GrogHeads Forum

Theres plenty more to come, but for graphics whores - damage decals are here at last

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=330&Itemid=567

Too bad, no news on removing their DRM!  :(

Is it just me or do does the fire from the flamethrower look like it's straight out of CM1?

ish.......... it might just be a bad angle, shot

I saw Guards units for the Russkies but no Waffen SS for the Germans. Also no minor nation units. :-\

Fire and tank riders. A step in the right direction. I wonder if this will give rise to an upgrade for CMFI, and CMBN? :)

Quote from: Sir Slash on January 30, 2014, 07:28:35 PM
I saw Guards units for the Russkies but no Waffen SS for the Germans. Also no minor nation units. :-\

modules...$cha-ching$

Quote from: Boggit on January 30, 2014, 07:47:49 PM
Fire and tank riders. A step in the right direction. I wonder if this will give rise to an upgrade for CMFI, and CMBN? :)

I assume it will.

Many goodies to like in there - and some stuff long on the want list of the fanbase. I do hope they get flame weapons in CMBN soon, as they are sorely needed (flame vehicles would be great, too, particularly for the Market Garden timeframe). I'm almost positive they have said this will happen.

As for stuff not in the announcement, I hope they will get around to improving the terrain editor sooner rather than later. The screenshots reveal the same stepping-stone roads, inability to do a 30-degree angle (just 90 and 45 degrees), and my biggest complaint, the fact that water can only exist at one contour level throughout an entire map. Makes no sense - water courses travel downhill - that's what a river or stream is. Water changing elevation.

Otherwise, I've preordered and will look forward to this.

Quote from: Boggit on January 30, 2014, 07:47:49 PM
Fire and tank riders. A step in the right direction. I wonder if this will give rise to an upgrade for CMFI, and CMBN? :)

I'm sure they'll be happy to sell you more upgrades, isn't that their business model! ;D

Why they start at as late as '44?

Quote from: Tinkershuffle on January 31, 2014, 12:32:25 AM
Why they start at as late as '44?

Half the 3D models are already built.

(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnooooooooooooooo.com%2Fvader.jpg&hash=20f1b9f1bf74d38e2f9b1081d01dbc280335d9f7)
already so many games on the HDD and ready to dl at Steam...
...but cant arse up  myself to fire one up for a longer session 

i am  kind of developted into a CM engine games 'collector' it seams  ::)  ....so i am looking forward to this new episode, even so i may not play it as much than i should.... but cant help it. i MUST have it!  its a Combat Mission title :-[

and i hope the 3.0 enhancements get ported to CM FI and CM BN too (well, there well be a fee for sure) 

what was the usual delay again between preorder and release ...6 weeks?     

Quote from: MikeGER on January 31, 2014, 04:10:17 AM

what was the usual delay again between preorder and release ...6 weeks?     

The key dates are tracked here:

http://tacticalwargamer.com/computergames/combatmission/combatmission.htm

I have pre-ordered.
CM is just a great franchise and while I haven't bought CMFI, I am sure I will enjoy the Eastern Front. :)

Looks like scenario designers are finally getting triggers to program the ai, this is gona be huge.

Well I am a CM addict as well

Just pre ordered even though I have barely even played Market Garden

Con

I purposely held-off buying Market-Garden so I wouldn't feel so bad about totally surrendering to this one. I'd buy an empty box if it had the Combat Mission logo on it.

Not excited until they improve tank vs. tank combat. I don't like what I read in the AAR's about how powerless defending tanks are and how the game seems to heavily favour the attacker. PC:O does a better job at handling armoured combat than what I see in the CMx2 AAR's.

a beta AAR is just starting up on the forum one from the Russian side and one from the German

Quote from: undercovergeek on February 01, 2014, 06:02:57 AM
a beta AAR is just starting up on the forum one from the Russian side and one from the German

For those who want the actual link:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=113383

This is Bil Hardenberger's thread, playing Soviet His opponent is John Costello, playing Soviet. I'd recommend reading the Soviet side, as the German player is not exactly gifted, he's just a guy from the beta tester pool who's been hanging around the forums for years. Bil though is also an old CM player who also posts regularly about history, tactics, etc. and IIRC has done some scenario design work in the past. I thought he also had a website where he discusses tactics which is quite good.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=113402

I see this is one of the "DAR" deals where they go through what they are doing in real time. John is currently posting about how he can't manage a decent screenshot. Interesting start.

I skipped over Market Garden, but this is looking like one I will need to pick up.  Not a huge fan of the Eastern Front, but do like some of the features they are introducing.  Hoping they do make these features available in the other lines, even if they are a few dollars.

{fanboy cap on}Can there ever be too much of a good thing? This announcement has put me way over into the 'yes' camp. Two ongoing pbems in CMFI and CMBN, two languishing campaigns of the same, one MG campaign in full swing, and now out of the blue a pbem request by a half forgotten opponent from CMBB days for a Red Thunder match. Interesting times for the CM franchise, yet where to find the time to play and savor all this goodness??? Hmm, I will have a couple months to clear the plate....{/fanboy cap off}

I was very surprised by the included feature list of Red Thunder and the ver. 3 engine, and it seems many others have been as well judging by the flurry of activity the announcement generated. Either that or there is a pent up demand for some East Front action finally that has been unfulfilled since CMBB. Dunno, but it seems BFC has made a point of addressing many of the issues raised by fans (and critics) with the series and packing them in with the upgrade. The return of the C&C links will definitely be helpful and I am very happy to see the inclusion of AI Triggers to the game. On second thought, thinking what PaperTiger will do with that makes me slightly nervous. :) A bit of eye candy with the new hit decals doesn't hurt either. I look forward to seeing these features backported to CMBN/CMFI as well.

Not preordering though as the S&H is atrocious, digital download is the norm for me nowadays.

Quote from: ComradeP on February 01, 2014, 02:53:46 AM
Not excited until they improve tank vs. tank combat. I don't like what I read in the AAR's about how powerless defending tanks are and how the game seems to heavily favour the attacker. PC:O does a better job at handling armoured combat than what I see in the CMx2 AAR's.

Agree to disagree with your assessment of tank combat, especially with the reference to PCO. I think PCO had an opportunity to truly shine as a platoon/company level command game to distinguish itself from CMBB, but fumbled and dropped the ball with its muddled design imo.

You had mentioned previously you only saw ME type battles in the AARs, well there is an Attack battle beta-AAR being started for Red Thunder. Obviously the players are going to focus on highlighting some of the new kit and features, but you'll get the idea.

QuoteAgree to disagree with your assessment of tank combat, especially with the reference to PCO. I think PCO had an opportunity to truly shine as a platoon/company level command game to distinguish itself from CMBB, but fumbled and dropped the ball with its muddled design imo.

You had mentioned previously you only saw ME type battles in the AARs, well there is an Attack battle beta-AAR being started for Red Thunder. Obviously the players are going to focus on highlighting some of the new kit and features, but you'll get the idea.

Well, PC:O has its arcadey elements where the design direction wasn't entirely clear, but it highlights the advantages of a properly positioned defending force. None of the CMx2 AAR's I've read have the defending force's armour perform nearly as well as what would happen in PC:O or presumably in a historical engagement. You see that differently, which is fine, like you said: agree to disagree, I can only comment on what the AAR's show me and I'm not as impressed by the engine as you are.

Hardenberger's comments on tactics are interesting and his AAR's are quite good, but he's also the guy who uses combat replay to precisely pinpoint where shots came from and uses recon units without realistic means of communicating with the rest of the on-map force to move his units precisely where he would get the most advantage out of them (which seems to be a standard tactic, which is sort of weird: the players who wanted realism were happy to see Borg spotting go, but now they're using a mechanic that's nearly as ahistorical).

Now, that is of course also a sign of great skill, but it just ruins most of the immersion for me and it highlights how much the defender can be screwed due to the advantages given to the attacker in the engine. Considering that, like in the AAR with the Ferdinand/Elefant for CMBI/GL, his opponent is less skilled than him it seems, I'm guessing it will be another clear case of him mopping the floor with the opposition. I'm not really sure why they didn't select an equally skilled veteran to play against him for the AAR's.

As a cmsf 2 beta tester we've just been given sneaky access to red thunder.... I'll run a few things through a scenario and see what it's like

how did you get on the CMSF beta testing gig?

I would be very interested in that however my time commitments with work and the kids at home are ramping up so if they are looking from semi pro testers I dont think I could provide that level of input.

I am sure you already know to be careful of comments on unreleased games.  These types of discussions can fly out of control so quickly especially when it comes to a franchise like Combat Mission

Con 

Quote from: undercovergeek on February 01, 2014, 12:04:49 PM
As a cmsf 2 beta tester...

What what WHAT? I didn't even know this was in the works!!!

Quote from: Jarhead0331 on February 01, 2014, 12:54:06 PM

Quote from: undercovergeek on February 01, 2014, 12:04:49 PM
As a cmsf 2 beta tester...

What what WHAT? I didn't even know this was in the works!!!

Yes - it relates to a NATO conflict with Russia presumably in the Ukraine.

What with them choosing syria for the first and now Ukraine looking like its going to blow up - BF are in danger of having to be careful where they locate any of their modern games in future.

Quote from: Grim.Reaper on February 01, 2014, 08:25:11 AM
Not a huge fan of the Eastern Front, but do like some of the features they are introducing. 

theres no front like Ostfront!  its where the real wargames happen.  8)

Eastern Front is the most interesting to me, so this will be my first CM game. Ever!

Gus! You're a CM Virgin? Hard to believe. Everyone needs to watch at least once as the AI MG's mow-down your helpless infantry or as a herd of your Shermans are taken-out by a hidden AT gun shooting at them from somewhere in Kansas. That's REAL gaming Man. My fav scenario was the original CMBO- the Wittman scenario where he takes on the whole 7th Armored Div. single-handedly. And I see the CM Scenario depository has the very same scenario available now for download. Gotta get it.

Quote from: Gusington on February 01, 2014, 02:21:39 PM
Eastern Front is the most interesting to me, so this will be my first CM game. Ever!

I thought you said the East Front held no interest for you?

Did they ever tone down the death of tank commanders? It seems the tank command dies 85-95% on the first hit of any (buttoned/unbuttoned) tank.

The only thing I ever recall reading about this was early on in the Easter Front, where most Soviet tanks (1 in 200), didn't have radios so group tank commanders had to standup and wave flags & use had signals to direct other tanks. When you stand up in a T-26, T-70, T-60, etc. over half of your body is exposed! Needless to say this provided one a hell of a target.

I just don't see this happening a lot on German tanks (PZIV, Tiger, etc) where just the top of head of the commander is exposed, just look at the size of the cupola on those tanks.

Not me Star. The Eastern Front is the most interesting to me, WWI and WWII. And the Russian Revolution and Civil War. Must be my Ashkenazi blood!

I'll preface this by saying that I haven't played CM since CMBB but I played a metric ton of the first two and was one of the first 200 people on the original Battlefront board (in case you think I just play sports games).  But this iteration may bring me back.  I love the looks of it and the AAR has me in it's grip already.  I may even splurge and pick up the CMBN bundle.  DRM be damned, I'm excited about this.

Quote from: Grim.Reaper on February 01, 2014, 08:25:11 AM
I skipped over Market Garden, but this is looking like one I will need to pick up.  Not a huge fan of the Eastern Front, but do like some of the features they are introducing.  Hoping they do make these features available in the other lines, even if they are a few dollars.

  Me too.  I mean skipping MArket Garden and so on.  I'm not much of an East Front fan, but I do think there haven't been very many good East Front games lately, particularly for summer 1944.

   Anyway, I'll be playing this Red Thunder thing as much as I possibly can.

 

Quote from: Jarhead0331 on February 01, 2014, 12:54:06 PM

Quote from: undercovergeek on February 01, 2014, 12:04:49 PM
As a cmsf 2 beta tester...

What what WHAT? I didn't even know this was in the works!!!

seriously? i thought you would have been all over it

Quote from: ComradeP on February 01, 2014, 11:00:51 AM

Well, PC:O has its arcadey elements where the design direction wasn't entirely clear, but it highlights the advantages of a properly positioned defending force. None of the CMx2 AAR's I've read have the defending force's armour perform nearly as well as what would happen in PC:O or presumably in a historical engagement. You see that differently, which is fine, like you said: agree to disagree, I can only comment on what the AAR's show me and I'm not as impressed by the engine as you are.

Yes quite, I'm not getting these sweeping generalizations from you which seem to be based on limited readings of CM AARs and not having played the game. I'm not sure either exactly what your expectations are re armour combat. As I said elsewhere CM is a serious simulation of tactical combat; it is physic's based, not arranged around a set of dice rolls, but it is still a game. It's basis is backed by real world military tactics and principles, including the people who 'know', as well as never ending peer review. It is a little more involved than an arbitrary advantage to a defending force.

Here is a link to another of Bil Hardenberger's AARs - Wittman's Demise. You can see initially how the defending Allied armour has the advantage over the attacking Axis armour and strikes some telling blows. A couple things flow from that first clash to turn the table on the initial Allied advantage - Axis flexibility based on intel analysis and the inability of the Allied side to respond to changing circumstances. The shaping battle and outcome seem very realistic to me. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=110128 (http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=110128)

Quote from: ComradeP on February 01, 2014, 11:00:51 AM
Hardenberger's comments on tactics are interesting and his AAR's are quite good, but he's also the guy who uses combat replay to precisely pinpoint where shots came from and uses recon units without realistic means of communicating with the rest of the on-map force to move his units precisely where he would get the most advantage out of them (which seems to be a standard tactic, which is sort of weird: the players who wanted realism were happy to see Borg spotting go, but now they're using a mechanic that's nearly as ahistorical).

Again I'm not sure I follow your example and how it relates to CM at all. No information is shared with other on-map units unless there is a valid C2 link, ie radio, visual or sound. If you are talking overall God-view, then that is not a CM problem. It happens in every game. There have been suggestions at house rules to limit what the player can realistically see, but that is pretty hardcore. I would not play like that, but there is nothing restricting a player from doing so, except maybe finding other like minded players! :) Because the player is wearing all hats then the overall command flexibility (battalion level) is much too generous. It is something CM has never attempted to model, though there have been many calls for some form over the years. It is why I said earlier PCO could have had a niche to fill with a more command type game. Another scale, but Command Ops attempts to model this on the surface, though there still, there is nothing preventing the player from circumventing it at the lower levels. We are playing games after all. <shrug>

Although I like the new features that are being added, I find it disappointing, that no one on the Battlefront forums even asks if they are any changes to their god awful DRM. :(

QuoteI'm not getting these sweeping generalizations from you which seem to be based on limited readings of CM AARs and not having played the game.

The impressions of any future customer can only be based on what he can find out about the game on the internet, from a demo or from people he knows. None of the AAR's I've read over at Battlefront, and I believe I've read all of the recent ones for both Normandy and Italy show anything that would change my views. It's quite possible that the problems I see are much less of a problem in the actual game and that the AAR's are not representative because they show uncommon situations. However, as stated before I can only base my judgment on those AAR's for the moment.

QuoteIf you are talking overall God-view, then that is not a CM problem. It happens in every game.

"It happens in every game" is not a good reason why it has to apply to CM. In a tactical level game, such a problem can become much more severe than in more operational or strategic level games and in my opinion it ruins a large part of the immersion and historical accuracy, together with the high casualties that are also present in virtually wargames.

Maybe I should put it differently: based on what I read in AAR's, I'm not excited about the game and I get the impression that there are parts of the tank vs. tank combat system that I don't think I'll like. It could be that the opinion is incorrect, but that is what the AAR's show me.

Quote from: SgtRock on February 02, 2014, 10:50:10 AM
Although I like the new features that are being added, I find it disappointing, that no one on the Battlefront forums even asks if they are any changes to their god awful DRM. :(

i think for those that are fans of the game they dont care, for those that arent - they complain about the DRM

Quote from: undercovergeek on February 02, 2014, 11:02:46 AM

Quote from: SgtRock on February 02, 2014, 10:50:10 AM
Although I like the new features that are being added, I find it disappointing, that no one on the Battlefront forums even asks if they are any changes to their god awful DRM. :(

i think for those that are fans of the game they dont care, for those that arent - they complain about the DRM

And I think it is pretty safe to say they have no plans to change it...if they did, I am sure that would be part of the news.

Here is my take on it

DRM is an operational choice.  It does for the most part not impact gameplay and the features of this title thus is not relevant to a discussion on merits of this game versus others of the genre.

I am not saying that DRM does not play a role in whether the individual wishes to purchase the game or not but in terms of impact it is already baked into the choice upfront.  Its like taxes.  For the most part its not going to change and the merits and problems of DRM are out of scope since it is a known quantity.

Con

Quote from: Con on February 01, 2014, 12:47:00 PM
how did you get on the CMSF beta testing gig?

they asked me a while back for CMFI and just stayed with it

Quote from: SgtRock on February 02, 2014, 10:50:10 AM
Although I like the new features that are being added, I find it disappointing, that no one on the Battlefront forums even asks if they are any changes to their god awful DRM. :(

Well, maybe thats because no one cares ?

Never had any issues with the DRM in 7 years of buying from them, so not sure what you percieve as so god awful.

If it the idea of their DRM you dont like rather than the reality of it - then thats a different question.

Quote from: ComradeP on February 02, 2014, 11:01:39 AM

Maybe I should put it differently: based on what I read in AAR's, I'm not excited about the game and I get the impression that there are parts of the tank vs. tank combat system that I don't think I'll like. It could be that the opinion is incorrect, but that is what the AAR's show me.

  Well, as a fanboi(sp?) or apologist for the system, I suppose I should explain myself (if nothing else).  CMBB was an astounding game and it was only maybe one tenth as well-constructed as CMBN or CMFI or this Red thunder thing (CMRT?).  I can recall some games in the CMBB system in the dawn lighting that looked really amazing and the later iterations of the system are even more visually interesting.  I have played many versions of the game system and I don't recall any tank vs tank battles that seemed implausible.  I can recall a few in CMSF long ago, where I was surprised to have my tanks knocked out at long ranges, but that was years ago and in battles of a different stripe than East Front Summer 1944.
   I haven't seen how CMRT deals with tanks, but it probably isn't too different from how CMBN deals with tanks and I found that that game did a convincing job of dealing with tanks.

Well, the Wittmann's Demise AAR is somewhat atypical in the sense that both sides have tanks that can destroy the opponent's tanks at longer distances and that the map is fairly open. The "defender doesn't fire first" thing I saw was in other AAR's, for equipment that really needs to get the first shot in in order for the defence to be credible. What use is a tank in an ambush position if it doesn't fire first, even though it's waiting for the enemy to appear and the enemy doesn't know where the defending tank is until he drives into LoS?

The problem with what seems like a high chance of the defending tank not firing first is that, combined with being able to precisely spot where shots come from and using the LoS tool to check out potential killzones with close to 100% accuracy (which Hardenberger does in his AAR's) is that it's just very difficult for the defender to deal with.

Because the attacker has very good information on terrain, which he historically wouldn't have and because he can predict where the most effective defensive positions will be, you can't place your units there as the defender unless you want to give the attacker the initiative. The attacker tends to have more points to spend, which would normally be necessary to deal with good defensive positions, but in this case the best defensive positions are essentially untenable even during setup because the attacker using LoS/field of fire tools can plan to go around them.

That's what ruins the immersion for me, the approach is way too scientific because you have much more information than you would historically have. You'd know where a certain hill or patch of trees is if your map is accurate, but you wouldn't know which portion of that hill or wooded area offers the best killzones or keyhole positions to hide vehicles or weapons in.

I disagree.  just about every account Ive read from a tank commanders point of view has them walking the terrain theyre going to be fighting on.  depending on the level of command theyll also have aerial photos or deep field panoramic photos.

Neither of those things would allow for anything remotely close to what LoS or field of fire tools allow you to do, they would only give you a rough estimate. That is: for the attacker, which is what I'm talking about. Of course the defender knows the killzones if he's been there.

The Luftwaffe didn't amount to much and the VVS wasn't as good at "hasty" recon missions as the Western Allies.

Besides, even IF the commanders of each individual squad would somehow have had access to recon photo's instead of just the battalion and company commanders (at best), they would be black and white photo's without a precise indication of terrain height and which wouldn't be useful for determining what defensive positions would work in a forest.

It's one of those typical wargame things: weapons are frequently modelled in detail, but logistics, recon and C&C are often significantly simplified. I'm still waiting for a game with truly realistic FoW, logistics and order delays combined with a realistic movement and combat system.

Quote from: ComradeP on February 02, 2014, 01:47:30 PM
Neither of those things would allow for anything remotely close to what LoS or field of fire tools allow you to do, they would only give you a rough estimate. That is: for the attacker, which is what I'm talking about. Of course the defender knows the killzones if he's been there.

The Luftwaffe didn't amount to much and the VVS wasn't as good at "hasty" recon missions as the Western Allies.

Besides, even IF the commanders of each individual squad would somehow have had access to recon photo's instead of just the battalion and company commanders (at best), they would be black and white photo's without a precise indication of terrain height and which wouldn't be useful for determining what defensive positions would work in a forest.

It's one of those typical wargame things: weapons are frequently modelled in detail, but logistics, recon and C&C are often significantly simplified. I'm still waiting for a game with truly realistic FoW, logistics and order delays combined with a realistic movement and combat system.

That would be nice, though on a tactical scale, the player might have to spend hours of confusion and never be quite sure what happened.  I would love a game such as you describe, but on a more operational level.  But that's just me.

Anyway, if you play CMBN or CMFI or (probably) CMRT in real time mode rather than WEGO, I think a lot of those Bill Hardenburgian twitchy things go away.  I've played CMxx in real time for the last seven years or so and RT is a different game in many ways.

Quote from: ComradeP on February 02, 2014, 01:47:30 PM
It's one of those typical wargame things: weapons are frequently modelled in detail, but logistics, recon and C&C are often significantly simplified. I'm still waiting for a game with truly realistic FoW, logistics and order delays combined with a realistic movement and combat system.

This plus your earlier comments suggests your *desire* for a wargame is best served by joining up, either that or make your own game to these ivory tower standards. :) Personally, I think it would be a commercial failure and very few would want to play. The real deal is hours of nothing punctuated by moments of terror. To state the obvious, games do well that highlight the moments of terror. Things happen at a faster rate and are considerably bloodier in CM because it is a game, highly realistic but still a game. Your preference again is to dismiss the forest for the odd tree.

I started in this hobby over forty years ago. Like many others the Holy Grail in tactical gaming was Squad Leader. Then came ASL and so did the ultra realism; it seemed for every rule and errata to make the game more realistic, the fun factor quotient was correspondingly reduced. Computers removed the tedium of rules keeping and technology graphically is getting to the point of truly 'what you see is what you get' - great for immersion and fun. That's why the original CM was such a hit and the franchise continues to this day. In the end we are playing games to have fun. If it isn't fun then move on to something that is.

I can't think of any other company (Battlefront) or game series (Combat Mission) that creates more passionate posts expressing either extreme praise or a deep disliking, with very little in between.

Quote from: Zulu1966 on February 02, 2014, 12:52:42 PM

Quote from: SgtRock on February 02, 2014, 10:50:10 AM
Although I like the new features that are being added, I find it disappointing, that no one on the Battlefront forums even asks if they are any changes to their god awful DRM. :(

Well, maybe thats because no one cares ?

Never had any issues with the DRM in 7 years of buying from them, so not sure what you percieve as so god awful.

If it the idea of their DRM you dont like rather than the reality of it - then thats a different question.

You must not upgrade your hardware much. I'll say one thing Battlefront's support team answers tickets quickly, even on the weekend. Not like DCS, another bad DRM shop.

Quote from: ComradeP on February 01, 2014, 11:00:51 AM
Now, that is of course also a sign of great skill, but it just ruins most of the immersion for me and it highlights how much the defender can be screwed due to the advantages given to the attacker in the engine. Considering that, like in the AAR with the Ferdinand/Elefant for CMBI/GL, his opponent is less skilled than him it seems, I'm guessing it will be another clear case of him mopping the floor with the opposition. I'm not really sure why they didn't select an equally skilled veteran to play against him for the AAR's.

I'm not sure there are a lot of skilled players left among the beta testers - bear in mind the "beta test" team also included the "scenario design" team, or at least that was how things were set up when I was involved in the CMSF beta test. Scenario design is very laborious, so the scenario designers - and there are some skilled map makers and scenario designers among the volunteer staff - probably spend a lot of time building maps and now, learning the new trigger system, etc. The lack of time compression and testing tools means that playing time during testing is very often spent in testing AI plans. Not sure how much time is left at actually getting "good" at the game. It was never my own focus, couldn't speak for others. Thought it was more important to find and report bugs, when I wasn't making maps and designing scenarios.

The new game engine seems to have caused a shift in the community away from competitive play in any event. There is probably a number of reasons for this. The game itself is more "realistic" - CMX1 looked like a cartoon, the games were shorter with scenarios averaging 30 turns (minutes) with a 60 turn game being unusually long. Most games now are at least 1.5 hours as far as turn length with a 2 hour quick battle being I believe the standard?

I believe there are a couple of ladders out there, but nothing like we saw in the days of CMX1. Which isn't a bad thing, just highlights the shift in emphasis in the game - which was deliberate. The 1:1 representation, individual weapon ballistics, etc. was intended to make a more realistic game and so I don't think there is any heartbreak among the developers that there may be fewer point-purchase round robin tournaments using their product.

The "scoring" system of the two game engines also makes it harder to track such things. CMX1 "ladder players" (which can certainly be used as a pejorative in certain instances) could take their game scores, which were also given as percentages out of 100, and compare against others. The new, more flexible victory conditions make it more difficult to make direct comparisons, though the same levels of victory still exist - no matter how differently they are calculated in each game.

QuoteYour preference again is to dismiss the forest for the odd tree.

It's becoming somewhat annoying that you can't accept that I have an opinion that is different from yours, and that you continue to imply that it is somehow all due to my perception of wargames, as if I'm some rookie with strong opinions without having played wargames. You feel the (potential) flaws I see don't exist, or are not all that important. That's fine, but you should accept that I don't rate CMx2 as highly as you and probably never will in its current form. It might all come down to a matter of preference.

QuoteComputers removed the tedium of rules keeping and technology graphically is getting to the point of truly 'what you see is what you get' - great for immersion and fun.

Actually, this is one of the points where I feel some wargame designers didn't take advantage of what computers have to offer: instead of using the computer's calculating power for a more realistic and complex combat system, traditional CRT's are still in use as well as boardgame style die roll or percentage based systems. Something like a more detailed logistics system is also perfectly within the capabilities of a computer. However, as wargame development teams tend to be small teams with limited funds, unless the programmer's very skilled and has a lot of spare time/is working full time as a programmer it won't happen.

QuoteI can't think of any other company (Battlefront) or game series (Combat Mission) that creates more passionate posts expressing either extreme praise or a deep disliking, with very little in between.

This was also the conclusion of the previous topic, where Zonso also immediately jumped in to defend the game against what he saw were my attacks against it, even though I'm just expressing an opinion.

Quote from: ComradeP on February 01, 2014, 11:00:51 AM
Hardenberger's comments on tactics are interesting and his AAR's are quite good, but he's also the guy who uses combat replay to precisely pinpoint where shots came from and uses recon units without realistic means of communicating with the rest of the on-map force to move his units precisely where he would get the most advantage out of them (which seems to be a standard tactic, which is sort of weird: the players who wanted realism were happy to see Borg spotting go, but now they're using a mechanic that's nearly as ahistorical).

There's probably 17 pages long thread about this statement on BF forums already.

So CommradeP you put up all these lengthy walls of text replies about a game you don't own and you are studying AARs to see if the game is to your liking.  With all the time you wasted you could have bought the game and played through all the campaigns already.  It's crazy to me, if I was that interested in a game to spend all this time posting or reading AARs I'd have bought it already.

You call these wall of text replies? Times have changed I guess.

I'm interested in the AAR's, in how people play the game, because I enjoy reading about the tactics used by other wargamers. I might not be inclined to purchase the game the AAR is for, but that doesn't mean I have no reason to read the AAR's. If they're well-written, they can be both educational and entertaining.

For me, reading a good AAR is like what walking into a store or to a booth at a convention and seeing people play a boardgame is for tabletop wargamers.

True, but why read other peoples when you could use your own first hand.

Quote from: Skoop on February 03, 2014, 02:17:03 PM
True, but why read other peoples when you could use your own first hand.

Because he used the AAR''s to make up his mind without having to spend the cash. That's actually not a weird position now, is it? ;)

No, I guess it's not weird, but it seems like he's on a quest that keeps taking him back to CM after multiple AARs.  Dude buy the game already, RT seems like as good a starting point as any.

Quote from: ComradeP on February 03, 2014, 02:14:44 PM
For me, reading a good AAR

Do you know of many? I keep stumbling on these strange things called "DARs" which almost seem engineered to highlight pretty screenshots and poor play.

Those that remember the 'classic" wargame magazines from the golden age may recall a time when "Series Replays" were hand-picked. They found two people who were - as noted above - veterans of a game system, found a neutral commentator (usually a developer), and then reported on a move-by-move game which had several key facets. It had points of high drama or tension; the end result was usually in doubt (unlike yesterday's Super Bowl); and the reader could learn about the game system via the informed commentary, either by the players (who were expert strategists) or the commentator (who could point out how the "expert strategists" failed to properly execute game mechanics, applied the rules poorly, or flat-out botched things. If such a trio of experts didn't finish a game, it didn't get published. If it resulted in a lacklustre product, they likewise had the option of not providing it for public consumption, and by all accounts, this is what happened.

Not every one was a gem, and some of the Series Replays in The General were rushed into print to highlight a new game, but even some of these were more entertaining than the worst of the online AAR/DAR one may find now. Everyone and his blog seem to be producing them - I've done it too. Some are produced purely for entertainment purposes - I would never dream of telling someone else how to enjoy this hobby. But I would suggest that trying to learn about the game by reading AARs, and thinking it preferable to playing the game (particularly when demos are available), is a unique take on things.

Quote from: ComradeP on February 03, 2014, 02:14:44 PM
I'm interested in the AAR's, in how people play the game, because I enjoy reading about the tactics used by other wargamers. I might not be inclined to purchase the game the AAR is for, but that doesn't mean I have no reason to read the AAR's. If they're well-written, they can be both educational and entertaining.

For me, reading a good AAR is like what walking into a store or to a booth at a convention and seeing people play a boardgame is for tabletop wargamers.

You may like, dislike or feel indifferent as you see fit. (I don't like strawberries and bananas and many people do) What occurred to me reading this thread, and particularly the highlighted part of the above quote, was that a free demo is available for both CMBN and CMFI. Certainly a lot can be learned from the public AARs (that' why we do them) but nothing can show you if you enjoy it or what you can do with the engine better than taking it for a spin. A poster above suggested that you buy it to try it. You don't even have to do that. Off the top of my head I think there are at least 6 scenarios on both demos combined. Heck, I'd imagine it takes even less time than reading the AARs. You might still think that it isn't your thing after that but I bet you'd have a better feel for what you like or don't like afterwards.

My 2 cents......and I know 2 cents ain't worth much these days.

Elvis...? Is that really you!?! OMG :o All these years they lied to us! The fans needed you, man, we really needed you...

I have your Blue Suede Shoes in a safe place man. And welcome to Grogs by the way. ;)

Quote from: ComradeP on February 02, 2014, 01:47:30 PM
It's one of those typical wargame things: weapons are frequently modelled in detail, but logistics, recon and C&C are often significantly simplified. I'm still waiting for a game with truly realistic FoW, logistics and order delays combined with a realistic movement and combat system.

Well, one can try to deliver  :)

Regarding CMx2 I see that we don't agree. Stationary tanks will most frequently spot (and fire) first, and that was true even with the bugs in the spotting model of CMx2 recently uncovered. The biggest problem is that scenario designers tended to make maps way too small - due to hardware limitations concerns I think - so engaging armour below 500 meters was way too common. Psychological - morale - and physiological - fatigue - models are very well done, in my opinion. Defensive works are subject to FOW, but of course, there can be so many places it makes sense to setup an anti-tank gun or machine gun position as the terrain allows.

Of course, what BFC has now on the table is very different between from what it put on the table on May 2011.

There's a difference between an engine which has people actively working on it, and an engine which hasn't. PCO had the potential, but there wasn't the horsepower to get it across the touch down line. CMx2 had the potential, and with an, at times, erratic progression is truly getting to places. And before anybody mentions Graviteam Tactics engine: recently I had a discussion with the Ukranian counterpart to Steve, and I was appalled to learn that he thought that programming an AI which was aware of tactics, doctrine and limitations in training and command & control as 'useless' or 'fanciful'. Graviteam Tactics got through that line a long time ago w.r.t. to physics and graphics, but fails quite miserably elsewhere.

QuoteAnd before anybody mentions Graviteam Tactics engine: recently I had a discussion with the Ukranian counterpart to Steve, and I was appalled to learn that he thought that programming an AI which was aware of tactics, doctrine and limitations in training and command & control as 'useless' or 'fanciful'. Graviteam Tactics got through that line a long time ago w.r.t. to physics and graphics, but fails quite miserably elsewhere.

You misunderstood what he said or failed to understand for the same obvious reasons.

He(Andrey) stated countless times that Graviteam or any other company for that matter neither has the resources to produce an AI that acts like a human brain and most people do not have a PC capable of acting in this manner and capacity either.

When BFC cracks that nut I'll be more than happy to take another look at Combat Mission.

The AI in CM is no better than APOS/GTOS and the same last decade graphics doesn't help that game much either.
CM is a no buy for me.
It offers nothing either in quality and gaming enjoyment I couldn't get from Graviteam at a much cheaper price.

You obviously don't play the game (APO/GTOS)and if you do it's not the fully patched and updated version and comparing CM East front to a Graviteam product is pretty much ridiculous since you have no understanding of the game you are trying to compare.

When you have put some time and effort into really understanding the game you profess to know so much about maybe one day you could persuade me.
Until then don't count on it.

Quote from: Bletchley_Geek on February 03, 2014, 07:55:37 PM
There's a difference between an engine which has people actively working on it, and an engine which hasn't. PCO had the potential, but there wasn't the horsepower to get it across the touch down line. CMx2 had the potential, and with an, at times, erratic progression is truly getting to places.

This is an accurate summation. PC:O has a development team still working on it, namely fellows like Steve Overton and Steven Lorenz, the latter being the fellow who wrote Panzer War, the miniatures rules on which Panzer Command is based. For some reason I seem to think that Panzer Command had to switch coders midstream? And may even now not even have anyone in the development stream who is capable of doing the actual computer coding? I stand to be corrected. I admit to not following the situation too closely.

The link below seems to suggest that David Heath, the CEO, had something to do with the decision to go forward with the Panzer Command series - or not:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3307940

Steven says:

"To get another (game in the series) they will have to bring back David Heath. Like they did Steve Jobs. "

Not sure if that means he was an active coder also, or if the decision was based on other factors.

Indeed, by "horsepower" I referred to "coders". My understanding is that PC:O was/is very strong at the design level - i.e. the "drivers" - but the development was hamstrung for unknown reasons. Some weird kind of outsourcing, perhaps.

Quote
The link below seems to suggest that David Heath, the CEO, had something to do with the decision to go forward with the Panzer Command series - or not:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3307940

Steven says:

"To get another (game in the series) they will have to bring back David Heath. Like they did Steve Jobs. "

Which means it ain't going happen any time soon.

On a more serious note, I'd like to share some thoughts that some of the readers here might find interesting.

