Is CM dying?

[enigma6584]

The day BF simplifies CM for the masses, starts adding magical abilities and giving instant gratification to appeal to the masses will be the day I stop buying their product.

Its a craft beer in a mass produced market.

Amen.

Enigma,
you are replying to a strawman.
Nobody here argued that CM be simplified and made an easier game.

I was seconding one of DB_zero's statements as a general principle. You may not be asking for simpler game but I can say that quite a few of the criticism's I see over at BF forums from some people would be classified by me as asking BF to give them a game which allows them to win, without any effort towards utilizing tactics or strategy. In other words, from my perspective, some of these guys piss and moan that CMx2 is flawed because they cannot win. Rubbish. The game has some issues no doubt. But it also has so many layers of "good, brilliant" as well. BF has been adding new features and complexity to the game engine with every module, little bit by little bit. They may not be able to do something right away but they have been making progress and giving us a game (in a niche market) that allows us to war-game these great battles of history.

[Weasel]

I am just finding it repetitive myself, it seemed in CM1 I was able to get some real unique battles going but CM2 seems to push out the same old each time. Once again this is just my opinion and views, others find it a fantastic game but I find I like looking at it but am very bored.

BTW - has anyone else noticed that a tank can shoot up a house (wood or stone) and not knock it down, but hit that house with SP AAA and it crashes to earth real fast? I am also finding that AAA, especially quad, is superior to tanks when it comes to clobbering infantry.

[s_cm]

IMO one reason why CMx1 battles were often so fun was that battle time was so short. You had to take risks and that meant lots of things happening on the map. Many CMx2 scenarios have at least one hour or more playing time. You can scout first and minimize risks.
Also during CMx1 there were so many scenario designers! Much more variation.

[A Canadian Cat]

I am just finding it repetitive myself, it seemed in CM1 I was able to get some real unique battles going but CM2 seems to push out the same old each time. Once again this is just my opinion and views, others find it a fantastic game but I find I like looking at it but am very bored.

Indeed - I am loving it and never want to go back to CM1. New machine is coming soon and I will not even install CM 1 on it. Sorry to hear you are bored. Might I suggest giving CMRT a try - wait for the demo. There are some wild tank engagements happening in my games.

BTW - has anyone else noticed that a tank can shoot up a house (wood or stone) and not knock it down, but hit that house with SP AAA and it crashes to earth real fast?

I knock down buildings often. To get a clear LOF to buildings further in the city I will often take down a blocking building - with tanks. SP AA taking down buildings too fast sounds suspicious - might be bug there.

[enigma6584]

IMO one reason why CMx1 battles were often so fun was that battle time was so short. You had to take risks and that meant lots of things happening on the map. Many CMx2 scenarios have at least one hour or more playing time. You can scout first and minimize risks.
Also during CMx1 there were so many scenario designers! Much more variation.

So jump into the scenario editor and have at it. You can make short scenarios if you like. I seem to recall many, many people complaining about the short time frames of scenarios way back thus the latest scenarios have been catering to those who prefer the long, drawn out battles. Take that and add the larger, more sophisticated maps, along with the new trigger system and you've got seriously good battles going on.

It has gotten to the point that the scenario editor is so good, so variable in terms of what you can create that I'm actually going to start designing and uploading my own scenarios.

[Panzer Lehr]

The day BF simplifies CM for the masses, starts adding magical abilities and giving instant gratification to appeal to the masses will be the day I stop buying their product.

Its a craft beer in a mass produced market.

Amen.

Enigma,
you are replying to a strawman.
Nobody here argued that CM be simplified and made an easier game.

I was seconding one of DB_zero's statements as a general principle. You may not be asking for simpler game but I can say that quite a few of the criticism's I see over at BF forums from some people would be classified by me as asking BF to give them a game which allows them to win, without any effort towards utilizing tactics or strategy. In other words, from my perspective, some of these guys piss and moan that CMx2 is flawed because they cannot win. Rubbish. The game has some issues no doubt. But it also has so many layers of "good, brilliant" as well. BF has been adding new features and complexity to the game engine with every module, little bit by little bit. They may not be able to do something right away but they have been making progress and giving us a game (in a niche market) that allows us to war-game these great battles of history.

Here's to craft beer! Cheers!!

[s_cm]

So jump into the scenario editor and have at it. You can make short scenarios if you like. I seem to recall many, many people complaining about the short time frames of scenarios way back thus the latest scenarios have been catering to those who prefer the long, drawn out battles. Take that and add the larger, more sophisticated maps, along with the new trigger system and you've got seriously good battles going on.

It has gotten to the point that the scenario editor is so good, so variable in terms of what you can create that I'm actually going to start designing and uploading my own scenarios.

I do like the scenario editor as well and I've done some simple scenarios to test things. Especially the trigger system which is great to have. Maybe now I might play some scenarios against the AI when it's possible to have better AI plans. In CMBN I played almost totally PBEMs. And in those my experience was that rarely more than 60 minutes was needed to decide a battle.

[enigma6584]

So jump into the scenario editor and have at it. You can make short scenarios if you like. I seem to recall many, many people complaining about the short time frames of scenarios way back thus the latest scenarios have been catering to those who prefer the long, drawn out battles. Take that and add the larger, more sophisticated maps, along with the new trigger system and you've got seriously good battles going on.

It has gotten to the point that the scenario editor is so good, so variable in terms of what you can create that I'm actually going to start designing and uploading my own scenarios.

I do like the scenario editor as well and I've done some simple scenarios to test things. Especially the trigger system which is great to have. Maybe now I might play some scenarios against the AI when it's possible to have better AI plans. In CMBN I played almost totally PBEMs. And in those my experience was that rarely more than 60 minutes was needed to decide a battle.

I've actually been playing more single player AI scenarios than I've ever done before, including in the QB section of the game and I definitely see a big improvement with the AI due to those trigger systems. I've had some serious nail-biters against the AI. The game continues to move forward.

[Weasel]

Some of these scenarios are far too long, I have played two now that we could have easily chopped 50% of the turns out, most of it was waiting for reinforcements to appear on map to continue the attack. I will be sticking to 45 minute or less games now if/when I pick up CM again.

[enigma6584]

Some of these scenarios are far too long, I have played two now that we could have easily chopped 50% of the turns out, most of it was waiting for reinforcements to appear on map to continue the attack. I will be sticking to 45 minute or less games now if/when I pick up CM again.

That is probably a result of many, many people in the past begging the community scenario designers to lengthen the scenario time. I myself have come across scenarios which I thought were good but time frame was not enough to complete objectives. I remember many threads on this subject. Add in the fact that with this new upgrade to the game engine you have much, much larger maps to maneuver around in which in turn would require in many cases longer time-frames in which to get to objectives.