Why so few reviews?

[thewood]

That is why I went back to playing CMAK. For all its minor issues, having a real halt and shoot command outweighs a lot in CM2.

I am really having some serious doubts about the damage system in CMSF too. We might have been better off with more abstracted damage that the kind of wonky system in CM2.

[Bletchley_Geek]

I am really having some serious doubts about the damage system in CMSF too. We might have been better off with more abstracted damage that the kind of wonky system in CM2.

Are you referring to the armor penetration model? Or the component damage model? Can you put an example?

[thewood]

The best example is the stepped degradation of optics and fire control. There seem to be 4 or 5 standard steps that no matter where it hits, it gets reduced one step. There may be some reality to that with back up sights and such, but I had a Leopard 2 hit on the rear deck that ended up dropping optics down a level. I have no idea what that means or how it happens.

[Bletchley_Geek]

The best example is the stepped degradation of optics and fire control. There seem to be 4 or 5 standard steps that no matter where it hits, it gets reduced one step. There may be some reality to that with back up sights and such, but I had a Leopard 2 hit on the rear deck that ended up dropping optics down a level. I have no idea what that means or how it happens.

I guess BFC had to put a limit to the 1:1 modeling somewhere. We have that "hitpoint based" modeling of optics and fire control, but we got a extremely nuanced armor penetration model and quite realistic "catastrophic" effects of penetrating hits (or so it seems).

[thewood]

The "or so it seems" is the important part. There is no way to tell and even in CM1 people found errors in the armor data and penetration. Right now, there is no one checking because you can't.

[Bletchley_Geek]

The "or so it seems" is the important part. There is no way to tell and even in CM1 people found errors in the armor data and penetration. Right now, there is no one checking because you can't.

Indeed. We get a 1:1 representation which is claimed to be "What you see is what you get". But very often, what you see isn't what you think it is. And also quite often, you don't get what you would expect from what you see.

I'd have no problem with this "inconsistent" 1:1 modeling, but this "inconsistencies" aren't being clearly explained or rationalized. Wargame rules can be arbitrary, but you get them written down in English and in paper, and quite often accompanied by a rationale under the title "Designer Notes". This approach to documenting the game might not appeal the casual reader, but it's quite informative. BFC appeal to our intuition with 1:1 modeling and lush 3d graphics, but both the representation on the screen and the modeling are at odds with it.

[Michael Dorosh]

I've quoted some of the material in this thread here as I found it quite interesting and was trying to finish this post for the last couple of days and found the examples just what I think I needed.

The article I refer to was another one of those "spooky" things out of the past, but I guess so many of the issues just seem to go in circles that it should stop surprising me.

[KG_Jag]

I've quoted some of the material in this thread here as I found it quite interesting and was trying to finish this post for the last couple of days and found the examples just what I think I needed.

The article I refer to was another one of those "spooky" things out of the past, but I guess so many of the issues just seem to go in circles that it should stop surprising me.

MD--the link is not working (with Firefox or IE).

[Bletchley_Geek]

MD--the link is not working (with Firefox or IE).

The forums added some "noise" to MD's link:

http://thetacticalwargamer.blogspot....s-as-they.html

[Michael Dorosh]

The forums added some "noise" to MD's link:

http://thetacticalwargamer.blogspot....s-as-they.html

Thanks; I'll fix the link in the original post as well.