I've been thinking for quite some time about the following problem: how to take Command Ops engine to the tactical level. From a technical standpoint, the engine is built in such a way that going either way - down to the tactical level or up to the regiment/division level - is feasible, yet would require a significant amount of development, but nothing beyond extending rather than re-writing, as the architecture of Command Ops gives an amazing degree of extensibility. In particular, going to the tactical level would specifically and most importantly require to replace the combat engine, so to handle individuals individually - sorry I can't find a better way to put this in English - rather than as aggregates, as well as replacing completely 'the looks' of the thing, using a stable cross-platform engine such as Unity Pro. That would allow to use the CmdOps engine as the back end and making it available on any platform we can find a compiler able to handle the code.

While this is totally feasible from a technical standpoint, and I'd totally like it to happen, there are a few things that detract me from considering seriously this project.

The problem is that CMx2 already exists, and it's already quite good. And it's definitely going to get better. This project - a tactical venturing of Command Ops - would have a head start in respect to AI and other details, but would have to start from scratch when it comes to have a good model of physics, adequate for the tactical level. And I can't help but observe that it took nine years to Charles Moylan - whom I consider a brilliant programmer - to go from the CMx1 models - PC:O models aren't so different from those of CMx1 - to the refined models one can enjoy - or suffer - in CMx2. And I also think that in ten years Charles - or his team if they manage to be able to support such a thing - can well improve CMx2 AI to bring it to the level of Command Ops.

The other thing that bothers me is how to differentiate such a project from Combat Mission. Making a 'modern-day' graphics CMBB is very unappealing to me. As a tech guy I feel one needs to push the envelope of the state-of-the-art. A business guy would probably laugh at me and just hire some artists to rework CMBB models and textures and replace the in-house OpenGL engine for UDK. If you're reading this, hypothetical business guy, I wonder what's holding your hand, really.

My guts tell me that one should go all the way in the direction that Adam Bryant wanted to take Take Command back in the day: to capture faithfully the complexity and interdependence of an army in the field, with a dash of what Stendahl's "Red & Black" captured so well regarding the fog of war. My interpretation of Bryant's vision - ambitious as it was - about "every time you fire up the thing you're confronted with a different situation" comes naturally from integrating the operational simulation already offered by Command Ops with this hypothetical layer. The trick would be to have the ability to serialize the execution of the simulation at the tactical level, and processing it so to translate those tactical outcomes into operational events (units retreat, take casualties, etc.) Now that would put something genuinely new on the table for real.

One could even go much further than anybody else has gone taking advantage of technologies such as Oculus Rift regarding to immersion. I tried yesterday Half-Life 2 with the Rift and even if the display was blurry and I got a bit sick, it was truly like stepping through a wormhole and arriving at the 23rd century or something. This may open the possibility to resolve in a more satisfying way the tension between gameplay and realistic limitations in command and control and 'terrain'-based fog of war. This would mean to avoid what Michael once called 'stepping into the uncanny valley', but while Michael was of the opinion it was an unsolvable conundrum I reckon there's hope. I'd personally also avoid entirely to skirt into the "simulation" thing that ArmA sells, which doesn't interest me at all, and would over-complicate things.

Last but not least important. Does it make sense to do this as a 'CMx2'-killer thing? No, that's ridiculous and doing so isn't a very positive attitude. It will result in alienation more often than not. To me it makes more sense to try to bring together some minds to look into the problem, rather than just one. As an engineer by training I am very averse to re-invent wheels, which I find has been a big problem in the game industry until the advent of engines such as the Unreal Engine and Unity, for instance.

Maybe this might warrant a thread on the Help Wanted section of these forums, but I wanted to illustrate how much of an achievement CMx2 already is, and how high it sets the bar (and not only that, the bar keeps moving higher and higher).

EDIT: Grammar, spelling and clarifying a few sentences. Being ESL sucks  :)

Quote from: ComradeP on February 03, 2014, 01:21:16 PM

It's becoming somewhat annoying that you can't accept that I have an opinion that is different from yours, and that you continue to imply that it is somehow all due to my perception of wargames, as if I'm some rookie with strong opinions without having played wargames. You feel the (potential) flaws I see don't exist, or are not all that important. That's fine, but you should accept that I don't rate CMx2 as highly as you and probably never will in its current form. It might all come down to a matter of preference.

Hey ComradeP, at the risk of continuing the back and forth, just let me say the opinion branch extends both ways. I simply think you are mistaken regarding the sophistication of CM and the armour modeling, and have pointed it out as have others.

Quote
Actually, this is one of the points where I feel some wargame designers didn't take advantage of what computers have to offer: instead of using the computer's calculating power for a more realistic and complex combat system, traditional CRT's are still in use as well as boardgame style die roll or percentage based systems. Something like a more detailed logistics system is also perfectly within the capabilities of a computer. However, as wargame development teams tend to be small teams with limited funds, unless the programmer's very skilled and has a lot of spare time/is working full time as a programmer it won't happen.

I agree, and this is what games like Combat Mission and Command Ops have been doing for years.

Interesting insights Bletchley_Geek. My feelings on Command Ops is it needs more dedicated people involved to get it over the hump and start rolling, as it seems to just putter along. I would love to see the game hit the Russian Front in a big way, same scale as currently as there is a lot of material available , both reference and game. One critique I have always had is that the game's presentation at this level is rather dull in both the visual and audio departments.

As I said earlier, I think there is a niche to be filled with a more command type tactical game. Whether there is a large enough market or would end up competing directly with CM and self destruct, I don't know. I think a safer bet would be going up in scale to division/corps level which would be something very new to the gaming world. A Victory Lost is a huge success in the boardgame world, so I don't see why the Command Ops engine couldn't be the same.

I have one thing to say.....

"meh - more WWII"  ;D

Quote from: JudgeDredd on February 04, 2014, 02:28:11 PM
I have one thing to say.....

"meh - more WWII"  ;D

  I have more than one thing to say.  I will pick just one (or two or three): an interesting game with an intense focus on an interesting period on the Eastern Front.  And yes it is WWII, but nearly any time and place can have an improved game with a stronger focus and be worth looking into.  If I had to randomly pick from a wish list, I would prefer something from around the Trojan War with a lot of micromanagement of shipping, but I take what I can get.

Quote from: JudgeDredd on February 04, 2014, 02:28:11 PM
I have one thing to say.....

"meh - more WWII"  ;D

Cmsf 2 for you

yes...I'll be buying again when they make Vietnam or Six Day War or Yom Kippur or Korea or Cold War or Gulf War...I'm just not interested in WWII in this engine.

Quote from: Zonso on February 04, 2014, 08:23:25 AM
Interesting insights Bletchley_Geek. My feelings on Command Ops is it needs more dedicated people involved to get it over the hump and start rolling, as it seems to just putter along. I would love to see the game hit the Russian Front in a big way, same scale as currently as there is a lot of material available , both reference and game.

I'm trying - take a look at the post I made on the Help Wanted section.

Quote from: Zonso
One critique I have always had is that the game's presentation at this level is rather dull in both the visual and audio departments.

Noted. But I won't comment further on this as this is a thread about Combat Mission and tactical wargames by extension.

Quote from: Zonso
As I said earlier, I think there is a niche to be filled with a more command type tactical game. Whether there is a large enough market or would end up competing directly with CM and self destruct, I don't know. I think a safer bet would be going up in scale to division/corps level which would be something very new to the gaming world. A Victory Lost is a huge success in the boardgame world, so I don't see why the Command Ops engine couldn't be the same.

There is a niche to be filled, indeed. The problem is that - to draw an analogy - getting into this niche it's not too different from opening a second front on Europe. You don't get that with a brigade of Canadians, who are going to be butchered no matter how tough and good they're, you need to send in the first wave several divisions (including a couple of Canadian divisions) :-)

Indeed, the problem is not one of feasibility, is of the whole thing being worth the effort.

Quote from: JudgeDredd
yes...I'll be buying again when they make Vietnam or Six Day War or Yom Kippur or Korea or Cold War or Gulf War...I'm just not interested in WWII in this engine.

To be honest, seeing how badly Combat Mission: Afghanistan did or the very lackluster performance of TOW 3 (which featured helicopters, HELICOPTERS!), getting into the Cold War would be extremely... risky. The case for the - let's say, lack of success - of the Afghanistan game is quite a foreboding example of the kind of problems such games can have attracting Western audiences. I can't help but think that a majority of peeps coming from US/Canada/Western Europe/OZ/NZ would have trouble connecting with the precursors of the Taliban and the Soviets in a barefaced invasion of an independent country.

I've also thought a lot about making a computer war game - mostly strategical with a tactical side - covering stuff such as the Cuban Revolution, which I find to be a very clear example of what Robert S. Leonhard called the "mechanics of defeat". But to be honest, to invest time in a project that will probably have a market size in the hundreds is totally uneconomical and crazy. Projects like that only become worth the effort in a "Print it Yourself" board-based wargame, at best. Or maybe getting completely divested from any historical trappings - something more serious halfway between Tropico and Jagged Alliance 2.

Quote from: Bletchley_Geek on February 04, 2014, 06:05:36 PM
- something more serious halfway between Tropico and Jagged Alliance 2.

Sign me up!

Quote from: Bletchley_Geek on February 04, 2014, 06:05:36 PM
To be honest, seeing how badly Combat Mission: Afghanistan did or the very lackluster performance of TOW 3 (which featured helicopters, HELICOPTERS!), getting into the Cold War would be extremely... risky. The case for the - let's say, lack of success - of the Afghanistan game is quite a foreboding example of the kind of problems such games can have attracting Western audiences.

Operation Flashpoint did extremely well, though. The problem with CM:A was that it was what was at that time a lackluster game engine coupled with a theatre of war that no one buying computer games could really relate to or have an interest in.

QuoteDo you know of many? I keep stumbling on these strange things called "DARs" which almost seem engineered to highlight pretty screenshots and poor play.

Clearly, not all AAR's are interesting. Many of my own AAR's are essentially just a quick overview of what the game looks like, with the situation on the map and a description of what happened. They're rarely blow-by-blow (as I mostly play larger scale wargames, this would also be quite time consuming, though potentially quite interesting in its own right).

QuoteBut I would suggest that trying to learn about the game by reading AARs, and thinking it preferable to playing the game (particularly when demos are available), is a unique take on things.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's preferable per se, but it's one of the ways to make up your mind. It's like what I advise people who want to take a course in something: find out what books you'd need to read, read one of them and see if it's your kind of thing before enrolling. Don't jump in blindfolded.

A demo works well too, but you're never really sure if it gives an accurate impression (as in: if they didn't cherry-pick the best scenarios, or just randomly picked some scenarios). One of the odd things when reading CMx2 AAR's is that you have people in the forum talking about really difficult campaign missions where they have to remove Germans from hill after hill, which is what most of the Italian campaign after the opening stages on Sicily was like, but the AAR's cover mostly meeting engagement-like scenarios or attack/defence missions that evolve into meeting engagements due to the reinforcements arriving in waves for both sides.

QuoteHey ComradeP, at the risk of continuing the back and forth, just let me say the opinion branch extends both ways. I simply think you are mistaken regarding the sophistication of CM and the armour modeling, and have pointed it out as have others.

Sure, to each his own.

One of the reasons why I tend to become more sceptical when I see what seem to be oddities in tactical scale games than in operational scale games is that in a tactical game the loss of a single powerful unit or a handful of units can pretty much guarantee you'll lose. When I see tanks selecting ineffective ammo types, or defending tanks not firing first, that makes me sceptical. Even if it doesn't happen in 99% of all cases, if it happens in a number of the AAR's the impression might be misleading, but it's there.

QuoteOperation Flashpoint did extremely well, though.

True, but I've often wondered if it would work on an operational scale. Things were already becoming quite chaotic if you controlled more than 1 squad with vehicle support. I always tried to keep everyone alive if I could, which was quite challenging. ArmA III might potentially be the best of the ArmA series judging by the comments over here thus far, but I felt Operation Flashpoint was better than ArmA I and II.

I wish we had a thumbs up feature here - good response Comrade P, thanks.

Regarding Afghanistan, it's somewhat akin to the CM:SF.

Now I do love Shock Force - but my main love for it is down to the kit available. The actual setting is very, very meh to me. I don't want my armoured infantry units to go head to head with IED's, RPGs and 4x4s with machine guns and AT weapons.

Hence why I mentioned the areas of combat I would prefer - conventional army against conventional army - like the olden days. Afghanistan was likely unpopular because even though it featured Russian kit - it was still mostly against a rebel army.


But - I'm totally lost anayway with the conversation.

I have absolutely no idea what Operation Flashpoint, ArmA I, II or III has to do with the Combat Mission series OR Battlefront.

So adios amigos  ;D

Quote from: Jarhead0331 on February 04, 2014, 07:37:47 PM

Quote from: Bletchley_Geek on February 04, 2014, 06:05:36 PM
- something more serious halfway between Tropico and Jagged Alliance 2.

Sign me up!

Hmmm

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on February 03, 2014, 08:45:19 PM

This is an accurate summation. PC:O has a development team still working on it, namely fellows like Steve Overton and Steven Lorenz, the latter being the fellow who wrote Panzer War, the miniatures rules on which Panzer Command is based. For some reason I seem to think that Panzer Command had to switch coders midstream? And may even now not even have anyone in the development stream who is capable of doing the actual computer coding? I stand to be corrected. I admit to not following the situation too closely.

To my knowledge Matrix has dropped all development of the PC series. PCO will more than likely be the last game in the series. To my personal knowledge there is no work being done on the series currently, nor has there been for more than a year.

Good Hunting.

MR

Bletchly_Geek
" Iv'e been thinking for quite some time about the following problem: how to take Command Ops engine to the tactical level."


There is already a plan for Command Ops to move to a tactical level. You may be surprised at who is thinking of it. Link below.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3117106&mpage=1&key=

I just reinstalled Steel Beasts Pro Pe and upgraded to 3.002. The infantry model is improved along with other features and I am wondering if I can have it play more like a wargame than a simulation.

Quote from: z1812 on February 05, 2014, 06:56:58 PM
Bletchly_Geek
" Iv'e been thinking for quite some time about the following problem: how to take Command Ops engine to the tactical level."


There is already a plan for Command Ops to move to a tactical level. You may be surprised at who is thinking of it. Link below.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3117106&mpage=1&key=

I know that well  :)

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on February 04, 2014, 08:11:42 PM

Quote from: Bletchley_Geek on February 04, 2014, 06:05:36 PM
To be honest, seeing how badly Combat Mission: Afghanistan did or the very lackluster performance of TOW 3 (which featured helicopters, HELICOPTERS!), getting into the Cold War would be extremely... risky. The case for the - let's say, lack of success - of the Afghanistan game is quite a foreboding example of the kind of problems such games can have attracting Western audiences.

Operation Flashpoint did extremely well, though. The problem with CM:A was that it was what was at that time a lackluster game engine coupled with a theatre of war that no one buying computer games could really relate to or have an interest in.

CM: Afghanistan is one of my favorites of the series.  To each their own I guess, but I didn't feel like the engine was any less effective then as it was for Shock Force.

Quote from: Bison on February 06, 2014, 12:24:34 AM

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on February 04, 2014, 08:11:42 PM

Quote from: Bletchley_Geek on February 04, 2014, 06:05:36 PM
To be honest, seeing how badly Combat Mission: Afghanistan did or the very lackluster performance of TOW 3 (which featured helicopters, HELICOPTERS!), getting into the Cold War would be extremely... risky. The case for the - let's say, lack of success - of the Afghanistan game is quite a foreboding example of the kind of problems such games can have attracting Western audiences.

Operation Flashpoint did extremely well, though. The problem with CM:A was that it was what was at that time a lackluster game engine coupled with a theatre of war that no one buying computer games could really relate to or have an interest in.

CM: Afghanistan is one of my favorites of the series.  To each their own I guess, but I didn't feel like the engine was any less effective then as it was for Shock Force.

There are metrics to suggest you are in a minority of like-minded players. The very tiny sampling of the annual CM Polls I've been doing each year at BGG might be an inaccurate indicator. Looking at the official forums, the CM:A areas receives almost no traffic - I have actual data for the period just after CM:BN was released, and traffic was actually glacial and appears to still be so. The BFC Repository is another, imperfect, measure, with just 39 files uploaded as compared to 565 for CMSF or over 700 for CMBN.   Again, I realize none of this is solid evidence of who is or isn't buying and playing CM:A - only BFC has the sales figures, but they may be reasonable indicators.

The efficacy of the engine is a debate unto itself. I would agree with you completely, however, that however good the engine was, it was equally suited to the Syrian campaign of CM:SF as it was for the CM:A setting.

Well I think the biggest two factors affecting interest in CM:A were 1. it was a developer independent from BF, which soon after release stopped support, and 2. it was the Soviet/Afghanistan conflict a relatively obscure conflict compared to the usual fare of WW2.

i always felt like coldwar tactical level games were too complex for my liking. i played several scenarios in TOAW and AT:Gold and with all that helicopter hopping and parachuting i gelt like the battlefield tends to be a hard to analyze mess.

maybe if you got trained with this kind of warfare it is different. but for me this is too much. so for variety i rather like conflicts before than after ww2.

Man I used to love dropping my paratroopers ahead of a ground force, capturing a town with a road choke point then trying to get there before they were destroyed.

I love the potential ebb and flow of a modern battlefield

Quote from: Keunert on February 06, 2014, 02:54:38 AM
i always felt like coldwar tactical level games were too complex for my liking. i played several scenarios in TOAW and AT:Gold and with all that helicopter hopping and parachuting i gelt like the battlefield tends to be a hard to analyze mess.

maybe if you got trained with this kind of warfare it is different. but for me this is too much. so for variety i rather like conflicts before than after ww2.

I felt the same way until the recent Flashpoint Campaigns release....that one clicked with me, I've really enjoyed it.

Quote from: Bison on February 06, 2014, 01:18:15 AM
Well I think the biggest two factors affecting interest in CM:A were 1. it was a developer independent from BF, which soon after release stopped support, and 2. it was the Soviet/Afghanistan conflict a relatively obscure conflict compared to the usual fare of WW2.

Good points. That, and the T-72 product seemed very much out of left field. Good tank simulators (affordable ones) are so rare, that having one set in the Balkans Civil War just seemed - bizarre somehow. It made more sense when one realized that for the independent developer BFC was getting it from, it was a subject much closer to home, figuratively and literally.

I have CM:A and like it very much and maybe even more so than CMSF. In CMSF, I find I can call on overwhelming firepower to knock out the enemy while in CM:A I really have to be more cautious with the Soviets due to the time delay in getting artillery/air strikes.

Yeah, I always felt the different terrain, small unit actions/scenarios and music gave a very unique experience to CM:Afghanistan. As WallysWorld states, you couldn't just rely on overwhelming firepower CMSF though I admit I tried initially. :)

A very interesting article from RPG, highlighting some of the new features in Red Thunder from the beta-testers:

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/02/07/the-flare-path-always-bagrational/ (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/02/07/the-flare-path-always-bagrational/)

Can't wait!

Quote from: Zonso on February 07, 2014, 05:14:54 PM
Yeah, I always felt the different terrain, small unit actions/scenarios and music gave a very unique experience to CM:Afghanistan. As WallysWorld states, you couldn't just rely on overwhelming firepower CMSF though I admit I tried initially. :)

A very interesting article from RPG, highlighting some of the new features in Red Thunder from the beta-testers:

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/02/07/the-flare-path-always-bagrational/ (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/02/07/the-flare-path-always-bagrational/)

Can't wait!

Almost all of the comments after the article are focussed on the side-bar to the main CM article - and the sidebar had nothing to do with CM. I don't know what to make of that.

The article focused almost entirely on graphics - no news on the AI improvements. I don't know what to make of that, either, but it's probably easier just to demonstrate than to talk about. I wish we would see demos before release, rather than after.

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on February 07, 2014, 10:59:54 PM
Almost all of the comments after the article are focussed on the side-bar to the main CM article - and the sidebar had nothing to do with CM. I don't know what to make of that.

I don't know how it is Canada or the US, but British and Australians love quizzes.

Quote from: Michael Dorosh
The article focused almost entirely on graphics - no news on the AI improvements. I don't know what to make of that, either, but it's probably easier just to demonstrate than to talk about. I wish we would see demos before release, rather than after.

Well, to be honest, 4 paragraphs are devoted to the AI triggers coming in with Red Thunder

QuoteA feature tucked away in the Editor section of the Red Thunder overview page has got me most animated. To the outsider, the promise of "AI Triggers [that] allow AI forces to execute actions based on other units or interaction with Objectives" might not sound like a reason for hat hurling, but for anyone that misses the unscripted dynamism of the old CMx1 AI, the announcement is a massive morale booster.

Currently, AI plans don't change to fit shifting battlefield realities. The timetables sketched out by scenario authors are followed to the letter/number whatever you decide to do with your own forces. Battle crafters are expected to second-guess players and unsurprisingly they regularly guess wrong.

In Red Thunder things will be different. Silicon COs will get a big helping hand in the form of invisible (to us) behaviour triggers. Now artificial adversaries won't decide when to spring ambushes, or commence withdrawals or counter-attacks, simply by consulting wristwatches (though this is still an option). They'll spring into action when a player blunders into a pre-daubed trigger area. A cunning scenario shaper can assign several triggers to a particular unit or bunch of units, though presently only one of these triggers can be active at a time. While explaining the new capability on the official forum, BFC's Steve Grammont describes how it could be used to, say, create more plausible tank destroyer behaviour...

Quote"The Human player moves his units cautiously along the road. Unknown to him he runs over the Trigger Objective and that springs the tank destroyers into action. They appear on top of a hill 800m off to the left, catching the player's attacking tanks in the flank and (hopefully for the AI) knocking some out. After a couple of minutes of trading fire AI Group 3 executes another Order to move back behind the hill for cover and then relocate to a new spot to then be tied into a new Trigger Objective so as to repeat the same sort of thing but from a different location."

There are lot of screenshots, it's true. But I kind of agree with Tim Stone about that one being my favorite feature.

All this talk has pushed me dangerously close to purchasing Market Garden today....:)  Somehow now I have the itch to try it before the new game comes out, which I am also almost certain to pre-order now....

Someone talk me out of it:)

Quote from: Bletchley_Geek on February 09, 2014, 07:46:20 AM
Well, to be honest, 4 paragraphs are devoted to the AI triggers coming in with Red Thunder

Only one of those paras is anything new though. Two paras are introductory and mostly describe the current AI, and one para is a direct quote from the BFC forum. Your four paras basically boil down to this:

QuoteSilicon COs will get a big helping hand in the form of invisible (to us) behaviour triggers. Now artificial adversaries won't decide when to spring ambushes, or commence withdrawals or counter-attacks, simply by consulting wristwatches (though this is still an option). They'll spring into action when a player blunders into a pre-daubed trigger area. A cunning scenario shaper can assign several triggers to a particular unit or bunch of units, though presently only one of these triggers can be active at a time.

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on February 09, 2014, 09:26:06 AM

Quote from: Bletchley_Geek on February 09, 2014, 07:46:20 AM
Well, to be honest, 4 paragraphs are devoted to the AI triggers coming in with Red Thunder

Only one of those paras is anything new though. Two paras are introductory and mostly describe the current AI, and one para is a direct quote from the BFC forum. Your four paras basically boil down to this:

QuoteSilicon COs will get a big helping hand in the form of invisible (to us) behaviour triggers. Now artificial adversaries won't decide when to spring ambushes, or commence withdrawals or counter-attacks, simply by consulting wristwatches (though this is still an option). They'll spring into action when a player blunders into a pre-daubed trigger area. A cunning scenario shaper can assign several triggers to a particular unit or bunch of units, though presently only one of these triggers can be active at a time.

But what's your point?

Quote from: Grim.Reaper on February 09, 2014, 07:53:10 AM
All this talk has pushed me dangerously close to purchasing Market Garden today....:)  Somehow now I have the itch to try it before the new game comes out, which I am also almost certain to pre-order now....

Someone talk me out of it:)

I was going to ask you to talk me out of it.

Quote from: Grim.Reaper on February 09, 2014, 07:53:10 AM
All this talk has pushed me dangerously close to purchasing Market Garden today....:)  Somehow now I have the itch to try it before the new game comes out, which I am also almost certain to pre-order now....

Someone talk me out of it:)

You could do what I've done and get CMFI.  I'm just fighting the 2nd incarnation of the Herman Goering Div.  For market garden I'm bogged in Where Eagles dare (board game).

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on February 09, 2014, 09:26:06 AM
Only one of those paras is anything new though. Two paras are introductory and mostly describe the current AI, and one para is a direct quote from the BFC forum. Your four paras basically boil down to this:

Michael, Tim's "reviews" aren't usually very heavy with the details. He's got a quite entertaining style, that makes for a great read although it's not always informative (and sometimes a bit misleading, as he doesn't make any claims of his pieces being an 'objective analysis' and my 'taste' goes sometimes along different lines than his). In this particular case, I found interesting that Tim approached the beta testers and asked them to highlight a particular aspect of Red Thunder. I liked that.

I'll concede that we don't know everything about the AI triggers feature: only what Steve has explained on the BFC forums, where he outlined the feature in some detail. For better or worse, Battlefront forums are the main venue when it comes to learn about new features.

All these new CMRT features have been standard Graviteam features for at least 3 years.

Outside of micro management,WEGO and a 1944 east front time frame there isn't a whole hell of a lot difference that I couldn't get  from a Graviteam product for a cheaper price and better graphics and physics quality.

Battlefront really needs to step up their game as they're playing catch up when it comes to this type of game depicting tactical warfare on the east front.

I'm glad they're finally introducing some of these features as I may be interested in their Battle of the Bulge game considering Graviteam has no interest in a west front theatre for their game,though it still looks as though it will be years before I can expect something from BF that's even remotely acceptable to what I've come to appreciate from Graviteams rendition of grand tactical combat.

Quote from: Dolan50 on February 09, 2014, 09:09:30 PM
All these new CMRT features have been standard Graviteam features for at least 3 years.

Outside of micro management,WEGO and a 1944 east front time frame there isn't a whole hell of a lot difference that I couldn't get  from a Graviteam product for a cheaper price and better graphics and physics quality.

Battlefront really needs to step up their game as they're playing catch up when it comes to this type of game depicting tactical warfare on the east front.

I'm glad they're finally introducing some of these features as I may be interested in their Battle of the Bulge game considering Graviteam has no interest in a west front theatre for their game,though it still looks as though it will be years before I can expect something from BF that's even remotely acceptable to what I've come to appreciate from Graviteams rendition of grand tactical combat.

Iv'e tried Operation Star and I much prefer Combat Mission. That's not to say Graviteam makes a poor or uninteresting product, just that I feel Battlefront makes a better game. Each to their own.

are some of you playing CMxy on mac? can you install user created content like mod's and scenarios?

On a PC, but these instructions for the Mac:

QuoteHow to create the mod folder:
1- locate the file named CM Battle for Normandy.app (it should be in Applications/CM Battle for Normandy);
2- right click on CM Battle for Normandy.app and select Show package content;
3- in the new finder window navigate in /Contents/Resources/Data;
4- In /Data, create the new folder named "Z" (or any word starting with "Z"); in this folder you will put all the mods the way Mord explained

from this thread seems straight forward: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=98199 (http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=98199)

wow thank you. so there is no disadvantage to play this on mac.
what's the opinion on Fortress Italy? i am interested in the theatre.

Quote from: Keunert on February 12, 2014, 11:47:42 AM
wow thank you. so there is no disadvantage to play this on mac.
what's the opinion on Fortress Italy? i am interested in the theatre.

It is excellent. But you can try it for yourself. Link below to Demo.
http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=301&Itemid=513

Quote from: Keunert on February 12, 2014, 11:47:42 AM
wow thank you. so there is no disadvantage to play this on mac.
what's the opinion on Fortress Italy? i am interested in the theatre.

No, the caveat again being I'm not a Mac guy; my understanding from the BFC forum is it plays quite nicely on the Mac due to natively being 64bit and better handling of OpenGL. As suggested try the demo first. Even if there is a glitch, I have found the BFC tech support and community support to be very helpful in resolving issues.

As for Fortress Italy, I think it is great with the addition of the Gustav Line module. You get different nations (Italians play very different and are a challenge to use) and TOE in a very different terrain set from Normandy, and you can play with some early war kit (ie '42/'43), if that's your thing. I didn't have much interest in the theatre initially, but I found it a refreshing 'break' from the usual Normandy fare, well worthwhile.

i treid the demo yesterday and it looks great and worked well. i just printed the manual as i have last played CM1 intensely. looks like there are some things to learn new.

For those interested in this upcoming game and the other titles, looks like they will be playing this on twitchtv every Saturday....missed yesterday:(

"From exclusive beta previews of the upcoming Combat Mission Red Thunder, to storming the Normandy beaches in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy, to kicking Jerry in his underbelly in Combat Mission Fortress Italy - join one of Battlefront's producers, Chris Nelson, at his new Twitch.tv channel every Saturday night at 5 pm EST!"

www.twitch.tv/ChrisND

although he did post some of his videos from yesterday...here is one

http://www.twitch.tv/chrisnd/c/3729757

From what I saw, it looks like tank commanders still die faster than the red shirts in the old start trek show! I still don't know why something that's so unhistorical that's still in their games?

The beta AAR shows exactly what I feared and why I'm not inclined to buy the CMx2 titles.

One of the challenges when simulating tactical combat for the Soviets is modelling their tactical inflexibility, but unfortunately that is often not handled very well which gives the virtual Soviets a big advantage over their historical counterparts (similar to how simplified logistics tend to give the virtual Germans an advantage in operational and strategic level games where lack of fuel would normally limit operations).

Bil Hardenberger's moving his units with Western-style flexibility. There's no (significant) delay in commands it seems, no pre-battle plan units need to stick to, all of his commanders are competently handling their troops and showing initiative in responding to situations. He already said his armour is advancing in an ahistorical manner.

The map is forested, and Soviet forces have a lot more submachine guns than the Germans. The Germans need defences and distance to make the superior weight of fire of their MG's and mortars work. Even though the Germans are "defending", they have no real defenses so it's basically sort of a meeting engagement around a village. Foxholes being very easy to spot seemingly (unless this was recently changed in a patch) would make defending positions difficult in any case.

Bil Hardenberger carefully checks possible kill zones and once something big fires, he'll use the turn replay feature to see where the shot came from and respond to it immediately. If the German armour fires first, they might at least have a use. If they don't, like in a number of other AAR's, this is going to be over fast.

At this point, I'm not seeing any Soviet tactical handicaps at all. It would be interesting if the Soviets would be forced to play in chaotic real time, whilst the Germans would play in turn-based mode so they can give more detailed orders. Still, considering how much the map already favours the Soviet equipment, and considering the difference in skill, it's almost annoying to read the AAR. It doesn't feel historical, it's like a pet map where the Soviets place the Germans in a bad position with limited forces and then just crush them. As casualties quickly increase to ahistorically high levels, you really need some mechanics to slow the pace down, particularly for a rigid army on the tactical level like the Soviets. 1944 isn't 1941, obviously, but I'm not buying the Soviet behaviour thus far as being "historical".

i just played the Fortress Italy demo. it has 4 very different scenarios and it is a lot of fun to play. the game is quite unforgiving. Comrade download it and give it a try. on the first scenario you attack a small village held by german para's with some light tanks. the german at gun will kill your tanks before you even know what happens. the attacker really has to be cautious and you have to take your time. it feels like light tanks are very easy to take out.

it is a great game. just a little too expensive for my liking right now.

i also played the unity of command demo. playing a demo beats reading an aar by far.

As I posted before, that's another thing I don't really understand: the campaigns seem to be very difficult with the defenders in well-prepared positions that require detailed planning to take out, yet the AAR's are more like meeting engagements which show the limits of tactical wargames when it comes to representing historical situations.

I'm assuming one of the goals of posting such a beta AAR is to show the game to potential buyers, so I'm just not really sure why they're so different from scenarios and campaigns described in the regular forum posts.

Let's say I download the demo and find a challenging and enjoyable scenario, and then I go to the forums and read an AAR by a experienced forum regular that shows almost a completely different game. What am I to believe?

This is the only series I can currently think of where the presentation in the AAR's seems to be so different from the "meat and potatoes" of the game.

i think the majority of AARs and PBEMS are meeting engagements because of the force multipliers - everyone wants to play with the new toys and doesnt want to suffer the rigors of force multiplication, especially when youre playing a PBEM over weeks and weeks, you ideally want to know that your forces have some kind of parity, ahistorical? Yes but fun for both sides

Quote from: ComradeP on February 16, 2014, 03:50:27 PM
Let's say I download the demo and find a challenging and enjoyable scenario, and then I go to the forums and read an AAR by a experienced forum regular that shows almost a completely different game. What am I to believe?

This is the only series I can currently think of where the presentation in the AAR's seems to be so different from the "meat and potatoes" of the game.

These AAR's are meant to be to show new units and features, and sometimes make little to no sense as a tactical situation one could find during the exection of  a historical operation.

Regarding the concerns you have about Bil: he's handling his troops like that because CMx2 doesn't impose any direct constraints on what you can order your units to do. Indeed, in CMx2 it can happen that you're moving a tank section and one of the tanks receives some fire from the side. Regardless of historical levels of command, control or communications, nothing will prevent you - the player - to have the other element of your section to maneuver into a position to attack the newly found threat, right away, radios or not and regardless of what can possibly the other tank crew be aware of. I have no notice of any tactical war game, board-based or computer-based, where players are subject to such realistic constraints. Maybe it's a convention of the genre, but vehicles are always directly controllable by the player.

Command delays would help with this. But how long should be the 'command delay' for a similar situation like this: a infantry squad gets fire by an MG, the player moves forward a mortar section to do direct fire on the MG position? Unless the relay of information is properly modeled - either by a runner, or because the event was observed by a platoon or company commander - any delays imposed will be quite arbitrary.

None of the above is hardly addressed in a satisfactory way - command delays in CMx1 were quite arbitrary, to be honest - by Battlefront. They're focusing on other things at the moment. As we discussed a couple of pages before, there's some room to be filled by a more 'command-oriented' tactical simulation with more powerful - i.e. capable of autonomy - friendly AI and more realistic modeling of control and communications.

What I'm expecting to see in the AAR is that 1) Bil will have important problems to control his forces when they start to rack up casualties and 2) fire control will be problematic, with the unexperienced Russian units firing at targets prematurely. The second one can be bypassed by the use of the 'cover arc' commands to some extent, but I reckon units can override those depending on morale status and training/experience rating.

Of course, if the German player can't cause enough casualties or suppress the Soviet troops for 1) to kick in, I can't see Bil losing this particular match. For whatever reason, in the public DAR's he's never met someone with a similar take on the game, my impression is that his opponents come from the kind of CM player who has cut his teeth on ladder or casual play.

In all honesty, there are also some AAR's that show the challenging parts of the game, such as the recent KG campaign AAR for CMBN, and there are lots of interesting videos on Youtube as well. Meeting engagements might be fun and quick battles might allow for a relative parity in forces (although that is debatable in some ways: ~1000 additional points for the attacker is quite a lot) but if the campaigns involve costly operations to remove defenders from well-prepared positions, why show mostly a completely different side of the game?

As to the command delays: all tactical wargames that I've played struggle with this, and only some have tried to limit orders in some way. However, in terms of gameplay it doesn't have to result in unbalanced situations.

I felt the Close Combat title I played, Cross of Iron, handled this fairly well. I also felt Panzer Command: Ostfront handled it fairly well because you're using bigger units so you have both more men to maneuver with and the ability to absorb some losses. If you lose a handful of squads or particularly AFV's in CMx2, you lose a big chunk of your combat effectiveness it seems. That's probably why I feel I enjoy tactical wargames with either a small amount of units (CC) or company or so unit sizes (PC:O) or potentially even larger scale ones like SP:WWII to a middleground like CMx2.

Quote from: ComradeP on February 17, 2014, 02:01:53 AM
why show mostly a completely different side of the game?

Never underestimate the appeal of tank and uniform porn. Very much like as is the case with actual porn, there's money to be made by "showing off".

