"or"Men Of War" as have better graphics.Much better damage models.But no matter.
Let's play CM just yet as long as there are players.

[Toblakai]

I am with Westland: The concept and implementation of CMx1 was much better (don’t forget how old the game is!). Of course there are some new features but do you remember the v1 engine of CMBN? No Target Armor Arc Command! ATGs are still useless and ambushes are nearly impossible because of the hide system.

I don’t think BFC will change anything in their game concept because of some posts. The next main game will be "The Bulge" with the v3 engine. So for the v4 engine upgrade we can pay four or five times …

I had a lot of fun with CMBN & Co because it was new, but now I am bored to play it because I am missing more and more details and BFC just bring new stuff to sell but not a better game system.

[PoorOldSpike]

There are other games around!
For example Matrix Games 'Panzer Command Ostfront' has the same look and feel of CMx2 but I personally don't like the overcomplex game system whereby each turn is chopped up into movement/attack/defensive fire etc.
On the plus side it covers the entire war in the east 1941-45 with every tank and unit that was historically used, and white snowy landscapes every winter.
http://www.matrixgames.com/products/391/...:.Ostfront


Ironfront is very good because you have the option of playing it through the eyes of a WW2 single man or tank crewman etc, or playing at the "eye in the sky" commanders level. Sadly it's realtime only (no pbem) and you can only link up with online opponents.
http://ironfront.forumchitchat.com/?forum=290336


The Armed Assault series are the the modern equipment version of Ironfront-
http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.ph...apon-tests

[Steiner14]

I don’t think BFC will change anything in their game concept because of some posts.

If the serious wargamers and PBEM players do not contact them and every day only the old farts and children who only can discuss which module they want (gameplay deficits seem not to exist - the current discussion on their forum is absolutely INCREDIBLE ) is the (self inflicted) feedback from customers, and additionally the game designer who has lost the roots with nutty realtime playing completely, then the chances are high that nothing will change.
But it's up to you to the serious wargamers to raise their voice. If you want a direction more suited for serious PBEM players, then it's not good to stay silent. The children and old farts on their forums are not silent. The only group that has been silenced, were the serious wargamers who see no chance for a fruitful discussion on their forums, because of the concentrated ignorance, fanboiism and stupidity. This led to a remarkable atmosphere that everything was rosy as long as new products were offered.

The next main game will be "The Bulge" with the v3 engine.

Has this been confirmed? Bulge and v3 would be a disaster. I think Bulge will be v4 (whatever that means with the development speed of gameplay improvements of a snail). BS was the exception of the same engine v3 because of the parallel development with RT and I guess because of the many new functionalities the new units have.

I had a lot of fun with CMBN & Co because it was new, but now I am bored to play it because I am missing more and more details and BFC just bring new stuff to sell but not a better game system.

Why don't you write them, that you are a high ranked ladder player and what you are missing in the development? That you give nothing about modules or the number of vehicles, but game play is everything for you? And then bring some examples what you don't find good, what severely impacts the games you play and whatyou as serious PBEM player want?
For example I informed them, that I bought every WW2 title but with the vehicle pack my loyalty ended. I complained about still unclickable movement paths, unit hotkeys that are not saved with the turn, the campaign system that is not capable to model several phases of a battle like CMx1 could, that recon vehicles still attack tanks, lobbied a bit for Franko's iron man rules to get a challenging mode against the AI for better players and I wrote that I want improvements in realism and gameplay and am not interested in new models or textures while the old problems persist. And last but not least I informed them, that I would pay a full price for big engine upgrades alone.

I also raised my concern of investing development on realtime multi-multiplayer, because CM is not a shallow action shooter where players can come and go. Additionally it will be IMPOSSIBLE to find 4 players playing realtime at a certain time without 75% quitting and running away after some time or being just lousy players.

[Steiner14]

POS,
thanks for the hints, will have a look at them.

[Toblakai]

You can be sure that I wrote already my views at BFC’s forum and I don’t have the feeling that BFC is very much interested in customer’s opinions. They have their own vision and it’s allowed to have it.

A good example is the water splash effect that breaks FOW. First I thought it was only a mistake/bug of BFC and they will correct it, but now we have it in all three main games. For BFC has an unimportant graphic effect a higher priority than the gameplay system.

Have a look to the new features of "The Bulge":
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/1...r/?hl=bone
New vehicles are the highlights and tank riders
Nice, but 50-60 Dollars for these features + 2 Modules?


And the new game will use the v3 engine:
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/1...?p=1565533

[Steiner14]

Toblakai,
thanks. I have missed that.

2. We know that CM:BS is engine CMx2 v3.0. Is CM:Ardennes also slated to be engine v3.0 or will it be the first v4.0?

Ardennes will use the v3 Engine for sure. Any WW2 applicable improvements made for Black Sea will be included, but off the top of my head I can't think of anything beyond routine tweaks/fixes. The majority of new code that went into Black Sea is not applicable to WW2.

That's great! Snow mods! New textures! New models!
Joking aside, that's awfully bad to revive the community.
The good news is, that it will safe me money...

So they do not even follow their promises that every new family will have engine improvements. A module sold as family for the price of a full game. The fanbois can't wait!

5. Any plans to bring back the CMx1 'shift fire arc' where you held down shift and it automatically assigned a fire arc for 180 degrees to a certain direction. Would love to have this back - especially for armor where you just want him to point his turret a certain way while moving.

Perhaps, but we have no plans for it at this time.

And the exstatic forum fanbois probably don't even understand why it was requested.

[A Canadian Cat]

I don’t think BFC will change anything in their game concept because of some posts.

I see things differently. They draw their ideas for enhancements directly from what the community asks for. Sure they don't do everything we want nor do they move very fast. We are all entitled to our opinion on what is the most important thing to improve on but your list does not match up exactly to mine list etc. etc. and BFC has to decide where to spend their development effort. If you are not having fun any more and don't want to play any longer that is a drag but that is your choice. Me, I am having lots of fun and I can watch the improvements arrive slowly and just enjoy the new content as it is released.

If the serious wargamers and PBEM players do not contact them and every day only the old farts and children who only can discuss which module they want (gameplay deficits seem not to exist - the current discussion on their forum is absolutely INCREDIBLE ) is the (self inflicted) feedback from customers, and additionally the game designer who has lost the roots with nutty realtime playing completely, then the chances are high that nothing will change.

Ah, I am not sure what you are getting at here exactly but it is abundantly clear that your priority list of changes does not match BFCs. I do not see how that makes others old farts, children or nutty realtime players. Reading this it seems like you are saying that you and a handful other approved people are the only ones that count. I hope that is not what you are saying. By all means say what you think, tell them what you want feature wise. We all should. I do regularly and my list is quite long and seems to have some overlap with yours too. So add your voice. In the mean time I just don't see the ship as sinking because the game is so fun to play. In the end even if we get feature changes we want we still will also want more content so I will not be one asking them to stop creating content.