Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Panzer Command: Ostfront >> RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN - 5/25/2011 2:37:28 PM   
Enigma6584

 

Posts: 306
Joined: 9/23/2010
Status: offline

quote:

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



Perfect.

(in reply to Mad Russian)
Post #: 61
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN - 5/27/2011 12:45:24 PM   
Pillar

 

Posts: 61
Joined: 4/21/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RedCharlie65


quote:

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.


Let me try that again...

What parts do you disagree with, if you don't mind me asking... I am working with the demo for CMBN but thought it was totally enough to note these things. If you think otherwise I'm interested in knowing why you think otherwise.


(in reply to Enigma6584)
Post #: 62
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN - 5/27/2011 6:19:47 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 36676
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
quote:

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



I agree with MR. I've seen many threads over the years where gamers try to figure out which game is best and often defend their viewpoint a bit too vigorously. I'd like to emphasize again that we like CM, I play CM since the CMBO pre-release demo (and hopefully my pre-order copy of CMBN will arrive soon) and we generally recognize CM as an excellent game and series that moved the genre forward. With that said, I prefer to play PCO but I see areas where CMBN does a better job and areas where PCO does a better job. I truly think both games belong in every tactical-scale wargamer's collection and I believe the fact that one covers Normandy and the other the East Front makes them quite complementary.

Now it's true that we do have different design philosophies and we will be supporting PCO and improving it and working on expansions and sequels. Our goal is certainly to be the best, just as I'm sure the CM team will be doing the same. I think we provide good motivation to each other through honest competition. Both can exist, just like Steel Panthers and Close Combat did and players don't need to be hyper-positive or hyper-negative. You can prefer one game over the other while still keeping things constructive and you can agree to disagree.

I'd also like to remind everyone that this is a family friendly forum. Please keep things civil and keep the language to a level that you would be proud to use in front of your first grade teacher.

Regards,

- Erik

< Message edited by Erik Rutins -- 5/27/2011 6:21:12 PM >


_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC




For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Enigma6584)
Post #: 63
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN - 5/27/2011 8:03:21 PM   
Kineas


Posts: 100
Joined: 4/19/2008
From: EU
Status: offline
Pillar,

your post was the most informative I have read in a long time. Thanks.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 64
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN - 5/28/2011 5:45:25 AM   
Pillar

 

Posts: 61
Joined: 4/21/2011
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Kineas)
Post #: 65
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN - 5/28/2011 6:24:46 PM   
Waffenamt

 

Posts: 120
Joined: 11/18/2006
From: Canada
Status: offline
Yes, get PCO first. I played the demo twice (once easy and then hard) and then went on to the bootcamp campaign (get the updated version) at medium. I played that with the original PCK, but this feels somewhat more "responsive" for want of a better word, and I'm having a real blast. I've also tried the CMBN demo, didn't like the fact that a lot of the underlying information is hidden unlike with PCO, and went right back to PCO and enjoyed reading Pillar's insights. My decision was made at the early stages since DRM is "streng verboten" on my PC, and pretty graphics and realtime are not at the top of my list for must haves.

Regards

(in reply to Pillar)
Post #: 66
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN - 5/29/2011 11:19:05 PM   
Enigma6584

 

Posts: 306
Joined: 9/23/2010
Status: offline
quote:

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.


Well it looks like someone over at the BF forum has posted your statements in order to get a more informed opinion on how CMBN works. It sure helped me out because I was doing research over there in the forum to answer your questions. Not being a computer programmer, this was a rather big task and I am grateful someone posted this over there.

If anyone is interested in getting answers to Pillar's statements, read on at this link.

What is Correct About These Impressions

I like the differences in approach both teams took in creating these games. Each has its own superb quality in simulating tactical combat on a personal pc. Each have things they could improve on. 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.

< Message edited by RedCharlie65 -- 5/29/2011 11:20:17 PM >

(in reply to Pillar)
Post #: 67
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN - 5/29/2011 11:49:30 PM   
Mad Russian


Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline
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


_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.

(in reply to Enigma6584)
Post #: 68
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN - 5/30/2011 12:14:37 AM   
Enigma6584

 

Posts: 306
Joined: 9/23/2010
Status: offline
quote:

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



I disagree and leave it at that.