Quote from: ComradeP
As to the command delays: all tactical wargames that I've played struggle with this, and only some have tried to limit orders in some way. However, in terms of gameplay it doesn't have to result in unbalanced situations.

I felt the Close Combat title I played, Cross of Iron, handled this fairly well. I also felt Panzer Command: Ostfront handled it fairly well because you're using bigger units so you have both more men to maneuver with and the ability to absorb some losses. If you lose a handful of squads or particularly AFV's in CMx2, you lose a big chunk of your combat effectiveness it seems. That's probably why I feel I enjoy tactical wargames with either a small amount of units (CC) or company or so unit sizes (PC:O) or potentially even larger scale ones like SP:WWII to a middleground like CMx2.

It's hard indeed. What bit of CC3 do you think accounts for what we're talking about?

My point of view is that all of these examples are, for me, a thing of the past. I really don't look forward to any remakes of Steel Panthers, for instance. Yet there might be a KS project in waiting, I wouldn't be surprised. The future lies I think on the more beer and pretzels stuff like Battle Academy, the full board game conversion with a taste for cinematic antics, like Conflict of Heroes or Lock'n'Load, or the more hardcore stuff, like Graviteam's or Battlefront's stuff. Those are the cards we have been dealt with in the 2010's.

QuoteIt's hard indeed. What bit of CC3 do you think accounts for what we're talking about?

Even though in CMx2, both sides play at the same speed in terms of unit movement, the attacker seems to have a significant advantage in these meeting engagement like maps, also because the defender is limited in where he chooses to fight. In CC, I never had the feeling that I was moving so fast that what I did couldn't be countered. There were still maps in the "obstacle course" category of units placed at certain positions to slow you down instead of one big coherent defense, but overall I felt the pace felt good. Too bad I ran into serious issues with the pathfinding.

I think that Battlefront could revise their CC a little bit and if possible put in the asynchronous mode that makes flashpoint so popular.

My suggestion is that turns could be broke down to 30 seconds of WEGO (anything less and a 90 minute game would be too burdensome).  The Russians might start at 1 minute turns and this could then even be increased as they lose HQ units.  Add in an order limit for troops outside of HQ range say you only have 75% of orders that you can give to units so you either have to give group orders or really decide that for the next turn you want your tanks moving and the infantry in support etc).  These orders would also degrade down as you lost HQ units and your troops morale begin to gets shaken.

I think implementing this would certainly start providing the feel of larger inexperienced formations and force the Russian player to play in a more historical way (limiting recon, more larger group assaults, tanks used in attack)

Both could be used in WEGO and order limitation could be tweaked for realtime (ie a certain amount of time has to pass before orders can become active again).

Just some random thoughts

Con

I think limiting experience levels for the soviets is one way to handicap them tactically.  All soviets should be conscript or green and maybe guards could be regular.  If you've played cm with conscript or green troops you will know what a serious disadvantage that is.  At conscript experience, one or two bursts of automatic fire and that squad is routed and will potentially become broken.  Once a squad is morally broken they are almost useless the rest of the mission.  It's up to the scenario designer To apply proper experience levels.  Another setting to apply is the motivation level, you could have highly motivated conscripts that will aggressively charge forward, but with the brittle moral and skill factors.
You still might see an elite soviet smg squad in a h2h online meeting engagement, people aren't always going to enforce historical restrictions. 

Quote from: Skoop on February 17, 2014, 11:33:28 AM
I think limiting experience levels for the soviets is one way to handicap them tactically.  All soviets should be conscript or green and maybe guards could be regular.  If you've played cm with conscript or green troops you will know what a serious disadvantage that is.  At conscript experience, one or two bursts of automatic fire and that squad is routed and will potentially become broken.  Once a squad is morally broken they are almost useless the rest of the mission.  It's up to the scenario designer To apply proper experience levels.  Another setting to apply is the motivation level, you could have highly motivated conscripts that will aggressively charge forward, but with the brittle moral and skill factors.
You still might see an elite soviet smg squad in a h2h online meeting engagement, people aren't always going to enforce historical restrictions.

  There are plenty of ways to handicap the Soviets tactically (though of course in the CMRT time period, they were doing very well tactically, operationally and strategically), but I think most of the Soviet problems were always in the operational area more than in the tactical area, though by the CMRT time period not so much.  So in tactical terms what you would see in a game like CMRT would be the results of some operational fumbles and attacks would not happen or something.  Once the attack was on (operationally functioning), the Soviets would not be all that different tactically.  So an operational or Grand tactical game could better simulate Soviet problems than a tactical game.

Well, it's a familiar and usually lengthy debate, but I don't think average Soviet tactical effectiveness was up to Western Allied standards at any point in 1944-1945. There were experienced units, but overall loss rates and the method used to replace them (sending men into battle with minimal training, often men that were liberated and immediately conscripted) guaranteed that there were clear limits to the experience of the average Soviet unit.

The decreasing experience of the Germans also doesn't automatically make the Soviets better in absolute terms, only in relative terms. Bagration was a huge success, but keep in mind that like in most of the famous encirclement operations, there were no significant reserves to halt or significantly slow down a strategic or even an operational breakthrough.

By the time the Soviets reached former Poland, the Soviet offensive ran into the familiar problems of an inefficient logistics tail not being able to keep up and mobile units having advanced too far ahead of their infantry armies resulting in the Germans being able to temporarily halt them. Given the dispositions, the result of Bagration wasn't inevitable but highly likely to occur. Personally, I'm more impressed with the way the Soviets turned to Riga during Bagration than with the plan for Bagration in Byelorussia (which was sort of a reverse of the opening stages of Barbarossa there).

I am glad that I am not smart enough to understand all these technical details and the analysis:)

I simply play the games to enjoy a reasonable tactical representation of a battle....just glad I don't know enough about these details, or I don't think I could ever enjoy another game again:)

Sometimes good to be simple and just enjoy what it is.....

Admittedly, I also often enjoy playing wargames from a period I know very little about, it tends to be far more relaxing than playing a WWII one and seeing "well, this isn't remotely historical because..."

I think there are some stereotypical misconceptions regards Soviet 'tactical rigidity' during this period of the war, to the Soviets the Third Period of the Great War. Soviet tactics at CM's level changed a lot over the course of the war and by mid-44 to 45, Red Thunder's setting, I don't think the scenario was much different from how other nations operated. A Company commander assigned an attack objective would usually come up with his own plan, having the discretion to adjust tactics and movements etc. depending upon battlefield conditions. Where the rigidity may come in would be the carrying out of the objectives 'at any cost', though not always the case, as I have read of Red Army commanders being dismissed for taking needless casualties. Further, armored or breakthrough units were expected to have a high initiative and to take advantage of a changing battlefield development, regardless of the day's objective, just like western armies.

CM models experience, morale and motivation for units. Tied into this is the C2 aspect, which greatly affects unit performance and spotting, something that many people seem to overlook or not understand. For Red Thunder it has been stated that the Soviet forces will have weak C&C, meaning a lack of radios and poor junior leadership for their formations. This will have an affect on splitting squads and morale etc when C2 is broken, which in turn correlates with the real life organization of the Soviets who used Companies as other nations would use Platoons. After having played the Italians in CMFI, who suffer similar issues even without being able to split squads, there is a noticeable difference in how the forces are employed and trying to do things without taking that into consideration generally leads to disaster.

One thing I am a little unsure of is how the Soviet all SMG squads will perform in practice. IMO CM seems to over model SMG effectiveness at range, at least that has been my experience with the British Paras in Market Garden. Either way they will be nasty!

Personally I think that when most games are over thought they never live up to expectations if historical accuracy is a requirement for a good game play experience.  Most if not all cannot literally transform the battlefield into a game experience and so you end up with an abstraction to best represent a given battle, operation, or theatre to a games mechanics and limitations therein. 

QuoteI think there are some stereotypical misconceptions regards Soviet 'tactical rigidity' during this period of the war, to the Soviets the Third Period of the Great War.

I don't think anyone here believes there was no difference between their performance in 1941 and 1944-1945. When I call them rigid at the tactical level, I'm referring to what you describe: inflexible C&C arrangements due to lower quality leadership, a large maneuver unit size and lack of radio's requiring more extensive pre-battle planning.

The effect of the experience of individual soldiers or squads can be limited by less efficient C&C. There was a certain "ceiling" to how effective Soviet units could be on the tactical level due to issues unrelated to the performance at the squad level.

The Germans at this point in the war were probably overrated as well, they suffered from dramatic drops in training compared to 1941 and being forced to use troops that were older or younger than the age at which they'd be most effective as soldiers reduced effectiveness further. That also goes for the Soviets.

Quote from: Bison on February 17, 2014, 05:30:05 PM
Personally I think that when most games are over thought they never live up to expectations if historical accuracy is a requirement for a good game play experience.  Most if not all cannot literally transform the battlefield into a game experience and so you end up with an abstraction to best represent a given battle, operation, or theatre to a games mechanics and limitations therein.

Agree with this....don't think any game can live up and as I said above, I am glad not to be an expert otherwise could never play any games.

Thanks for your observations on CC, Comrade. The pathfinding was quite a game breaker, indeed.

Quote from: Bison on February 17, 2014, 05:30:05 PM
Personally I think that when most games are over thought they never live up to expectations if historical accuracy is a requirement for a good game play experience. 

The problem is with the usual definition of 'accuracy' you usually find applied on games, which is 'recreate historical events'. Such railroading will lead in an unavoidable way to over fit the engine so that those events are guaranteed to be recreated. War in the East is quite a good example of that kind of "over fitting" and its results on game play. There are many paths to reach the same conclusion, if the players have the stamina to go over the whole thing.

A more sensible approach to 'historical accuracy' is that of trying to 'recreate processes' so the outcomes can be significantly different but still 'make sense'. Europa Universalis has got there (except in the military department) for instance.

In CMx2 I must say there's little railroading of the kind above and I appreciate that. I played one of the several 're-enactments' on the scenario repository of the notorious Villiers Bocage episode. In one of my replays, Wittman's Tiger threw a track trying to negotiate some rough terrain. Which obviously SUCKED at one level, but at another level was AWESOME. It really makes you think about the role of contingency: history is like a music tape that every time it is played, it sounds different [:)]

Quote from: Grim.Reaper on February 17, 2014, 03:35:47 PM
I am glad that I am not smart enough to understand all these technical details and the analysis:)

I simply play the games to enjoy a reasonable tactical representation of a battle....just glad I don't know enough about these details, or I don't think I could ever enjoy another game again:)

Sometimes good to be simple and just enjoy what it is.....

Amen brother! I feel the same way.

Quote from: Rayfer on February 17, 2014, 06:14:35 PM

Quote from: Grim.Reaper on February 17, 2014, 03:35:47 PM
I am glad that I am not smart enough to understand all these technical details and the analysis:)

I simply play the games to enjoy a reasonable tactical representation of a battle....just glad I don't know enough about these details, or I don't think I could ever enjoy another game again:)

Sometimes good to be simple and just enjoy what it is.....

Amen brother! I feel the same way.

+ more

Definitely this, I know where the pointy end of the sword is and have a fair grasp of fixing, flanking and firing beyond that I'm just happy to be along for the ride

I'm not a grognard or an 'expert' on WWII, though I definitely appreciate those that are, no mater how tedious(!) they can be at times, because of the types of games produced as a result of their input. No question things can be overthought when trying to reflect historical accuracy to a 'T' to a game; however that's where good game design and producers come in. I agree completely also with Bletchley_Geek's approach to historical accuracy by simulating the processes that lead to an outcome, and not simply being forced into a straight jacket.

Then again it seems 'mainstream' wargamers are more than content with games such as PanzerCorps, Battle Academy or more recently Heroes of Stalingrad anyways, so any concern over historical accuracy is a moot point. ;)

Quote from: Zonso on February 18, 2014, 03:33:57 PM
I'm not a grognard or an 'expert' on WWII, though I definitely appreciate those that are, no mater how tedious(!) they can be at times, because of the types of games produced as a result of their input. No question things can be overthought when trying to reflect historical accuracy to a 'T' to a game; however that's where good game design and producers come in. I agree completely also with Bletchley_Geek's approach to historical accuracy by simulating the processes that lead to an outcome, and not simply being forced into a straight jacket.

Then again it seems 'mainstream' wargamers are more than content with games such as PanzerCorps, Battle Academy or more recently Heroes of Stalingrad anyways, so any concern over historical accuracy is a moot point. ;)

  I agree with the people who want accuracy and some way to simulate typical Soviet problems with coordinating things, but I don't think a tactical game can really do much without becoming a chore to play.  I think it would be interesting to simulate higher level Soviet problems by putting the player in the position of a Soviet army commander and letting them learn how to get things to work within Soviet limitations in communications and staff competence.  There's an awful lot in Glantz's books that covers this all th way down to phone calls from Stalin with the Dictator explaining how to use your tanks and artillery.

Quote from: Zonso on February 18, 2014, 03:33:57 PM
Then again it seems 'mainstream' wargamers are more than content with games such as PanzerCorps, Battle Academy or more recently Heroes of Stalingrad anyways, so any concern over historical accuracy is a moot point. ;)

I reckon those 'mainstream' wargamers are the 'grognards' of tomorrow. My first computer war game ever was R. T. Smith's "Desert Rats" and my first board war game was an "Axis & Allies" copycat. Go figure  :)

EDIT: An interesting remark from Usenet on Lock'n'Load

QuoteBut - Holy Sh*t! - there's 120 pages of rules!  Peter Jackson could make
a three-hour film given 120 pages to work with.  And the rules are
*shamelessly* stolen from SQUAD LEADER.  Except for the replacement of
the the fire table with a dice-based system, whole rules come over word
for word.

Quote
Sure, an "Undo" button would help ... but it wouldn't.  Example; you
have an infantry unit with an MG-34.  You're in the Operations Phase,
and you'd like to move it.  Except - Gotcha!!! - you forgot to take it
off the tripod back in the Rally Phase!!  If you were playing against a
human opponent, you'd say you forgot, and he'd say, "sure, go head and
flip the counter now."  But when PC programmers slavishly port a
boardgame, the computer just says you can't.  Nope.  Sorry.  You failed
to do right in the "Now You Can Dismantle Your Machinegun Phase."

And ... what difference does it make?  Why not just dismantle the gun in
the Operations Phase and move out?  It's not like you can *do* anything
with the gun in the interim.  On a smaller scale, this is GUNS OF AUGUST
all over again.

Quote
Overall, this really points out how completely outdated IGO-UGO is. 
It's awful.  They try to mitigate this with the "impulse" system, but
still allow you to activate units at will.  A better system would be to
randomly activate hexes occupied by your troops when it was your turn.

Example:  On the very last impulse of a turn (every other unit, friend
or foe, has moved or fired...), I assault-move a panzer up to a house
occupied by some partisans.  I blast them with the cannon and
machineguns.  Then the turn advances, and I have a better than even
(ties go to the side that had the initiative in the last turn) chance of
moving first.  I do get the initiative.  So I choose my panzer and blast
'em again, this time at full power.  That's some dead partisans.

These comments, no matter how colourful they're, kind of sum up pretty well how I feel of all these over-hyped, streamlined war games. And why I think there's quite a case to overthink about things  and to keep Battlefront and Graviteam in the business :)

Wow! 120 pages! Interesting, I just threw that out there after reading the AAR posted here and 'thought' another comic book type game. I did not realize it was a copy of Squad Leader, which I really loved and played a lot back then.  I would find it incredibly frustrating today if I had to stomach watching infantry advance in the open to melee like that.  :o

Point taken re the grognards of tomorrow and the epiphany above. I guess I am entering grumpy old man era as I started with Waterloo/D-Day haha. :) True regards those developers you mentioned and Panther also of course!

(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs12.postimg.org%2Fxdxuctn6l%2FDoge_Wargaming.jpg&hash=26becb2ced9a0d22a65074ee3a153278c824fdff)

The challenge is to keep the eyes on the prize, and leaving monocles where they belong: in a museum.  ;)

Quote from: Bletchley_Geek on February 17, 2014, 06:09:40 PM
A more sensible approach to 'historical accuracy' is that of trying to 'recreate processes' so the outcomes can be significantly different but still 'make sense'.

The problem is in forcing the player to adopt those processes for reasons he will find as logical as his historical counterpart.

The German defensive doctrine in Normandy seems strange, but it was based on their strengths. The MG42 was a fearsome weapon, so they lightly outposted their positions with machine guns. Their NCOs in theory exercised great initiative so they emptied out their main defensive line and relied on heavy counter-attacks to throw out enemy attacks. Their tanks and self-propelled guns were mobile and able to fight at close range with enemy armour and so they were used in a local counter-attack role as well, often adding punch to counter-attacks and direct firing at close range. Their mortars were cheap, easy to hide, nearly silent when firing, and plentiful, and so they bombed the daylights out of everything on the defence.

Does a CM player get rewarded for using his forces in this way? A good scenario design will probably highlight the uses of these weapon systems - but that presupposes several things.

a) a scenario designer who has a schooling in the tactics of the day
b) a player who has opted to play a "historical" scenario rather than a Quick Battle
c) a player who decides to adopt the scenario designers vision of how the scenario should play out
d) a game system that will reward "historical" play via the game mechanics

Do German troops in the game have better "initiative"? BFC has stated flat out they don't believe in "national characteristics." So they model flat characteristics such as morale, fatigue, training which in real terms, I suppose, amount to how fast troops can traverse terrain, how well they stand up to fire without suppressing, how accurately they fire their weapons, etc. What is initiative? Is it a mathematic equation equaling how fast a unit can respond to its orders, or is it really a measure of how well a squad or platoon leader reacts to the situation on the map?

If the latter (and I think that is what it is) isn't that the player's role?

We may see some of this built in, if the conditional AI triggers are robust enough and allow for gradations, but I suspect we will not, at least at first. It would be nice to see such a thing develop, and if so, then perhaps we may be able to build in some more "national characteristics" after all...and with it some national doctrines.

Thoughts, gentlemen?

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on February 18, 2014, 08:48:01 PM
Does a CM player get rewarded for using his forces in this way? A good scenario design will probably highlight the uses of these weapon systems - but that presupposes several things.

a) a scenario designer who has a schooling in the tactics of the day
b) a player who has opted to play a "historical" scenario rather than a Quick Battle
c) a player who decides to adopt the scenario designers vision of how the scenario should play out
d) a game system that will reward "historical" play via the game mechanics

The beautiful thing is that CM enables that to happen. But at the same time, CMx2 remains what I consider a 'toolbox', leaving room for alternative takes on the subject matter. Very much as with a LEGO set, it's up to you what you want to build with it: the Eiffel Tower, the Millenium Falcon a four meters tall Pikachu model... is up to you. Of course, in LEGO, you might want sometimes to have a round piece or a piece of a specific colour which doesn't come with the 'Starter Kit'. So you go back to the shop and buy whatever allows you to extend the array of tools to achieve what your heart desires.

Is a sound business model, which has been proven to be a stable income stream. A similar business model has worked out strikingly well for Games Workshop, the people behind Flames of War or Slitherine with their Field of Glory miniature rule set. This incremental approach, allows to adapt quickly to shifting tastes of the communities that consume those products.

This strategy - which I think what Battlefront is doing - needs to be kept in mind in order to understand what CMx2 is and what is not.

Quote
Do German troops in the game have better "initiative"? BFC has stated flat out they don't believe in "national characteristics." So they model flat characteristics such as morale, fatigue, training which in real terms, I suppose, amount to how fast troops can traverse terrain, how well they stand up to fire without suppressing, how accurately they fire their weapons, etc. What is initiative? Is it a mathematic equation equaling how fast a unit can respond to its orders, or is it really a measure of how well a squad or platoon leader reacts to the situation on the map?

If the latter (and I think that is what it is) isn't that the player's role?

We may see some of this built in, if the conditional AI triggers are robust enough and allow for gradations, but I suspect we will not, at least at first. It would be nice to see such a thing develop, and if so, then perhaps we may be able to build in some more "national characteristics" after all...and with it some national doctrines.

Thoughts, gentlemen?

I consider "national characteristics" to be a sign of failure of the 'get-the-process-right' thing which computer wargames can hope to achieve and board games just can't. Limiting control without frustrating players, as you say, it's a matter of having the player to act like their historical counterparts. That's another way of saying 'immersion'. Getting the game to reward players that get 'immersed' into the setting of the game - i.e. the player takes a historical game as 'historical', not as a personalized installment of "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure" - is also called 'reactivity'. Both immersion and reactivity are, again, things that can be taken to the infinite and beyond in a computer, and in a board game don't go beyond the boundaries of the board.

And both 'immersion' and 'reactivity' are nowadays waved in our faces to make us buy games, but at the end of the day they don't really deliver in either department anything that would make us turn heels over heads. For instance, Graviteam succeeds in the immersion but fails in the reactivity bit. CMx2 immersion is Okay and reactivity is optional.

More specifically and to the point: I asked on the Battlefront forums if they were considering the concept of having 'linked victory conditions'. That would in my opinion allow to account for the 'rigidity' at the execution, not the planning behind the operational art-of-war as practiced by the Red Army in World War 2. The other is to account for the emphasis for 'tempo' in the offensive. Which would mean pushing into a small battlespace a LOT of firepower, or in other words, increasing substantially the amount of units you can have on the map.

And this latter thing is directly related to that of having a more expansive friendly AI, and the hardware of course,  that makes such huge scenarios playable. The friendly AI topic can be addressed by Battlefront of course. The question is when and how. The hardware one can be negotiated to some extent by entering into a very expensive process of optimization process, offering diminishing returns as progress is made. They already accomplished a massive improvement in efficiency for Market Garden (and hats off to them, I am sure that wasn't easy). The question in this case, is whether Battlefront has entered into the diminishing returns phase of their engine optimization.

Quote from: Bletchley_Geek on February 18, 2014, 09:40:36 PM

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on February 18, 2014, 08:48:01 PM
Does a CM player get rewarded for using his forces in this way? A good scenario design will probably highlight the uses of these weapon systems - but that presupposes several things.

a) a scenario designer who has a schooling in the tactics of the day
b) a player who has opted to play a "historical" scenario rather than a Quick Battle
c) a player who decides to adopt the scenario designers vision of how the scenario should play out
d) a game system that will reward "historical" play via the game mechanics

The beautiful thing is that CM enables that to happen.

What is the evidence that the latter happens? It seems rather open to debate to me, but my interest, and knowledge, mostly comes from the Commonwealth, and right now, there are so many missing weapons systems and procedures it seems hard to judge accurately. But also so much goes on "under the hood", not to mention internal game mechanics seem to change a lot with each patch. Not a bad thing - particularly when stuff like machine gun behaviours are "improved" - but it seems no two people agree on what they should actually be to begin with.

Quote

Quote
Do German troops in the game have better "initiative"? BFC has stated flat out they don't believe in "national characteristics." So they model flat characteristics such as morale, fatigue, training which in real terms, I suppose, amount to how fast troops can traverse terrain, how well they stand up to fire without suppressing, how accurately they fire their weapons, etc. What is initiative? Is it a mathematic equation equaling how fast a unit can respond to its orders, or is it really a measure of how well a squad or platoon leader reacts to the situation on the map?

If the latter (and I think that is what it is) isn't that the player's role?

We may see some of this built in, if the conditional AI triggers are robust enough and allow for gradations, but I suspect we will not, at least at first. It would be nice to see such a thing develop, and if so, then perhaps we may be able to build in some more "national characteristics" after all...and with it some national doctrines.

Thoughts, gentlemen?

I consider "national characteristics" to be a sign of failure of the 'get-the-process-right' thing which computer wargames can hope to achieve and board games just can't. Limiting control without frustrating players, as you say, it's a matter of having the player to act like their historical counterparts. That's another way of saying 'immersion'. Getting the game to reward players that get 'immersed' into the setting of the game - i.e. the player takes a historical game as 'historical', not as a personalized installment of "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure" - is also called 'reactivity'. Both immersion and reactivity are, again, things that can be taken to the infinite and beyond in a computer, and in a board game don't go beyond the boundaries of the board.

And both 'immersion' and 'reactivity' are nowadays waved in our faces to make us buy games, but at the end of the day they don't really deliver in either department anything that would make us turn heels over heads. For instance, Graviteam succeeds in the immersion but fails in the reactivity bit. CMx2 immersion is Okay and reactivity is optional.

More specifically and to the point: I asked on the Battlefront forums if they were considering the concept of having 'linked victory conditions'. That would in my opinion allow to account for the 'rigidity' at the execution, not the planning behind the operational art-of-war as practiced by the Red Army in World War 2. The other is to account for the emphasis for 'tempo' in the offensive. Which would mean pushing into a small battlespace a LOT of firepower, or in other words, increasing substantially the amount of units you can have on the map.

And this latter thing is directly related to that of having a more expansive friendly AI, and the hardware of course,  that makes such huge scenarios playable. The friendly AI topic can be addressed by Battlefront of course. The question is when and how. The hardware one can be negotiated to some extent by entering into a very expensive process of optimization process, offering diminishing returns as progress is made. They already accomplished a massive improvement in efficiency for Market Garden (and hats off to them, I am sure that wasn't easy). The question in this case, is whether Battlefront has entered into the diminishing returns phase of their engine optimization.

I agree with comments further upstream that the Red Army probably wasn't all that "rigid" by 1944, but perhaps someone can present some actual examples rather than all of us merely hypothesizing. Either way, what does it really mean in practical terms other than C3 restrictions? I can model that just by being a crappy player. ;-)

Squad sizes seems to be another. General Simonds had an interesting take on the subject, and a number of his speeches were reprinted by the Canadian Army in a volume I have kicking around. I found his comments about how the platoon, rather than the section (squad), should be considered the basic unit of maneuver to be quite fascinating. Game players seem to scoff at the Soviets for being these unwieldy blocks of men for fighting platoons as if they were squads, when Simonds was pretty much insisting that the Canadian way was to do exactly that. Of course, many game players don't realize that the actual fighting strength of a British/Canadian infantry squad was 5 or 6 men rather than the paper strength of 10. Makes one wonder just what a Soviet platoon really looked like in battle. I honestly doubt the details of anyone's squad/platoon attacks were really captured well for posterity in most cases.

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on February 18, 2014, 10:31:58 PM
What is the evidence that the latter happens? It seems rather open to debate to me, but my interest, and knowledge, mostly comes from the Commonwealth, and right now, there are so many missing weapons systems and procedures it seems hard to judge accurately. But also so much goes on "under the hood", not to mention internal game mechanics seem to change a lot with each patch. Not a bad thing - particularly when stuff like machine gun behaviours are "improved" - but it seems no two people agree on what they should actually be to begin with.

Well, I tried your Bulge scenario with Market Garden and I think it plays much better, meaning that after crashing against the American AT guns I felt the urge to read more about German panzer tactics. I am not sure if that's evidence, lacking an AAR, which I don't have the time to put together for you. The scenario "A Temple to Mars" from CMFI is another one example that comes readily to my mind.

Quote
I agree with comments further upstream that the Red Army probably wasn't all that "rigid" by 1944, but perhaps someone can present some actual examples rather than all of us merely hypothesizing. Either way, what does it really mean in practical terms other than C3 restrictions? I can model that just by being a crappy player. ;-)

Well, I took that sentence in particular from this book

http://www.amazon.com/The-Art-Maneuver-Warfare-Airland/dp/0891415327/ref=sr_1_fkmr3_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1392781013&sr=8-3-fkmr3&keywords=robert+s+leonard+the+art+of+maneuver

and the particular reference in the book I think comes from

http://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Military-Operational-Art-Practice/dp/0714640778/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1392781065&sr=8-2&keywords=david+glantz+operational+art+of+war

The latter I haven't read - I need to save up a bit for that one.

As a more concrete example, there are the studies on Korsun, which I consider to be a brilliantly planned operation (its execution is a different matter). The push of Malinovsky (?) towards Riga in the summer of 1944, cutting off AGN, is another example, but there's nothing in English available about it.

Thanks for those. I think we can probably agree about the operational level, I was thinking more about the tactical level, which is thornier. Again, I am most familiar with the Commonwealth. Timothy Harrison-Place's book on the British Army's difficulties in preparing for the invasion of Normandy is fascinating reading - they struggled to write a manual into 1944, and as he notes, didn't bother to read it in almost every case even if they did manage to write one. I get the feeling veterans would advise us that manuals don't mean much in the field in any case. Which makes in interesting to see CM AARs which attempt to ape the approved "school solutions" which Harrison-Place insists were probably never done in actuality.

If it works, it means it can't be wrong...

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on February 18, 2014, 11:33:30 PM
Thanks for those. I think we can probably agree about the operational level, I was thinking more about the tactical level, which is thornier.

No worries, mate. The first one I can't other than recommend highly, I find it to read very well, and I think it will be very interesting to anyone interested on the War That Never Was, and especially if playing the excellent and recent Flashpoint.

Quote
Again, I am most familiar with the Commonwealth. Timothy Harrison-Place's book on the British Army's difficulties in preparing for the invasion of Normandy is fascinating reading - they struggled to write a manual into 1944, and as he notes, didn't bother to read it in almost every case even if they did manage to write one. I get the feeling veterans would advise us that manuals don't mean much in the field in any case. Which makes in interesting to see CM AARs which attempt to ape the approved "school solutions" which Harrison-Place insists were probably never done in actuality.

If it works, it means it can't be wrong...

Bil isn't playing by the book as it was in 1944, he's playing by the book as it was in the early 1990s, with all that emphasis on Intelligence Battlefield Preparation. He's very good at that, and knows how to apply it so it becomes an awesome force multiplier.

Quote from: Bletchley_Geek on February 18, 2014, 11:52:03 PM

Quote
Again, I am most familiar with the Commonwealth. Timothy Harrison-Place's book on the British Army's difficulties in preparing for the invasion of Normandy is fascinating reading - they struggled to write a manual into 1944, and as he notes, didn't bother to read it in almost every case even if they did manage to write one. I get the feeling veterans would advise us that manuals don't mean much in the field in any case. Which makes in interesting to see CM AARs which attempt to ape the approved "school solutions" which Harrison-Place insists were probably never done in actuality.

If it works, it means it can't be wrong...

Bil isn't playing by the book as it was in 1944, he's playing by the book as it was in the early 1990s, with all that emphasis on Intelligence Battlefield Preparation. He's very good at that, and knows how to apply it so it becomes an awesome force multiplier.

I wasn't referring to Bil... but now that you mention it, I guess I wonder what it says that Bil is able to get success with "modern" techniques. I am sure that sound principles are universal - i.e. "overwatch" - and that these are not nationality specific, either. I keep trying to steer the conversation towards specifics and others keep veering away toward generalities. Let me be more direct. What specifically should the game engine let a Soviet player do, or not, that other nationalities shouldn't, in order to be "historical"? Is it really a matter for scenario designers to come up with via force mixes and troop type settings, or is there something more intrinsic? Some have suggested things like ability to split squads, others suggest command/control delays. I don't know if we've discussed artillery delays yet, these were certainly included in CM:BB.

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on February 19, 2014, 10:17:00 AM

Quote from: Bletchley_Geek on February 18, 2014, 11:52:03 PM

Quote
Again, I am most familiar with the Commonwealth. Timothy Harrison-Place's book on the British Army's difficulties in preparing for the invasion of Normandy is fascinating reading - they struggled to write a manual into 1944, and as he notes, didn't bother to read it in almost every case even if they did manage to write one. I get the feeling veterans would advise us that manuals don't mean much in the field in any case. Which makes in interesting to see CM AARs which attempt to ape the approved "school solutions" which Harrison-Place insists were probably never done in actuality.

If it works, it means it can't be wrong...

Bil isn't playing by the book as it was in 1944, he's playing by the book as it was in the early 1990s, with all that emphasis on Intelligence Battlefield Preparation. He's very good at that, and knows how to apply it so it becomes an awesome force multiplier.

I wasn't referring to Bil... but now that you mention it, I guess I wonder what it says that Bil is able to get success with "modern" techniques. I am sure that sound principles are universal - i.e. "overwatch" - and that these are not nationality specific, either. I keep trying to steer the conversation towards specifics and others keep veering away toward generalities. Let me be more direct. What specifically should the game engine let a Soviet player do, or not, that other nationalities shouldn't, in order to be "historical"? Is it really a matter for scenario designers to come up with via force mixes and troop type settings, or is there something more intrinsic? Some have suggested things like ability to split squads, others suggest command/control delays. I don't know if we've discussed artillery delays yet, these were certainly included in CM:BB.

  It seems like a scenario design problem.  For example, an attack starts with only tanks and no artillery and infantry -- those arrive later.  Or vis-versa -- or with lots of artillery and not much else -- lots of stuff arriving as reinforcements might simulate some kind of coordination problem -- but such things would tend to happen more (in 1944 at least) when the Germans were not well-entrenched -- the punch into the first line was something the Russians had worked out (usually) by late 1942 or early 1943 (operation Spark for example).

It is typical in a way that when you say you would like to say improved C&C and logistics modelling, people assume the game won't sell well. I've encountered that response several times now on different forums. Some games go a long way, but still have their shortcomings.

Command Ops for example has had numerous problems with modelling supply, some of which were only recently fixed. Similarly, although the C&C is generally handled well, there are no areas of operation and the player is still a supreme overlord who can send ahistorical numbers of units towards one objective or concentrate all his artillery on one objective.

Generally speaking, attempts to add more detail often highlight what that game can't do.

Historical accuracy shouldn't be mistaken for railroading you into behaving exactly like your historical counterparts. Rather, in my opinion it should give you the historical tools (equipment, training and command effectiveness ratings, things like that), strengths and weaknesses of a certain nation's army to work with.

Now that Korsun has been mentioned: it was a very "un-Soviet" operation for the time. It had received weeks instead of months of prior planning and instead of a deep strike well into the German rear (which would've meant advancing towards the Bug or at the least Uman) it featured a limited encirclement. The Soviet staff study doesn't really mention any future operations in detail, the limited encirclement was the plan and not part of a greater plan. Compare that to Bagration, which had plenty of preparation time and featured a two pincer encirclement operation as well as the usual bloody frontal attack against the center of the German line to keep the Germans from withdrawing.

When I'm talking about the rigidity of the Soviets, I don't mean they should literally stop at certain points on the map or behave like a bunch of clowns, but rather that the handicaps the Soviets still suffered from should be present in some form.

Interestingly, someone like John Tiller feels that the squad level is more or less the only level that allows for a more or less faithful recreation of tactical fighting. A game on CM's or PC:O's scale is 2-3 levels above that and already shows some weaknesses inherent to it being a game (such as having too much information compared to what would be historical and generally speaking having  fairly evenly matched forces). It also hides operational or strategic flaws and thus most of the rigidity coming from inflexible C&C, inefficient logistics or slow (non-motorized or tractor-pulled) artillery units not being able to provide support after a short while.

Another problem is that many developers have been developing games, often including boardgames, for decades and are quite conservative in their game designs. To them, the computer is a glorified calculator. I don't find it particularly surprising that revolutionary games are developed by new studios and not by people like Tiller or Grigsby.

I'm still very curious what will happen when the boardgame wargamers who moved to PC gaming will become a minority compared to the newer generations of wargamers (myself included) who grew up with PC wargaming. I expect that many developers will have to radically alter some of their game systems to keep up with the new demands for innovation.

Quote from: ComradeP on February 20, 2014, 01:55:47 AM
Interestingly, someone like John Tiller feels that the squad level is more or less the only level that allows for a more or less faithful recreation of tactical fighting. A game on CM's or PC:O's scale is 2-3 levels above that and already shows some weaknesses inherent to it being a game (such as having too much information compared to what would be historical and generally speaking having  fairly evenly matched forces). It also hides operational or strategic flaws and thus most of the rigidity coming from inflexible C&C, inefficient logistics or slow (non-motorized or tractor-pulled) artillery units not being able to provide support after a short while.

