You must be much more skillfull than I, because I find it very difficult to keep command of all units in CMBN at crucial times. You give, say, 1st platoon a mission at one side of the map and then get caught up with 2nd platoon at the other. Because the units have no initiative except to hunker down when attacked too fiercely, in order to ensure their survival you have to be constantly fine tuning their orders. Whilst you're doing that for 2nd platoon, 1st platoon has bogged down or been shot up. This problem exists because there's no commander on the map except you. Which is highly unrealistic. What is that meant to be a simulation of? It's a game, ok, but how good that type of game is, surely, depends at least in part on how well it simulates something or other (tactical level warfare in WW2, for CMBN?) - but if you're the only commander for an entire company (there are subordinate HQs but they're just radio points, really, they don't give commands) then that's hardly a decent simulation of anything. It wouldn't be so bad if you could actually command real 'missions', but you can't give anything like a 'mission', like 'take point A' or 'cover point A' or 'suppress Area B', because any order you give just vanishes once the AI decides the men should cower. What you need is that they take some action when they come under fire - cower a bit, move back, re-group, go round the side, keep trying for the objective you gave them in some way, without you having to constantly intervene. BFTB does this to some extent, and so simulates a whole lot of things much better. That's a valid comparison, I think. This is a terrible rant of mine, sorry. I know CMBN can be fun, but it's really disappointing, I think, that no developers do anything with the AI (along the lines of BFTB) to make these games into more faithful simulations of command, in some way. My guess is that messing with the AI to make ever more complicated levels of scripting (until it seems like it's not even a script) is actually back-breaking, time-consuming hard work, probably very boring. So why do it if no one complains that you haven't? Or when you can mess around with eye-candy. Don't get me wrong - CMBN is like chess compared to Battlefield 3, but the same comparison applies between BFTB and CMBN. And it affects things when playing a human too, of course. BFTB is superb against a human, because you still have this AI animating the choices of your subordinate HQs, still have them behaving on what looks like initiative. Your enemy AI is better, of course, in CMBN if you're playing a brain, but you still lack subordinates, you still have the problems I gripe about above.
Sorry. You're right, this is way off message...