< Message edited by RedCharlie65 -- 5/30/2011 5:46:34 AM >

(in reply to Mad Russian)
Post #: 69
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN - 5/30/2011 5:36:06 PM   
Pillar

 

Posts: 61
Joined: 4/21/2011
Status: offline
quote:

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.


Yep. For example hedges aren't the same thing as low bocage, which is what the terrain lips go on. The issue with trenches isn't much to worry about because not everything has to be done in bocage. (Dug-in positions along terrain would be nice though.)

I've had more time with both over the past weekend. PzC:O plays like a tabletop game in super-fine time resolution (practically real time?) But CMBN is still much more video game (or computer game) than tabletop game. It's a huge departure from CMx1 in that way. CMx1 is comparable to an earlier PzC:O style. Even though they are entirely different in design, they are not different in style. When I first imagined a successor to CMBB, PzC:O is pretty close to what I imagined it would be like.

Don't let my nitpicking bug you...

(I also think basketball sucks btw)

< Message edited by Pillar -- 5/30/2011 5:44:22 PM >

(in reply to Enigma6584)
Post #: 70
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN - 5/30/2011 5:41:26 PM   
Pillar

 

Posts: 61
Joined: 4/21/2011
Status: offline
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. 

(in reply to Pillar)
Post #: 71
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN - 5/30/2011 5:49:10 PM   
Redmarkus5


Posts: 4455
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: 0.00
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RedCharlie65


quote:

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.


+1

I own both and enjoy most key aspects of both, although they both have their flaws.

PCO delivers great East Front action with a solid AI for armour, but in many instances, the PCO infantry just walk towards my Panzers like Zombies to the slaughter - very strange to witness, but rarely reported in the forums, as far as I can tell. However, I have been playing PCO random battles with 100% armour and having great fun with those, re-learning my WW2 armour tactics.

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.

Visually, CMBN is way better. I know that some players call this mere eye candy, but convincing visuals PLUS good game play will always win. PCO needs to follow the CMBN lead in this area.

Nevertheless, I think the CM engine has spent years in the wilderness with its Shock Force versions and I also think that had BF chosen the East Front instead of Normandy, they would be giving PCO a much harder run for its money.

Finally, I was very disappointed to see how few campaigns and scenarios CMBN came out with, particularly for the Axis side - one campaign and that only has 4-5 decent battles before it descends into farce, in my experience. PCO is ahead by miles on that front. Just fix the infantry please!

_____________________________

WitE2 tester, WitW, WitP, CMMO, CM2, GTOS, GTMF, WP & WPP, TOAW4, BA2

(in reply to Enigma6584)
Post #: 72
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN - 5/30/2011 5:57:47 PM   
Pillar

 

Posts: 61
Joined: 4/21/2011
Status: offline
quote:

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.


(in reply to Redmarkus5)
Post #: 73
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN - 5/30/2011 6:17:18 PM   
Ssnake51

 

Posts: 13
Joined: 5/5/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pillar

quote:

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.


(in reply to Pillar)
Post #: 74
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN - 5/30/2011 6:23:23 PM   
Ssnake51

 

Posts: 13
Joined: 5/5/2011
Status: offline

quote:

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. 



I agree with you that there are some real differences between these games. However, like all games, don't you have to get good at both of the games themselves if you don't want your results to stink?

(in reply to Pillar)
Post #: 75
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN - 5/30/2011 7:13:34 PM   
Redmarkus5


Posts: 4455
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: 0.00
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ssnake51


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pillar

quote:

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.




I am equally bemused by this reply from Pillar. I'm not sure the PCO development team would like to hear that their game consists of cardboard chits moving along like robots, with player skill being an irrelevance... And this is supposed to be a positive somehow?

_____________________________

WitE2 tester, WitW, WitP, CMMO, CM2, GTOS, GTMF, WP & WPP, TOAW4, BA2

(in reply to Ssnake51)
Post #: 76
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN - 5/30/2011 7:54:55 PM   
HintJ


Posts: 311
Joined: 10/10/2010
Status: offline
I would say for the best experience, get PCO first, play it extensively, get all the enjoyment for your money, then buy CMBN. At that point, hopefully the price on CMBN will probably have dropped and even more improvement patches made.