We may need to define "level". You are using "squad level" here to define what I think I refer to as "man to man" - i.e. each unit in the game is a single man. CM/PC:O is only one level above that, as units are groupings of 4 or 5 men (when squads break down into teams). Unless you mean to say a game in which units are squad-based (as in CM, groups of 10 men) and each player runs a company or battalion at a time.

Putting that aside, it's an interesing comment from Tiller - where can one go to read his comments? Just designer's notes, or elsewhere?

QuoteAnother problem is that many developers have been developing games, often including boardgames, for decades and are quite conservative in their game designs. To them, the computer is a glorified calculator. I don't find it particularly surprising that revolutionary games are developed by new studios and not by people like Tiller or Grigsby.

I'm still very curious what will happen when the boardgame wargamers who moved to PC gaming will become a minority compared to the newer generations of wargamers (myself included) who grew up with PC wargaming. I expect that many developers will have to radically alter some of their game systems to keep up with the new demands for innovation.

I wonder if these things won't tend to go in circles. I note at BGG a few people are singing the praises of Mark Walker's Heroes of Stalingrad.



Discussion: http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1125213/heroes-of-stalingrad-the-computer-wargame-ive-wa

At a certain point, what is old may seem new. Miniatures, for example, had their resurgence. I don't know that conventional boardgames given new life with an AI, like Heroes of Stalingrad, will be the next new wave, but it is an interesting idea. The thing I've never liked about Matrix's games is they are rarely open-ended enough for scenario designers - but of course, doing that is kind of a dead end as far as revenues go.

Which kind of brings us back to scenario designers. The strength of any tactical game system will lay in the quality of its scenario designers. Publishers would probably do well to invest more in them, and sell product on the strength of their offerings, than in "realism".

Quote from: ComradeP on February 20, 2014, 01:55:47 AM
I'm still very curious what will happen when the boardgame wargamers who moved to PC gaming will become a minority compared to the newer generations of wargamers (myself included) who grew up with PC wargaming. I expect that many developers will have to radically alter some of their game systems to keep up with the new demands for innovation.

  I have you played any of the Grand Tactical Board games?  These cover a level (and the original design was designed to do exactly this) where the Soviet problems with "rigidity" probably had the biggest impact.  The games are Devils CAudron, Where Eagles Dare and No Question of Surrender.  the scale is companies, with Division level activations (and other actions) at two hour intervals with 350-500 meter hexes.

QuoteWe may need to define "level". You are using "squad level" here to define what I think I refer to as "man to man" - i.e. each unit in the game is a single man. CM/PC:O is only one level above that, as units are groupings of 4 or 5 men (when squads break down into teams). Unless you mean to say a game in which units are squad-based (as in CM, groups of 10 men) and each player runs a company or battalion at a time.

Yeah, my post was a bit confusing. I meant squad level as representing squads or teams as the smallest unit (men might be there, but they're still part of a squad or team and not individuals) and command levels of platoon, company and battalion.

http://www.1up.com/features/john-tiller (http://www.1up.com/features/john-tiller)

Quotehave you played any of the Grand Tactical Board games

I'm not a board wargamer, so unfortunately I haven't played them.

Quote from: ComradeP on February 20, 2014, 01:55:47 AM
the player is still a supreme overlord who can send ahistorical numbers of units towards one objective or concentrate all his artillery on one objective.

The Command & Control aspect of artillery needs to be addressed in CmdOps, yesterday I was working precisely on that. Regarding the 'ahistoricity' of troop concentrations: one does that at his own risk. Against the AI isn't very dangerous - yet - but a human player would more than likely inflict a sharp punishment. There's no such a thing as 'stacking points', there's road congestion and the threat of enemy artillery and air support.

Quote from: ComradeP
Historical accuracy shouldn't be mistaken for railroading you into behaving exactly like your historical counterparts. Rather, in my opinion it should give you the historical tools (equipment, training and command effectiveness ratings, things like that), strengths and weaknesses of a certain nation's army to work with.

Now that Korsun has been mentioned: it was a very "un-Soviet" operation for the time. It had received weeks instead of months of prior planning and instead of a deep strike well into the German rear (which would've meant advancing towards the Bug or at the least Uman) it featured a limited encirclement. The Soviet staff study doesn't really mention any future operations in detail, the limited encirclement was the plan and not part of a greater plan. Compare that to Bagration, which had plenty of preparation time and featured a two pincer encirclement operation as well as the usual bloody frontal attack against the center of the German line to keep the Germans from withdrawing.

There's a temporal and causal context to that ComradeP, that you seem to be missing with that remark about "un-sovietness". The Soviets kept evolving and changing their thinking as the war progressed, proving an adaptability that I can't see on the Germans (who never got around formalizing into their doctrine the notion of 'delaying operation' or 'breakout battle') or the Western Allies. You need to understand Korsun in the light of the deep operations conducted by the Soviets in 1943 which ended up with the destruction or severe mauling of the Soviet spearheads. Korsun, and the later Hube's Pocket, were the fore-runners of future Soviet operations in 1944 and 1945. We usually read that the Soviets were 'rigid' or 'unimaginative' or whatever. But just think about Market Garden for a second, and compare it with failed Soviet deep operations in 1943 and 1944, and you'll see why the Soviets preferred a 'broad' front approach, as the only way to avoid the Germans from using maneuver. The US Airborne and the XXX Corps were lucky that the commander in Holland was Model, and not Raus or Hube. Otherwise, I'm afraid that rather than one division, it would have been six the number of destroyed Allied divisions.

What I meant is that an operation like Korsun was the exception, not the rule. Doctrinally, it shouldn't have happened in terms of deep battle. I find it peculiar that Nash describes it as a fine example of a deep battle operation, whilst it wasn't. Also note that Rotmistrov's decision to keep moving forward was at the time also the exception not the rule. One of the reasons the spearheads kept getting isolated and destroyed was their inflexibility. The inflexibility wasn't the reason they got into that situation, that was related to the doctrine.

The Soviet spearheads getting mauled from time to time was a reality the Soviets seemed to accept. I'm not really sure they changed their doctrine after Korsun in the way you imply.

After all: the spearheads being cut off and destroyed kept happening right up to the final stages of the war. In 1944-1945 we have first Iasy-Kishinev, Tali-Ihantala, the first Riga offensive (strategically successful, not operationally on the short term), Debrecen, the first attempt to capture Warsaw (and earlier on the fighting near the 1941 German-Soviet border), the first attempt to capture East Prussia, the overextended Soviet forces in western Hungary that nearly resulted in a successful operation Konrad. It's the same pattern over and over, and in most cases those were more traditional deep battle operations. It was just a risk associated with the doctrine: high risk, high reward. If it went well, a large amount of territory could be liberated in a limited amount of time. If it went wrong, the spearheading formations were sent back to the drawing board for a few weeks.

I'm not seeing a significant change in caution around Korsun. The planning kept getting better, logistics build-up time shortened and air support improved, but the doctrinal flaws inherent to sending a mix of regular and veteran formations far forwards with shaky logistics support were not fixed in Europe. The fighting in Manchuria showed further improvement, but the Japanese didn't have the means to effectively resist the Soviets in any case.

Quote from: ComradeP on February 20, 2014, 01:55:47 AM
Historical accuracy shouldn't be mistaken for railroading you into behaving exactly like your historical counterparts. Rather, in my opinion it should give you the historical tools (equipment, training and command effectiveness ratings, things like that), strengths and weaknesses of a certain nation's army to work with.

Getting back to Combat Mission - that quote above pretty much says what CM is and does.

QuoteInterestingly, someone like John Tiller feels that the squad level is more or less the only level that allows for a more or less faithful recreation of tactical fighting. A game on CM's or PC:O's scale is 2-3 levels above that.

That is incorrect, CM's level is the team/squad. Whether the game allows you to field a battalion or more doesn't change that.

QuoteAnother problem is that many developers have been developing games, often including boardgames, for decades and are quite conservative in their game designs. To them, the computer is a glorified calculator. I don't find it particularly surprising that revolutionary games are developed by new studios and not by people like Tiller or Grigsby.

I'm still very curious what will happen when the boardgame wargamers who moved to PC gaming will become a minority compared to the newer generations of wargamers (myself included) who grew up with PC wargaming. I expect that many developers will have to radically alter some of their game systems to keep up with the new demands for innovation.

Hmm, not sure I see that. It seems to me there is a generation of gamers who 'missed' out on the boardgaming era and have an avid interest and desire in returning to the roots of the hobby, which has resulted in a resurgence in boardgaming, including conversions to the PC. Personally, having grown with the hobby, games such as CM and Command Ops are the truly revolutionary ones. I am curious what you consider to be revolutionary games by new developers today?

Quote from: MengJiao on February 19, 2014, 11:31:56 AM
  It seems like a scenario design problem.  For example, an attack starts with only tanks and no artillery and infantry -- those arrive later.  Or vis-versa -- or with lots of artillery and not much else -- lots of stuff arriving as reinforcements might simulate some kind of coordination problem -- but such things would tend to happen more (in 1944 at least) when the Germans were not well-entrenched -- the punch into the first line was something the Russians had worked out (usually) by late 1942 or early 1943 (operation Spark for example).

Yes I would agree, the emphasis does rest with scenario design. QBs as outlined in the public beta AARs are another beast, the nature of min/maxing, force selection whether kit, TOE or experience etc is for competitive and/or sandbox play first, historical aspects may not even play a role.

I'm looking forward to the new scenarios and campaigns in Red Thunder that will be developed with the AI trigger feature. Perhaps my expectations are too high, but I am thinking they will facilitate a Red Army style of attack and simulate some of the rigidity discussed here. It shouldn't be too much longer...

QuoteGetting back to Combat Mission - that quote above pretty much says what CM is and does.

No, it doesn't, as like in many other wargames you are not forced to play with the historical handicaps and don't have to use historical tactics. You get historical unit types, but how you use them is up to you. That's a major weakness of CM and most other wargames (including the titles I mentioned earlier, obviously).

There will be a large number of threads when, say, a Panther has better gun stats than a Sherman, but hardly anyone posts about abstracted logistics or too much information not making much historical sense.

QuoteThat is incorrect, CM's level is the team/squad. Whether the game allows you to field a battalion or more doesn't change that.

How many forces you have has a significant influence on gameplay. Though still tactical, it matters a lot if you're fielding a battalion or just a platoon. The greater the scale and the larger the number of units, the greater the dangers of "min/maxing" by the player and the use of ahistorical strategies.

ComradeP - Your generalizing appear confused and contradicting to me, and you are overlooking or missing what has been stated earlier, or in CM's case just wrong. I would still like to hear what developers/games today you consider revolutionary by your standards?

Quote from: ComradeP on February 22, 2014, 08:22:24 AM

QuoteGetting back to Combat Mission - that quote above pretty much says what CM is and does.

No, it doesn't, as like in many other wargames you are not forced to play with the historical handicaps and don't have to use historical tactics. You get historical unit types, but how you use them is up to you. That's a major weakness of CM and most other wargames (including the titles I mentioned earlier, obviously).

There will be a large number of threads when, say, a Panther has better gun stats than a Sherman, but hardly anyone posts about abstracted logistics or too much information not making much historical sense.

QuoteThat is incorrect, CM's level is the team/squad. Whether the game allows you to field a battalion or more doesn't change that.

How many forces you have has a significant influence on gameplay. Though still tactical, it matters a lot if you're fielding a battalion or just a platoon. The greater the scale and the larger the number of units, the greater the dangers of "min/maxing" by the player and the use of ahistorical strategies.

That is why they are games

If you want to force it to simulate exactly as the battles played out then you would more or less get the same results

History was all about taking your strength and smashing your opponent mercilessly with it.  Not much fun facing overwhelming odds or complete air superiority.  For that I would rather read a book.  For enjoyment I would rather have a game that is challenging and fun.  If that means there is some ahistorical abstraction taking place so that I can fit it into an evening of gaming even better.

Con

Quote from: ComradeP on February 22, 2014, 08:22:24 AM

QuoteGetting back to Combat Mission - that quote above pretty much says what CM is and does.

No, it doesn't, as like in many other wargames you are not forced to play with the historical handicaps and don't have to use historical tactics. You get historical unit types, but how you use them is up to you. That's a major weakness of CM and most other wargames (including the titles I mentioned earlier, obviously).

There will be a large number of threads when, say, a Panther has better gun stats than a Sherman, but hardly anyone posts about abstracted logistics or too much information not making much historical sense.

QuoteThat is incorrect, CM's level is the team/squad. Whether the game allows you to field a battalion or more doesn't change that.

How many forces you have has a significant influence on gameplay. Though still tactical, it matters a lot if you're fielding a battalion or just a platoon. The greater the scale and the larger the number of units, the greater the dangers of "min/maxing" by the player and the use of ahistorical strategies.

Well - CM does its best and simulates this in the ways it can. for example - the italian squads in CMFI are large and you cannot divide them. thats within the confines of the engine.

If you take russian tactics as another example - and this is the question you would have to answer if you are going to critisize CM - how exactly would you see that game forcing you to use human wave assaults for example ?  I cant see a mechanism that would work. the fact is if the scenario designer gives the russians enough men - human wave attacks would likely work in certain circumstances and fail in others - much like real life.

Most wargames fail the historical test because of things they cannot possibly simulate. Most wars / battles in history revolved around intangibles such as dumb decisions or blinkered tactics or limited intelligence. Things a wargame - by its nature can only simulate with varying degrees of success or not at all.

QuoteComradeP - Your generalizing appear confused and contradicting to me, and you are overlooking or missing what has been stated earlier, or in CM's case just wrong. I would still like to hear what developers/games today you consider revolutionary by your standards?

My comment regarding the scale was indeed confusing, I can see that. However, the point I was trying to make was that the games I mentioned differed in terms of how many units you controlled and thus in how they play out.

For tactical level wargames, I don't think there are many revolutionary developments towards more realism after the move to element vs. element interaction where something like a squad is composed of individual soldiers. CMx2 and other titles that have been mentioned here do that fairly well, but they still have issues with what they allow the player to do and how much information the player has. The innovation I'm talking about at the moment is mostly on the operational scale. I'm not saying there isn't innovation on the tactical scale, just that it isn't the kind that solves the issues I see (which might very well be personal).

QuoteIf you take russian tactics as another example - and this is the question you would have to answer if you are going to critisize CM - how exactly would you see that game forcing you to use human wave assaults for example ?  I cant see a mechanism that would work. the fact is if the scenario designer gives the russians enough men - human wave attacks would likely work in certain circumstances and fail in others - much like real life.

Not being as incompetent as historical commanders doesn't necessarily have to be modelled, but we have so many advantages over historical commanders that ahistorical outcomes are the rule rather than the exception. That's fine if you just want to game a bit, but at this point I find myself hoping that some further innovation will soon come to the genre.

Quote from: ComradeP on February 22, 2014, 08:22:24 AM

QuoteGetting back to Combat Mission - that quote above pretty much says what CM is and does.

No, it doesn't, as like in many other wargames you are not forced to play with the historical handicaps and don't have to use historical tactics. You get historical unit types, but how you use them is up to you. That's a major weakness of CM and most other wargames (including the titles I mentioned earlier, obviously).

There will be a large number of threads when, say, a Panther has better gun stats than a Sherman, but hardly anyone posts about abstracted logistics or too much information not making much historical sense.

QuoteThat is incorrect, CM's level is the team/squad. Whether the game allows you to field a battalion or more doesn't change that.

How many forces you have has a significant influence on gameplay. Though still tactical, it matters a lot if you're fielding a battalion or just a platoon. The greater the scale and the larger the number of units, the greater the dangers of "min/maxing" by the player and the use of ahistorical strategies.

Agree with ComradeP here. The scale of an individual engagement will also have an effect on how supporting arms are used, and in that case, goes back to nationality distinctions. The western Allies integrated supporting arms differently than the Germans. Machine guns went into specialist battalions in the Commonwealth - how do these command/control restrictions work out in CM? In a boardgame like ASL we see that MGs are simply high-powered units added to death-star killer "stacks" and augment squad firepower. Okay, so you have them "realistically" modelled in CM. Is this really so? I don't see indirect fire/interdiction modelled. I do see plenty of threads on their forums arguing about rates of fire and accuracy and no real consensus on what they should be doing in a given game. The Germans employed their MGs very differently - are they rewarded in the game for this historical usage? Should they be?

Should also point out that the higher up you go (battalion level), the more tools you are missing. No AVsRE, flamethrowers, roadblocks, not even the ability for infantry to dig shellscrapes, etc. (in a game that permits you to play a four hour scenario, this is kind of a significant omission). I understand it is a game engine in development and will look forward to seeing many of these (hopefully all) work their way in - I see flame weapons on the slate for the next upgrade  - but I would say it is premature to close the book on what CM is capable of doing. There are still too many missing parts.

Quote from: ComradeP on February 20, 2014, 04:15:55 PM


I'm not a board wargamer, so unfortunately I haven't played them.

  I think boardgames these days are much better able to address the issues that interest you:  the rhythms of warfare at the grand tactical level, a level where apparently the Soviets are generally supposed to have had lots of problems -- though under enough stress, even the Germans could fumble at that level.

  Anyway, these days, (or since 1985 or so in the case of the system that has evolved into the Grand Tactical System), board games are much more innovative, possibly because they don't cost so much to develop.

More videos of Red Thunder made available....

http://www.youtube.com/user/NormalDude1066/videos

Quote
  I think boardgames these days are much better able to address the issues that interest you:  the rhythms of warfare at the grand tactical level, a level where apparently the Soviets are generally supposed to have had lots of problems -- though under enough stress, even the Germans could fumble at that level.

  Anyway, these days, (or since 1985 or so in the case of the system that has evolved into the Grand Tactical System), board games are much more innovative, possibly because they don't cost so much to develop.

I've heard/read a lot of good things about tabletop wargaming, but unfortunately I wouldn't know of anyone to play them with as the hobby seems to be somewhat less popular here than in the US, based on how many of you play boardgames. I guess there might be plenty of middle aged people enjoying them over here to, but being 26 I don't meet many of them as we're moving around in different worlds.

Quote from: ComradeP on February 23, 2014, 05:22:01 AM

Quote
  I think boardgames these days are much better able to address the issues that interest you:  the rhythms of warfare at the grand tactical level, a level where apparently the Soviets are generally supposed to have had lots of problems -- though under enough stress, even the Germans could fumble at that level.

  Anyway, these days, (or since 1985 or so in the case of the system that has evolved into the Grand Tactical System), board games are much more innovative, possibly because they don't cost so much to develop.

I've heard/read a lot of good things about tabletop wargaming, but unfortunately I wouldn't know of anyone to play them with as the hobby seems to be somewhat less popular here than in the US, based on how many of you play boardgames. I guess there might be plenty of middle aged people enjoying them over here to, but being 26 I don't meet many of them as we're moving around in different worlds.

cough *Vassal* cough!

Quote from: ComradeP on February 22, 2014, 11:23:17 AM
My comment regarding the scale was indeed confusing, I can see that. However, the point I was trying to make was that the games I mentioned differed in terms of how many units you controlled and thus in how they play out.

For tactical level wargames, I don't think there are many revolutionary developments towards more realism after the move to element vs. element interaction where something like a squad is composed of individual soldiers. CMx2 and other titles that have been mentioned here do that fairly well, but they still have issues with what they allow the player to do and how much information the player has. The innovation I'm talking about at the moment is mostly on the operational scale. I'm not saying there isn't innovation on the tactical scale, just that it isn't the kind that solves the issues I see (which might very well be personal).

My take the tactical scale revolution occurred with the move to a 3D environment, 1-1 representation, realistic polygonal physics (as present in CM) etc are a natural evolution of that. I think recognizing where we have come in the genre and as stated earlier, what BFC have accomplished with CM, is important. Not to belabor the point, but your issue of 'what they allow the player to do' is not a CM issue. The omniscience of the player is present in all games. I'm not sure removing or restricting that would actually be productive. Scourge of War has a command option where the game is restricted to you as the commander on the back of a horse. It is enlightening and frustrating in many ways (I will ignore the mediocre AI of the game); however I do not see a groundswell of players proclaiming this as the best thing since... for obvious reasons.

In CM the player wears all the hats from the 4-5 man Team to the Bn Co. It is up to the player to plan and implement his forces as he sees fit. BFC has never attempted to model any sort of command restrictions at the Company/Battalion level. Perhaps that is the next step for the series. However; again it may not be CM then and there is a reason why the game is so popular.

Tactical aside then, what games at the operational level are currently innovative in your eyes?

Quote from: MengJiao on February 22, 2014, 09:57:58 PM

  I think boardgames these days are much better able to address the issues that interest you:  the rhythms of warfare at the grand tactical level, a level where apparently the Soviets are generally supposed to have had lots of problems -- though under enough stress, even the Germans could fumble at that level.

  Anyway, these days, (or since 1985 or so in the case of the system that has evolved into the Grand Tactical System), board games are much more innovative, possibly because they don't cost so much to develop.

Panzer Command (boardgame) was way ahead of its time and for me revolutionary with what could be accomplished with a boardgame. Hard to believe it was that long ago now.

Quote from: Zonso on February 23, 2014, 09:24:23 AM

Quote from: MengJiao on February 22, 2014, 09:57:58 PM

  I think boardgames these days are much better able to address the issues that interest you:  the rhythms of warfare at the grand tactical level, a level where apparently the Soviets are generally supposed to have had lots of problems -- though under enough stress, even the Germans could fumble at that level.

  Anyway, these days, (or since 1985 or so in the case of the system that has evolved into the Grand Tactical System), board games are much more innovative, possibly because they don't cost so much to develop.

Panzer Command (boardgame) was way ahead of its time and for me revolutionary with what could be accomplished with a boardgame. Hard to believe it was that long ago now.

   So I don't think it is board games that are making computer games less innovative when it comes to dealing with Russian Rigidity -- what it is -- is (I think) that there are two ways of working out some way to make the Russians conform to the standard image of their rigidity:
1) make up special rules for the Russians (this is the usual method), 2) make the game deep enough that there is some way to make rigidity a workable and worthwhile strategy or method of coping with problems of a kind that usually don't get simulated at all.

   The thing is, the average player tends to have an image of warfare that is limited to either cinematic images of tactical battles or vague narratives of strategic this and that -- whereas the whole grand tactical to operational and most of the strategic sphere isn't even remotely imaginable for most players.  so they are not going to be happy playing a game that turns out to be a nasty lesson in the niceities of war about which they know nothing -- and perhaps even less as a result of concluding the game doesn't work: troops are not even where they say they are, STAVKA is always on the phone about this and that, we never even found the enemy, why is everyone drunk?  Is everyone Drunk?  And why was I shot for treason anyway?

Quote from: ComradeP on February 16, 2014, 02:55:11 PM
The beta AAR shows exactly what I feared and why I'm not inclined to buy the CMx2 titles.

One of the challenges when simulating tactical combat for the Soviets is modelling their tactical inflexibility, but unfortunately that is often not handled very well which gives the virtual Soviets a big advantage over their historical counterparts (similar to how simplified logistics tend to give the virtual Germans an advantage in operational and strategic level games where lack of fuel would normally limit operations).

Bil Hardenberger's moving his units with Western-style flexibility. There's no (significant) delay in commands it seems, no pre-battle plan units need to stick to, all of his commanders are competently handling their troops and showing initiative in responding to situations. He already said his armour is advancing in an ahistorical manner.

The map is forested, and Soviet forces have a lot more submachine guns than the Germans. The Germans need defences and distance to make the superior weight of fire of their MG's and mortars work. Even though the Germans are "defending", they have no real defenses so it's basically sort of a meeting engagement around a village. Foxholes being very easy to spot seemingly (unless this was recently changed in a patch) would make defending positions difficult in any case.

Bil Hardenberger carefully checks possible kill zones and once something big fires, he'll use the turn replay feature to see where the shot came from and respond to it immediately. If the German armour fires first, they might at least have a use. If they don't, like in a number of other AAR's, this is going to be over fast.

So, the AAR just wrapped up - as we discussed here, Bil wiped the floor with an outclassed player. I see references to some mistakes in play, notably from the developer who has been active in the thread. Any other reactions here?

It may have been more useful to see an AAR showing Bil taking on the AI with the developer doing commentary regarding how the new AI triggers are working. May have been more valuable as a "sell" for the game.

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on March 07, 2014, 08:41:55 AM

Quote from: ComradeP on February 16, 2014, 02:55:11 PM
The beta AAR shows exactly what I feared and why I'm not inclined to buy the CMx2 titles.

One of the challenges when simulating tactical combat for the Soviets is modelling their tactical inflexibility, but unfortunately that is often not handled very well which gives the virtual Soviets a big advantage over their historical counterparts (similar to how simplified logistics tend to give the virtual Germans an advantage in operational and strategic level games where lack of fuel would normally limit operations).

Bil Hardenberger's moving his units with Western-style flexibility. There's no (significant) delay in commands it seems, no pre-battle plan units need to stick to, all of his commanders are competently handling their troops and showing initiative in responding to situations. He already said his armour is advancing in an ahistorical manner.

The map is forested, and Soviet forces have a lot more submachine guns than the Germans. The Germans need defences and distance to make the superior weight of fire of their MG's and mortars work. Even though the Germans are "defending", they have no real defenses so it's basically sort of a meeting engagement around a village. Foxholes being very easy to spot seemingly (unless this was recently changed in a patch) would make defending positions difficult in any case.

Bil Hardenberger carefully checks possible kill zones and once something big fires, he'll use the turn replay feature to see where the shot came from and respond to it immediately. If the German armour fires first, they might at least have a use. If they don't, like in a number of other AAR's, this is going to be over fast.

So, the AAR just wrapped up - as we discussed here, Bil wiped the floor with an outclassed player. I see references to some mistakes in play, notably from the developer who has been active in the thread. Any other reactions here?

It may have been more useful to see an AAR showing Bil taking on the AI with the developer doing commentary regarding how the new AI triggers are working. May have been more valuable as a "sell" for the game.

Bil versus the Ai seems uninteresting.  Elvis and Bil were pushed in odd directions by the need to exhibit things.  Bil Complained about the SU122s, but they did okay and Elvis might have done better with a different mix.  Even the supposed handicap of the Su122s probably worked in Bil's favor.

Elvis versus the AI might be good.

QuoteIt may have been more useful to see an AAR showing Bil taking on the AI with the developer doing commentary regarding how the new AI triggers are working. May have been more valuable as a "sell" for the game.

The new triggers are not automatically included just like AI plans, they only work if someone creates QB Maps or scenarios to use them.

One wonders, how many of maps (QB and/or Scenario) will even have triggers?

Quote from: SgtRock on March 07, 2014, 02:00:09 PM

QuoteIt may have been more useful to see an AAR showing Bil taking on the AI with the developer doing commentary regarding how the new AI triggers are working. May have been more valuable as a "sell" for the game.

The new triggers are not automatically included just like AI plans, they only work if someone creates QB Maps or scenarios to use them.

One wonders, how many of maps (QB and/or Scenario) will even have triggers?

I have no idea how extensive the trigger options will even be. Perhaps not extensive at all, to start - and will take some getting used to for the scenario designers. Of course, the more options you have, the longer it will take to design the things.

i think they are at a basic level at the moment, they will obviously become more 'elegant' as everyone gets used to designing with them

Quote from: undercovergeek on March 09, 2014, 07:48:30 AM
i think they are at a basic level at the moment, they will obviously become more 'elegant' as everyone gets used to designing with them

We're all in wait and see mode. I'm not suggesting scenarios have to be "elegant" to be fun, incidentally. Actually, the opposite - the more you try and be clever, as a designer, the greater the chance you have of missing the boat. Which is kind of why the current model of a programmed AI doesn't work as well as it might. The designer is required to time everything to the clock - and this is predicated on the same designer anticipating which moves the player is going to make. Triggers, then, are a very welcome addition if they help address this issue. We'll see how broadly these work. The only example I've seen was a very specific type of event trigger rather than a 'conditional' trigger. The one that Steve gave appeared to be an example where an assault gun engages a target from one location and is then triggered to displace and move to another ambush location. This as opposed to, say, an entire platoon relocating due to unseen events on another part of the map. I used to like the option in the CMX1 Operations where reinforcements came in if force levels on the other side dipped below a certain percentage - it was not only a balancing mechanism, but seemed realistic to boot, since a brigade/regiment might naturally send additional troops to shore up a battered battalion. Having the AI redeploy platoons realistically in the course of a battle in such a manner would be a nice ability also.

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on January 30, 2014, 08:55:31 PM

Quote from: Boggit on January 30, 2014, 07:47:49 PM
Fire and tank riders. A step in the right direction. I wonder if this will give rise to an upgrade for CMFI, and CMBN? :)

I assume it will.

Many goodies to like in there - and some stuff long on the want list of the fanbase. I do hope they get flame weapons in CMBN soon, as they are sorely needed (flame vehicles would be great, too, particularly for the Market Garden timeframe). I'm almost positive they have said this will happen.

As for stuff not in the announcement, I hope they will get around to improving the terrain editor sooner rather than later. The screenshots reveal the same stepping-stone roads, inability to do a 30-degree angle (just 90 and 45 degrees), and my biggest complaint, the fact that water can only exist at one contour level throughout an entire map. Makes no sense - water courses travel downhill - that's what a river or stream is. Water changing elevation.

Otherwise, I've preordered and will look forward to this.

Wasps, and Crocodiles! 8) Cool - well hot stuff really. I agree with all you say. At least it shows they're listening to the fanbase. I hope they get round to the other stuff you mention, but they are not a big studio, and Rome wasn't built in a day. Here's hoping though! :)

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on March 09, 2014, 11:50:11 AM

Quote from: undercovergeek on March 09, 2014, 07:48:30 AM
i think they are at a basic level at the moment, they will obviously become more 'elegant' as everyone gets used to designing with them

We're all in wait and see mode. I'm not suggesting scenarios have to be "elegant" to be fun, incidentally. Actually, the opposite - the more you try and be clever, as a designer, the greater the chance you have of missing the boat. Which is kind of why the current model of a programmed AI doesn't work as well as it might. The designer is required to time everything to the clock - and this is predicated on the same designer anticipating which moves the player is going to make. Triggers, then, are a very welcome addition if they help address this issue. We'll see how broadly these work. The only example I've seen was a very specific type of event trigger rather than a 'conditional' trigger. The one that Steve gave appeared to be an example where an assault gun engages a target from one location and is then triggered to displace and move to another ambush location. This as opposed to, say, an entire platoon relocating due to unseen events on another part of the map. I used to like the option in the CMX1 Operations where reinforcements came in if force levels on the other side dipped below a certain percentage - it was not only a balancing mechanism, but seemed realistic to boot, since a brigade/regiment might naturally send additional troops to shore up a battered battalion. Having the AI redeploy platoons realistically in the course of a battle in such a manner would be a nice ability also.

Some of the triggers are still based around timing but bit so reliant on it

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on March 07, 2014, 08:41:55 AM


So, the AAR just wrapped up - as we discussed here, Bil wiped the floor with an outclassed player. I see references to some mistakes in play, notably from the developer who has been active in the thread. Any other reactions here?

It may have been more useful to see an AAR showing Bil taking on the AI with the developer doing commentary regarding how the new AI triggers are working. May have been more valuable as a "sell" for the game.

That's a pretty chickens**t thing to say about Elvis's play, especially in light of your personal history, though I guess it is to be expected as you are entirely predictable.

No question Bil is an elite player and definitely not taking anything away from him, but I thought Elvis played pretty good. Sure mistakes were made, as always by all players, but if a couple things had gone a little differently they would still be playing right now. It seemed the AAR served its purpose and got a whole lot of people participating, kind of hard to argue with that regardless of the outcome.

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on March 09, 2014, 11:50:11 AM


We're all in wait and see mode. I'm not suggesting scenarios have to be "elegant" to be fun, incidentally. Actually, the opposite - the more you try and be clever, as a designer, the greater the chance you have of missing the boat. Which is kind of why the current model of a programmed AI doesn't work as well as it might. The designer is required to time everything to the clock - and this is predicated on the same designer anticipating which moves the player is going to make. Triggers, then, are a very welcome addition if they help address this issue.

And yet the quality of the scenarios and campaigns are an order of magnitude *better* now than when CMSF was released, so those designers who learned the editor and gained experience ensured the boat arrived on time. With the addition of Triggers, even in a basic form initially, the designers will have another tool to create even better scenarios. I don't see learning Triggers as much of a hurdle for these designers so much as allowing them to raise the bar higher yet.

Quote from: Zonso on March 10, 2014, 07:36:38 AM
And yet the quality of the scenarios and campaigns are an order of magnitude *better* now than when CMSF was released, so those designers who learned the editor and gained experience ensured the boat arrived on time.

If you mean to say people get better by gaining experience I hardly find that an astonishing revelation.

QuoteWith the addition of Triggers, even in a basic form initially, the designers will have another tool to create even better scenarios.

Yes, as several people have already indicated in this thread, that is no doubt the point.

QuoteI don't see learning Triggers as much of a hurdle for these designers so much as allowing them to raise the bar higher yet.

It is possible to add features in one area while still remaining deficient in others. That doesn't "raise bars" it simply moves the status quo forward.

Quote from: Zonso on March 10, 2014, 07:23:01 AM
That's a pretty chickens**t thing to say about Elvis's play, especially in light of your personal history, though I guess it is to be expected as you are entirely predictable.

I see you are still getting your talking points from other people, though it is amusing to think that if you look at the Battlefront DRM thread currently running you will see a direct refutation about my "predictability."

QuoteNo question Bil is an elite player and definitely not taking anything away from him, but I thought Elvis played pretty good. Sure mistakes were made, as always by all players, but if a couple things had gone a little differently they would still be playing right now. It seemed the AAR served its purpose and got a whole lot of people participating, kind of hard to argue with that regardless of the outcome.

It wasn't an AAR. It was a play session reported on in progress. An AAR generally consists of a concise analysis after the fact. A good AAR, in the best tradition of the genre, would have two skilled players analyze their game in detail, perhaps with a neutral commentator, maybe even one of the designers/developers. The AAR would highlight game mechanics, flow of play, the abilities of both players, and hopefully have a dramatic finish. Good ones would be carefully edited, polished and presented for mass consumption.

I won't argue that what was presented wasn't appreciated by the audience, but it was not a classic AAR.

It was not as bad as one of the official CM:SF videos, in which one of the developers decided a real time video of his forces being shot to pieces by the AI would make for good advertising.

In general, BFC has improved their marketing considerably in recent years. The teaser videos for example are well done. Their approach to controlling pre-release information may be frustrating to fans but I think it is the correct one. I think they do most things right as far as marketing and have said so for some time now. Mostly, CM sells itself and spending a lot of money would probably be pouring it down the drain. They used to advertise in World War II Magazine and the like, and I thought they said they weren't getting much dividend. (I note the mass market World of Tanks is still advertising on television, saw another ad just last night.) For the market they have, I think BFC does very well with their marketing.

But I'd still like to see them find another player of Bil Hardenberger's calibre to face off against in public. An interactive session play isn't a terrible idea, but a rout isn't fun to watch, and at worst, it gives the impression the game will rely on the same kind of asymmetrical scenarios that were necessary to make CM:SF playable.

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on March 10, 2014, 09:06:08 AM
It wasn't an AAR. It was a play session reported on in progress. An AAR generally consists of a concise analysis after the fact. A good AAR, in the best tradition of the genre, would have two skilled players analyze their game in detail, perhaps with a neutral commentator, maybe even one of the designers/developers. The AAR would highlight game mechanics, flow of play, the abilities of both players, and hopefully have a dramatic finish. Good ones would be carefully edited, polished and presented for mass consumption.

I won't argue that what was presented wasn't appreciated by the audience, but it was not a classic AAR.

I agree with you very much in that respect. As I discovered to my chagrin, that kind of endeavour easily becomes akin to a part-time job. It's a shame that the game we started with Leto died as I got dragged by real-life... spending several hours taking screenshots, editing them and annotating them was a too big ask on my time.

