Combat Mission: Cold War

Started by IICptMillerII, February 15, 2021, 11:05:33 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

IICptMillerII

Quote from: Apocalypse 31 on February 20, 2021, 09:07:10 PM
Quote from: al_infierno on February 20, 2021, 08:46:24 PM
Do you mean aside from the completely new setting and a TO&E for 1979-82?

Yes. Is there anything innovative with this release?

DPICM/cluster munitions for artillery and aircraft respectively comes to mind. Its been a requested feature for a long time and I'm glad we are finally getting it.

There are a bunch of new vehicles unique to Combat Mission, such as the M60 series, the T-64 series and the T-80 series tanks, plus some new variants of the M113. There is also the M48 Chaparral which is cool.

As others have mentioned, it takes place in the Cold War, 1979-1982 which is also unique, but can be understandably underwhelming for someone not interested in that time period. I personally am extremely interested in the time period, and I also really like Combat Mission, so I am a bit biased.

That said, I definitely get your complaints. I share them to a degree as well. I wish we could have essentially double the map size (and double the optimization to boot) as well as a few other quality of life improvements to reduce the admin burden on the player. The biggest thing I am hoping for is an optimization improvement. They have announced that there will be an engine 5 upgrade. No details on that yet, but I really hope at least part of it includes optimization.

Destraex

#46
This still hurts my eyes after over 10yrs... I am still using a 1080 screen as well. My previous of a different wider resolution died and to keep my FPS up in high end games I kept the same res. I should go up to a 1440 res monitor but I think that would make the text even smaller.


"They only asked the Light Brigade to do it once"

al_infierno

Quote from: Jarhead0331 on February 20, 2021, 09:12:35 PM
Sorry, Apocalypse...there is no live fire and you cannot actually be killed by playing. It is going to disappoint your high expectations for realism.  :crazy2:

This is my favorite comment in this thread.   :2funny:
A War of a Madman's Making - a text-based war planning and political survival RPG

It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge.  War endures.  As well ask men what they think of stone.  War was always here.  Before man was, war waited for him.  The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner.  That is the way it was and will be.  That way and not some other way.
- Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian


If they made nothing but WWII games, I'd be perfectly content.  Hypothetical matchups from alternate history 1980s, asymmetrical US-bashes-some-3rd world guerillas, or minor wars between Upper Bumblescum and outer Kaboomistan hold no appeal for me.
- Silent Disapproval Robot


I guess it's sort of nice that the word "tactical" seems to refer to some kind of seriousness during your moments of mental clarity.
- MengJiao

Zulu1966

#48
Quote from: IICptMillerII on February 21, 2021, 12:10:50 AM
Quote from: Apocalypse 31 on February 20, 2021, 09:07:10 PM
Quote from: al_infierno on February 20, 2021, 08:46:24 PM
Do you mean aside from the completely new setting and a TO&E for 1979-82?

Yes. Is there anything innovative with this release?

DPICM/cluster munitions for artillery and aircraft respectively comes to mind. Its been a requested feature for a long time and I'm glad we are finally getting it.

There are a bunch of new vehicles unique to Combat Mission, such as the M60 series, the T-64 series and the T-80 series tanks, plus some new variants of the M113. There is also the M48 Chaparral which is cool.

As others have mentioned, it takes place in the Cold War, 1979-1982 which is also unique, but can be understandably underwhelming for someone not interested in that time period. I personally am extremely interested in the time period, and I also really like Combat Mission, so I am a bit biased.

That said, I definitely get your complaints. I share them to a degree as well. I wish we could have essentially double the map size (and double the optimization to boot) as well as a few other quality of life improvements to reduce the admin burden on the player. The biggest thing I am hoping for is an optimization improvement. They have announced that there will be an engine 5 upgrade. No details on that yet, but I really hope at least part of it includes optimization.

I understand the comment - but I remember reading somewhere that research by the US army after WWII found the actual average opening engagement range in NWE was about 600 yards - Even the shermans 75 had a range of over 2,300 yds. Estimates that - given line of sight and terrain - it wouldn't have been much different in any cold war engagement - especially given things were a lot more built up. Bigger maps be nice - but short of being in the desert - not sure theoretical ranges play too badly against what CM is trying to simulate. Still - bigger anything is better.

Not sure you can stand in a lot of places in germany in 1985 and fire at something 2-3 miles away in a straight line wihthout something getting in the way.
"you are the rule maker, the dictator, the mini- Stalin, Mao, Hitler, the emperor, generalissimo, the MAN. You may talk the talk and appear to be quite easy going to foster popularity, but to the MAN I say F*CK YOU." And Steve G is F******g rude ? Just another day on the BF forum ... one demented idiots reaction to BF disagreeing about the thickness of the armour on a Tiger II turret mantlet.

