Combat Mission status

[IICptMillerII]

Very first shot - stupid zig-zag road. Second shot - empty sand. Third shot - ridiculous looking "anthill" foxholes. I 'get' that the guy doing this isn't a professional marketer, but how blind to this stuff do you have to be to actually *showcase* the sub-par stuff - there are really good visuals in the game, the 3D vehicles, the soldier animations. This video is unfortunately just 10 minutes of guys hunkering in poorly drawn fortifications and getting killed like fleas

Oof. Can't win em all I guess. You're right that I'm not a professional, at either making video's or making maps in CM. The zig zag road is my fault.

Really hard to see what is different in that showcase video. Its been awhile since I played SF, but that still looks like SF to me. Wasn't expecting significant changes though.

Most of the changes are "under the hood" bringing the engine up to current. However many of these directly affect gameplay. Firefights for example. In Shock Force 1, machine guns weren't very effective at suppressing the enemy. Now however they are much more effective at doing their jobs. Soldiers are also much better about how they shoot and move now as well.
All of the fortifications, to include Target Reference Points, are now in Shock Force 2. Trenches, foxholes, barbed wire, mines. Further all of the infantry and most of the vehicles I've seen have completely new textures which all look great to me.
There are a ton more changes that would take a long time to list here.

My overall goal with the video was essentially to give people something else to look at besides a few screenshots. . I'm definitely an amateur, and I don't work for BFC. I'll certainly try to improve and do better in the future.

[Apocalypse 31]

Most of the changes are "under the hood" bringing the engine up to current

That's cute.

Most companies have figured out how to do both - make under the hood changes as well as aesthetically pleasing changes to make a game more modern.

I'm staying far away from this title.

[Michael Dorosh]

Most of the changes are "under the hood" bringing the engine up to current. However many of these directly affect gameplay. Firefights for example. In Shock Force 1, machine guns weren't very effective at suppressing the enemy. Now however they are much more effective at doing their jobs. Soldiers are also much better about how they shoot and move now as well.

Thanks for posting here, firstly. It's good to have an insider's voice as part of the conversation.

As noted earlier, the official videos all seem to delight in showing just how overwhelming a US force can be against a Syrian defender. But from what I recall of my brief time on the beta team for the original release, the scenarios always seemed to be a lot more fun than that. Even putting aside the fact you can do Red on Red or Blue on Blue and get even match-ups, and putting aside the asymmetrical victory conditions which will balance out some of the real RvB equipment/troop mismatches, I found you *could* get decent Red on Blue matchups, either in scenarios or in Quick Battles. Someone who never played the game and had to judge it on one of these promotional videos would unfortunately not get that impression.

I'm no expert either, but I think I'd rather highlight the positive stuff - the vehicles look good rolling around, there is probably parity between a Stryker company and decent Syrian motorized infantry and a number of other matchups, the map and scenario editor is extremely powerful and a feature most games don't have. And the map artists in the stable have always created a lot of really nice QB maps - another powerful tool. I still remember one early scenario where both sides battled it out in a small town and the outcome was in doubt until the final minutes. The game is capable of creating those tense encounters - finding a way to communicate this would pay dividends.

As a suggestion, you mention how much more stronger/realistic the MGs in 4.0 are. I'd be interested in a compare/contrast of how a US dismounted rifle platoon would fare against a Syrian MG, in the CMSF 1 version and then the exact same forces and terrain in the 4.0 engine. I'd stay away from the fortifications and maybe focus on some of the infantry animations and give some examples of their improved fire and movement routines. I hear what you're saying about how difficult it is to illustrate changes "under the hood" but there are a number of positives that would be - in my opinion - more interesting to potential buyers than a firepower display. I'll be honest, going through the video, I just see all the little abstractions that CM fans have gotten accustomed to, but stick out to those who haven't grown to forgive them. The RPG gunner shooting through a closed window. The trenches that don't seem to protect anyone. The guy running for his life who looks like he's treading water, in slow motion.

I do like that the video tried to sketch out a little story. The slow opening, building up to a look at the defenders, then a look at the attackers. You see the attack go in, you see how the different platoons fire and move in support of each other, and you have an obvious victor in the end, with the 'moral of the story' I guess being that it takes real world tactics and that there is a variety of equipment in the game, and that it's possible to coordinate it all.