I still think that kind of 'real AAR' is doable, but would require significant organisation and team work.

every morning i see with great excitement, the CM Red Thunder thread is ruling at the top of the Grogheads activity list
and think:

    " H u r r a  !     it got released late last eve  (my timezone)"  F#*k Yeah ! 

...only to find out: its just another two pages added of wall-o-text withs lengthy often wellknown philosophical CM back and for arguments and chatter.

Ahrrrrrr >:( 
   
;) ;) ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRSnlIExWpc

lol

Quote from: MikeGER on March 11, 2014, 03:09:22 AM
every morning i see with great excitement, the CM Red Thunder thread is ruling at the top of the Grogheads activity list
and think:

    " H u r r a  !     it got released late last eve  (my timezone)"  F#*k Yeah ! 

...only to find out: its just another two pages added of wall-o-text withs lengthy often wellknown philosophical CM back and for arguments and chatter.

Ahrrrrrr >:( 
   
;) ;) ;)

  But progress is being made!  For a while no one was sure whether to bash the AI tiggers (bouncy things -- friends of Roo!)
or revert to being scandalized about other topics, but now, NOW WE KNOW...the AAR was not "really" an AAR.

  It was something else.  Something else again.  Like (in fact) EVERYTHING THAT IS CALLED AN AAR.  I guess we need a new
acronym:  NRAARAAR (Not really AAR AAR).  Or just use AAR to stand for what is generally (if perhaps erroneiously) called an
AAR.

Quote from: MengJiao on March 11, 2014, 09:09:31 AM
AAR ...AAR.

.... AAR.  NRAARAAR (AAR AAR   AAR
AAR.

Much more of this and I'll have you walking the plank

it needs a pair of boobs and were just about done here!

Quote from: undercovergeek on March 11, 2014, 06:03:32 PM
it needs a pair of boobs and were just about done here!

That will definitely have a better chance of entering the collective consciousness than the NRAARAAR...

Quote from: Bletchley_Geek on March 11, 2014, 12:49:11 AM

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on March 10, 2014, 09:06:08 AM
It wasn't an AAR. It was a play session reported on in progress. An AAR generally consists of a concise analysis after the fact. A good AAR, in the best tradition of the genre, would have two skilled players analyze their game in detail, perhaps with a neutral commentator, maybe even one of the designers/developers. The AAR would highlight game mechanics, flow of play, the abilities of both players, and hopefully have a dramatic finish. Good ones would be carefully edited, polished and presented for mass consumption.

I won't argue that what was presented wasn't appreciated by the audience, but it was not a classic AAR.

I agree with you very much in that respect. As I discovered to my chagrin, that kind of endeavour easily becomes akin to a part-time job. It's a shame that the game we started with Leto died as I got dragged by real-life... spending several hours taking screenshots, editing them and annotating them was a too big ask on my time.

I still think that kind of 'real AAR' is doable, but would require significant organisation and team work.

It's always been easier to destroy than create, unfortunately. Probably why trolling is more common than constructive discussions.

It's disappointing, too, that those who do find the time to present good information in a well-organized way - BilH's website on tactics comes to mind as just one example off the top of my head - are often rewarded by crickets chirping (I am guilty at this too) because few people take the time to comment at those sites, in favour of the more public venues of discussion. Which is a bit more irony, since most of those "public" venues are populated by anonymous registrants who show up to bark at each other.

Maybe it's time to abandon this thread and move to a thread with a more specific topic - at the very least in this way no "emotional distress" will be inflicted on subscribers  :)

On the other hand, BFC has gone dark since last week and Chris didn't play a CMRT scenario on his twitch.tv stream. The release may be quite close.

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on March 12, 2014, 05:05:30 PM
It's always been easier to destroy than create, unfortunately.

As a matter of cosmic history, in fact.

Quote from: Bletchley_Geek on March 12, 2014, 06:47:25 PM
Maybe it's time to abandon this thread and move to a thread with a more specific topic - at the very least in this way no "emotional distress" will be inflicted on subscribers  :)

On the other hand, BFC has gone dark since last week and Chris didn't play a CMRT scenario on his twitch.tv stream. The release may be quite close.

That means it's crunch time, it's really hard to get software to a release state, all kinds of things have a nasty habit of showing up at the last minute, not to mention opps, someone forget something ;D

Quote from: mirth on March 12, 2014, 07:00:09 PM

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on March 12, 2014, 05:05:30 PM
It's always been easier to destroy than create, unfortunately.

As a matter of cosmic history, in fact.

Its just physics :)
the second law of thermodynamics: Entropy of an isolated system never decreases  ;D

Quote from: MikeGER on March 13, 2014, 11:53:52 AM

Quote from: mirth on March 12, 2014, 07:00:09 PM

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on March 12, 2014, 05:05:30 PM
It's always been easier to destroy than create, unfortunately.

As a matter of cosmic history, in fact.

Its just physics :)
the second law of thermodynamics: Entropy of an isolated system never decreases  ;D

The bane of countless creationists.

Quote from: Ubercat on March 14, 2014, 08:40:48 AM

Quote from: MikeGER on March 13, 2014, 11:53:52 AM

Quote from: mirth on March 12, 2014, 07:00:09 PM

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on March 12, 2014, 05:05:30 PM
It's always been easier to destroy than create, unfortunately.

As a matter of cosmic history, in fact.

Its just physics :)
the second law of thermodynamics: Entropy of an isolated system never decreases  ;D

The bane of countless creationists.

"As a matter of Cosmic History, it has always been easier to destroy than create" - Spock to McCoy while debating Genesis in Wrath of Khan.

I was informed at another website that this was a CM thread discussing Red Thunder.  It seems a bit off track, and I see Dorosh has slipped back into his snippy ways, but that is besides the point.  Good luck with your next 20,000 posts Mr. Dorosh.

The AAR between BilH and Elvis is wildly entertaining IMO.  Why some feel that it must be held up to some sort of standard is ludicrous.  It is like some wargamers must be unhappy little snots. 

I liken the format of two unlikely opponents (one lauded to be 'the best', and the other to be an underdog), and the raw nature of the unfinished product, to be a new medium.  The interaction with posters suggesting what units should be bought and what to do, made for a somewhat new experience.  That is probably is what put off the old fuddy-duddy element in the hobby.

Elvis' play has entertaining qualities and sort of reminded me of some sort of reality show.  I often wondered when reading posts while in the elevator "Can he really be doing this?"  Can Bil really be chewing up this much time because of it?  Both sides handling of its armor was equally entertaining and it did not seem that there was any decisive action till the midpoint of the game.  I don't believe that Elvis was that mismatched and if Bil had less time, and maybe this should be a scenario design factor for Soviet attacks, Bil may have made even bigger flubs himself without checking out every possible place Elvis could be.

In any case, I don't really see the 'Grog' faction here.  Seems like another place for Dorosh to spread his brand of misery and reactionary viewpoint of the hobby.  And his paranoid obsession with other wargamers.

Good luck.  And good day.

^Great first post  ::)

We're not Grogs cause we love Rome II here!

Aaaand I see this thread veering off into flame territory in
4...3....2....

Con

Quote from: Con on March 14, 2014, 03:48:30 PM
Aaaand I see this thread veering off into flame territory in
4...3....2....

Con

BattleFront + CM + Grogs = Flame Territory! ;D

The CM community makes the game so inviting...

Quote from: SgtRock on March 14, 2014, 04:20:30 PM

Quote from: Con on March 14, 2014, 03:48:30 PM
Aaaand I see this thread veering off into flame territory in
4...3....2....

Con

BattleFront + CM + Grogs = Flame Territory! ;D

I think you need to add
{DRM (squared?) X Price}/ graphics = Exponential Flaming


Con

Quote from: Arctic Blast on March 14, 2014, 09:27:17 PMThe CM community makes the game so inviting...

It's on par with the Harpoon community. Way to encourage folks to play your uber-niche game.

Try asking if WiF is ready, or Netplay or why it costs so much or why the download is the same price as the physical copy in WiF forums...I double dare ya!

Quote from: JudgeDredd on March 15, 2014, 01:17:50 AM
Try asking if WiF is ready, or Netplay or why it costs so much or why the download is the same price as the physical copy in WiF forums...I double dare ya!

:)

Quote from: mirth on March 14, 2014, 03:18:50 PM
^Great first post  ::)

Thanks.  I see you are very sarcastic.  How is that working out for you?

Mr. Dorosh invited people to come here.  So, to answer your question "Stalk much?", well, he only needs to blame himself for inviting people.  See how that works?  Use the word ... much, much?

In any case.  I wish you all luck with whatever this thread is now talking about.

Quote from: Redirected on March 15, 2014, 06:38:57 PM

Quote from: mirth on March 14, 2014, 03:18:50 PM
^Great first post  ::)

Mr. Dorosh invited people to come here. 

wha?

Michael Dorosh is offline
Forum Guru
                   
Michael Dorosh's Avatar Join Date
Feb 2004
Location
Calgary, AB
Posts
16,126
Blog Entries
18
Re: Combat Mission: Red Thunder announced
Discussions on this topic were opened on other forums well in advance of this one for those looking for a broader audience and respectful atmosphere to participate in:

Grogheads.com

http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=9153.0

Boardgamegeek:

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1114...front-preorder

Quote from: mirth on March 14, 2014, 03:18:50 PM
^Great first post  ::)

You fellows have just been Lewised.

You may also know him as :Username:, Lewis Username, Yoozername, or Mr Tittles. He's also known as Nuttername, Tod Haedman, Kurt Price and Daisy Slabbert, among many other aliases. This would be I believe the sixth forum he's followed me onto, but luckily he loses interest when he realizes how quickly he's discovered and that his posts don't get responded to by me. It can only be my magnetic personality.

I will try not embarrass you in front of you new friends Dorosh.  It is a fact you have been either banned or driven away from most CM arenas and now are trying to recruit anyone from those sites  to listen to your barely suppressed rage at being yourself.  Congrats on the declining Lulu sales.  Can you get more marginalized in your life?  Thanks for the invite and expected propaganda.  Do you think anyone wants to be near you?  Is there anything but a barely suppressed rage at being a shorted person in a big world?

As far as his banning, and running away when he can't cry to the moderators,...does he just run away because he can't fight?  No, he runs away because he can't cheat or lie or bend the truth, or blow smoke out of his ass, or ingratiate himself or gain favor, etc.  Quite a shining example of Canadian Military manhood.

^^Because nothing could possibly be as scathing as the words of a man with so little to do that he does...whatever the Hell this is across multiple sites. Quite the life you've built for yourself. Bravo.

(https://no1iswatching.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/mitt-romney-slow-clapping-2.jpg)

{MOD VOICE ON}

wow...  opening up with a broadside, eh?  Most folks make their way in a new forum with a low-key introduction, a few calm comments, get the temperature of the site they're visiting, and then jump in and start making joining some wider discussions and making some harsher comments.

Quote from: Redirected on March 14, 2014, 03:11:31 PM
I was informed at another website that this was a CM thread discussing Red Thunder.  It seems a bit off track, and I see Dorosh has slipped back into his snippy ways, but that is besides the point.  Good luck with your next 20,000 posts Mr. Dorosh.

We wander off-track around here, and sometimes people bring us back on track.  Attempting to blame one person for the derailing shows that you're targeting one person with an agenda you're bringing in from elsewhere.  We've *ALL* derailed threads here to a wider variety of degrees than are normally tolerated on most sites and even made fun of that fact (http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=6724.0).  We also eventually bring things back to where they belong.  That's how we roll around here.

Quote from: Redirected on March 14, 2014, 03:11:31 PMThe AAR between BilH and Elvis is wildly entertaining IMO.  Why some feel that it must be held up to some sort of standard is ludicrous.  It is like some wargamers must be unhappy little snots. 

We have a wide, wide variety of tastes in how articles work around here.  We've had text-heavy AARs (like the Flames of War, or Flashpoint Campaigns AARs) and we've had image-heavy AARs (like the Civ5 series).  We've had serious tones, and smart-ass archaistic ones.  We cover a wide variety of tone and attitude.  What someone does elsewhere is up to them.  We like what we're doing here, and if folks don't like it there are a lot of options to find content elsewhere on the web.  That's the beauty of digital distribution.

Quote from: Redirected on March 14, 2014, 03:11:31 PMIn any case, I don't really see the 'Grog' faction here.  Seems like another place for Dorosh to spread his brand of misery and reactionary viewpoint of the hobby.  And his paranoid obsession with other wargamers.

If you're not seeing a "Grog" faction here then you're working on a different definition of "Grog" than we are.  And that's OK.  Again, that's the beauty of the web - you can find what you really want if you look hard enough, and if you can't you can start your own (which is what we did).

But one thing this site was founded on was a fresh start for people involved.  With only 1-2 extreme exceptions, we don't ban/censure/beat up on people for things that happened on other sites at other times.  If someone shows up with a reputation, we are willing to give them a chance to start over.  And we're not overly thrilled when people bring their off-site drama over here with no previous experience with us, or how people are behaving around here.

Quote from: Redirected on March 14, 2014, 03:11:31 PMAnd good day.

Well, it was

Throttle back a bit on the stalker attitude.  Doesn't matter how you got here or why you jumped in, your first stab at a discussion was slagging about 4 different folks with no real attempt to just ease into the discussion.  No point wandering into the bar and immediately poking fingers into people's chests and then wondering why you're being ill-received.

{MOD VOICE OFF}

Quote from: Redirected on March 16, 2014, 12:30:25 AM
I will try not embarrass you in front of you new friends Dorosh.  It is a fact you have been either banned or driven away from most CM arenas and now are trying to recruit anyone from those sites  to listen to your barely suppressed rage at being yourself.  Congrats on the declining Lulu sales.  Can you get more marginalized in your life?  Thanks for the invite and expected propaganda.  Do you think anyone wants to be near you?  Is there anything but a barely suppressed rage at being a shorted person in a big world?

As far as his banning, and running away when he can't cry to the moderators,...does he just run away because he can't fight?  No, he runs away because he can't cheat or lie or bend the truth, or blow smoke out of his ass, or ingratiate himself or gain favor, etc.  Quite a shining example of Canadian Military manhood.

You make it sound like we dont know who Michael is, like its some kind of gaming kindergarten here and the big man has come to steal our toys.

Personally, im beta testing 2 CM games, i know who he is, we all know who is, whether i agree with his views doesnt matter - hes allowed just as much as you are to express his opinion - if those get him in hot water then he'll get some red writing and be shown the door - dont think youre doing the world a service by chasing him round the internet telling people what you think of him.

If you are who Michael says you are, ive read enough of your posts elsewhere to know what kind of person you are too

Quote from: undercovergeek on March 16, 2014, 07:31:15 AM
Personally, im beta testing 2 CM games

I'd be more interested in talking about those, than other people I've never met. Too bad about those pesky NDAs.

Hopefully the thread isn't completely derailed. undercovergeek started this off by noting the new game engine has hit decals.

Here is the full feature list:

• Backpack and vehicle flamethrowers
• Soviet air support attacks on its own instead of being controlled by ground observers
• Antiaircraft weapons are now able to fire at attacking aircraft
• Tank riders! Most AFVs are able to transport either teams or squads   
• WeGo TCP/IP with the ability to save but not the ability to replay combat action   
• Ammo Dumps allow platoons to have reserve ammo stored separately on map   
• More realistic/varied RoF of automatic weapons   
• All Squads can split, however Soviet units are less reliable when not in direct visual LOS of their Squad Leader   
• Squads can act as HQs for better historical accuracy   
• Hit impacts to vehicles and bunkers now shown graphically ("hit decals")   
• Water animates for fording units   
• Three different sets of camera controls; Standard (traditional), First Person Shooter, and Real Time Strategy   
• Optional graphical Command and Control link tracing   
• Casualties are shown in the Soldier/Crew Panels to track soldiers lost during the game   
• Option to disable music separate from other game sounds   
• AI Triggers allow AI forces to execute actions based on other units or interaction with Objectives   
• Maximum map size increased 
• Improve responsiveness of 2D editing, especially for large maps   
• Customized "Mod Tags" for most graphics. This allows scenario designers to specify specific mods be used for a specific Scenario. If CM fails to find the specified mod it will use the default   

It's a pretty nice, if incremental list. Not sure I understand the full implications of it all yet but I don't think we will have long to wait at this point.  I'm most curious about the new camera controls.

Quote from: Arctic Blast on March 14, 2014, 09:27:17 PM
The CM community makes the game so inviting...

I'm not sure who you are referring to here as part of the "CM community". People such as the thinly veiled Redirected and Michael Dorosh, not above multiple handles either, were officially given the boot years ago. The bane, or boon, of the internet is the sordid mess is preserved for all to see if they so wish.

The *real* CM community is welcoming and extremely helpful and knowledgeable, as I'm sure others here who frequent the BFC forums can attest.

Quote from: Zonso on March 16, 2014, 08:25:43 AM
I'm not sure who you are referring to here as part of the "CM community". People such as... Michael Dorosh, not above multiple handles either, were officially given the boot years ago.

This is inaccurate. If you go to the official battlefront Repository, you'll see that I've contributed, and continue to contribute, a number of scenarios for the current line of CM games.

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314

I should point out that the "real CM Community" also exists and thrives outside the official BFC forums. This forum too is very much a part of it. That's hardly an insult. One would actually hope for that kind of success in any endeavour. If you support the game and its developers half as much as you suggest you do, you would also suppport the idea of breaking down silos and encourage a vision where fans and support existed in areas outside the "official" venues.

Edit to add:

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314&func=select&id=44&orderby=2&page=12

Mine are prefixed by the letters "TWC" if anyone is curious. Always glad to receive constructive feedback on them. I'm happy to do the same for others who are designing their own. As the editor gets more involved, it pays to be networking...

Quote from: Zonso on March 16, 2014, 08:25:43 AM

Quote from: Arctic Blast on March 14, 2014, 09:27:17 PM
The CM community makes the game so inviting...

I'm not sure who you are referring to here as part of the "CM community". People such as the thinly veiled Redirected and Michael Dorosh, not above multiple handles either, were officially given the boot years ago. The bane, or boon, of the internet is the sordid mess is preserved for all to see if they so wish.

The *real* CM community is welcoming and extremely helpful and knowledgeable, as I'm sure others here who frequent the BFC forums can attest.

Why are you trying to lump Michael Dorosh in with Redirected?

Mr. Doresh did nothing like Redirected coming in here with guns blazing? Seems like people come in here to attack him from afar. I do not know him, but I have not see him misbehave on this website at all.

He seems to give both the good and bad about products in his posts. Does not seem to 'flame' anyone that I can see.

This site is a place where you don't have to worry about a Company owning it, so you can freely express your opinions on any products. No need to start attacks on others.

Quote from: Tuna on March 16, 2014, 09:15:53 AM

Quote from: Zonso on March 16, 2014, 08:25:43 AM

Quote from: Arctic Blast on March 14, 2014, 09:27:17 PM
The CM community makes the game so inviting...

I'm not sure who you are referring to here as part of the "CM community". People such as the thinly veiled Redirected and Michael Dorosh, not above multiple handles either, were officially given the boot years ago. The bane, or boon, of the internet is the sordid mess is preserved for all to see if they so wish.

The *real* CM community is welcoming and extremely helpful and knowledgeable, as I'm sure others here who frequent the BFC forums can attest.

Why are you trying to lump Michael Dorosh in with Redirected?

Mr. Doresh did nothing like Redirected coming in here with guns blazing? Seems like people come in here to attack him from afar. I do not know him, but I have not see him misbehave on this website at all.

He seems to give both the good and bad about products in his posts. Does not seem to 'flame' anyone that I can see.

This site is a place where you don't have to worry about a Company owning it, so you can freely express your opinions on any products. No need to start attacks on others.

+1....I can care less who people are as long as cordial to each other and respect opinions....its a shame that every CM thread ends up like this.  Too bad the thread could not stick to its original intent of announcing and discussing the new title coming.

QuoteAmmo Dumps allow platoons to have reserve ammo stored separately on map

Are these any different than supply trucks? Do/can they carry mortar, bazooka rounds, grenades, etc.?

How do you get ammo from a supply dump to front line units (away from supply dump)?

Quote from: SgtRock on March 16, 2014, 10:20:06 AM

QuoteAmmo Dumps allow platoons to have reserve ammo stored separately on map

Are these any different than supply trucks? Do/can they carry mortar, bazooka rounds, grenades, etc.?

How do you get ammo from a supply dump to front line units (away from supply dump)?

I believe the difference is they don't move meaning your units have to go back and get the stuff. This was one of my concerns when CM:SF came out. When I did my basic training a couple of decades and change ago, it seems to me that during a running battle, one or two of us might be split off as runners to go back and get bandoliers of ammo from the supply point for the section (squad). I do like the greater flexibility I am seeing in CM:FI and CM:BN where you can split down into specific kinds of teams (anti-tank, assault, scout, etc.). I'd like to be able to split off individuals to do 'joe jobs' like ammo and prisoners. That might be too much micromanagement, so maybe there is a mechanism for this in the works.

I note in some of the AAR screenshots, there are 'straggler' units identified in the interface, so we shall wait and see. I remember in Close Combat that sometimes individual guys would split off of squads and you would lose control of them. A feature like that would be interesting, though perhaps mildly controversial. Players hate losing control.

let's focus on talking about the games and not about the people playing, testing, designing or contributing to them.

kthxbai!

Quote from: bayonetbrant on March 16, 2014, 10:44:11 AM
let's focus on talking about the games and not about the people playing, testing, designing or contributing to them.

kthxbai!

Good idea.  That is one of the main reasons I came here.  That, and the thread inviting me to. 

In focusing on the game, specifically the new Red Thunder 'Family', an interesting issue is the modeling of the Soviets and specifically limitations on their command and control and tactical flexibility.  If anything, the Red Thunder AAR shows that a CM player can still use CM-tricks to get intel and abuse the clock-allotted-time. 

As far as I can tell, BF has put some sort of limitations on split Soviet squads.  Teams busted off a squad have some voodoo put on them.  Things like artillery time constraints might also be modeled but never came up since the Soviet player did not purchase artillery in the AAR.  It just seems the Soviets are modeled just as most armies with different toys.

So, what can a game designer, or a scenario designer, actually do to model the Soviets?  As it is, CMRT 3.0 does not strike me as being that different than the previous 2.0 iterations. 

The game designers have pretty much said that they think they know there are solutions, but they don't want to invest in anything like that at this point.  Things such as pre-game attack plans, limitations on movement/actions outside the plan, etc., have been discussed for years and are now recognized as viable solutions, but they mean programming, and that is the last thing that will be happening given the need to release product.

So, so much for the game design aspect.  Then, perhaps it is up to the scenario designer?  One of the things that sticks out in the AAR is the amount of time and hyper-coordination that the CM player is 'allowed'.  If that same AAR was played with a 45 minute 'clock', perhaps it would have been modeling a Soviet attacker more accurately.  The scenario seemed to be a hasty attack and also a 'surprised' defense.  A Soviet mobile unit tasked with clearing out some German rear echelon areas that had been notified and a defense thrown together.

So, time, and specifically the clock, is a major variable that can be controlled by the scenario designer.  But how else can the Soviet 'coordination' be modeled or controlled?  Perhaps timed reinforcements or better yet, reinforcements that are linked to capture of an objective?  If BilH had to take an objective before he was allowed to roll his ISU-122's, instead of using them ahistorically and as some sort of diversion, then the game would have been more realistic and constraints like this would have funneled the Soviet player to act as such.

I would actually like the clock to be an unknown value to both players.  It is just such a unrealistic parameter and the fact that it can run longer, just helps the attacker (I can consider the game 'pro-attacker'), and that it should really be reevaluated completely.  Of course, this is a game design decision.  Some thoughts would be the clock is variable in length for both +/- as a natural variability.  The clock should also play into the victory analysis.  If an attacker takes all objectives in an expedient manner, then he is awarded extra points. 

I would like 'the clock' to be invisible to both sides (in certain situations) and perhaps only visible to the defender (maybe the attacker) in other situations.  This element of uncertainty could be optional, in fact many aspects of game improvement should be, and could add a sense of urgency to an attacker's agenda and remove the gamey nature of time and intel management that a 'good' player uses.

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on March 16, 2014, 10:34:56 AM


I note in some of the AAR screenshots, there are 'straggler' units identified in the interface, so we shall wait and see. I remember in Close Combat that sometimes individual guys would split off of squads and you would lose control of them. A feature like that would be interesting, though perhaps mildly controversial. Players hate losing control.

Stragglers are a unit type.  Made of Stragglers.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=113402&page=11

Edit:

Quote
  #112 
Unread 02-02-2014, 04:22 PM
ChrisND  ChrisND is offline
Administrator
   
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,193
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soldat-Hans  View Post
Which equipment and weapons does straggler groups have? How many men per group? Ammo??
A full strength Straggler Group formation is about 200 soldiers, most of whom are armed with Kar.98s and a few SMGs, x4 LMGs, and x2 HMGs. They can also carry panzerfausts.

I don't believe they carry PF according to Elvis' statements in the thread. 

in multiplayer the soviets could also be modeled by applying some houserules i imagine. The utterly brilliant Decisive Campaigns: Case Blue is quite a good single player affair, but it helps to add some houserules if you strive for historical accuracy.

Any difference in LOS rules for the new camera modes (Standard, First Person Shooter, and Real Time Strategy)?

Quote from: Zonso on March 16, 2014, 08:25:43 AM

Quote from: Arctic Blast on March 14, 2014, 09:27:17 PM
The CM community makes the game so inviting...

I'm not sure who you are referring to here as part of the "CM community". People such as the thinly veiled Redirected and Michael Dorosh, not above multiple handles either, were officially given the boot years ago. The bane, or boon, of the internet is the sordid mess is preserved for all to see if they so wish.

The *real* CM community is welcoming and extremely helpful and knowledgeable, as I'm sure others here who frequent the BFC forums can attest.

He had multiple handles?  Does he have a list or does he just track other people?  I find it so amusing he accuses people openly and names them and the names are not even the person at all.  I guess I could Google the names and find out who was yanking his chain?

I actually don't understand why you are posting here. It seems to me it's little to do with the game or the mechanics of the game though.

I joined this forum to discuss war/strategy games with like minded people. I have already had one thread derailed and locked because of personal attacks.

If i wanted drama i would watch tv.

Quote from: SgtRock on March 16, 2014, 06:25:17 PM
Any difference in LOS rules for the new camera modes (Standard, First Person Shooter, and Real Time Strategy)?

I haven't seen a description of these yet. If anyone else has, I'd be very interested in knowing what the functional differences are.

I can't imagine it would have an effect on how units in the game spot each other.

{MOD VOICE ON}

I am locking this thread until after lunchtime EDT on St Patty's Day.

Everyone go have a Killians and come back when you're a little calmer.

If you can't focus on talking about the game instead of each other, we're going to lock the thread permanently and start handing out vacations.


{MOD VOICE OFF}

I am unlocking this now.

Please try to behave yourselves.

If you're here to talk about the game, then talk about the game.  If you're here to pick fights, let me introduce you the RPFW forum (http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?board=13.0)

what was the usual release day of Battlefront CM2 titles?  ...is there a pattern?

(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.selbstvers.org%2Fforum%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fyoda1.gif&hash=eab443575461379fa5c74deccdf7226bdf740b20) ...i sense a disturbance in the force,  released this very week it could be

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on March 17, 2014, 08:02:56 AM

Quote from: SgtRock on March 16, 2014, 06:25:17 PM
Any difference in LOS rules for the new camera modes (Standard, First Person Shooter, and Real Time Strategy)?

I haven't seen a description of these yet. If anyone else has, I'd be very interested in knowing what the functional differences are.

I can't imagine it would have an effect on how units in the game spot each other.

My reading is that these are new, optional camera control modes, rather than a change in POV.  So, in FPS view, you control the camera with WASD and mouse.

Quote from: MikeGER on March 17, 2014, 12:20:29 PM
what was the usual release day of Battlefront CM2 titles?  ...is there a pattern?

(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.selbstvers.org%2Fforum%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fyoda1.gif&hash=eab443575461379fa5c74deccdf7226bdf740b20) ...i sense a disturbance in the force,  released this very week it could be

I have a listing on my website of some key dates for the most recent releases - i.e. day of announcement, day of release, etc. and I don't see any pattern whatsoever. But I'm a dunce at math.

http://tacticalwargamer.com/computergames/combatmission/combatmission.htm

If anyone else sees a pattern, let us know.

For example, the key dates for CM:BN that I managed to glean are:

Game title announced: Thursday, 23 December 2010
Official forum opened Thursday, 23 December 2010
Demo released: Wednesday, 11 May 2011

Download version of game released: Tuesday, 17 May 2011
Commonwealth Forces module released: Monday, 5 March 2012
Updated V1.01 Demo released: Monday, 19 March 2012
V1.10 Patch released: Wednesday, 21 March 2012
V1.11 Patch released: Friday, 7 December 2012
V2.0 Upgrade released: Wednesday, 12 December 2012
V2.01 Patch released: Friday, 15 February 2013
Market Garden module released: Friday, 11 October, 2012
V2.12 Patch released: Tuesday, 26 November 2013

Combat Mission: Fortress Italy key dates:

Game announced: Thursday, 21 June 2012
Game title announced: Thursday, 21 June 2012
Official forum opened Thursday, 21 June 2012
Download version of game released: Wednesday, 2 August 2012
Demo released: Wednesday, 12 September, 2012

Gustav Line Module announced Monday, 18 February 2013
Gustav Line module released: Monday, 20 May 2013
Demo released: Thursday, 20 May 2013

Quote from: Father Ted on March 17, 2014, 01:04:09 PM

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on March 17, 2014, 08:02:56 AM

Quote from: SgtRock on March 16, 2014, 06:25:17 PM
Any difference in LOS rules for the new camera modes (Standard, First Person Shooter, and Real Time Strategy)?

I haven't seen a description of these yet. If anyone else has, I'd be very interested in knowing what the functional differences are.

I can't imagine it would have an effect on how units in the game spot each other.

My reading is that these are new, optional camera control modes, rather than a change in POV.  So, in FPS view, you control the camera with WASD and mouse.

Thanks for this. I remember tooling around the map at ground level in the original trilogy games with the arrow keys, which was a fun thing to do even with the primitive graphics.  You could scope out LOS from ground level, or just "sight-see" some of the maps - or historical locations.

The lights are still out on Battlefront - totally looks like 'crunch time' to me. I'm hoping they will be publishing the CMRT manual sooner than later - that's quite a flare pointing to impending release.

Bletchley your right  :)
before the manual is not put online, the download is still a week away.
...but will happen shortly after that additional PR-flare we have to wait for ...pressing F5  (https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.somethingawful.com%2Fforumsystem%2Femoticons%2Femot-f5.gif&hash=be0609aa80c1a6ab4bda7ce77bbc46a4398cedd5)   ;)

taking a look at Michael's data list:

It looks light there is a heavyweight on releasing a Game/Module first half of the week, while patches aggregate to the second half of the week and demos to the middle

The last standalone game Italy took about 6 weeks from announce to release and we just reached that timeframe for RT last Friday
:D

 

Quote from: MikeGER on March 18, 2014, 03:41:50 AM
Bletchley your right  :)
before the manual is not put online, the download is still a week away.
...but will happen shortly after that additional PR-flare we have to wait for ...pressing F5  (https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.somethingawful.com%2Fforumsystem%2Femoticons%2Femot-f5.gif&hash=be0609aa80c1a6ab4bda7ce77bbc46a4398cedd5)   ;)

taking a look at Michael's data list:

It looks light there is a heavyweight on releasing a Game/Module first half of the week, while patches aggregate to the second half of the week and demos to the middle

The last standalone game Italy took about 6 weeks from announce to release and we just reached that timeframe for RT last Friday
:D

I don't want to sound pessimistic, but this may well be an 8 weeks release. There are some huge features coming in - like triggers, fire and WEGO RT -  and probably those are requiring an extra testing and debugging effort. On the other hand, in the last video by Chris I could appreciate that most of the pieces that make CMRT up are coming together.

Yes I would have to agree with that. There are quite a few new features being added, we-go tcp/ip specifically, that likely require extensive play testing before being ready for prime time. Personally It doesn't matter to me much whether it is released now or in two weeks or four weeks; there are a lot of battles unplayed in CMBN and CMFI, and not sure where I would find the time to fit in more anyways. Really not a bad problem to have.

Quote from: Keunert on March 16, 2014, 02:56:24 PM
in multiplayer the soviets could also be modeled by applying some houserules i imagine. The utterly brilliant Decisive Campaigns: Case Blue is quite a good single player affair, but it helps to add some houserules if you strive for historical accuracy.

This was always the strength of board games like ASL, where "Scenario Special Rules" could be added at will for flavour.

What kind of house rules were you thinking of, and what areas do you feel can be modified?

BFC has been adamant so far that things like order of battle and unit stats, for example, will be hard-coded and untouchable. So while you can pair up things like infantry platoons and tank platoons, you can't alter their internal composition (no having a squad made up of five LMGs for example). Panzer Command went the other way by permitted the xml files to be modified by the user, and dialling up (or down) unit characteristics to taste such as vehicle armour, speed, etc.

I'm guessing you're referring to command and control, command delays, etc.? I'd be interested in hearing more about your proposed house rules.

According to Steve, both RT and Black Sea are concurrently nearing finish.  RT being chosen to get the first release.  Supposedly 2014 will see both of these games as well as 'packs' and the rest of ETO.  I don't recall any upgrade schedule for 3.0 for CMBN or CMFI.  I would like to see a 'pack' deal that includes the 3.0.  Something like CW+Pack+3.0 for example.

But, I am pessimistic regarding that schedule.  RT might be in a late tweak phase.  Like many, I am looking forward to the Eastern Front.  I suspect that I will be interested initially in playing the Germans against the AI.  I doubt that the AI would be very effective as the Germans without real tactical limitations on the human.

Quote from: Redirected on March 18, 2014, 12:47:50 PM
  Like many, I am looking forward to the Eastern Front.  I suspect that I will be interested initially in playing the Germans against the AI.  I doubt that the AI would be very effective as the Germans without real tactical limitations on the human.

  Yes, the Germans are likely to have a pretty hard time a lot of the time in a game that is derived from events on the Eastern Front that are often called "The Destruction of Army Group Center."  But you have to start somewhere.  I'm just going to go after the AI Germans and the tactical limitations on the human will be my own personal limitations.  Should be fun for a while.

I'd hold your horses on black sea

Quote from: Redirected on March 18, 2014, 12:47:50 PM
According to Steve, both RT and Black Sea are concurrently nearing finish.  RT being chosen to get the first release.  Supposedly 2014 will see both of these games as well as 'packs' and the rest of ETO.  I don't recall any upgrade schedule for 3.0 for CMBN or CMFI.  I would like to see a 'pack' deal that includes the 3.0.  Something like CW+Pack+3.0 for example.

But, I am pessimistic regarding that schedule.  RT might be in a late tweak phase.  Like many, I am looking forward to the Eastern Front.  I suspect that I will be interested initially in playing the Germans against the AI.  I doubt that the AI would be very effective as the Germans without real tactical limitations on the human.

Steve stated on the BFC forum that 3.0 upgrades will be two months after the release of RT.

Quote from: Redirected on March 18, 2014, 12:47:50 PM
According to Steve, both RT and Black Sea are concurrently nearing finish.  RT being chosen to get the first release.  Supposedly 2014 will see both of these games as well as 'packs' and the rest of ETO.  I don't recall any upgrade schedule for 3.0 for CMBN or CMFI.  I would like to see a 'pack' deal that includes the 3.0.  Something like CW+Pack+3.0 for example.

But, I am pessimistic regarding that schedule.  RT might be in a late tweak phase.  Like many, I am looking forward to the Eastern Front.  I suspect that I will be interested initially in playing the Germans against the AI.  I doubt that the AI would be very effective as the Germans without real tactical limitations on the human.