Apocalypse 31

#49
QuoteI understand the comment - but I remember reading somewhere that research by the US army after WWII found the actual average opening engagement range in NWE was about 600 yards - Even the shermans 75 had a range of over 2,300 yds. Estimates that - given line of sight and terrain - it wouldn't have been much different in any cold war engagement - especially given things were a lot more built up. Bigger maps be nice - but short of being in the desert - not sure theoretical ranges play too badly against what CM is trying to simulate. Still - bigger anything is better.

It's not about engagement ranges - its about maneuver space.

There's nothing more frustrating than playing CMSF or CMBS and being IMMEDIATELY engaged with direct and indirect weapons. Your first move was doomed to fail and you've already blundered by making contact with the enemy. The player gets punished.

BUT, the National Training Center is as flat desert-like terrain that you will ever see. Lines of sight for 20+ miles in some areas. How is CMCW going to depict that with its current engine limitations? The entire combat center also revolves around a massive mountain (Tiefort Mountain). It should be interesting to see how the dev's pull that one off.





z1812

Quote from: Destraex on February 21, 2021, 02:17:08 AM
This still hurts my eyes after over 10yrs... I am still using a 1080 screen as well. My previous of a different wider resolution died and to keep my FPS up in high end games I kept the same res. I should go up to a 1440 res monitor but I think that would make the text even smaller.

I use a 3440 x 1440 monitor and CM looks great on it. I don't have a problem reading the text................but I do have glasses.

IICptMillerII

Quote from: Zulu1966 on February 21, 2021, 05:48:15 AM
Quote from: IICptMillerII on February 21, 2021, 12:10:50 AM
Quote from: Apocalypse 31 on February 20, 2021, 09:07:10 PM
Quote from: al_infierno on February 20, 2021, 08:46:24 PM
Do you mean aside from the completely new setting and a TO&E for 1979-82?

Yes. Is there anything innovative with this release?

DPICM/cluster munitions for artillery and aircraft respectively comes to mind. Its been a requested feature for a long time and I'm glad we are finally getting it.

There are a bunch of new vehicles unique to Combat Mission, such as the M60 series, the T-64 series and the T-80 series tanks, plus some new variants of the M113. There is also the M48 Chaparral which is cool.

As others have mentioned, it takes place in the Cold War, 1979-1982 which is also unique, but can be understandably underwhelming for someone not interested in that time period. I personally am extremely interested in the time period, and I also really like Combat Mission, so I am a bit biased.

That said, I definitely get your complaints. I share them to a degree as well. I wish we could have essentially double the map size (and double the optimization to boot) as well as a few other quality of life improvements to reduce the admin burden on the player. The biggest thing I am hoping for is an optimization improvement. They have announced that there will be an engine 5 upgrade. No details on that yet, but I really hope at least part of it includes optimization.

I understand the comment - but I remember reading somewhere that research by the US army after WWII found the actual average opening engagement range in NWE was about 600 yards - Even the shermans 75 had a range of over 2,300 yds. Estimates that - given line of sight and terrain - it wouldn't have been much different in any cold war engagement - especially given things were a lot more built up. Bigger maps be nice - but short of being in the desert - not sure theoretical ranges play too badly against what CM is trying to simulate. Still - bigger anything is better.

Not sure you can stand in a lot of places in germany in 1985 and fire at something 2-3 miles away in a straight line wihthout something getting in the way.

There were defense terrain surveys done in Germany that found that the average sightline was not more than 1500m. This is mostly due to the nature of the terrain (terrain dictates) with the rolling hills and forests present in Germany and the rest of Western Europe.

Apocalype does bring up a good point though, and posted some great pictures as well! Again, we are in agreement here. I am really hoping that we continue to see larger maps possible in the CMx2 engine. There is hope for this. When CMSF1 first came out I think the max map size was something like 1.5x1.5km. The current engine supports maps that can be more than twice as large now. I really do hope that we continue to see the maximum map size increase.
Concerning the NTC terrain, I can say that the guy developing the maps and campaign is a prior serviceman who spent a fair bit of time at the NTC. A lot of love has gone into his maps and scenarios. He has picked terrain that certainly allows for very interesting and tense tactical actions, even given CMs map size limitations. I think anyone who has been to NTC will recognize some of the terrain right away, and those that have not been will quickly learn why OPFOR has the reputation it does.


z1812

Whether you are talking about map size in regards to engagement or maneuver, you must remember that a person's computer has to be able to comfortably manage the system requirements.

Not everyone has a computer capable of handling large maps with the all the troops and terrain at a quality where the game would be enjoyable.

Battlefront is a business and I presume they craft the requirements in as much of a balance as is possible to ensure reaching as large an interested market as possible.

As I recall, originally the game was advertised as best played at Company level.

Zulu1966

Quote from: z1812 on February 21, 2021, 11:13:26 AM
Whether you are talking about map size in regards to engagement or maneuver, you must remember that a person's computer has to be able to comfortably manage the system requirements.

