Moderator: rickier65
ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
Whether or not you had a good experience with a companies customer service department really doesn't qualify as comparing the two games.
We need to bring this thread back towards a discussion of the merits of the games involved and leave comments about other companies issues for another place and time.
Good Hunting.
MR
ORIGINAL: RedCharlie65
ORIGINAL: Pillar
CMx2 is more of an arcade game than PzC:O. It sacrifices a lot to achieve visuals, and CMBN certainly does not exceed CMBB or CMAK for functionality or gameplay. It just *looks* prettier.
The soldiers do not really use the terrain like real soldiers and there are problems with getting them in LOS/LOF because of the grid system they use. In hedgerow country this gets insane. I've had Panzerschrek teams that can't fire, because the soldier is the only one that has LOF while the anti-tank 'man' is in the wrong spot -- all within a single grid. You'll find your ambushes falling to pieces because of subtleties in the LOS/LOF system.
The system is also mismatched between the 1:1 and the abstraction. Essentially, squads have enormous amounts of firepower available in terms of small arms without being appropriately penalized for concentrating due to the generous bonuses they get against area fire effects. You can often win any CMx2 scenario by concentrating all your forces and overwhelming anything they come across with small arms fire.
There is also no such thing as a covered fire position in CMx2. Any unit that is firing is vulnerable to fire as much as you can see their body exposed. Men can't go prone against cover, but have to kneel, making them more vulnerable to small arms than normal (which only aggravates the problems already) and makes automatic weapons like LMGs difficult to control.
Foxholes and trenches have been added, but they can't be placed wherever you like. They have to be in the center of a grid, and since terrain like hedges and walls align along the edge of a grid, means you can't have infantry dug in along lines oriented to cover or concealment. Your men also can't see past the terrain, since they are too far behind it to get a view. Foxholes have problems because they're stuck in square formations of four, which means the back foxholes won't have the same LOF as the front foxholes. (No you can't control orientation.) The effect of this is that you only benefit from entrenchment in open terrain along the axis of fire.
In addition, they've made all hedges (not just "bocage") into significant positions by adding terrain elevation lips to those features, making attacker cover unrealistically available and melding concealment with cover in ways worse than they already did in the original series. (that is, "exposure")
PzC:O sticks to abstraction which aims at getting the results right straight out of the gate. Nothing is sacrificed for visuals. It is much more aligned with the design philosophy that inspired and was borrowed by the old CM series from ASL. In my opinion, it is more realistic with respect to the results you get, but suffers from over-generous cover abstractions (just like CMx1 did) and so player input and player decisions matter less. Light infantry tactics aren't viable in PzC:O and typical line tactics work without too much regard for terrain.
To summarize, I think CMBN gives the gamer more to do and allows his inputs to matter more, but those inputs are mostly geared around gaming the system itself and don't lend themselves to reality, whereas the PzC:O system will give you more realistic overall results but can come across as a battle resolution system rather than a game.
PzC:O also has soooo much more content, in terms of scenarios and campaigns and units... And the customization options are enticing if you're into that sort of tweaking.
PzC:O is what I wish CMx2 had been originally.
I strongly disagree with this.[:-]
ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
Whether or not you had a good experience with a companies customer service department really doesn't qualify as comparing the two games.
We need to bring this thread back towards a discussion of the merits of the games involved and leave comments about other companies issues for another place and time.
Good Hunting.
MR
ORIGINAL: Pillar
He wanted the critical stuff contrasted so that's what I gave him. To be sure I think both are excellent computer games and are worth buying, but PzC:O is one thing and CMBN is another. I think the discussion is worth it because what is really at stake is not which to buy, or what people prefer, but a discussion on the two different design approaches. Maybe a new thread with that more specifically discussed would be worth it.
ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
The comments about PCO on the BFC boards suffer from the same "limited playing time" issue.
It's the nature of the beast when gamers compare them.
Good Hunting.
MR
ORIGINAL: RedCharlie65
My issue with Pillar's initial post on this was that he (IMHO) was making statements based on a very little time playing the game and in fact only was playing a demo albeit He was makinjg statements without actually reading up on how that particular game works. I'm guessing, and this is only a guess...that he spent only a very short time. In my experience, you cannot get an accurate impression on something with so little time invested in it.
ORIGINAL: RedCharlie65
ORIGINAL: Pillar
CMx2 is more of an arcade game than PzC:O. It sacrifices a lot to achieve visuals, and CMBN certainly does not exceed CMBB or CMAK for functionality or gameplay. It just *looks* prettier.
The soldiers do not really use the terrain like real soldiers and there are problems with getting them in LOS/LOF because of the grid system they use. In hedgerow country this gets insane. I've had Panzerschrek teams that can't fire, because the soldier is the only one that has LOF while the anti-tank 'man' is in the wrong spot -- all within a single grid. You'll find your ambushes falling to pieces because of subtleties in the LOS/LOF system.
The system is also mismatched between the 1:1 and the abstraction. Essentially, squads have enormous amounts of firepower available in terms of small arms without being appropriately penalized for concentrating due to the generous bonuses they get against area fire effects. You can often win any CMx2 scenario by concentrating all your forces and overwhelming anything they come across with small arms fire.
There is also no such thing as a covered fire position in CMx2. Any unit that is firing is vulnerable to fire as much as you can see their body exposed. Men can't go prone against cover, but have to kneel, making them more vulnerable to small arms than normal (which only aggravates the problems already) and makes automatic weapons like LMGs difficult to control.