I even saw some talk of upgrading CM Shock Force to 3.O, that was a surprise, considering they are going to release a new modern warfare game. If they do I they change the QB to allow player selection of forces and don't update the DRM to CMFI levels.

Quote from: SgtRock on March 18, 2014, 03:54:07 PM

Quote from: Redirected on March 18, 2014, 12:47:50 PM
According to Steve, both RT and Black Sea are concurrently nearing finish.  RT being chosen to get the first release.  Supposedly 2014 will see both of these games as well as 'packs' and the rest of ETO.  I don't recall any upgrade schedule for 3.0 for CMBN or CMFI.  I would like to see a 'pack' deal that includes the 3.0.  Something like CW+Pack+3.0 for example.

But, I am pessimistic regarding that schedule.  RT might be in a late tweak phase.  Like many, I am looking forward to the Eastern Front.  I suspect that I will be interested initially in playing the Germans against the AI.  I doubt that the AI would be very effective as the Germans without real tactical limitations on the human.

I even saw some talk of upgrading CM Shock Force to 3.O, that was a surprise, considering they are going to release a new modern warfare game. If they do I they change the QB to allow player selection of forces and don't update the DRM to CMFI levels.

Would they jump straight to 3.0, or charge for multiple patches to extract more $$ from their customers?

Any CM2 game upgrade from 1.0 to 2.0 to 3.0 has a price normally of $10. So if you want to upgrade CMBN & CMFI  to 3.0 when available it will cost around $20 total. I understand when CMRT is released, Battlefront will no longer sell CMBN 1.0.

I forget the particulars but I think that the CMSF 'project' is a sort of redux.  Not really bringing it up to 3.0 but applying the improvements from the later products the best they can since the CMSF code is old.  Basically, BF is showing that the CMSF product-line (a seller) is not forgotten.  Nor that it isn't a market.

I think they are still weighing the amount of work needed vs. the potential payoff.  A possible potential payoff is people that never bought into it becoming buyers now.  The reason being the cost might be attractive.

Quote from: Redirected on March 16, 2014, 11:43:54 AM

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on March 16, 2014, 10:34:56 AM


I note in some of the AAR screenshots, there are 'straggler' units identified in the interface, so we shall wait and see. I remember in Close Combat that sometimes individual guys would split off of squads and you would lose control of them. A feature like that would be interesting, though perhaps mildly controversial. Players hate losing control.

Stragglers are a unit type.  Made of Stragglers.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=113402&page=11

Edit:

Quote
  #112 
Unread 02-02-2014, 04:22 PM
ChrisND  ChrisND is offline
Administrator
   
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,193
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soldat-Hans  View Post
Which equipment and weapons does straggler groups have? How many men per group? Ammo??
A full strength Straggler Group formation is about 200 soldiers, most of whom are armed with Kar.98s and a few SMGs, x4 LMGs, and x2 HMGs. They can also carry panzerfausts.

I don't believe they carry PF according to Elvis' statements in the thread.

Correct on both counts. I wasn't convinced fausts would have done me much good until Bil ran his T34s down the road. Had I anticipated that and had a couple of fausts there to greet him, it would thrown a real monkey wrench into his game.

Quote from: Elvis on March 19, 2014, 11:53:19 AM
Correct on both counts. I wasn't convinced fausts would have done me much good until Bil ran his T34s down the road. Had I anticipated that and had a couple of fausts there to greet him, it would thrown a real monkey wrench into his game.

A few more ifs there come to mind.

If your AI-controlled troops were brave enough to use them.

If your troops had been deployed by you in the woods in a position to use them.

If BilH didn't react promptly once the threat had been realized and just blow away the infantry. Probably the biggest if.

I suppose the best way to quiet some of the "what ifs" would be to just ask him for a public rematch. I have to believe there would be a large appetite for such an endeavour. In fact, use the same map and parameters, but switch sides. We used to do that with QBs in CMX1 all the time. I think it would be a great way of allowing your respective strengths and skill sets to shine through.

Quote
Correct on both counts. I wasn't convinced fausts would have done me much good until Bil ran his T34s down the road. Had I anticipated that and had a couple of fausts there to greet him, it would thrown a real monkey wrench into his game.

I just wonder why they don't have them.  Panzerfaust 30 and 30k would be common enough by the summer of 1944.  I would assume that 'Stragglers' are patched together combat units and not some hodgepodge of rear echelon types.

When you buy the Straggler unit, it does not include panzershreck either? 

Quote from: Redirected on March 19, 2014, 03:06:34 PM

Quote
Correct on both counts. I wasn't convinced fausts would have done me much good until Bil ran his T34s down the road. Had I anticipated that and had a couple of fausts there to greet him, it would thrown a real monkey wrench into his game.

I just wonder why they don't have them.  Panzerfaust 30 and 30k would be common enough by the summer of 1944.  I would assume that 'Stragglers' are patched together combat units and not some hodgepodge of rear echelon types.

When you buy the Straggler unit, it does not include panzershreck either?

One would guest Straggle units would be way down on the list of units getting refit & resupply, Germany had a wee bit of a supply issue in the summer of 1944 with both East & West fronts under heavy allied assault.

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on March 19, 2014, 02:41:21 PM

Quote from: Elvis on March 19, 2014, 11:53:19 AM
Correct on both counts. I wasn't convinced fausts would have done me much good until Bil ran his T34s down the road. Had I anticipated that and had a couple of fausts there to greet him, it would thrown a real monkey wrench into his game.

A few more ifs there come to mind.

If your AI-controlled troops were brave enough to use them.

If your troops had been deployed by you in the woods in a position to use them.

If BilH didn't react promptly once the threat had been realized and just blow away the infantry. Probably the biggest if.

I suppose the best way to quiet some of the "what ifs" would be to just ask him for a public rematch. I have to believe there would be a large appetite for such an endeavour. In fact, use the same map and parameters, but switch sides. We used to do that with QBs in CMX1 all the time. I think it would be a great way of allowing your respective strengths and skill sets to shine through.

The first two ifs were meant to be implied by my comments of never dreaming he would rush down there unprotected like he did. If I thought that would happen I would have broken off AT teams and set them up with the HQ near enough to retain C2. I adjusted most of my troops during the purchase to make sure they were at least regular units with decent morale. I used the few left over points that I had to reach exactly my 2500 purchase points.

The third if....I doubt he would have been able to much of anything but kill the teams after they had done whatever initial damage they were able to do. Which would have been fine because by then they would have already served their purpose.

Even if I had them I doubt I would have had any thought that he would do a move like that, so it's kinda moot.

Quote from: SgtRock on March 19, 2014, 03:29:16 PM
One would guest Straggle units would be way down on the list of units getting refit & resupply, Germany had a wee bit of a supply issue in the summer of 1944 with both East & West fronts under heavy allied assault.

I'm not sure this is accurate. The Wehrmacht's supply system never stopped working. Units in the field were obviously able to continue resistance to the very end. I'm sure there were local shortages, most likely acute when formations were cut off. There is no doubt that the quality of items declined sharply during the war. Uniforms were made from wood fibre, Mauser K98s produced without bayonet lugs and fewer twists in the rifling to conserve metal and simplify production, etc. (not to mention greater instances of sabotage by the slave labour who was making the stuff). But as for actual shortages or an inability to move supplies to the front - other than the well-documented Allied air superiority, the Germans did relatively well to move munitions, food and supplies to their front line units. Artillery ammunition was probably one item always in short supply but the Germans came more and more to rely on medium mortars to make up shortfalls of heavier guns.

I think the Germans may actually have had, ironically, poorer logistic support for their troops in the first months of Barbarossa. Railways were of the wrong gauge, no winter clothing had been prepared, anti-tank weapons were at a premium, etc.

Almost forgot......

Rematch? I'd definitely do one..... but no time soon. They are very time consuming. And looking at Bil's,  I'm not sure where he had the free time to make the nice presentations that he did.

Quote from: SgtRock on March 19, 2014, 03:29:16 PM

Quote from: Redirected on March 19, 2014, 03:06:34 PM

Quote
Correct on both counts. I wasn't convinced fausts would have done me much good until Bil ran his T34s down the road. Had I anticipated that and had a couple of fausts there to greet him, it would thrown a real monkey wrench into his game.

I just wonder why they don't have them.  Panzerfaust 30 and 30k would be common enough by the summer of 1944.  I would assume that 'Stragglers' are patched together combat units and not some hodgepodge of rear echelon types.

When you buy the Straggler unit, it does not include panzershreck either?

One would guest Straggle units would be way down on the list of units getting refit & resupply, Germany had a wee bit of a supply issue in the summer of 1944 with both East & West fronts under heavy allied assault.

Perhaps but that is not known by someone doing a qb selection.  i believe Elvis had no idea until after making the selection regarding what of they had.

Quote from: Redirected on March 19, 2014, 04:53:06 PM

Quote from: SgtRock on March 19, 2014, 03:29:16 PM

Quote from: Redirected on March 19, 2014, 03:06:34 PM

Quote
Correct on both counts. I wasn't convinced fausts would have done me much good until Bil ran his T34s down the road. Had I anticipated that and had a couple of fausts there to greet him, it would thrown a real monkey wrench into his game.

I just wonder why they don't have them.  Panzerfaust 30 and 30k would be common enough by the summer of 1944.  I would assume that 'Stragglers' are patched together combat units and not some hodgepodge of rear echelon types.

When you buy the Straggler unit, it does not include panzershreck either?

One would guest Straggle units would be way down on the list of units getting refit & resupply, Germany had a wee bit of a supply issue in the summer of 1944 with both East & West fronts under heavy allied assault.

Perhaps but that is not known by someone doing a qb selection.  i believe Elvis had no idea until after making the selection regarding what of they had.

Yes and no. If there had been a schrek team in a platoon I would have known it. And did know that I didn't have them (that's why I bought a couple). But I did not know if I would have fuasts. One of the reasons I took the suggestions for the Straggler Group is because I hadn't used them yet and I thought it would be fun to see them for the first time in a situation that I could possibly publicly embarrass myself.  :)

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on March 19, 2014, 04:09:28 PM

Quote from: SgtRock on March 19, 2014, 03:29:16 PM
One would guest Straggle units would be way down on the list of units getting refit & resupply, Germany had a wee bit of a supply issue in the summer of 1944 with both East & West fronts under heavy allied assault.

I'm not sure this is accurate. The Wehrmacht's supply system never stopped working. Units in the field were obviously able to continue resistance to the very end. I'm sure there were local shortages, most likely acute when formations were cut off. There is no doubt that the quality of items declined sharply during the war. Uniforms were made from wood fibre, Mauser K98s produced without bayonet lugs and fewer twists in the rifling to conserve metal and simplify production, etc. (not to mention greater instances of sabotage by the slave labour who was making the stuff). But as for actual shortages or an inability to move supplies to the front - other than the well-documented Allied air superiority, the Germans did relatively well to move munitions, food and supplies to their front line units. Artillery ammunition was probably one item always in short supply but the Germans came more and more to rely on medium mortars to make up shortfalls of heavier guns.

I think the Germans may actually have had, ironically, poorer logistic support for their troops in the first months of Barbarossa. Railways were of the wrong gauge, no winter clothing had been prepared, anti-tank weapons were at a premium, etc.

I think that these 'Straggler Groups' are a reasonable portrayal of ad-hoc German infantry units, which were quite a common feature in the Eastern Front during major (successful) Soviet offensives. These units were usually formed with whatever personnel was at hand: stragglers from shattered line units, rear-area troops rounded up and organised into a 'fighting' outfit,  artillerymen from units which have had to abandon their guns, personnel from the Ersatz battalions or other ad-hoc field training formations (in those formations who still could afford to have an organic training unit) or a mix-and-match of the three previous examples. The parlous state of their equipment matches quite well the 'improvised' nature of the outfit.

I also think that having such a 'generic' formation to account for these is a good idea: scenario designers and QB players can always add an specialist team (machine guns, panzerschrek, tank hunter teams, etc.) to these outfits, to customize their equipment (and enhance their capabilities).

Quote from: Bletchley_Geek on March 19, 2014, 05:52:55 PM
I think that these 'Straggler Groups' are a reasonable portrayal of ad-hoc German infantry units, which were quite a common feature in the Eastern Front during major (successful) Soviet offensives. These units were usually formed with whatever personnel was at hand: stragglers from shattered line units, rear-area troops rounded up and organised into a 'fighting' outfit,  artillerymen from units which have had to abandon their guns, personnel from the Ersatz battalions or other ad-hoc field training formations (in those formations who still could afford to have an organic training unit) or a mix-and-match of the three previous examples. The parlous state of their equipment matches quite well the 'improvised' nature of the outfit.

I also think that having such a 'generic' formation to account for these is a good idea: scenario designers and QB players can always add an specialist team (machine guns, panzerschrek, tank hunter teams, etc.) to these outfits, to customize their equipment (and enhance their capabilities).

No real disagreement here, though why on earth BFC doesn't also let scenario designers alter the OOB data is beyond me. It seems like a peculiar strain of madness to assign a standard OOB chart to an irregular formation which by definition doesn't have a standard OOB.

As an example from a history I am more familiar with, my own regiment crossed the Albert Canal with a handpicked assault team that decided to arm itself entirely with Sten and Bren guns. They fought a successful night action with elements of a German infantry company on the far side of the canal following a surprise incursion over a damaged lock gate.  I understand some things can't be simulated to a "T", but I don't see the harm in permitting scenario designers to at least try new weapons/unit combinations within the squads, particularly in cases where there is a historical justification for doing so.  Perhaps at some point if things like fatigue and ammunition modeling is more defined, we will see it - so that anyone wanting to for example have assault squads with 5 LMGs each will suffer greater penalties in terms of trying to move around the ammunition for them, and gain a better understanding of why they didn't do such things in actuality.

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on March 19, 2014, 07:12:49 PM

No real disagreement here, though why on earth BFC doesn't also let scenario designers alter the OOB data is beyond me. It seems like a peculiar strain of madness to assign a standard OOB chart to an irregular formation which by definition doesn't have a standard OOB.

Because altering the code to allow from the more abnormal irregular formations, when they can be more "customized" in the scenario editor, isn't a good use of time.

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on March 19, 2014, 07:12:49 PM
No real disagreement here, though why on earth BFC doesn't also let scenario designers alter the OOB data is beyond me. It seems like a peculiar strain of madness to assign a standard OOB chart to an irregular formation which by definition doesn't have a standard OOB.

I think the rationale - which indeed, can be perceived as a peculiar strain of madness, pretty much as any rationale - is that the provided formations and establishments are meant to be 'generic' as in 'the most common setup', leaving scenario designers a certain limited leeway when it comes to 'customize' those establishments by setting the equipment quality level - which is awkward to set, you need to remember to do so "before" adding the establishment to your OOB - and adding 'specialised' teams. Some forces come with some options (like having Bazookas for US Line rifle squads).

It's not the most flexible way of modifying 'generic' establishments, that's true.

Quote from: Michael Dorosh
As an example from a history I am more familiar with, my own regiment crossed the Albert Canal with a handpicked assault team that decided to arm itself entirely with Sten and Bren guns. They fought a successful night action with elements of a German infantry company on the far side of the canal following a surprise incursion over a damaged lock gate.  I understand some things can't be simulated to a "T", but I don't see the harm in permitting scenario designers to at least try new weapons/unit combinations within the squads, particularly in cases where there is a historical justification for doing so.  Perhaps at some point if things like fatigue and ammunition modeling is more defined, we will see it - so that anyone wanting to for example have assault squads with 5 LMGs each will suffer greater penalties in terms of trying to move around the ammunition for them, and gain a better understanding of why they didn't do such things in actuality.

It's true that the current system is a bit awkward to model this episode you mention. The way of achieving something similar would be to replace the squads in each platoon by a combination of 2x Scout Teams and 1x LMG team, which effectively means you'll end up with a totally split force. That can work for a Coy-level engagement, but if you put a Bn split by default like that on the map,  playing the scenario is going to be busy work.

Quote from: Elvis on March 19, 2014, 08:35:12 PM
when they can be more "customized" in the scenario editor

If that was true, there wouldn't be a need to alter any code.  It isn't though, and I'm not sure where this suggestion comes from.

Besides, there already exists a mechanism for having different OOBs. You're talking about a change to the UI.

In the case of a scenario designer, I am sure they could test out formations and then adjust the scenario once they see what everone is toting around.  But in the case of Elvis, well, he seemed to find out the hard way. 

But, the whole 'Formations for Sale' approach is what you are buying when purchasing these products.  That's the lockdown and Steve has gone to the wall about it.  It's just marketing.

At last we go to the East front. Can't wait! CMx2 gets better and better with each new release\patch.

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on March 19, 2014, 08:44:14 PM

Quote from: Elvis on March 19, 2014, 08:35:12 PM
when they can be more "customized" in the scenario editor

If that was true, there wouldn't be a need to alter any code.  It isn't though, and I'm not sure where this suggestion comes from.

Besides, there already exists a mechanism for having different OOBs. You're talking about a change to the UI.

We must be 5 asking past each other because I have no idea what you mean.

Quote from: Redirected on March 19, 2014, 10:54:29 PM
But, the whole 'Formations for Sale' approach is what you are buying when purchasing these products.  That's the lockdown and Steve has gone to the wall about it.  It's just marketing.

I don't think they closed it up like that because they're evil people or something. I haven't heard from Steve - or rather, I can't recall - that he justifies locking up the database because of people doing stuff overlapping the subject matter of future planned projects. If that was the case, I think it'd a somewhat misguided precaution. I think it'd be extremely unlikely that someone came out from the Internets and plonked, say, comprehensive late 1942 tables of organization & equipment for the US Army on the basis of the mid-1943 US Army TOE's they distribute in CMFI. Probably no more than a 10% of the people making scenarios would have the patience and stamina to do the research and spent substantial amounts of time fiddling with the tools rather than playing the game.

The 1% that are capable to pull a MASSIVE project like working out from scratch a TOE from sources are probably already working for BFC (or most of them). So, indeed, I can see that Battlefront doesn't find opening up the TOE database worth of any programming time, at least in the short term. They're obviously catering for the most common use case (the one that if they hadn't covered would have irked the most people).

Purchasing units for QB's certainly is a pain!

I have always had the impression that Steve looks at QBs as a necessary evil of selling the product.  The more cynical me thinks they made the OOBs rigid to stick a thumb in the eye of people who obsess over QBs.

But PBEM QB's would be a lot more fun, if you could easily put together the force you want, without it being a 'chore'!

Quote

I don't think they closed it up like that because they're evil people or something.

Nope.  Not evil.  It's just a marketing approach.  Same as 'The Families' approach to product. 

What has it got do with marketing.  It doesn't cost them anything.  In fact, I imagine it costs them more to build all the rules and locks around units.  CMSF's OOB management was horrendous.  To this date QBs really don't work because you can't adjust units.

Why would marketing play a role.  It shouldn't push people away if they loosened up the rules.  In fact, it might actually get people to play more.  Unless you mean negative marketing, then I agree.

Quote from: RyanE on March 20, 2014, 01:17:06 PM
What has it got do with marketing.  It doesn't cost them anything.  In fact, I imagine it costs them more to build all the rules and locks around units.  CMSF's OOB management was horrendous.  To this date QBs really don't work because you can't adjust units.

Why would marketing play a role.  It shouldn't push people away if they loosened up the rules.  In fact, it might actually get people to play more.  Unless you mean negative marketing, then I agree.

I never said it was any good at all.  I contend it backfired with CMFI.  If they did not make CMFI a stand alone 'family', and just had it as an extension of 'ETO' (CMBN), I would think the sales of CMFI and Gustov would have been better. 

I think the Eastern Front is going to be more of the same.  that is, Families and Modules and these 'packs' I keep hearing about.

They made a big deal about CW and MG and how to handle the 'shared' units.  For someone that claims he doesn't like micromanagement in gameplay, Steve sure likes his micromanagement in Product Management!

In any case, the demo management has a backlog? CMBN is not a 2.0 demo?  Perhaps it will skip over that and be a 3.0 demo.  Market Garden has no demo yet is probably the best of the CMBN 'family'.  CMFI demo won't work for some people...It just seems that the whole 'Family' product management and Marketing scheme has not panned out and makes more work and also delays product.

Well that's a different issue.. Yes you have the base game and all the rest really should've been expansions, but I just stayed clear of CMFI for that reason.

But not letting people choose what they want for Quick Battles, just hurts the appeal..

I remember my first or 2nd battle with Con, I was like.. where did I get all these friggin trucks!!!

You have to 'search' to fine the unit you want.. then when you finally find it, you have to delete a ton of crap that comes with it, so you stay within your buying power..

Quote from: Redirected on March 20, 2014, 01:31:02 PM
It just seems that the whole 'Family' product management and Marketing scheme has not panned out and makes more work and also delays product.

1. Battlefront have 2 upcoming titles planned. CMRT being one. They will have an update to CMSF as well.

2. Their forums are well visited.

3. Every time I visit the BF forum there seem to be new people who are posting and interested.

4. They have a loyal following of customers.

5. Over the past few years they have increased their staff.

The points above indicate a company that is doing quite well.........but in any endeavour, you won't please everyone.

I'm a self-advertised fanboi, but I'll wager dollars against donuts that Steve just doesn't like cherry-picked QBs.  In fact, my increasingly-senile mind holds a memory or two that he posted as much in the run-up to CM:SF which, it will be recalled, still doesn't have cherry-picking as an option.

Sometimes one must abandon prejudices in the face of the market, but this is a bunch of fellers that have done it their own way for a while and have remained successful at it.  It's one of the reasons they still don't have persistent, core-unit campaigns, either.  They find them unrealistic and a bit silly.

Now their inability to hammer out full-game replay...that's just a shame.  Some way to print out planning maps -- topo maps since I'm wishing here -- would be cool, too.

Best,

Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)

CMSF has persistent core unit campaigns. And the losses carry over until the end of the campaign without reinforcement. Really frustrating.

You mean they got rid of that in CMBN and the rest?

Like Cyrano, I seem to recall the same about Steve's perception about QB's and a seeming reluctance at the time to put much effort into it. I never play QBs, but I thought they had returned ala CMx1 with the new WWII games?

Quote from: z1812 on March 20, 2014, 08:17:05 PM

Quote from: Redirected on March 20, 2014, 01:31:02 PM
It just seems that the whole 'Family' product management and Marketing scheme has not panned out and makes more work and also delays product.

1. Battlefront have 2 upcoming titles planned. CMRT being one. They will have an update to CMSF as well.

2. Their forums are well visited.

3. Every time I visit the BF forum there seem to be new people who are posting and interested.

4. They have a loyal following of customers.

5. Over the past few years they have increased their staff.

The points above indicate a company that is doing quite well.........but in any endeavour, you won't please everyone.

I was thinking the same things. And I would add, they have used this model for long enough now that if it wasn't working for them they would have abandoned by now and begun working on a new system.

Quote from: z1812 on March 20, 2014, 08:17:05 PM

Quote from: Redirected on March 20, 2014, 01:31:02 PM
It just seems that the whole 'Family' product management and Marketing scheme has not panned out and makes more work and also delays product.

1. Battlefront have 2 upcoming titles planned. CMRT being one. They will have an update to CMSF as well.

2. Their forums are well visited.

3. Every time I visit the BF forum there seem to be new people who are posting and interested.

4. They have a loyal following of customers.

5. Over the past few years they have increased their staff.

The points above indicate a company that is doing quite well.........but in any endeavour, you won't please everyone.

Yes, I agree totally. All the signs indicate a thriving, successful company. You need to keep in mind these are the rehashed, tired arguments from the transplanted posters - thewood, Lewis, Dorosh - from the terminally ill GS forum.

Quote from: z1812 on March 20, 2014, 08:17:05 PM

Quote from: Redirected on March 20, 2014, 01:31:02 PM
It just seems that the whole 'Family' product management and Marketing scheme has not panned out and makes more work and also delays product.

1. Battlefront have 2 upcoming titles planned. CMRT being one. They will have an update to CMSF as well.

2. Their forums are well visited.

3. Every time I visit the BF forum there seem to be new people who are posting and interested.

4. They have a loyal following of customers.

5. Over the past few years they have increased their staff.

The points above indicate a company that is doing quite well.........but in any endeavour, you won't please everyone.

Not sure how these points relate to the quote...but they are interesting.

1.  The upcoming titles are both 'Family Starters'.  So, yes, they will continue with the compartmentalization of product.

2.  Forum visitation depends on the forum.  And the history of the forums.  My subjective view is that it isn't what it was but it doesn't really matter.

3.  People should be interested.  Interested in the products and the development.  But even Steve claims that its a small percentage of customers that post.  Who knows?

4.  They have a loyal following.  And a captive market.  There really is no competition for CM.  What you are saying is just some old spin.  Take a fresh look.

5.  They have increased the staff.  They should.  They keep forecasting releases and products and there is a captive market that wants to buy them

Bringing it back to the game......manual has been posted at BF.  That usually is a sign of pending release in the near future.

http://www.battlefront.com/

Quote from: Grim.Reaper on April 02, 2014, 02:43:22 PM
Bringing it back to the game......manual has been posted at BF.  That usually is a sign of pending release in the near future.

http://www.battlefront.com/

Interesting - according to the manual, one of the 3.0 changes is that WEGO TCP/IP is in, but no ability to replay turns. I can't recall now, it has been so long - was this ability there in the original?

Quote from: Grim.Reaper on April 02, 2014, 02:43:22 PM
Bringing it back to the game......manual has been posted at BF.  That usually is a sign of pending release in the near future.

http://www.battlefront.com/

  Looks great.  Warning FANBOI comments follow:

  Looks like another great CM game.  Hope it arrives soon.

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on April 02, 2014, 03:35:25 PM

Quote from: Grim.Reaper on April 02, 2014, 02:43:22 PM
Bringing it back to the game......manual has been posted at BF.  That usually is a sign of pending release in the near future.

http://www.battlefront.com/

Interesting - according to the manual, one of the 3.0 changes is that WEGO TCP/IP is in, but no ability to replay turns. I can't recall now, it has been so long - was this ability there in the original?

Anyone?

I seem to recall that it was. I have fond memories of WEGO TCP games. Not a big deal for me personally either way as I suspect my WEGO days are firmly behind me. Good news that this functionality has returned - but too bad that rewind is not available, or perhaps, simply not yet. Seems like an odd technical hang-up.

The manual maddeningly has no details of the new triggers and editor upgrades so will wait and see. I did like the brief historical write-ups.

I saw that too. I'm not really sure what it means but it sounds like version 3.0 can play WEGO but not replay the turns. I wonder what the reason could be for the change? Or is it only a temporary glitch to get us to buy 3.1. I personally will skip this game if they take away the ability to rewind and replay the turns.

Quote from: Sir Slash on April 03, 2014, 10:55:12 AM
I saw that too. I'm not really sure what it means but it sounds like version 3.0 can play WEGO but not replay the turns. I wonder what the reason could be for the change? Or is it only a temporary glitch to get us to buy 3.1. I personally will skip this game if they take away the ability to rewind and replay the turns.

  As I understand it, WEGO PBEM is the same as it was.  WEGO TCP/IP will exist (whereas before it did not), but there will be no replay.

Quote from: MengJiao on April 03, 2014, 11:54:16 AM

Quote from: Sir Slash on April 03, 2014, 10:55:12 AM
I saw that too. I'm not really sure what it means but it sounds like version 3.0 can play WEGO but not replay the turns. I wonder what the reason could be for the change? Or is it only a temporary glitch to get us to buy 3.1. I personally will skip this game if they take away the ability to rewind and replay the turns.

  As I understand it, WEGO PBEM is the same as it was.  WEGO TCP/IP will exist (whereas before it did not), but there will be no replay.

This is how I'm reading it. I was wondering if there was replay in the original WEGO TCP/IP games. Doesn't really matter, adding WEGO TCP in any form is a positive step forward, but trying to recall how this was handled in the original. Seems inevitable that the game will continue to get compared to the original trilogy. I noticed that on the same page, the announcement is made that "command lines are back", which I am definitely looking forward to. Though truth be told, I had gotten used to double clicking on the tokens, at least as far as moving them in the editor in order to find platoons and companies. More options=good.

You had replays in TCP in the original.  The original treated TCP like PBEM in real time.

Steve has been consistent in saying the TCP reply is a non-starter due file size.  Maybe as connection speeds and storage costs are a lot better, it can be revisited.

Quote from: Grim.Reaper on April 02, 2014, 02:43:22 PM
Bringing it back to the game......manual has been posted at BF.  That usually is a sign of pending release in the near future.

http://www.battlefront.com/

According to Moon...

QuoteBattlefront.com has just released the Combat Mission Red Thunder game manual as downloadable (and web-viewable) PDF!*

This supplemental game manual is one of two available both as PDF and in printed version (as long as stock is available) when you purchase the game. The supplemental manual covers all the new formations, units, weapons and tactics of the late war Soviet and German forces, and includes an in-depth tutorial. A second manual, not included in the web preview, covers all the new features of the v3.0 Game Engine Upgrade that is part of Combat Mission Red Thunder! Combat Mission Red Thunder is a tactical WW2 Eastern Front ground warfare simulation covering the ending stages of the war in Eastern Europe, and is due out very very soon.

* No knowledge of Russian language necessary. Manual is in English!

So, it is mostly an overview and a tutorial.  the supplemental will go over the new features and 3.0 stuff.  But really, this is a stand alone game and a new family.  If this is the first purchase for a customer (doubtful but possible), I don't think these two manuals really explain the game mechanics.  Something like the different 'morale' states is still not made clear.

I've watched the Red Thunder videos and have seen the demonstrator rewind the action to see what had just occurred. Or am I wrong about this? Maybe that's not the version 3.0 he's using or maybe you can only rewind part of the previously action. Would be nice if they posted a demo before release so we can tell.

Quote from: RyanE on April 03, 2014, 01:29:52 PM
You had replays in TCP in the original.  The original treated TCP like PBEM in real time.

Steve has been consistent in saying the TCP repl(a)y is a non-starter due file size.  Maybe as connection speeds and storage costs are a lot better, it can be revisited.

Thanks for the reply. Makes sense, the way you describe it.

Quote from: Sir Slash on April 03, 2014, 01:34:15 PM
I've watched the Red Thunder videos and have seen the demonstrator rewind the action to see what had just occurred. Or am I wrong about this? Maybe that's not the version 3.0 he's using or maybe you can only rewind part of the previously action. Would be nice if they posted a demo before release so we can tell.

As mentioned by MengJiao, WeGo single player/pbem remains unchanged, ie full playback. What has changed is WeGo has been added to TCP/IP play albeit without playback.

I'm more and more interested in how the camera controls have been reworked. How it is now is pretty ingrained but am open to trying something different to see how it 'fits'. Nice to see a lot of familiar names in the credits and good for the series to see lots of new ones as well.

It seems the RT manual was most welcome as the natives were getting restless. I think we are pretty close to a release now...

Quote from: Zonso on April 03, 2014, 02:34:40 PM

Quote from: Sir Slash on April 03, 2014, 01:34:15 PM
I've watched the Red Thunder videos and have seen the demonstrator rewind the action to see what had just occurred. Or am I wrong about this? Maybe that's not the version 3.0 he's using or maybe you can only rewind part of the previously action. Would be nice if they posted a demo before release so we can tell.

As mentioned by MengJiao, WeGo single player/pbem remains unchanged, ie full playback. What has changed is WeGo has been added to TCP/IP play albeit without playback.

I'm more and more interested in how the camera controls have been reworked. How it is now is pretty ingrained but am open to trying something different to see how it 'fits'. Nice to see a lot of familiar names in the credits and good for the series to see lots of new ones as well.

It seems the RT manual was most welcome as the natives were getting restless. I think we are pretty close to a release now...

Originally with CM2, didn't they say the playback files had become too large for on-line play? Can that still be true with 40- 100Mbps internet today?

Didn't I say that 5-6 posts up?

Quote from: Sir Slash on April 03, 2014, 01:34:15 PM
I've watched the Red Thunder videos and have seen the demonstrator rewind the action to see what had just occurred. Or am I wrong about this? Maybe that's not the version 3.0 he's using or maybe you can only rewind part of the previously action. Would be nice if they posted a demo before release so we can tell.

I think that ND guy mostly plays in turn-based mode vs. AI?  In any case, I stopped watching those since it didn't seem to be showcasing much.  Unless you like seeing a head in the screen.

But, yeah, it would be good to have these things previewed via video.    I hear that the menu pop-up has been changed.  No longer needing a spacebar hit but just a right click. 

I don't want to ever watch another guy show me himself playing the game.  The whole "Oooh OOOOooh Look!" commentary just spoils the whole "unwrapping" of a newly bought product at this point.

I kind of like watching the AI hand him his ass on occasion. I've been there soooo many times. Yes, of course the solo game remains unchanged. I should have realized that when I read the manual. I was just caught-up with the idea of the replay being eliminated. Back when the original CM demo came-out, the first time I played, at the end of a turn I'd lost a Sherman somehow and had to rewind the turn 3 times until I saw the panzerschrek team nail it from a nearby wood. I've been hooked on turn based ever since.

Quote from: SgtRock on April 03, 2014, 02:42:37 PM

Originally with CM2, didn't they say the playback files had become too large for on-line play? Can that still be true with 40- 100Mbps internet today?

Probably, though technically I do not know what can be with large file sizes. And some of the bigger scenarios will have huge files when the action starts flying. Dropbox is your friend.

Heads up!  Check your download link.  I am downloading now.

Trey

I want to hear some Red Thunder opinions real soon. It's been a long time since I threw money at a game I didn't need just to feel like a Big Spender.

Quote from: Great Ajax on April 04, 2014, 09:45:14 AM
Heads up!  Check your download link.  I am downloading now.

Trey

No announcement in my email but I see the link is active. I'll give it a shot too.

Up and running - still no email notice. In the editor looking at triggers now...

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on April 04, 2014, 01:49:44 PM
Up and running - still no email notice. In the editor looking at triggers now...

Blow one up for me.

Quote from: SgtRock on April 03, 2014, 02:42:37 PM

Originally with CM2, didn't they say the playback files had become too large for on-line play? Can that still be true with 40- 100Mbps internet today?

Don't be silly.

Never mind the fact PBEM goes through the internet, too, and people then started using random upload sites for the PBEM moves. Obviously the willingness to transfer those large files was always there for the players.

But back in in the initial release, that was Steve's reasoning for not doing it.  The largest file I ever saw in CMSF was 200Mb.

Quote from: MengJiao on April 04, 2014, 02:01:48 PM

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on April 04, 2014, 01:49:44 PM
Up and running - still no email notice. In the editor looking at triggers now...

Blow one up for me.

Does killing my own count?

I recall one of the features that was being talked up was the reporting of friendly casualties. They do seem to get reported, but they don't seem to persist. I was under the impression that you could review you OOB at the end of the game and take a count of losses, but there is no real difference as far as this goes. Casualties disappear from the map and interface just as they did before. The only difference I can spot is that they are reported as "casualty" in bright red letters temporarily in addition to their weapon/status changing to yellow. Unless I have configured my options incorrectly?

I see the "mod tag" feature is now in the game, as discussed here:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=113355

Unfortunately, I don't see any documentation in either manual explaining how it works...or in the .txt README files. Unless I am searching for the wrong terms?

You guys have been blathering about this game incessantly over the last 4 months and now that it has finally come out, hardly a peep. That means one of two things...it's either really good and you're all too busy playing to talk, or it's really damn bad and you've thrown yourself off a bridge due to all the time you wasted here yapping about it...which is it? If you do not respond, I'll assume the worst.

I'm enjoying it so far to the extent that I've played it. I spent most of today and last night in Steel Beasts multiplayer stuff, but did get a couple of hours in.

Most of the improvements I see are subtle stuff. Some UI changes, smoother animations (at least for me), and very, very different maps. There's not nearly as much cover out here on the steppe!