It's not a terrible idea, but to someone on the fence, they see all the nitpicky stuff. Maybe I'm just not part of the intended audience, but I'd suggest also there's no need to sell this to guys who already 'get' what CM is. They'll buy this anyway.

[RyanE]

The biggest changes to me are the features that were never brought over from CM1 to CMSF that Steve said weren't need any more now being in the game...hull down, space bar menu call up, etc.  MGs and soldier spacing in CMSF were bad also.  A lot of that got addressed in engine upgrades 2, 3, and 4, but not CMSF.  I always felt CMSF was a test for what they really wanted to do with the engine.

I just remember the insane posts from Steve that none of this stuff was needed...only to put them in for CMBN.  The short of it is I am addicted to buying CM stuff.  I'll buy CMSF2, play around with it a little, then go back to Steel Beasts.

[Moreb]

I guess I'm just a contrarian because I thought the game looked better than what I remembered. The fact that you can make your own battles from scratch is something my favorite title lacks. The infantry movements were fairly fluid and the sounds clear. I really don't have a dog in this race but I'd sure hate to have this thread degrade into something that reaches the level of animosity that might prevent the sharing of information or one where those close to the project don't even bother showing up. Not that that is the case here at all.

Appreciate the video. Those things take time and effort.

So, I have to ask as an outsider, what are some of the things that players want to see in CM? I have my picks for Mius Front myself. But besides the drm and costly upgrade scheme what are some others?

[IICptMillerII]

I just want to quickly point out that I do not work for BFC, nor do I have any insider information aside from being able to play the closed beta. I can only report on what I myself experience and read on the forums.

Most of the changes are "under the hood" bringing the engine up to current

Most companies have figured out how to do both - make under the hood changes as well as aesthetically pleasing changes to make a game more modern. 

To be clear there are many visual upgrades as well. Shock Force 1 used old animations that Shock Force 2 updates to the current standard seen in Black Sea. Most if not all of the vehicle models have been retextured, and all of the infantry have been retextured as well. Ground textures have also been tweaked from what I've seen. I believe there are also new sound effects, again most likely taken from Black Sea as many of the weapon systems are similar. Amphibious vehicles now function in Shock Force 2, a feature that came with the release of Black Sea. There are plenty of other changes, some of which I'm forgetting.

As noted earlier, the official videos all seem to delight in showing just how overwhelming a US force can be against a Syrian defender.

I understand this criticism. The video does not show off a scenario. I made the map and placed all the units myself. My goal was just to show some action. Tanks shooting, explosions, a few gun fights, stuff like that. As you mention, scenario's can be made that are much less one sided. Another new feature Shock Force 2 is getting is anti-air assets being able to engage aircraft. US airpower now has to deal with MANPADs and Shilka's, among others. Further, the Syrians get a few tanks that are pretty decent, such as the later T-72 variants with the TURMS-T fire control systems, as well as the export version of the T-90, which is a peer threat to most NATO tanks in game. Again, my intent was to provide some eye candy for those waiting for the full game to release.

As a suggestion, you mention how much more stronger/realistic the MGs in 4.0 are. I'd be interested in a compare/contrast of how a US dismounted rifle platoon would fare against a Syrian MG, in the CMSF 1 version and then the exact same forces and terrain in the 4.0 engine. I'd stay away from the fortifications and maybe focus on some of the infantry animations and give some examples of their improved fire and movement routines. I hear what you're saying about how difficult it is to illustrate changes "under the hood" but there are a number of positives that would be - in my opinion - more interesting to potential buyers than a firepower display. I'll be honest, going through the video, I just see all the little abstractions that CM fans have gotten accustomed to, but stick out to those who haven't grown to forgive them. The RPG gunner shooting through a closed window. The trenches that don't seem to protect anyone. The guy running for his life who looks like he's treading water, in slow motion.

I'll definitely keep this in mind for future projects. I have certainly gotten used to the infamous CM abstractions, but I know they can be jarring to those not used to the system. I admit that I was mostly thinking of advertising to people who already play CM and are definitely getting SF2 when it releases, and wasn't intending on advertising to newcomers, which was an oversight on my part.

