Combat Mission status

[smittyohio]

I'm thinking about finally buying one of the WWII CM games, and would like some opinions... The Normandy game appeals the most to me, but I'm wondering if the scenarios and campaigns are better in the later ones since they had more experience with the tools and had more customer feedback.   Any thoughts?

[MOS:96B2P]

I'm thinking about finally buying one of the WWII CM games, and would like some opinions... The Normandy game appeals the most to me, but I'm wondering if the scenarios and campaigns are better in the later ones since they had more experience with the tools and had more customer feedback.   Any thoughts?

The newer games also started out with AI triggers and AI area fire.  Also CMRT and CMFB have tank riders.  Having said that, CMBN has a lot more content and nationalities.  I like CM Fortress Italy since it has the longest time frame July 1943 to May 1944.  CMFI will get a module in the next year that will take it to the end of the war and add even more nationalities.  They all have advantages.  I would get what you are the most interested in.  For me it kind of depends what military book I'm currently reading.  If I'm reading about the east front I want to play Combat Mission Red Thunder, Operation Overlord CMBN, Operation Husky CMFI etc.... Watching the news makes me want to play a modern title.   ;D       

[MOS:96B2P]

Speaking of modern titles................... CM Shock Force 2 is taking up a lot of my time.

[Jarhead0331]

I'm finding some of the map designs and starting unit dispositions frustrating in CMSF2. Its not just this title, I suppose, but rather the modern titles.

Many of the maps feel like phone booths. There is very little opportunity for maneuver prior to contact. That is, they are spotted and come under lethal fire almost immediately. Its frustrating taking crippling losses that significantly reduce the fighting effectiveness of your force before you really have the opportunity to implement a plan, or even seek cover/concealment.

Its annoying when losses are taken not due to any tactical error of the player, but rather due simply to the nature of the map and the immediate terrain features in which your troops find them selves on at the start of a scenario.

[IronX]

I feel your pain. I found the same thing with the latest set of scenarios/campaigns for CMBS. Some of them were very poorly designed. On more than one occasion I found the defending AI was given the vast majority of the map on set-up and a clear line of sight to the player's units as they entered the map. Those scenarios were very disappointing and make you wonder whether they were thoroughly tested before release.

[MOS:96B2P]

Its annoying when losses are taken not due to any tactical error of the player, but rather due simply to the nature of the map and the immediate terrain features in which your troops find them selves on at the start of a scenario.

That is frustrating.  When it is a second party user made scenario you might expect to see that occasionally.  However, there is really no excuse for a scenario released with the game to have the force to map ratio off.  Or line of site into a setup zone.  The maximum map size was expanded after the original CMSF was released but still....  Just curious, what scenario had what type of problem?       

[Jarhead0331]

Its annoying when losses are taken not due to any tactical error of the player, but rather due simply to the nature of the map and the immediate terrain features in which your troops find them selves on at the start of a scenario.

That is frustrating.  When it is a second party user made scenario you might expect to see that occasionally.  However, there is really no excuse for a scenario released with the game to have the force to map ratio off.  Or line of site into a setup zone.  The maximum map size was expanded after the original CMSF was released but still....  Just curious, what scenario had what type of problem?       

Try one of the first two or three in the scenario list. One of them is, I believe, a German mechanized company of panzer grenadiers. They are in useless Fuchs in open terrain astride a highway, basically surrounded by a force having no shortage of ATGMs and BMPs in a superior elevated and urban position. 

[rocketman]

Scenario design has come a long way since SF1 was released and with this upgrade they have "translated" the scenarios as they were. Hopefully the community will update scenarios/campaigns to improve them and the new stuff will likely not suffer those drawbacks.

[Michael Dorosh]

I'm thinking about finally buying one of the WWII CM games, and would like some opinions... The Normandy game appeals the most to me, but I'm wondering if the scenarios and campaigns are better in the later ones since they had more experience with the tools and had more customer feedback.   Any thoughts?

I wonder if the slate of "official" scenario designers hasn't actually decreased over time, rather than increased. Not sure a lot of guys are building stuff unofficially either, but you can check the CM Scenario Depot website for those. I think Green-as-Jade also had a site for scenarios.

I don't know that BFC actually uses customer feedback as means of developing content. Not being snarky, but as someone who was briefly part of that world, I just don't think it worked that way as far as scenario design went. The main devs were usually nose deep in their own under the hood stuff and left the designers to their own devices. I don't recall a whole lot of collaboration. Possibly that has changed in the last 11 years, but during my brief window everyone was kind of scrambling to build their own stuff and might take a spin of one or two others in the playtesting, but it didn't seem like a lot of corporate knowledge being shared.

I just reinstalled CMFI again and took a look. I am translating a German history of the Heer 65th Division who fought at Anzio. I was therefore curious if the battles were well represented in CMFI. I found only one scenario on a brief looksee. It was by Jon Martina - whose stuff I tend to like. It was clear he did a map of the Aprilia area by trying to use the undetailed maps of the U.S. official history. After reading the detailed accounts in German (something he would obviously not have access to) I got a sense that the area was laced with irrigation ditches and streams - which the history makes clear you can't even see until you walk up to them (meaning a large scale map or even photos of the place wouldn't tell you they were there). His treatment of the area is all farmer's fields. No idea if his Anzio scenario is good as I didn't play it - it still can be, he's a good designer from what I can tell - but historical accuracy is only as good as your designer and I'm not sure where their stable is at for each title. George M can usually be counted on for painstaking detail, but it's such a laborious process building stuff in that editor, and his designs tend to be bigger, so his output is lower.