I haven't messed with the editor yet but Chelco has and he has a post up about it: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/RealAndSimulatedWars/~3/bbjYwce1o3s/trigger-happy-new-trigger-system-in.html (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/RealAndSimulatedWars/~3/bbjYwce1o3s/trigger-happy-new-trigger-system-in.html)

Quote from: Jarhead0331 on April 05, 2014, 06:45:12 PM
You guys have been blathering about this game incessantly over the last 4 months and now that it has finally come out, hardly a peep. That means one of two things...it's either really good and you're all too busy playing to talk, or it's really damn bad and you've thrown yourself off a bridge due to all the time you wasted here yapping about it...which is it? If you do not respond, I'll assume the worst.

It seems to be fine.  It loads faster.  There are a lot of Russians.

Quote from: Jarhead0331 on April 05, 2014, 06:45:12 PM
You guys have been blathering about this game incessantly over the last 4 months and now that it has finally come out, hardly a peep. That means one of two things...it's either really good and you're all too busy playing to talk, or it's really damn bad and you've thrown yourself off a bridge due to all the time you wasted here yapping about it...which is it? If you do not respond, I'll assume the worst.

I'm hoping my review will be online at another site, just putting the finishing touches before sending it to the editor...

A couple of quick battles under my belt, a few hours in the editor, submitted a couple of quick mods to the Repository (which is up and running for CM:RT already). One of the beta testers was in touch a few days ago and asked me for his thoughts on one of the release scenarios so I am going through that as well, possibly for a published AAR.

Was hoping someone could confirm whether or not there is any documentation regarding the mod tag feature - I don't see anything in the manuals or the read me files.

Played a couple of battles so can only give you a superficial opinion (more like a flavor) of playing.

There are a lot of Russians.

I prefer the look of my modded CMBN t the stock graphics of CMRT.  I will be importing the grass packs and texture files as soon as they are available for CMRT.  There are a lot more Russian flavor objects that do give the game a more Eastern European feel for graphics.

The User Interface has been overhauled, I liked the old one better for visual appearance but the new one is a bit more intuitive and has several features I like such as highlighting the casualties.
You get lots of Russians....you need lots of Russians, expect the Ruskies to die like flies as opposed to CMBN where you are always husbanding your forces (Axis and Allies).
Russian Tanks are big and tough but I also have seen them do silly stuff such as rotating to present their rear to the enemy (the Commissar will not be pleased) but there is usually extenuating circumstances such as them being shot at.  It seems like it takes several hits from German armor to KO a Soviet tank

One nitpick I have is that there seems to be only a small set of scenarios with the game (I personally have only been playing some of the smaller sized ones as well).

Overall though is that it is an evolution of the series and I feel if you are a fan of CMBN you wont be disappointed (at least I am not).

"Ourrah pobieda!"

Con

Quote from: Jarhead0331 on April 05, 2014, 06:45:12 PM
You guys have been blathering about this game incessantly over the last 4 months and now that it has finally come out, hardly a peep. That means one of two things...it's either really good and you're all too busy playing to talk, or it's really damn bad and you've thrown yourself off a bridge due to all the time you wasted here yapping about it...which is it? If you do not respond, I'll assume the worst.

I find it a bit unengaging and not immersive.  I think it badly lacks the options for unit scaling (optical), to change tree cover and the like. I mean I am so happy to play against the Soviets again but I just never see them when playing the Germans.

Try ALT-T to cycle between tree visibility.

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on April 05, 2014, 09:57:54 PM

Quote from: Jarhead0331 on April 05, 2014, 06:45:12 PM
You guys have been blathering about this game incessantly over the last 4 months and now that it has finally come out, hardly a peep. That means one of two things...it's either really good and you're all too busy playing to talk, or it's really damn bad and you've thrown yourself off a bridge due to all the time you wasted here yapping about it...which is it? If you do not respond, I'll assume the worst.

I'm hoping my review will be online at another site, just putting the finishing touches before sending it to the editor...

A couple of quick battles under my belt, a few hours in the editor, submitted a couple of quick mods to the Repository (which is up and running for CM:RT already). One of the beta testers was in touch a few days ago and asked me for his thoughts on one of the release scenarios so I am going through that as well, possibly for a published AAR.

Was hoping someone could confirm whether or not there is any documentation regarding the mod tag feature - I don't see anything in the manuals or the read me files.

You have a review within 24hrs of release?  :o

...i found my first little test quite immersive... when the Flak suddenly start to engage air-targets ...and the effect of airpower choosing targets on its own. I came to the conclusion i will probably switch from RT to turnbased now... there is to much action and 'cute moments' to miss all at the same time

when i tried to explore the different UI settings (RTS and FPS) it somehow ruined the key bindings... (i am not the only one, it seems to be a little bug, when i checked the technical forum my game time substracted from RL on a Saturday in full swing was already used up ... will explore more today!  or i hope so ;))   

The only thing I do find dissapointing in Red Thunder is the menu art. Loading screens do not show pictures from the war like CMBN does, but rather some game art renders.
Luckily this is easy to mod, but still. The looks of Red Thunder out of the box are much less 'professional' than CMBN in my view.
No biggie by any stretch, but just a thing of 'first impressions...' and all that. ;)

The gameplay is solid, though! Performance is much better in the new CM 3.0 engine! Animations more fluid and the new 'FPS camera mode' is pretty convenient.

Happy customer here!

Quote from: undercovergeek on April 06, 2014, 01:22:31 AM
You have a review within 24hrs of release? 

Nope. Twenty hours with a product is not unheard of to get an initial impression, though.

Quote from: Yskonyn on April 06, 2014, 04:58:37 AM
The only thing I do find dissapointing in Red Thunder is the menu art. Loading screens do not show pictures from the war like CMBN does, but rather some game art renders.
Luckily this is easy to mod, but still. The looks of Red Thunder out of the box are much less 'professional' than CMBN in my view.
No biggie by any stretch, but just a thing of 'first impressions...' and all that. ;)

The gameplay is solid, though! Performance is much better in the new CM 3.0 engine! Animations more fluid and the new 'FPS camera mode' is pretty convenient.

Happy customer here!

Can you tell me how to use the FPS camera mode?  How to start it and then use?  Some reason having a hard time figuring that out.

Go into options and then hit Controls down on the bottom.  There is a pull down at the bottom that lets you choose.

Be careful.  There are a bunch of people who used it and it completely cocked up their keyboard commands and I am still not sure if its recoverable.  I had it happen and I had to reinstall.

Also, I saw that there are a bunch of German units missing from the OOB list.  So you are looking for Grille or Wespe in QBs, you'll have to wait until a patch comes out.

I have to assume a patch is coming soon.  There are a bunch of issues that need to be addressed, key commands, shaders, and the OOB issue.

hotfix soon

Quote from: RyanE on April 06, 2014, 07:26:12 AM
Go into options and then hit Controls down on the bottom.  There is a pull down at the bottom that lets you choose.

Be careful.  There are a bunch of people who used it and it completely cocked up their keyboard commands and I am still not sure if its recoverable.  I had it happen and I had to reinstall.

Thanks, but I guess I will hold off until hotfix comes out....

Quote from: RyanE on April 06, 2014, 07:28:24 AM
Also, I saw that there are a bunch of German units missing from the OOB list.  So you are looking for Grille or Wespe in QBs, you'll have to wait until a patch comes out.

I have to assume a patch is coming soon.  There are a bunch of issues that need to be addressed, key commands, shaders, and the OOB issue.

The mod tags also don't seem to work correctly, though I may be doing something wrong given I can't find any documentation on how to use them. I did find a forum post by Steve describing them and I used that as a template. For some reason, when uploading a .txt file with a list of the tags, the software adds a bunch of commas into the names, rendering them unrecognizable. I've submitted a ticket to tech support though it is certainly possible I am simply doing things wrong. Hopefully this is another issue that gets a resolution. I also reported a minor error in one of the OOB listings for the Germans - what amounts to a typo in the code, I suspect.

On a positive note, I did a run-through of the Beutezug! scenario, as German vs. AI as recommended. If anyone is looking for a challenge, this is a good one to try. Would be interested in hearing thoughts from anyone else who does. I won't post any spoilers...yet. I also played a couple of QB battles. By coincidence, one of them was on a map inspired by the Beutezug map. It's a very nice map and gave a fun battle. I picked computer-generated all-armour matchup, and got T-34s and Su-76s versus a German FlaK company. You wouldn't think that German anti-aircraft guns would give a very good account of themselves against tanks but they actually managed to do very well. I have to say I'm very impressed by the quality of the map makers - the ones in Fortress Italy were outstanding and the few I've seen so far in CM:RT are very good. I especially like the subtle differences in the terrain and colour palettes.

What I've always done with hot keys (not just CMRT) is copy/paste your current hockey file and save it somewhere else. Then if you need to revert back you can just paste the original over the new one. Also, there are 2 Data files now. One in documents (called User Data) and one in the main game directory.  If I am not mistaken,  the hockey file in the User Data folder is the one that gets altered "in game". So if you paste back in the original,  that's where you want to do it.

Quote from: MikeGER on April 06, 2014, 02:33:24 AM

when i tried to explore the different UI settings (RTS and FPS) it somehow ruined the key bindings... (i am not the only one, it seems to be a little bug, when i checked the technical forum my game time substracted from RL on a Saturday in full swing was already used up ... will explore more today!  or i hope so ;))   

There is a thread on the official boards about that. It is a screwup in where CMx2 versions store information in your homedir (as opposed to the game install dir).

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=114417

Quote from: Redwolf on April 06, 2014, 11:02:26 AM

Quote from: MikeGER on April 06, 2014, 02:33:24 AM

when i tried to explore the different UI settings (RTS and FPS) it somehow ruined the key bindings... (i am not the only one, it seems to be a little bug, when i checked the technical forum my game time substracted from RL on a Saturday in full swing was already used up ... will explore more today!  or i hope so ;))   

There is a thread on the official boards about that. It is a screwup in where CMx2 versions store information in your homedir (as opposed to the game install dir).

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=114417

You're always so quick to jump on the "screw-up" bandwagon. CM:FI and CM:RT both split the install between the home directory (My Documents) and the Program Files. I don't know why this is, and it is definitely different from the way CM:BN did it, but it seems deliberate and is consistent in both the new games. I can only presume this will be the standard going forward?

Either way, they screwed something.  All they are doing now is sending out new hotkey files.  I can break the keys just by opening up the Controls menu.  As soon as I save it, my WASD and spacebar fail to work.  It has already been noted by BFC.

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on April 06, 2014, 12:25:19 PM

Quote from: Redwolf on April 06, 2014, 11:02:26 AM

Quote from: MikeGER on April 06, 2014, 02:33:24 AM

when i tried to explore the different UI settings (RTS and FPS) it somehow ruined the key bindings... (i am not the only one, it seems to be a little bug, when i checked the technical forum my game time substracted from RL on a Saturday in full swing was already used up ... will explore more today!  or i hope so ;))   

There is a thread on the official boards about that. It is a screwup in where CMx2 versions store information in your homedir (as opposed to the game install dir).

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=114417

You're always so quick to jump on the "screw-up" bandwagon. CM:FI and CM:RT both split the install between the home directory (My Documents) and the Program Files. I don't know why this is, and it is definitely different from the way CM:BN did it, but it seems deliberate and is consistent in both the new games. I can only presume this will be the standard going forward?

No, you misunderstand. There is no "this", as in a single "this".

What I am saying is that they screwed up the homedir location, with two homedir locations being in play. It isn't just a different location from CMBN. Looks like picking a new location but forgetting to tell all the relevant code pieces about it.

Qualifies as a screwup, certainly. The real thing making me uncomfortable about it is that it hasn't been caught in beta testing.  I see lots of people on the forums use custom hotkeys. Why not the beta testers?

Because I'd rather play the game than fk about remapping keys  :P

Its not just about remapping keys.  They put the FPS and RTS keys in for a reason...someone like me just trying them out will pretty much punt their key commands.

Quote from: Redwolf on April 06, 2014, 12:56:24 PM

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on April 06, 2014, 12:25:19 PM

Quote from: Redwolf on April 06, 2014, 11:02:26 AM

Quote from: MikeGER on April 06, 2014, 02:33:24 AM

when i tried to explore the different UI settings (RTS and FPS) it somehow ruined the key bindings... (i am not the only one, it seems to be a little bug, when i checked the technical forum my game time substracted from RL on a Saturday in full swing was already used up ... will explore more today!  or i hope so ;))   

There is a thread on the official boards about that. It is a screwup in where CMx2 versions store information in your homedir (as opposed to the game install dir).

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=114417

You're always so quick to jump on the "screw-up" bandwagon. CM:FI and CM:RT both split the install between the home directory (My Documents) and the Program Files. I don't know why this is, and it is definitely different from the way CM:BN did it, but it seems deliberate and is consistent in both the new games. I can only presume this will be the standard going forward?

No, you misunderstand. There is no "this", as in a single "this".

What I am saying is that they screwed up the homedir location, with two homedir locations being in play. It isn't just a different location from CMBN. Looks like picking a new location but forgetting to tell all the relevant code pieces about it.

I understand completely, but you're posting as if your interpretation is the only possible one. Occam's Razor suggests it is a deliberate splitting between My Documents and Program Files. Either way, it's not a huge deal. It's an inconvenience to be certain, as a user, having to work in two major directory locations when installing mods and desiging scenarios/campaigns. If the coders themselves are confused to the point that game features are being mis-directed, it is also an obvious issue - but one presumes easily rectified. But perhaps there are other planned engine upgrades that require the install to be split this way? I have no idea. Seems odd that a major error like this, if it is an error, could occur in CM:FI, go unnoticed, and then be identically perpetuated in CM:RT.

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on April 06, 2014, 01:40:53 PM

Quote from: Redwolf on April 06, 2014, 12:56:24 PM

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on April 06, 2014, 12:25:19 PM

Quote from: Redwolf on April 06, 2014, 11:02:26 AM

Quote from: MikeGER on April 06, 2014, 02:33:24 AM

when i tried to explore the different UI settings (RTS and FPS) it somehow ruined the key bindings... (i am not the only one, it seems to be a little bug, when i checked the technical forum my game time substracted from RL on a Saturday in full swing was already used up ... will explore more today!  or i hope so ;))   

There is a thread on the official boards about that. It is a screwup in where CMx2 versions store information in your homedir (as opposed to the game install dir).

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=114417

You're always so quick to jump on the "screw-up" bandwagon. CM:FI and CM:RT both split the install between the home directory (My Documents) and the Program Files. I don't know why this is, and it is definitely different from the way CM:BN did it, but it seems deliberate and is consistent in both the new games. I can only presume this will be the standard going forward?

No, you misunderstand. There is no "this", as in a single "this".

What I am saying is that they screwed up the homedir location, with two homedir locations being in play. It isn't just a different location from CMBN. Looks like picking a new location but forgetting to tell all the relevant code pieces about it.

I understand completely, but you're posting as if your interpretation is the only possible one. Occam's Razor suggests it is a deliberate splitting between My Documents and Program Files. Either way, it's not a huge deal. It's an inconvenience to be certain, as a user, having to work in two major directory locations when installing mods and desiging scenarios/campaigns. If the coders themselves are confused to the point that game features are being mis-directed, it is also an obvious issue - but one presumes easily rectified. But perhaps there are other planned engine upgrades that require the install to be split this way? I have no idea. Seems odd that a major error like this, if it is an error, could occur in CM:FI, go unnoticed, and then be identically perpetuated in CM:RT.

The one who's making a big deal out of it is you.

I was directly replying to a poster here who had this problem and told him it is a known problem and gave him a link to the solution.  Then you can in and took objection to the wording I used.

Quote from: Redwolf on April 06, 2014, 01:49:00 PM


I was directly replying to a poster here who had this problem and told him it is a known problem and gave him a link to the solution.  Then you can in and took objection to the wording I used.

The thread you posted to has nothing to do with key mapping, incidentally, so I'm not sure what it is you thought you were referring to? The "fix" in that thread appears to be to configure H2HH correctly, not consolidate the folders into a single directory.

Quote from: RyanE on April 06, 2014, 01:23:43 PM
Its not just about remapping keys.  They put the FPS and RTS keys in for a reason...someone like me just trying them out will pretty much punt their key commands.

I agree.  It really puts a damper on this feature's 'premier'.  It will probably be fixed easily enough, hopefully soon and they will cough up a hotfix for this and other quickie-fixes. 

The product does have a "rushed to market" finish around some of these details.  Not completely broken, but I wonder just how many of the older testers just stuck with the 'Standard' controls?  Personally, I like the effort to at least try and put something into the UI.  I would like to customize the FPS even more.  Not sure I will give RTS a spin again.

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on April 06, 2014, 02:15:09 PM

Quote from: Redwolf on April 06, 2014, 01:49:00 PM


I was directly replying to a poster here who had this problem and told him it is a known problem and gave him a link to the solution.  Then you can in and took objection to the wording I used.

The thread you posted to has nothing to do with key mapping, incidentally, so I'm not sure what it is you thought you were referring to? The "fix" in that thread appears to be to configure H2HH correctly, not consolidate the folders into a single directory.

Oops. Too many tabs.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=114428

Quote from: Redirected on April 06, 2014, 02:25:05 PM

Quote from: RyanE on April 06, 2014, 01:23:43 PM
Its not just about remapping keys.  They put the FPS and RTS keys in for a reason...someone like me just trying them out will pretty much punt their key commands.

I agree.  It really puts a damper on this feature's 'premier'.  It will probably be fixed easily enough, hopefully soon and they will cough up a hotfix for this and other quickie-fixes. 

The product does have a "rushed to market" finish around some of these details.  Not completely broken, but I wonder just how many of the older testers just stuck with the 'Standard' controls?  Personally, I like the effort to at least try and put something into the UI.  I would like to customize the FPS even more.  Not sure I will give RTS a spin again.

As people use one vendor's products intensely for a long time they give up more and more on customizations. Because they see them break way too often. Not statistically relevant often, but their exposure to the software in question amplifies it.

On the other hand, they use the software enough for muscle memory to kick in to get around oddities and inefficiencies in the UI. So they can afford to stick with the defaults even if the custom things are indeed better from some form of independent standpoint.


In general I think a major part of why the UI in CMx2 is as bad as it is is muscle memory on part of the hardcore users, which are all that BFC ever talks to.

I've been very busy playing the game (not that I had too much computer time this weekend, mind you).

Some random observations:

• Load times have been further improved, compared with the CMBN 2.12 and CMFI 1.12 versions. In my machine, of course.
  
• Animations and troops models have also been improved (nothing too big). There are some goofs with pixeltruppen doing some air-guitaring (Maxim HMG team on the move). Vegetation looks to me much, much more lively than before.
  
• Command lines help a lot to relate C2 with unit reactions to casualties or intense enemy fire.
  
• Automatic weapons fire feels very different. Machine guns dominate open spaces even more apparently than after the infamous MG fix. I set up a test scenario with a Russian Coy assaulting a German trench line, and man, the Russians couldn't advance more than 30 meters before morale broke up and I started losing control of my troops.
  
• The Red Army totally feels like it should (in my opinion), scenario designers have been careful setting unit soft factors.
  
• Scenarios aren't abundant, but they're indeed very interesting. George McEwan "Studienka" scenario is just wonderful.
  
• The UI feels more polished (adjustable duration for fire commands, LOS/LOF line traced from actual waypoint selected rather than unit location, delay and duration data displayed clearly for artillery fire support missions, etc.), although I don't understand why the orders menu can only be invoked with a right-click on the RTS and FPS camera modes. I haven't tried the new camera/control modes, as I have always been more than fine with the 'standard'.
  
• The infantry Tac AI shows some also subtle improvements (troops look for cover better, and when moving they distinctly prefer to move along covered routes when distance between waypoints gives them room to have a choice in the route).
  
• Limiting FO such that they can only guide one single fire mission is a bigger change than people might initially realize. I also like that you can now combine the fire of several batteries in one single mission. Soviet artillery delays - slightly lower than those of the Italians in CMFI, but substantially worse than Germans or Western Allies - combined with the former - very reasonable and realistic - limitation, go a long way to have players use artillery assets in a more realistic fashion.
  
  The bottom line is that I am enjoying this one immensely.
  
  PS: Echoing what others have already said in this thread and elsewhere: it's indeed an evolution, rather than a paradigm shift. I see the package more polished, and less clunky. But if you had been harboring a deep hatred of CMx2, or you still are rooting for the CMx1 standards in models etc. you're not going to love this one either.

Quote from: Redwolf on April 06, 2014, 04:02:19 PM

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on April 06, 2014, 02:15:09 PM

Quote from: Redwolf on April 06, 2014, 01:49:00 PM


I was directly replying to a poster here who had this problem and told him it is a known problem and gave him a link to the solution.  Then you can in and took objection to the wording I used.

The thread you posted to has nothing to do with key mapping, incidentally, so I'm not sure what it is you thought you were referring to? The "fix" in that thread appears to be to configure H2HH correctly, not consolidate the folders into a single directory.

Oops. Too many tabs.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=114428

See what happens when you get worked up?  :P

KIDDING!

Seriously (he said, knowing the horse is already good and dead), that thread also has a simple "fix" of moving the document from one folder to another. I don't see a suggestion anywhere that the two folders are a mistake or that the fix is to consolidate them. I agree with you that the split installation appears more than a little strange (if for no other reason than I don't immediately recall any other software do this, including previous battlefront/CM games including CMBO, CMBB, CMAK, CMBN, CMSF) , but it appears to be standard now?

Quote from: Bletchley_Geek on April 06, 2014, 07:24:23 PM

• The Red Army totally feels like it should (in my opinion), scenario designers have been careful setting unit soft factors.
  
• Scenarios aren't abundant, but they're indeed very interesting. George McEwan "Studienka" scenario is just wonderful.
  
• Limiting FO such that they can only guide one single fire mission is a bigger change than people might initially realize. I also like that you can now combine the fire of several batteries in one single mission. Soviet artillery delays - slightly lower than those of the Italians in CMFI, but substantially worse than Germans or Western Allies - combined with the former - very reasonable and realistic - limitation, go a long way to have players use artillery assets in a more realistic fashion.
  

I hope we'll see some more "national characteristic" type distinctions as the series progresses - the 1941 era Russians ought to be particularly interesting.

Beutezug is an entertaining scenario as well.

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on April 06, 2014, 07:37:23 PM
I hope we'll see some more "national characteristic" type distinctions as the series progresses - the 1941 era Russians ought to be particularly interesting.

I hope we'll be seeing more of that, even if I think that "organizational" differences put in place constraints which go along way to account well for those "national characteristic" differences. For instance, the structure of the Soviet Rifle Platoon (where the Platoon leader is 'embedded' in one of the squads) imposes some very interesting restrictions in how you handle them, as the number of options you have for fire and maneuver are  different from the options available to a German Platoon. I do still, however, find German squads to be slightly ahistorically inflexible (I must say I haven't checked if they have changed how many splits you can make of a German Fusilier/Grenadier squad).

Quote from: Michael Dorosh
Beutezug is an entertaining scenario as well.

I can see myself going through all of the scenarios of CMRT (as I have with CMFI).

Quote from: Bletchley_Geek on April 06, 2014, 07:24:23 PM
I've been very busy playing the game (not that I had too much computer time this weekend, mind you).

Some random observations:

• Load times have been further improved, compared with the CMBN 2.12 and CMFI 1.12 versions. In my machine, of course.
  
• Animations and troops models have also been improved (nothing too big). There are some goofs with pixeltruppen doing some air-guitaring (Maxim HMG team on the move). Vegetation looks to me much, much more lively than before.
  
• Command lines help a lot to relate C2 with unit reactions to casualties or intense enemy fire.
  
• Automatic weapons fire feels very different. Machine guns dominate open spaces even more apparently than after the infamous MG fix. I set up a test scenario with a Russian Coy assaulting a German trench line, and man, the Russians couldn't advance more than 30 meters before morale broke up and I started losing control of my troops.
  
• The Red Army totally feels like it should (in my opinion), scenario designers have been careful setting unit soft factors.
  
• Scenarios aren't abundant, but they're indeed very interesting. George McEwan "Studienka" scenario is just wonderful.
  
• The UI feels more polished (adjustable duration for fire commands, LOS/LOF line traced from actual waypoint selected rather than unit location, delay and duration data displayed clearly for artillery fire support missions, etc.), although I don't understand why the orders menu can only be invoked with a right-click on the RTS and FPS camera modes. I haven't tried the new camera/control modes, as I have always been more than fine with the 'standard'.
  
• The infantry Tac AI shows some also subtle improvements (troops look for cover better, and when moving they distinctly prefer to move along covered routes when distance between waypoints gives them room to have a choice in the route).
  
• Limiting FO such that they can only guide one single fire mission is a bigger change than people might initially realize. I also like that you can now combine the fire of several batteries in one single mission. Soviet artillery delays - slightly lower than those of the Italians in CMFI, but substantially worse than Germans or Western Allies - combined with the former - very reasonable and realistic - limitation, go a long way to have players use artillery assets in a more realistic fashion.
  
  The bottom line is that I am enjoying this one immensely.
  
  PS: Echoing what others have already said in this thread and elsewhere: it's indeed an evolution, rather than a paradigm shift. I see the package more polished, and less clunky. But if you had been harboring a deep hatred of CMx2, or you still are rooting for the CMx1 standards in models etc. you're not going to love this one either.
  

I agree with all of the above with two very minor additional points:
1) I haven't thought about CMx1 or WEGO much since CMSF
2) I mostly play my own scenarios ... which are small, but which are working very well with the improved TAc AI (ie the Germans defend themselves very well)
3) lots of very tasteful improvements, but I think the improved tac AI is the most interesting.

Quote from: MengJiao on April 06, 2014, 07:49:12 PM
2) I mostly play my own scenarios ... which are small, but which are working very well with the improved TAc AI (ie the Germans defend themselves very well)

What does detract from posting those scenarios into the Repository? If anything, the more examples are available of 'sophisticated' AI plans, the easier would be for possible scenario designers to learn how to use better the AI tools available with the editor.

Quote from: Bletchley_Geek on April 06, 2014, 08:44:02 PM

Quote from: MengJiao on April 06, 2014, 07:49:12 PM
2) I mostly play my own scenarios ... which are small, but which are working very well with the improved TAc AI (ie the Germans defend themselves very well)

What does detract from posting those scenarios into the Repository? If anything, the more examples are available of 'sophisticated' AI plans, the easier would be for possible scenario designers to learn how to use better the AI tools available with the editor.

If I ever make one that is reasonably sophisticated, I will definitely get it out to the repository.

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on April 06, 2014, 07:35:06 PM
Seriously (he said, knowing the horse is already good and dead), that thread also has a simple "fix" of moving the document from one folder to another. I don't see a suggestion anywhere that the two folders are a mistake or that the fix is to consolidate them. I agree with you that the split installation appears more than a little strange (if for no other reason than I don't immediately recall any other software do this, including previous battlefront/CM games including CMBO, CMBB, CMAK, CMBN, CMSF) , but it appears to be standard now?

Yeah. Writing into an application's installation folder is pretty much verboten on every OS now. The idea is that the installation can be write-protected (admin only) so that regular user accounts cannot mess with it.

I don't like it at all because I like to back up the whole thing as a folder.

I actually had more play fun today. A bit of an open map helped.  I am still crying that unit size scaling has been lost but what can I do?

Have seen the AI do a counterattack that looked convincing. Didn't see too many deaths due to unrealistic items. Some automatically issued movement commands that made no sense (exposing thinner armor in face of a threat) but nothing major.

Overall the thing that keeps me going is that a whole lot of the problematic areas in the code keep getting better and better. I am not aware of anything that has been made worse. Offhand I can't think of anything since 2007.

Not sure if this is 'News', but I saw that Tanks, like the infantry FOW change, are not always identified in the panel?  In this one case two Soviet AFV are 'seen' (spotted), and when I click one, I get the info in the panel...T34/85 etc...but I clicked the other (it was 1500 meters away), and no info is shown.  But one only has to eyeball it close up and it was a T34/85 also.  If it had a generic 'tank' model, that would have been cool.  I don't recall seeing this before. 

Quote from: Redwolf on April 06, 2014, 11:06:37 PM

Overall the thing that keeps me going is that a whole lot of the problematic areas in the code keep getting better and better. I am not aware of anything that has been made worse. Offhand I can't think of anything since 2007.

I have seen T34 with tank riders turn 180 degrees and face away from a threat area.  Made shooting the tank riders off very easy.

Quote from: Redirected on April 06, 2014, 11:35:39 PM
Not sure if this is 'News', but I saw that Tanks, like the infantry FOW change, are not always identified in the panel?  In this one case two Soviet AFV are 'seen' (spotted), and when I click one, I get the info in the panel...T34/85 etc...but I clicked the other (it was 1500 meters away), and no info is shown.  But one only has to eyeball it close up and it was a T34/85 also.  If it had a generic 'tank' model, that would have been cool.  I don't recall seeing this before.

Not news since Gustav Line. You still can figure out certain things by looking closely at the 3d models and take your own conclusions from the uniforms/gear you see the pixeltruppen carrying. Similar thing for tanks. Not sure if there's also some intentional misleading going on: I think AFV sound contacts tend to be rated initially as 'possible Heavy Tanks' quite often.

A feature that got added because of the on-going discussion on the Bil vs. Green As Jade AARs, if I recall correctly.

I think it got added because because it has been discussed since CMSF's initial release that BFC's FOW in CM1 was a pretty big differentiater.  It didn't make it in as feature until Gustav, but it had been requested a lot.

This might be indeed an example of correlation not implying causation. Details are hazy, but I do distinctly recall a comment along the lines of "now Charles understood what you guys were complaining about and was easy to do, so here you go"or similar.

The hazy comment I remember from Steve back in 2007 was about how difficult and over-rated CM1's FOW was.  But times and opinions change.

Quote from: Bletchley_Geek on April 06, 2014, 08:44:02 PM

Quote from: MengJiao on April 06, 2014, 07:49:12 PM
2) I mostly play my own scenarios ... which are small, but which are working very well with the improved TAc AI (ie the Germans defend themselves very well)

What does detract from posting those scenarios into the Repository? If anything, the more examples are available of 'sophisticated' AI plans, the easier would be for possible scenario designers to learn how to use better the AI tools available with the editor.

  Just to give a better idea of how crudely I construct scenarios -- the current "question" is:  What does it take to overrun a German infantry force of roughly company size in moderately good defensive terrain?  One simply takes a Quick battle map (these have objectives and deployment areas in them already), loads up and deploys the German force with some spicy elements like 88s and lots of other flak and a smattering of tanks (assumed to be in or around a workshop, which fits with the picture of a small defensive force collecting near a small supply and repair facility far behind the main lines) and then tries out various Russian forces on it (with the Germans as AI).  So far:

1) German Security Company versus about half of a Russian Cavalry Regiment -- Nope-- the Russians don't do so well
2) Part of a Russian motorized Battalion versus part of a German motorized Bn -- Nope -- the Russians don't do so well
3) Meeting engagement (same forces as above) -- Russians do extraordinarily well despite being out-gunned in the mortar and artillery area
4) Meeting Engagement (some Russian Tanks and more Nashorns) -- Nashorns and 88s stopped the Russian attack pretty fast
5) Metting Engagement (Lots of Heavy Russian assault guns versus Security Company at the Old Swimming Hole) -- Germans blown out of the water very fast

So...very crude...and I'm sorry, but that's the crudity of it all

Quote from: Redirected on April 06, 2014, 11:38:47 PM
I have seen T34 with tank riders turn 180 degrees and face away from a threat area.  Made shooting the tank riders off very easy.

Yes I thought I mentioned that. There are still significant instances where orders issued to your units against your wishes are harming the unit, and IMHO in unrealistic manners. Exposing the thinner armor is one item. Another one is ruining hit chances by moving while aiming is going on (and I bet that the model for zeroing in on a target is still using a full reset on any movement). Moving toward the enemy, not away, that sort of thing.

If they have to keep this code in and are unwilling to outright delete it I think it would be a huge improvement to only ever instruct the code to move the unit away from the threat in reverse. That would solve the issue of showing the thinner armor and it would keep the unit in good shape for firing back after you regain control.

On the bright side, many tanks now turn much faster. Having measured whether it is realistic yet.

Quote from: MengJiao on April 07, 2014, 08:55:29 AM

Quote from: Bletchley_Geek on April 06, 2014, 08:44:02 PM

Quote from: MengJiao on April 06, 2014, 07:49:12 PM
2) I mostly play my own scenarios ... which are small, but which are working very well with the improved TAc AI (ie the Germans defend themselves very well)

What does detract from posting those scenarios into the Repository? If anything, the more examples are available of 'sophisticated' AI plans, the easier would be for possible scenario designers to learn how to use better the AI tools available with the editor.

  Just to give a better idea of how crudely I construct scenarios -- the current "question" is:  What does it take to overrun a German infantry force of roughly company size in moderately good defensive terrain?  One simply takes a Quick battle map (these have objectives and deployment areas in them already), loads up and deploys the German force with some spicy elements like 88s and lots of other flak and a smattering of tanks (assumed to be in or around a workshop, which fits with the picture of a small defensive force collecting near a small supply and repair facility far behind the main lines) and then tries out various Russian forces on it (with the Germans as AI).  So far:

1) German Security Company versus about half of a Russian Cavalry Regiment -- Nope-- the Russians don't do so well
2) Part of a Russian motorized Battalion versus part of a German motorized Bn -- Nope -- the Russians don't do so well
3) Meeting engagement (same forces as above) -- Russians do extraordinarily well despite being out-gunned in the mortar and artillery area
4) Meeting Engagement (some Russian Tanks and more Nashorns) -- Nashorns and 88s stopped the Russian attack pretty fast
5) Metting Engagement (Lots of Heavy Russian assault guns versus Security Company at the Old Swimming Hole) -- Germans blown out of the water very fast

So...very crude...and I'm sorry, but that's the crudity of it all

Don't feel bad, I do the same thing.  I probably build a scenario a week, just to sandbox stuff.  But they are so crude, I don't want to deal with people asking about them online.  I tend to build something, get my question answered and move on quickly.  I also tend to build a lot of hotseat scenarios to see how the AI reacts or to make sure something happens and certain way.

Quote from: RyanE on April 07, 2014, 09:20:05 AM
I probably build a scenario a week, just to sandbox stuff.  But they are so crude, I don't want to deal with people asking about them online.  I tend to build something, get my question answered and move on quickly.  I also tend to build a lot of hotseat scenarios to see how the AI reacts or to make sure something happens and certain way.

  Exactly.  I kind of want to see the inputs and outputs when I first start on a game.  This is especially true with CMXX games.  I can still remember how frustrated I was with CMSF until I started building scenarios to see how things worked in detail under controlled constitions.

   Eventually I will play some of the better-constructed scenarios and even (maybe) elaborate some of my own, but the quick battles make such excellent sandboxes to start with that I cannot resist some very cude play.

Warning.....not official word...just my assumption. ....


I believe the idea behind the 2 manuals is that one is specific to the game and the other the engine changes. The second manual can then be used when 3.0 becomes available for CMBN and CMFI.

Again, not gospel but I'm pretty sure I'm right.

I wrote this a couple of days ago but I guess I didn't hit post. Oh well...hitting post anyway because it had taken me so long to type on my dead sexy phone.

I just went through the manuals and the morale states still do not spell out things like 'nervous', 'rattled', 'cautious'...???  While one could fathom a  guess what the effects of these are, why hasn't this been updated?

As an example, I had a Soviet squad walk through a minefield.  The only effect was 'nervous' and they walked on after leaving two guys on the ground.  So, if another two guys step on mines; do they become 'cautious'? It would be great if the person that designed this would explain the actual progress through the states and recovery effects etc.

I suppose that if they do get around to the 3.0 Upgrade product, they might Upgrade the manual. 