Foxholes and trenches have been added, but they can't be placed wherever you like. They have to be in the center of a grid, and since terrain like hedges and walls align along the edge of a grid, means you can't have infantry dug in along lines oriented to cover or concealment. Your men also can't see past the terrain, since they are too far behind it to get a view. Foxholes have problems because they're stuck in square formations of four, which means the back foxholes won't have the same LOF as the front foxholes. (No you can't control orientation.) The effect of this is that you only benefit from entrenchment in open terrain along the axis of fire.
In addition, they've made all hedges (not just "bocage") into significant positions by adding terrain elevation lips to those features, making attacker cover unrealistically available and melding concealment with cover in ways worse than they already did in the original series. (that is, "exposure")
PzC:O sticks to abstraction which aims at getting the results right straight out of the gate. Nothing is sacrificed for visuals. It is much more aligned with the design philosophy that inspired and was borrowed by the old CM series from ASL. In my opinion, it is more realistic with respect to the results you get, but suffers from over-generous cover abstractions (just like CMx1 did) and so player input and player decisions matter less. Light infantry tactics aren't viable in PzC:O and typical line tactics work without too much regard for terrain.
To summarize, I think CMBN gives the gamer more to do and allows his inputs to matter more, but those inputs are mostly geared around gaming the system itself and don't lend themselves to reality, whereas the PzC:O system will give you more realistic overall results but can come across as a battle resolution system rather than a game.
PzC:O also has soooo much more content, in terms of scenarios and campaigns and units... And the customization options are enticing if you're into that sort of tweaking.
PzC:O is what I wish CMx2 had been originally.
I strongly disagree with this.[:-]
IMHO the CMBN infantry model is vastly superior and so is the command system. True, there are LOS issues and it's not perfect, but I can't recall having experienced a better representation of infantry combat. The infantry move quite realistically, certainly way more realistically than in PCO, and as long as you plan your movement paths sensibly and recon your fire positions, the 'issues' listed above are few and far between, though they do exist and can be frustrating.
ORIGINAL: Pillar
IMHO the CMBN infantry model is vastly superior and so is the command system. True, there are LOS issues and it's not perfect, but I can't recall having experienced a better representation of infantry combat. The infantry move quite realistically, certainly way more realistically than in PCO, and as long as you plan your movement paths sensibly and recon your fire positions, the 'issues' listed above are few and far between, though they do exist and can be frustrating.
You are missing the point here. Infantry in PzC:O aren't supposed to "move realistically", they're just chits moving across a board. There is nothing to it, there is no skill to it. There are tables with statistics built into them so that the results will be accurate for the move. The player is beside the issue. His input is, "I want a squad to move from A to B using some method - "defend", "engage", each with it's behaviour sets. The computer just crunches that and visually shows you some men moving, but it's just a "box" of data being moved and operated on. You get a visual representation that is something separate from the game. The game runs "under the hood."
CMBN on the other hand won't forgive a player for giving an order where he hasn't careful looked at the unit and the ground and given precise pathfinding. (Or else nurses them along in real time.) You *play the game first* and you get the results based on your skills with the units.
The trouble with CMBN (and all of CMx2) is that there are things completely outside the players control that matter terribly, like whether a machine gun is positioned properly or whether it's going to fire continuously into a trench wall. Or whether your bazooka guy has LOF, or whether this or that soldier is using all the cover available as promptly as possible. So those are the things I would point out. They are there, whether you think they are a problem or not.
ORIGINAL: Pillar
However, I would say that's the biggest thing to point out to someone wondering which game to get. They're apples and oranges mate. If you want to enjoy CMBN you're going to have to get good at the game itself or your results are going to stink. That means some amount of micro-play too in terms of maneuvering teams and squads around. PzC:O is on the other hand a lot more forgiving in that regard especially for someone coming from the first combat mission series games.
ORIGINAL: Ssnake51
ORIGINAL: Pillar
IMHO the CMBN infantry model is vastly superior and so is the command system. True, there are LOS issues and it's not perfect, but I can't recall having experienced a better representation of infantry combat. The infantry move quite realistically, certainly way more realistically than in PCO, and as long as you plan your movement paths sensibly and recon your fire positions, the 'issues' listed above are few and far between, though they do exist and can be frustrating.
You are missing the point here. Infantry in PzC:O aren't supposed to "move realistically", they're just chits moving across a board. There is nothing to it, there is no skill to it. There are tables with statistics built into them so that the results will be accurate for the move. The player is beside the issue. His input is, "I want a squad to move from A to B using some method - "defend", "engage", each with it's behaviour sets. The computer just crunches that and visually shows you some men moving, but it's just a "box" of data being moved and operated on. You get a visual representation that is something separate from the game. The game runs "under the hood."
CMBN on the other hand won't forgive a player for giving an order where he hasn't careful looked at the unit and the ground and given precise pathfinding. (Or else nurses them along in real time.) You *play the game first* and you get the results based on your skills with the units.
The trouble with CMBN (and all of CMx2) is that there are things completely outside the players control that matter terribly, like whether a machine gun is positioned properly or whether it's going to fire continuously into a trench wall. Or whether your bazooka guy has LOF, or whether this or that soldier is using all the cover available as promptly as possible. So those are the things I would point out. They are there, whether you think they are a problem or not.
Not sure I am following you here. You seem to think it is a positive feature that PCO does things outside the player's control and then seem to critique CMBN for doing precisely that.
[&:]