Not everyone has a computer capable of handling large maps with the all the troops and terrain at a quality where the game would be enjoyable.

Battlefront is a business and I presume they craft the requirements in as much of a balance as is possible to ensure reaching as large an interested market as possible.

As I recall, originally the game was advertised as best played at Company level.

Yeah - and I think this is partly the point. Company level and 16KM squared seems room for manoeuvre at that scale - try to put a battalion in there and yes the maps are a limit - guess that is down to scenario makers. In any event - not saying it wouldn't be good to have much larger maps - just saying in Germany I dont think it makes a difference given the right force size. Not much interested in the NTC stuff myself.

Not sure if the maps limit is a hardcoded one on one they have set to stop people trying. Seems a desert or terrain like NTC would have much less requirements given the sparseness of terrain - so could be done with those. Not sure the coding that good to allow memory measurement.
"you are the rule maker, the dictator, the mini- Stalin, Mao, Hitler, the emperor, generalissimo, the MAN. You may talk the talk and appear to be quite easy going to foster popularity, but to the MAN I say F*CK YOU." And Steve G is F******g rude ? Just another day on the BF forum ... one demented idiots reaction to BF disagreeing about the thickness of the armour on a Tiger II turret mantlet.

Apocalypse 31

QuoteAs I recall, originally the game was advertised as best played at Company level.

And what is the typical size of an armored company area of operations?

Hint - Bigger than a Combat Mission map can run within reason (without a super computer).

To caveat your statement - the game was designed WW2 combat, focused on light infantry engagements with some armor support.

z1812

Quote from: Apocalypse 31 on February 21, 2021, 12:54:16 PM
QuoteAs I recall, originally the game was advertised as best played at Company level.

And what is the typical size of an armored company area of operations?

Hint - Bigger than a Combat Mission map can run within reason (without a super computer).

To caveat your statement - the game was designed WW2 combat, focused on light infantry engagements with some armor support.

So bearing in mind the difficulty of keeping the game in the realm of possibility for a reasonable spectrum of customers with different computer specs, what do you suggest?

Father Ted

I also wonder how manageable and enjoyable CM would become with much larger maps.  As Apocalypse points out, the game-system started out as a way of depicting WW2 tactical encounters.  I think it does a great job at that, but maybe getting more modern is pushing its envelope too far.

Battlefront obviously have to keep developing and selling new products, and going forward in time seems logical, but will it necessarily make for a good gaming experience?

Someone above joked (?) about a WW1 game, and I think there is scope for a tactical treatment of early WW1 stuff and also even the later trench fighting.

Gusington

^I can only pray that you are correct, Father.


слава Україна!

We can't live under the threat of a c*nt because he's threatening nuclear Armageddon.

-JudgeDredd

Staggerwing

Quote from: Father Ted on February 21, 2021, 02:09:00 PM
I also wonder how manageable and enjoyable CM would become with much larger maps.  As Apocalypse points out, the game-system started out as a way of depicting WW2 tactical encounters.  I think it does a great job at that, but maybe getting more modern is pushing its envelope too far.

Battlefront obviously have to keep developing and selling new products, and going forward in time seems logical, but will it necessarily make for a good gaming experience?

Someone above joked (?) about a WW1 game, and I think there is scope for a tactical treatment of early WW1 stuff and also even the later trench fighting.

Can a WW1-themed scenario be created in any of the current CM modules? It's been so long since I played my copy of CM:BfN I can't remember how customizable the unit load outs were. I don't even know if I have the install file anymore since I've changed my computer since last I played.

If the editor allows simulating trenches (maybe by raising the terrain on either side?) and there are options for barbwire and lots of shell holes you could do an 'over the top' scenario using only troops w/ bolt action rifles. The only issue would be how to decrease the ROF of the WW2 MGs to simulate the ones of WW1 types such as the Maxim.

The original terrain editor w/ CB:AK was good enough for making steep, hilly maps so maybe CM2 might allow for creating scenarios, set in Italy and even the Balkans along the Adriatic, such as depicting Rommel's WW1 exploits as a unit commander in the Alpenkorps.
Vituð ér enn - eða hvat?  -Voluspa

Nothing really rocks and nothing really rolls and nothing's ever worth the cost...

"Don't you look at me that way..." -the Abyss
 
'When searching for a meaningful embrace, sometimes my self respect took second place' -Iggy Pop, Cry for Love

... this will go down on your permanent record... -the Violent Femmes, 'Kiss Off'-

"I'm not just anyone, I'm not just anyone-
I got my time machine, got my 'electronic dream!"
-Sonic Reducer, -Dead Boys

Father Ted

Quote from: Staggerwing on February 21, 2021, 02:46:51 PM

If the editor allows simulating trenches (maybe by raising the terrain on either side?)

Visually I think that still won't work - you can place trench objects, but the models are only 2d.  Using the editor to "dig" a 3d trench would mean that such a feature is a tile's width (40m?) wide I think.