I do like that the video tried to sketch out a little story. The slow opening, building up to a look at the defenders, then a look at the attackers. You see the attack go in, you see how the different platoons fire and move in support of each other, and you have an obvious victor in the end, with the 'moral of the story' I guess being that it takes real world tactics and that there is a variety of equipment in the game, and that it's possible to coordinate it all.

My goal was to tell a little story that wasn't necessarily realistic. For example, the tactically sound thing to have done would have been to engage the tanks with the Apaches first and then mop up with the tanks. I was going for a Hollywood approach. I took some inspiration from the original Rome:Total War trailer that plays when you launch the game. Starts off slow, with some shots of terrain and units marching, and then ramps up to shots of combat all over the place. This one:

As I said I am certainly an amateur. I came up with all of this on my own and was not directed by BFC. It's basically a hobby of mine that I thought would help give people something to look at while the game is worked on in the meantime.

Thanks for your feedback though. Actual criticism is always better than anonymous "likes" and "dislikes" and I'll definitely keep it in mind going forward.

[Grim.Reaper]

It's interesting to see that Steve from Battlefront took the time to create (2) posts in the showcase video thread after not posting anything in two months, but still zero responses to the ton of posts on the anticipated release date being missed.  The theory of Battlefront not having the time to post (which was a thin excuse to begin with) goes out the window.  Obviously, they choose not to communicate with their customers, even the ones who pre-ordered their game.

It will be interesting to see if I actually buy this or not....only way I can show my displeasure is to vote with my wallet.  If it came out back in May, likely would have been slam dunk.  But many months later and radio silence, no longer a sure thing.   Beyond the lack of courtesy to their customers, just not sure if seeing/hearing enough to make me do it....time will tell. 

I'am just curious, is Battlefront financed by something else besides the sale of their games?  Just find it hard to believe they sell enough copies every year to stay in business, especially with the long release cycles and typical delays.

[RyanE]

Yeah, he's been all over that thread for some reason.  I would have thought his time would have been better spent dropping a short paragraph just updating the status of CMSF2.

Frankly, the video does little for me, other than show the game is still alive.   And if the thread managed to get Steve and BFC engaged with their customers again, its done a it.

[Grim.Reaper]

some info although not much

I've been holding off posting an official update because there's been an annoying detail and a few other things that needed to get nailed down first.  It's pretty much where I need it to be, so expect a post in a few days.  And no, it won't be to announce CMSF2 is now ready for downloading.

Great, because that's the intended outcome :)

Steve

[RyanE]

I found this post interesting, and not just about CM.  Not sure how pertinent it is.

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/133207-they-meant-september-of-next-year/?do=findComment&comment=1765153

Sorry, it is the post from snake726 at the bottom.

[Michael Dorosh]

I found this post interesting, and not just about CM.  Not sure how pertinent it is.

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/133207-they-meant-september-of-next-year/?do=findComment&comment=1765153

Sorry, it is the post from snake726 at the bottom.

Hmm. Better call Saul.

[Toonces]

Heh.  I have no real dog in this fight; I have a few CM games, some of which work and some of which don't and I simply cannot be bothered to figure out how to get the licenses to work again.  Certainly I'm not buying anymore of the games.

But I find it so amusing that we have a CM thread and a Graviteam thread back to back, and one is only complaints, while the other is only praises.

It does make one wonder, right?

This stuff isn't rocket science...or maybe it is...I don't know because I haven't found the right book yet.   ::)

[Ubercat]

 :DD

[Yskonyn]

If only the Graviteam games weren't so... how to say... eastern; I would definately be all over them, but fact it that CM caters to a nice niche I am into:
-Modern day tactical simulation
-Western Front WW2 tactical simulation
So I just put up with their DRM because I am still finding the games important enough to me. But I happily agree about the zombie state of BFC this last year.
Its about damn time they release stuff again. Especially the patch for 4.0 which has stopped my PBeM games dead.

[RyanE]

I came to the conclusion long ago that BFC builds its games and runs it company for a small group of people who have slowly been added to the beta team or actually employed by BFC.  That group of people has become official/unofficial spokemob for BFC.  I think that is why BFC feels no need to communicate to "customers".  They only open up a little when the beta testers start to grumble.

The rest of us are just here for the ride.