I am in no way boycotting BF, but I think the DRM sucks. I can understand DRM if a game is scheduled for an XBOX 360 port or if countless teenagers (w/out much money) are planning to steal it, but the BF approach is rather insulting.

_____________________________

"Tactics is knowing what to do when there is something to do. Strategy is knowing what to do when there is nothing to do."
- Savielly Tartakower

(in reply to Redmarkus5)
Post #: 77
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN - 5/30/2011 8:20:52 PM   
general_solomon

 

Posts: 253
Joined: 5/18/2007
Status: offline
here is the issue with DRM. you alienate your core audience in the belief that your software will be safe. its like barricading your doors but forgetting the windows.

I have seen the most hardcore DRM game cracked with open by hackers. Like you said these games are made for a mature audience and those people would rather support their developers so they can have more games.

kids don't care about that and will download a cracked game, play it awhile and then go another.

I think all PC game devs should think about throw up really good sales once in awhile, so that someone with a tight budget can pick up their games at lower price.

in conclusion, drm is a waste of time because it will not keep anyones software safe.

customer loyalty and occasional discounted sales will make a developer more money in the long run.

to the creator of this thread: dude, if your still not convinced about buying this game then don't.

(in reply to HintJ)
Post #: 78
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN - 5/30/2011 8:40:43 PM   
Rik81

 

Posts: 327
Joined: 6/29/2004
Status: offline
For the $ you get much, much more with PCO. However, both games are worthy of support.

(in reply to GBS)
Post #: 79
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN - 5/30/2011 9:07:15 PM   
HintJ


Posts: 311
Joined: 10/10/2010
Status: offline
I imagine the awful DRM is a result of some unsavory business relations (and decisions) BF had for CMSF. There are numerous discounted CMSF games available from numerous sources, and I would imagine this is something BF would like to prevent from happening again.

If I understand correctly, a customer can only install CMBN limited times. This prevents resale. It also makes CM only practically available from BF.

To be fair, I really am not aware of what goes on w/BF's business decisions, and this is only my opinion and mostly conjecture. The customer service at BF is not so bad as some people say, and I think if I had a reasonable request for more installs, BF would oblige.

And despite whatever he might say, Steve from Battlefront is arrogant:

"We state that we've got the most realistic tactical wargames out there, period, and some say this is "hubris" or "boasting". Er... no... it's fact."

That, my friends, is the epitome of arrogance.



< Message edited by HintJ -- 5/30/2011 9:10:06 PM >


_____________________________

"Tactics is knowing what to do when there is something to do. Strategy is knowing what to do when there is nothing to do."
- Savielly Tartakower

(in reply to general_solomon)
Post #: 80
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN - 5/30/2011 9:17:08 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 6208
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
Customer Service at BFC is pretty good.  Customer relations sucks.

(in reply to HintJ)
Post #: 81
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN - 5/30/2011 9:30:01 PM   
JMass


Posts: 2364
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Italy
Status: offline
If, in a very very far future, MG should close you would be able to play anyway his games, but games protected by DRMs would be unplayable if their Customer Services should close... I am for opensource software and I think that DRMs frustrates only legal buyers

_____________________________

"Klotzen, nicht Kleckern!"Generaloberst Heinz Wilhelm Guderian

My boardgames collection: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/collection/user/JMass?own=1&subtype=boardgame&ff=1

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 82
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN - 5/30/2011 10:05:51 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 36676
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
Ok guys, please do not make this personal. If you want to compare the games, please do, but this is the last reminder to keep it constructive and civil, otherwise we will have to lock this thread.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC




For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to JMass)
Post #: 83
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN - 5/30/2011 11:44:03 PM   
henri51


Posts: 1151
Joined: 1/16/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: general_solomon

...to the creator of this thread: dude, if your still not convinced about buying this game then don't.



As I posted many days ago, I HAVE bought the game, and posted some threads about the Bootcamp and random scenarios....