Also not sure what the turnover is - I seem to recall a lot of scenarios were actually uncredited, which was odd. Probably more of a quality control issue than anything, but I always liked to see who was designing the stuff I was playing.

A lot of scenario designers actually prefer the map building, which might explain the Master Maps that were touted for recent releases. I mapped out Ortona in CM:AK and so took a look at an Ortona map someone did for CMFI which required a lot more work due to the greater detail available. It wasn't bad, some stuff stands out, again, related to a level of research you might not expect from an average designers. Specifically the graveyard north of town in the case of Ortona - the actual graveyard was a serious of mausoleums, so basically one-story stone buildings. The CM mapper just threw a few simple headstones into it, which really does the actual terrain a disservice.

Point of all this rambling is that I would probably just go ahead and buy the title from the time period you enjoy the most, as I'm not sure there has been an increasing quality of the designs from early titles to later. Some of the ones I've enjoyed the most have come from the community via the depot - but that was the same with the original Combat Mission trilogy, too. You might want to look at the depot to see if the title you're thinking of buying has a lot of extras there, and you can even read reviews of them.

[IronX]

Speaking of good map design, I recall driving into the village of Stoumont in Belgium thinking how the terrain looked just like that in CM Final Blitz. It was almost surreal. I visited a number of other locations that are represented in the game, but that one stood out as the village hasn't changed significantly.

[MOS:96B2P]

I'm pretty sure I have played some scenarios made by you Michael Dorosh............. I think Panzergeist is yours?  Very cool.   

Yes, George MC is still building scenarios and campaigns.  I have found all the scenarios and campaigns made by him very good.  I think his last independent release was the KG Von Schroif campaign?  It is available at the Scenario Depot III for CM Red Thunder.  There might also have been something else he did after that or maybe a REDUX of something.  Hard to keep track.  I know he is currently working on another new campaign which is also for CMRT. 

This campaign covers a short and sustained period of combat operations taking place over a period of less than 72 hours, in Poland, on the Eastern Front in early August 1944. Although fictional it is heavily based on actual events.
In the campaign you take the role of 1 Kompanie Commander Hauptmann Hans von Schroif, of the 3rd Panzer Division's (Known as the Berlin Bear division – etc.......

Combatintman continues to crank out scenarios based on real world operations.  To include Neptune Spear which he made for CM Shock Force.  All those independently made scenarios for Shock Force 1 still work in Shock Force 2.  A ton of content. 

So yes, looking at the Scenario Depot III is also a good idea.           

[jomni]

I figure that scenarios of CMSF1 were made to make the game really challenging as the AI sucked.

[MOS:96B2P]

Speaking of good map design, I recall driving into the village of Stoumont in Belgium thinking how the terrain looked just like that in CM Final Blitz. It was almost surreal. I visited a number of other locations that are represented in the game, but that one stood out as the village hasn't changed significantly.

Now that is cool.  Its amazing what some designers can create in the editor.

[Yskonyn]

I always have lots of ideas for scenarios for CM.
But the tools have a pretty steep learning curve and the time it takes to create a map, generate AI plans and finish up is a BIG task.
I have deep respect for CM scenario designers! It must be like a hobby on its own.

[A Canadian Cat]

I wonder if the slate of "official" scenario designers hasn't actually decreased over time, rather than increased. Not sure a lot of guys are building stuff unofficially either, but you can check the CM Scenario Depot website for those. I think Green-as-Jade also had a site for scenarios.

I don't know that BFC actually uses customer feedback as means of developing content. Not being snarky, but as someone who was briefly part of that world, I just don't think it worked that way as far as scenario design went. The main devs were usually nose deep in their own under the hood stuff and left the designers to their own devices. I don't recall a whole lot of collaboration. Possibly that has changed in the last 11 years, but during my brief window everyone was kind of scrambling to build their own stuff and might take a spin of one or two others in the playtesting, but it didn't seem like a lot of corporate knowledge being shared.

So, I am part of that team now and cannot make any official comments. All I will say is, I do not believe the number of people making official scenarios has decreased it certainly hasn't while I have been involved. All scenarios get more than one or two test runs. Scenario designers definitely do take comments to heart that are made on the BFC forums.

Now for something that I can comment on - own scenarios. One of which falls right into the issue that Jarhead0331 talked about - coming under fire right when the scenario starts. That should be an intentional choice. It is in Action on Lanzerath Ridge (part of CM Final Blitzkrieg) since it represents the beginning of the ambush that started the fighting in that area that day. This scenario depicts the action of a recon platoon that held up a German Battalion. In this case if the German forces were allowed to manoeuvre the platoon would have no chance of doing anything in game. So, I closely followed the first reckless assault the Germans made that day. You could argue that that means it is no fun  :) .
My point is that sometimes it is a design decision that has a justification. Personally I would not want to see that for more then a handful of scenarios so to address others we would have to discuss specific scenarios. I know when play testing my self I would give feedback that coming under fire during deployment or the initial moments is not desirable.
One of my other scenarios Opportunity Knocks from CM Black Sea has a huge amount of room to manoeuvre. Each choice has pluses and minuses (faster, slower, better cover, better sight lines) and you are free to choose any or all as the attacker - that is part of the fun. So, in general I support the desire to have choices as the attacker - and the defender too BTW.