(in reply to general_solomon)
Post #: 84
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN - 5/31/2011 2:18:23 AM   
Mobius


Posts: 10339
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4
I am equally bemused by this reply from Pillar. I'm not sure the PCO development team would like to hear that their game consists of cardboard chits moving along like robots, with player skill being an irrelevance... And this is supposed to be a positive somehow?

Hmmm, interesting, the infantry units are merely carriers of the infantry characteristics. The little sprites themselves don't try to emulate the behavior of actual infantry.

(in reply to Redmarkus5)
Post #: 85
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN - 5/31/2011 3:39:52 AM   
Mad Russian


Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline
And before long we'll have even more of the little infantry sprite carriers...

Good Hunting.

MR


_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 86
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN - 5/31/2011 5:45:28 PM   
Pillar

 

Posts: 61
Joined: 4/21/2011
Status: offline
Is it not an accurate way to describe it? 

(in reply to Mad Russian)
Post #: 87
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN - 5/31/2011 5:57:20 PM   
Pillar

 

Posts: 61
Joined: 4/21/2011
Status: offline
Sorry, I see why that would be confusing.

Ok, the issue isn't "more player control is better than less". It is player control over the really important inputs, which are the ones that most control the outcome.

So, in pzc you tell a platoon which route to go and that choice. That's the level you play the game at, and below that, stuff like the use of lmgs or bazooka are taken care of in the math, which is a system of percents as far as I can tell.

It's true there are things I'd like to have more control of and I'm hoping for improvements coming in PC4. But the problems with the control have more to do with the UI imo. I really dislike the platoon orders system for a number of reasons, for example. I could live with it if platoon hq's just set the platoon "stance" rather than have to issue movement orders for everyone (and then cancel them.)

In CMBN there are some times when the player wants to do something but he can't get the soldiers to do it, because the infantry ai that governs how they use the action spot is doing something else. Setting up machine guns is tricky, for example, in urban or trench terrain. And it can really affect how things go if your mgs aren't getting LOF. ><

(in reply to Ssnake51)
Post #: 88
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN - 5/31/2011 5:57:55 PM   
Redmarkus5


Posts: 4455
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: 0.00
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pillar

Is it not an accurate way to describe it? 



It's not how I see it, but I have no major issue with your description as such.

My point is that, as cardboard carriers or sprites or whatever, unsupported Soviet infantry seem to love advancing on my Panzers, even after the infantry have taken losses. This even occurs on Turn 1 of the Campaign, so it can't be that the Soviet AI is attacking, surely? I just wish they would stay in their trenches like real infantry do when confronted by armour.

I don't really see what there is to disagree about :)

_____________________________

WitE2 tester, WitW, WitP, CMMO, CM2, GTOS, GTMF, WP & WPP, TOAW4, BA2

(in reply to Pillar)
Post #: 89
RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN - 5/31/2011 6:00:04 PM   
Redmarkus5


Posts: 4455
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: 0.00
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pillar

Sorry, I see why that would be confusing.

Ok, the issue isn't "more player control is better than less". It is player control over the really important inputs, which are the ones that most control the outcome.

So, in pzc you tell a platoon which route to go and that choice. That's the level you play the game at, and below that, stuff like the use of lmgs or bazooka are taken care of in the math, which is a system of percents as far as I can tell.

It's true there are things I'd like to have more control of and I'm hoping for improvements coming in PC4. But the problems with the control have more to do with the UI imo. I really dislike the platoon orders system for a number of reasons, for example. I could live with it if platoon hq's just set the platoon "stance" rather than have to issue movement orders for everyone (and then cancel them.)

In CMBN there are some times when the player wants to do something but he can't get the soldiers to do it, because the infantry ai that governs how they use the action spot is doing something else. Setting up machine guns is tricky, for example, in urban or trench terrain. And it can really affect how things go if your mgs aren't getting LOF. ><


The CMBN comment is true and it's frustrating. I avoid putting MGs in buildings because of it.

_____________________________

WitE2 tester, WitW, WitP, CMMO, CM2, GTOS, GTMF, WP & WPP, TOAW4, BA2

(in reply to Pillar)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Panzer Command: Ostfront >> RE: Convince me that I should buy it instead of CBN Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.229