Quote from: Redirected on April 07, 2014, 01:29:20 PM
It would be great if the person that designed this would explain the actual progress through the states and recovery effects etc.

I suppose that if they do get around to the 3.0 Upgrade product, they might Upgrade the manual.

It would be, but I get the clear impression that they are working flat out testing the software, and not getting around to spending as much time on documentation as they'd like. I suspect the best sort of places to look are the CM wiki, and similar.

Quote from: MengJiao on April 07, 2014, 08:55:29 AM
  Just to give a better idea of how crudely I construct scenarios -- the current "question" is:  What does it take to overrun a German infantry force of roughly company size in moderately good defensive terrain?  One simply takes a Quick battle map (these have objectives and deployment areas in them already), loads up and deploys the German force with some spicy elements like 88s and lots of other flak and a smattering of tanks (assumed to be in or around a workshop, which fits with the picture of a small defensive force collecting near a small supply and repair facility far behind the main lines) and then tries out various Russian forces on it (with the Germans as AI).  So far:

1) German Security Company versus about half of a Russian Cavalry Regiment -- Nope-- the Russians don't do so well
2) Part of a Russian motorized Battalion versus part of a German motorized Bn -- Nope -- the Russians don't do so well
3) Meeting engagement (same forces as above) -- Russians do extraordinarily well despite being out-gunned in the mortar and artillery area
4) Meeting Engagement (some Russian Tanks and more Nashorns) -- Nashorns and 88s stopped the Russian attack pretty fast
5) Metting Engagement (Lots of Heavy Russian assault guns versus Security Company at the Old Swimming Hole) -- Germans blown out of the water very fast

So...very crude...and I'm sorry, but that's the crudity of it all

Well, I don't get what's "crude" in those situations you describe. If you cook it along with enough pseudo-historical fluff, you might have there some mightily worthy scenarios. I like a lot historical (or historically inspired) scenarios, but the totally made up stuff can be also very good (especially when some care is taken when selecting the terrain).

Anyways, these comments by you and RyanE kind of give me the impression that a substantial part of the CMx2 players do their own 'sandboxing' at home, and do not even bother with sharing their creations. Indeed, many of such creations won't work, but eventually some gold will be found :)

While I'm myself guilty as charged of not 'contributing' to the scenario depot, I do have a different relationship with the editor. Rather than 'an engagement idea' I start with a 'battlespace idea'. I was the kind of kid who loved maps, and that childhood fascination has found a way to express itself into making CMx2 maps. More so after having the - rather crude - capabilities to have an underlay to trace maps. Over the past year I've been working on an extensive mapping project, working out the approaches to Carentan. Being bocage and all, it's a quite interesting rolling hill country.  I spend considerable time making sure the map makes as much sense as the CMx2 editor capabilities allow: it's a bit like travelling without leaving home :) I find it hard to push myself to turn those maps into scenarios, though.

Quote from: Bletchley_Geek on April 07, 2014, 07:06:03 PM

Quote from: MengJiao on April 07, 2014, 08:55:29 AM
  Just to give a better idea of how crudely I construct scenarios -- the current "question" is:  What does it take to overrun a German infantry force of roughly company size in moderately good defensive terrain?  One simply takes a Quick battle map (these have objectives and deployment areas in them already), loads up and deploys the German force with some spicy elements like 88s and lots of other flak and a smattering of tanks (assumed to be in or around a workshop, which fits with the picture of a small defensive force collecting near a small supply and repair facility far behind the main lines) and then tries out various Russian forces on it (with the Germans as AI).  So far:

1) German Security Company versus about half of a Russian Cavalry Regiment -- Nope-- the Russians don't do so well
2) Part of a Russian motorized Battalion versus part of a German motorized Bn -- Nope -- the Russians don't do so well
3) Meeting engagement (same forces as above) -- Russians do extraordinarily well despite being out-gunned in the mortar and artillery area
4) Meeting Engagement (some Russian Tanks and more Nashorns) -- Nashorns and 88s stopped the Russian attack pretty fast
5) Metting Engagement (Lots of Heavy Russian assault guns versus Security Company at the Old Swimming Hole) -- Germans blown out of the water very fast

So...very crude...and I'm sorry, but that's the crudity of it all

Well, I don't get what's "crude" in those situations you describe. If you cook it along with enough pseudo-historical fluff, you might have there some mightily worthy scenarios. I like a lot historical (or historically inspired) scenarios, but the totally made up stuff can be also very good (especially when some care is taken when selecting the terrain).

Anyways, these comments by you and RyanE kind of give me the impression that a substantial part of the CMx2 players do their own 'sandboxing' at home, and do not even bother with sharing their creations. Indeed, many of such creations won't work, but eventually some gold will be found :)

While I'm myself guilty as charged of not 'contributing' to the scenario depot, I do have a different relationship with the editor. Rather than 'an engagement idea' I start with a 'battlespace idea'. I was the kind of kid who loved maps, and that childhood fascination has found a way to express itself into making CMx2 maps. More so after having the - rather crude - capabilities to have an underlay to trace maps. Over the past year I've been working on an extensive mapping project, working out the approaches to Carentan. Being bocage and all, it's a quite interesting rolling hill country.  I spend considerable time making sure the map makes as much sense as the CMx2 editor capabilities allow: it's a bit like travelling without leaving home :) I find it hard to push myself to turn those maps into scenarios, though.

For me, a big part of how I enjoy these games is the puzzles of not quite knowing what is going on.  So if I work on the maps at all, I'm going to have to introduce some randomness with AI plans and triggers.
The problem with larger scenarios or developing scenarios is that eventually I know far too much about what is going on.

Quote from: Bletchley_Geek on April 07, 2014, 07:06:03 PM

Quote from: MengJiao on April 07, 2014, 08:55:29 AM
  Just to give a better idea of how crudely I construct scenarios -- the current "question" is:  What does it take to overrun a German infantry force of roughly company size in moderately good defensive terrain?  One simply takes a Quick battle map (these have objectives and deployment areas in them already), loads up and deploys the German force with some spicy elements like 88s and lots of other flak and a smattering of tanks (assumed to be in or around a workshop, which fits with the picture of a small defensive force collecting near a small supply and repair facility far behind the main lines) and then tries out various Russian forces on it (with the Germans as AI).  So far:

1) German Security Company versus about half of a Russian Cavalry Regiment -- Nope-- the Russians don't do so well
2) Part of a Russian motorized Battalion versus part of a German motorized Bn -- Nope -- the Russians don't do so well
3) Meeting engagement (same forces as above) -- Russians do extraordinarily well despite being out-gunned in the mortar and artillery area
4) Meeting Engagement (some Russian Tanks and more Nashorns) -- Nashorns and 88s stopped the Russian attack pretty fast
5) Metting Engagement (Lots of Heavy Russian assault guns versus Security Company at the Old Swimming Hole) -- Germans blown out of the water very fast

So...very crude...and I'm sorry, but that's the crudity of it all

Well, I don't get what's "crude" in those situations you describe. If you cook it along with enough pseudo-historical fluff, you might have there some mightily worthy scenarios. I like a lot historical (or historically inspired) scenarios, but the totally made up stuff can be also very good (especially when some care is taken when selecting the terrain).

Anyways, these comments by you and RyanE kind of give me the impression that a substantial part of the CMx2 players do their own 'sandboxing' at home, and do not even bother with sharing their creations. Indeed, many of such creations won't work, but eventually some gold will be found :)

While I'm myself guilty as charged of not 'contributing' to the scenario depot, I do have a different relationship with the editor. Rather than 'an engagement idea' I start with a 'battlespace idea'. I was the kind of kid who loved maps, and that childhood fascination has found a way to express itself into making CMx2 maps. More so after having the - rather crude - capabilities to have an underlay to trace maps. Over the past year I've been working on an extensive mapping project, working out the approaches to Carentan. Being bocage and all, it's a quite interesting rolling hill country.  I spend considerable time making sure the map makes as much sense as the CMx2 editor capabilities allow: it's a bit like travelling without leaving home :) I find it hard to push myself to turn those maps into scenarios, though.

Ya know...Some people post just maps in the Repository. ...without units or AI plans..,....not for nuttin. ....just saying.

Quote from: Elvis on April 07, 2014, 10:22:02 PM
Ya know...Some people post just maps in the Repository. ...without units or AI plans..,....not for nuttin. ....just saying.

And you're right :-) But I'd like at the very least to setup them for QB's, that should make them far more useful/valuable.

Quote from: Redwolf on April 06, 2014, 01:49:00 PM
I was directly replying to a poster here who had this problem and told him it is a known problem and gave him a link to the solution.  Then you can in and took objection to the wording I used.

THX! Redwolf, it worked very well  :)
... i now actually use the new RTS setting. I like the right mouse button function, but missing  'elevation up / down' with mouse wheel a little, which is switched to zoom in/out in this setting.   (would be nice to have that maybe together with ALT-key press) 

Review is up at wargamer.com:

http://www.wargamer.com/article/3563/pc-game-preview-combat-mission-red-thunder

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on April 06, 2014, 07:37:23 PM
Beutezug is an entertaining scenario as well.

Quite "entertaining" indeed :)

Good to see a late war armoured raid, and good to see an scenario in Lithuania. I had forgot how awesome the Hetzer is when camping.

Very good review at the Wargamer. I haven't seen much about how the new aircraft involvement affects gameplay. How well does the AA units engage the enemy aircraft and do the air units overpower the ground units? Any thoughts anyone? Also, should I buy now or wait until after any new patch improves the game?

Quote from: Sir Slash on April 08, 2014, 09:22:20 AM
Very good review at the Wargamer. I haven't seen much about how the new aircraft involvement affects gameplay. How well does the AA units engage the enemy aircraft and do the air units overpower the ground units? Any thoughts anyone? Also, should I buy now or wait until after any new patch improves the game?

I don't think there are much point in waiting as far as the quality of the game goes.  There a a few niggling things, but the overall quality isn't going to change much in the next few months, I would guess.  If you like CM games, get it.

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on April 08, 2014, 07:21:03 AM
Review is up at wargamer.com:

http://www.wargamer.com/article/3563/pc-game-preview-combat-mission-red-thunder

Good writing, I see you aren't afraid of being controversial ☺

Some constructive comments:

• Regarding the "dwindling demographics" thing. Indeed, it's true what you say in the review. But I disagree with the Gotterdammerung vibe. There are things that can be done to widen that demographic without "dumbing out" things. Battlefront is doing helpful efforts to that effect. CM Touch is one, and the efforts Chris - and others - do by generating content on Twitch.tv and YouTube is another. 
• Battlefront business model predates Early Access releases, and it's not a far cry from what you get in wargames that strive for extreme fidelity. Uncommon Valour can be understood as the crowd funding for WITP, and in turn WITP crowd-funded WITP AE. Command Ops and WITE have followed as well similar life cycles, with different pricing structures. There's always something missing in the current implementation as you go down the rabbit hole.
  
• You devote, perhaps, too much space to comment on "arcane" things like mod tags, which only are noticed by maybe a 10% of the user base. Maybe having those remarks in their own section, in a more streamlined form would have been a good idea.

Cheers for the review ☺[/list]

Quote from: Bletchley_Geek on April 08, 2014, 10:00:08 AM

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on April 08, 2014, 07:21:03 AM
Review is up at wargamer.com:

http://www.wargamer.com/article/3563/pc-game-preview-combat-mission-red-thunder

Good writing, I see you aren't afraid of being controversial ☺

That's usually what other people bring to my writing - or just seeing my name. :) Case in point:

QuoteRegarding the "dwindling demographics" thing. Indeed, it's true what you say in the review. But I disagree with the Gotterdammerung vibe. There are things that can be done to widen that demographic without "dumbing out" things. Battlefront is doing helpful efforts to that effect. CM Touch is one, and the efforts Chris - and others - do by generating content on Twitch.tv and YouTube is another. 

Honestly, I didn't mean to suggest "dwindling", rather, "hardcore tactical" has always been a small demographic. Whether it is getting bigger or smaller isn't addressed in my comments. So I think the 'dwindling' aspect is what you brought to the article rather than me? Personally, I don't see it that way, at least as far as CM goes.

QuoteBattlefront business model predates Early Access releases, and it's not a far cry from what you get in wargames that strive for extreme fidelity. Uncommon Valour can be understood as the crowd funding for WITP, and in turn WITP crowd-funded WITP AE. Command Ops and WITE have followed as well similar life cycles, with different pricing structures. There's always something missing in the current implementation as you go down the rabbit hole.

Good points. However, there is probably less excuse for not documenting the stuff that is actually IN the game, which is what my real point of contention was. Or proofreading the rules manual to an acceptable (not perfect) standard After publishing a few periodical issues and books on my own, I tend to be a lot more forgiving about things like typos and I have a better understanding of how achievable "perfection" is for anyone that does not have access to paid beta-testers/proofreaders. Even proofreaders who are compensated for their work (I have found out from experience) will not produce "perfect" work as there can be no such thing. If we can't expect it of the space program, I think it is unfair to demand it of a video game company.

But I do stand by my comments about beta testing as opposed to buying finished product. I'm happy to support products in development. But I admit to not understanding fans and reviewers who simply rate each game in the development stream as "perfect" when key features are by self-admission two or three releases down-stream. The developer's real incentive is my money, not my '10' rating on a website.

QuoteYou devote, perhaps, too much space to comment on "arcane" things like mod tags, which only are noticed by maybe a 10% of the user base. Maybe having those remarks in their own section, in a more streamlined form would have been a good idea.

I appreciate this as well. CM is now so rich an experience, one could literally write a Combat Mission Encyclopedia - it is difficult to sit down and know where to start. One could write entire paragraphs on the history of MG behaviour or Spotting. I suppose one can only "write what you know" though...and I happen to like mods. :)

If you want to talk about dwindling demographics, I think we can examine reviewers, and in particular, those who have chose to write about Combat Mission. After CM:SF, the number of review sites, magazines, etc. that have touched CM releases has fallen off dramatically (I suspect, so have the sites and magazines).
[/list]

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on April 08, 2014, 07:21:03 AM
Review is up at wargamer.com:

http://www.wargamer.com/article/3563/pc-game-preview-combat-mission-red-thunder

Well I thought that was a very fair review. I didn't see a comment a about a dwindling demographic so can't comment on that, there was a comment about a demographic but I didn't notice you say it's dwindling.g

Overall Mr Dorosh that's about the most fair and enthusiastic I have seen you on the new version. I myself tend to be a little more enthusiastic about the titles myself in that for me they still deliver the single most bang for your buck of any war game out there. Nothing combines historical accuracy real life tactics and visceral thrill the like the cm titles do. So if I have one criticism its that you tend to be overly negative about things that aren't in the game rather than what is and there seems very little mention of all the things the game gets so right, however a pretty fair summing up.

Quote from: Sir Slash on April 08, 2014, 09:22:20 AM
Very good review at the Wargamer. I haven't seen much about how the new aircraft involvement affects gameplay. How well does the AA units engage the enemy aircraft and do the air units overpower the ground units? Any thoughts anyone? Also, should I buy now or wait until after any new patch improves the game?

  I tried out airplanes last night in a modified version of what is probably the ANGRIFF scenario.  It's out there in some form in the Quick Battles Maps oddly enough and its a huge battle.  Anyway so if you are a Russian there is this huge cordon defense of 76mm AT guns stretched over rolling terrain behind some scrubby woodsy barriers in little valleys (for concealment and to force close range action).  Anyway, you don't know where the Germans are going to strike and they open the battle with a massive smoke barrage so...it was a good thing I gave the Germans some extra flak and brought in some PE-2s (heavily loaded) for the Russians....because I could spot the main German effort by watching the flak and bombs.  Sure enough they came right up the big bare hunk of high ground that the defenses surround to make a killing ground and the first three KingTigers through the barrages and smoke and woods and bombs were promptly knocked out with close range shots flanking shots from 85mm guns.
  Heavy bombs make blasts big enough to be quite visible even to my usual wandering Real time eyes.  The aircraft engine noises add a certain amount of immersion at least the first time you hear them.

dang, the more I read about Red Thunder, the weaker my willpower gets.  I just shelled out $100 a couple weeks ago for the CMBN 'big package' and have barely scratched the surface. But it is damn tempting to ditch the slog of bocage fighting for some Ostfront goodness.... 

must.... resist...

CM (now 3.0 in RT) really has its cute moments  8)

....i just played the smallest scenario (the very first one, just Inf, ...to test a little more with different UI settings) 
In the middle of my combat patrol, one group of my Germans on the right flank got 2 more causalities, after i had already lost a man before near 'der Hügel'. I had split of a scout team close to the hill objective, and one scouting Landser didnt made it back, Verdammt!  ...unfortunately it was MG42 and the assist now down by the tracks.
I was in the process of sneaking up to the house from 3 approach routes with the other groups more on the left flank ...when the two groups got in position (i had to rest them anyway, they were exhausted from low crawl the last stint). I ordered the group with the causalities back to the spot where the men were lying on the blown up tracks ...and after a while the crippled group had picked up the MG from the heavily wounded ...and later this MG42 became the key of suppressing the house, while the two groups who still had almost full strength, together with the 3 men HQ, closed in, leap frogging - well, after the few 81mm round i had for a my small mortar prepfire had impacted so - so the house go cleared, the occupants who were not dead had flown behind it into a foxhole and were quickly dispatched ... i had no more Ausfälle taking the house :-)
   
Its those little details that come together to build a kind of 'war story' when playing a scenario and that reallife tactic actually works that brings the joy with CM  in its current state.   

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on April 08, 2014, 07:21:03 AM
Review is up at wargamer.com:

http://www.wargamer.com/article/3563/pc-game-preview-combat-mission-red-thunder

It's titled: PC Game Preview: Combat Mission Red Thunder

Not Review. 

I was playing a Quick Battle when I noticed a German Panzer IV stop beside a stone wall. It had a good chance of flanking a Soviet infantry platoon.

Conveniently, in a nearby house I had a team of Soviet Tank Hunters. I had them move out the back door and then crawl up to the Panzer using the stone wall for cover.

When they were close to the tank they threw their AT grenades. The Tank opened up with it's machine gun and turned the attack back killing 2 of the Russians.

I thought that was it. Then, to my astonishment, the last Soviet Tank Killer turns around on his stomach crawls a few feet forward and throws his last grenade as he is killed by the tanks MG. 
The tank is immobilized and the crew bails in panic.

I have seen my share of amazing moments in CM.......but nothing as dramatic as that.

That is why I play Wego. There are so many cinematic moments happening all over the digital battlefield.

Very interesting post by the user "von Albert" on Battlefront's forum for CMRT to increase your frame rate performance for CMx2.

He posted to do the following for your video card:

1) Sett the Vertical Sync Tear Control to Adaptive
2)  and the Frame Rate to half the refresh rate of 60 Hz.

I have a 660 Ti and did the above using nVidia Inspector and wow! What a difference.

Now CMBN, CMFI, CMA and even CMSF run at a smooth 30 fps with even shadows on. Before I was lucky to hit 30 fps with my 660 Ti and more like 17-20 fps in the very large scenarios. After this change, I now run locked at 30 fps and CMx2 looks great.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=114616 (http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=114616)

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on April 08, 2014, 07:21:03 AM
Review is up at wargamer.com:

http://www.wargamer.com/article/3563/pc-game-preview-combat-mission-red-thunder

Of all the subjective opinions in this there is one that sticks out as something that I hope never happens......ever.

QuoteBut – and I've maintained this way of thinking since 2007 when the first game of the new engine came out – as a consumer, I don't want to pay for research and design, or to be a beta-tester. I want to pay for a complete product. I'll give BFC top marks for a Combat Mission game when I get the sense that there is no more yet to come, or that what I have has been thoroughly and rigorously tested and documented. I get the sense there are many more improvements and developments in the CM story. I know this because BFC keeps telling us this. Great. I'm looking forward to them. When the day comes that Future CM arrives in its ultimate form and water runs down hills, the map editor lets me cut and paste, roads run 30 degrees to the vertical, my troops can scale cliffs, fix bayonets, and land by assault boat, triggers branch exponentially, and (insert wish list here) – I will consider giving CM a perfect score.

I hope that day never arrives. And I don't believe it will, as long as BFC still makes CM games. In my opinion, one of the biggest strengths (maybe the biggest) of the CMx2 engine is it ability to evolve. To grow and change. To add features. I have been around the CM community for close to 15 years and can never imagine a day when its fanbase will not want something else. A new feature. A more efficient way of doing something. Better performance. Better graphics. You name it. The day they stop doing that is the day that they have a dead product. I would love to see the day when there is a 30.0 engine. There can not be, nor should there, an "ultimate form". I have no interest in a scenario where they ever say "ok, folks. This is it. There is nothing else that can be done."

And as an aside (just because it is part of the quoted bits), it is a complete game right now. Does it have everything on everyones wish list (including their own)? No. But Charles, Steve, Phil, Chris and the whole gang could go down in a plane crash today, on their way to celebrate the release in Vegas with hookers and blow, and they will have left behind a finished product (well, maybe the stray small bug or 2...but that isn't what we're talking about, is it?).

(I did like that I got personal positive shout out in it though. :) )

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on April 08, 2014, 10:33:09 AM

QuoteRegarding the "dwindling demographics" thing. Indeed, it's true what you say in the review. But I disagree with the Gotterdammerung vibe. There are things that can be done to widen that demographic without "dumbing out" things. Battlefront is doing helpful efforts to that effect. CM Touch is one, and the efforts Chris - and others - do by generating content on Twitch.tv and YouTube is another. 

Honestly, I didn't mean to suggest "dwindling", rather, "hardcore tactical" has always been a small demographic. Whether it is getting bigger or smaller isn't addressed in my comments. So I think the 'dwindling' aspect is what you brought to the article rather than me? Personally, I don't see it that way, at least as far as CM goes.

And you're right, I misread the bit "Games/simulations set at this scale and in this period tend to appeal to a narrowly defined demographic" as "Games/simulations set at this scale and in this period tend to appeal to a narrowing demographic". My bad  ::)

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on April 08, 2014, 10:33:09 AM

QuoteBattlefront business model predates Early Access releases, and it's not a far cry from what you get in wargames that strive for extreme fidelity. Uncommon Valour can be understood as the crowd funding for WITP, and in turn WITP crowd-funded WITP AE. Command Ops and WITE have followed as well similar life cycles, with different pricing structures. There's always something missing in the current implementation as you go down the rabbit hole.

Good points. However, there is probably less excuse for not documenting the stuff that is actually IN the game, which is what my real point of contention was. Or proofreading the rules manual to an acceptable (not perfect) standard After publishing a few periodical issues and books on my own, I tend to be a lot more forgiving about things like typos and I have a better understanding of how achievable "perfection" is for anyone that does not have access to paid beta-testers/proofreaders. Even proofreaders who are compensated for their work (I have found out from experience) will not produce "perfect" work as there can be no such thing. If we can't expect it of the space program, I think it is unfair to demand it of a video game company.

The difference between the Space Program and a Video Game company is that the latter can issue a patch to fix the issue. When a rocket goes BOOM, well, it's gone for good.

There have been many complaints regarding Battlefront.com patching policy - which is not as 'agile' as that of others. While I personally think that a 'release early, release often' strategy with respect to patches is a good thing, it's also true that it is easy to 'get trapped' into a very quick game of ping pong - I liked it better in beta patch 3, This is retarded I want to rollback all the way to the release version, etc. - with the users, and not every user out there is mature enough to handle discussion in a civil and polite manner, and understand that 'alive software' can become 'unstable software'. Not to mention that you can get steered away from what one wants to achieve in a similar way as suggested by a recent RPS article criticizing the application of the 'wisdom of the crowds' to video game development.

So while I think that small increments in patching have been good for Command Ops, for instance, it's also true that it has been an exhausting and to some extent, jarring experience. It also took quite a few man hours to separate code and data, and then, the increased complexity in the release procedures introduced some 'deployment bugs' that took some time to sort out. Not to mention that following such a model requires at least two people working full time: one with the code, the other sifting through the feedback and directing the interventions in the code. When the coding outfit can only work part time - and in an irregular manner on top of that - or consists of one single person, this 'agile patching' becomes harder to do.

So I can't wholeheartedly recommend it to everyone out there: it's not cheap - man hours wise - and it can be both exhausting and jarring.

What I don't understand are the reasons Steve dismisses change logs, he sounds a bit like a very experienced COBOL programmer - he was a real wizard -  I met 20 years ago during a summer internship in a bank, who thought that control version systems were only useful to cognitively impaired persons. He was wrong in that respect, documenting what changes have been done is fundamental.

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on April 08, 2014, 10:33:09 AM
But I do stand by my comments about beta testing as opposed to buying finished product. I'm happy to support products in development. But I admit to not understanding fans and reviewers who simply rate each game in the development stream as "perfect" when key features are by self-admission two or three releases down-stream. The developer's real incentive is my money, not my '10' rating on a website.

Fair enough about their expectations, Michael. Regarding ratings: I like your review because it doesn't have a numeric score. When I worked in teaching college undergraduates, I could definitely see a trend that 'anything less than a B+ is perceived as a D-'. There has been something similar going on during the 2000's on the gaming review scene, and I think it's about time that 'grades' are earned rather than taken for granted. It's also true that the argument that goes along the lines that 'war games are special' is bunk:  'special money' isn't accepted as a payment in exchange of war games, and there's nothing 'special' about how to make them happen (designing them is different, that's truly an art).

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on April 08, 2014, 10:33:09 AM
If you want to talk about dwindling demographics, I think we can examine reviewers, and in particular, those who have chose to write about Combat Mission. After CM:SF, the number of review sites, magazines, etc. that have touched CM releases has fallen off dramatically (I suspect, so have the sites and magazines).

One can only have theories about this. I hope the following doesn't sound too paranoid.

I reckon that the 'Tom Chick affair' essentially boiled down into Battlefront getting black balled by Troy Goodfellow (who is interestingly connected to Paradox, CMSF's 'side publisher'), Rob Zacny and Bruce Geryk. They're highly influential and are all three good friends of Tom Chick. You just need to check out the Three Moves Ahead podcast they made for Combat Mission Normandy. Four years after the CMSF release debacle, I could see they do still harbored hard feelings towards Steve, Moon and all things Battlefront in general. If you fall into the 'shit list' of powerful taste makers, those steeper slopes that wargame makers have to negotiate, become steeper.

Quote from: Elvis on April 08, 2014, 06:37:46 PM
Of all the subjective opinions in this there is one that sticks out as something that I hope never happens......ever.

Reviews need to be subjective and speak out the reviewer's mind, Elvis. One of the reasons for the glut of 'high ratings' for games in reviews is that stuff which is mostly taken off the shelf - like graphic engines, etc. - is used in an 'objective' manner to generate a numeric score that measures 'quality'. The problem with that is that the actual contribution of the game makers - game play, and personality, mainly - gets 'boosted' by technology they had no part in developing.

But I do agree with you that I don't want either CMx2 to be ever 'finished': that would mean it's dead and done.

Quote from: Bletchley_Geek on April 08, 2014, 06:54:22 PM

Quote from: Elvis on April 08, 2014, 06:37:46 PM
Of all the subjective opinions in this there is one that sticks out as something that I hope never happens......ever.

Reviews need to be subjective and speak out the reviewer's mind, Elvis.

Correct, understood and appreciated. It is exactly why I didn't do a point by point post about what I didn't agree with. A persons subjective opinions are theirs and are valid.  A failed marriage and coming up on 15 years on my second has taught me that, if nothing else. :)

But people like Dorosh put out reviews like this, I assume, to create discussion and hear other, sometimes differing, points of view. The reason I addressed the one I did is because it was the one glaring one that when I read I thought "I'd never in a million years rather have that."

QuoteBut I do agree with you that I don't want either CMx2 to be ever 'finished': that would mean it's dead and done.

It's a no brainer to me. I'm always looking forward to what might be coming next. And frankly, it appears that the fan base shares that. I'm not sure that I always felt that way. When CMBO came out, people were excited and clambering for the next patch and I'd be sitting there wondering why they were getting so worked up. As far as I was concerned, I was already playing the game of my dreams. I learned a lot from that, too.

Quote from: Elvis on April 08, 2014, 07:16:22 PM
A persons subjective opinions are theirs and are valid.  A failed marriage and coming up on 15 years on my second has taught me that, if nothing else. :)

I can't really argue about that, Elvis. And happy to hear your second attempt is working out allright, by the way  :)

I appreciate all the constructive comments; failure to quote and respond to all of them isn't a lack of interest, I just don't want to monopolize the conversation. Frankly, I am enjoying reading the other reactions to the game and hope we will see more in the days ahead.

I will respond to this though:

QuoteFair enough about their expectations, Michael. Regarding ratings: I like your review because it doesn't have a numeric score. When I worked in teaching college undergraduates, I could definitely see a trend that 'anything less than a B+ is perceived as a D-'. There has been something similar going on during the 2000's on the gaming review scene, and I think it's about time that 'grades' are earned rather than taken for granted. It's also true that the argument that goes along the lines that 'war games are special' is bunk:  'special money' isn't accepted as a payment in exchange of war games, and there's nothing 'special' about how to make them happen (designing them is different, that's truly an art).

One of the reasons I enjoy your posts is that you are quite intuitive. You may have surmised I left the numeric score off deliberately. I thought including one may have been provocative. I rated CM:SF on a review site or two as less than 50%, and there was some grumbling among the faithful when I gave CM:BN a 50%. If opinions are subjective, scores are even more so. Better to leave it off entirely - as you point out, they get wildly interpreted, or worse, used as shorthand. Anything less than 100% somehow means "don't buy it" and 100% means "fanboy legionnaire is shilling for the company".

QuoteOne can only have theories about this. I hope the following doesn't sound too paranoid.

I reckon that the 'Tom Chick affair' essentially boiled down into Battlefront getting black balled by Troy Goodfellow (who is interestingly connected to Paradox, CMSF's 'side publisher'), Rob Zacny and Bruce Geryk. They're highly influential and are all three good friends of Tom Chick. You just need to check out the Three Moves Ahead podcast they made for Combat Mission Normandy. Four years after the CMSF release debacle, I could see they do still harbored hard feelings towards Steve, Moon and all things Battlefront in general. If you fall into the 'shit list' of powerful taste makers, those steeper slopes that wargame makers have to negotiate, become steeper.

I had Tom Chick in mind when I was typing my post. I can't speak for anyone at BFC, but I know there were members of the community that were taken aback by the events. I expect some well-meaning community members may have not helped matters, and I include myself as one of them at the time.

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on April 08, 2014, 07:39:24 PM
I appreciate all the constructive comments; failure to quote and respond to all of them isn't a lack of interest, I just don't want to monopolize the conversation.

I'm half expecting someone will turn up in this thread complaining about us hijacking it  ;D

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on April 08, 2014, 07:39:24 PM

QuoteFair enough about their expectations, Michael. Regarding ratings: I like your review because it doesn't have a numeric score. When I worked in teaching college undergraduates, I could definitely see a trend that 'anything less than a B+ is perceived as a D-'. There has been something similar going on during the 2000's on the gaming review scene, and I think it's about time that 'grades' are earned rather than taken for granted. It's also true that the argument that goes along the lines that 'war games are special' is bunk:  'special money' isn't accepted as a payment in exchange of war games, and there's nothing 'special' about how to make them happen (designing them is different, that's truly an art).

One of the reasons I enjoy your posts is that you are quite intuitive. You may have surmised I left the numeric score off deliberately. I thought including one may have been provocative. I rated CM:SF on a review site or two as less than 50%, and there was some grumbling among the faithful when I gave CM:BN a 50%. If opinions are subjective, scores are even more so. Better to leave it off entirely - as you point out, they get wildly interpreted, or worse, used as shorthand. Anything less than 100% somehow means "don't buy it" and 100% means "fanboy legionnaire is shilling for the company".

Thank you for that. Yes, I could see that you had left out the numeric score off. That's one of the main reasons I think Rock Paper Shotgun is probably the best video games media outlet today. They don't do 'Reviews', they do 'What I Think's.

I must say I know a bit this 'review' thing because of professional interest. Many moons ago I used to work for a spin-off of a Computer Science research group that dealt with music recommendation. This was back in the early 2000's, when everybody and their dog were trying to go beyond the 'Rotten Tomatoes', or today most significantly, Metacritic, review aggregation schemes by accounting for 'context'. We spent a fair amount of time devising ways of incorporating 'reviews by experts' into the pretty standard mechanisms based on measuring correlation of ratings over sets of items (i.e. if Bob and Alice rate similarly a certain set of items, it is likely that Alice will rate highly stuff Bob rated highly).

This was very hard and we discovered that those reviews had to be taken with a grain of salt: checking the social network connecting the 'tastemaker' and the 'producer' was critical (an example that I remember clearly is that of a critic reviewing very badly band X who happened to be the ex-boyfriend of the girlfriend of the band front man), freebies like tickets or albums do compromise 'numeric' ratings (this we could tell by seeing if the publisher was known by being lavish or not), and last, and most important, checking whether or not the reviewer was talking out of his ass, or had actually listened to the album and for how long.

The last bit was perhaps the most important of all, and impossible to check back in the day. Nowadays, you can.

Speaking of Tom Chick: I appreciate very much that he has a public profile on Steam, and one can check how long he's been playing the games he reviews. This isn't just an eccentricity: it's a proof of honesty that puts to shame everyone else reviewing games with Steam support that aren't so transparent. And the recently introduced user reviews system introduced by Steam blows out of the water Metacritic user's reviews: besides seeing the thumbs up/down thing, you also see how long that user has been playing the game. A positive review of a user with just 0.3 hours on record, is most likely to be complete and utter bullshit. And then, if the profile is public, they can see what achievements they have for that game (if the game has those) so just turning on the game and going to sleep doesn't work.

Valve is extremely clever.

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on April 08, 2014, 07:39:24 PM
I had Tom Chick in mind when I was typing my post. I can't speak for anyone at BFC, but I know there were members of the community that were taken aback by the events. I expect some well-meaning community members may have not helped matters, and I include myself as one of them at the time.

Well-meaning but probably blunt as hitting people on the face with a leg of ham (with bone and all)  ;D

Over the years, there have been a lot of well-meaning BFC fans that have done more harm than good.  Most of those have gone by the wayside, but I have seen it starting to come back with the CMRT release.  I hope it doesn't get as bad as the early CMSF days.  That will do no one any good.

Quote from: RyanE on April 08, 2014, 08:57:34 PM
Over the years, there have been a lot of well-meaning BFC fans that have done more harm than good.  Most of those have gone by the wayside, but I have seen it starting to come back with the CMRT release.  I hope it doesn't get as bad as the early CMSF days.  That will do no one any good.

Yeah. I noticed that people on the official forum deal with each other almost like nobody at all has rabies anymore. Quite a change even from the Normandy release. When was that, anyway?

Quote from: Bletchley_Geek on April 08, 2014, 06:54:22 PM

Quote from: Elvis on April 08, 2014, 06:37:46 PM
Of all the subjective opinions in this there is one that sticks out as something that I hope never happens......ever.

Reviews need to be subjective and speak out the reviewer's mind, Elvis. One of the reasons for the glut of 'high ratings' for games in reviews is that stuff which is mostly taken off the shelf - like graphic engines, etc. - is used in an 'objective' manner to generate a numeric score that measures 'quality'. The problem with that is that the actual contribution of the game makers - game play, and personality, mainly - gets 'boosted' by technology they had no part in developing.

But I do agree with you that I don't want either CMx2 to be ever 'finished': that would mean it's dead and done.

It seemed beyond subjective, almost like a person talking out loud to them self.  It seemed almost like the bold section words were questions and the ramble afterwards often went off its own topic.  The 'Verdict' strangely was not at the end but at the beginning.  Oh well.

I guess since it was published at Wargamer, and Dorosh is an administrator there, Battlefront will probably post a link to it on the Home Page.  For those wanting even more discussion of the Blog, er...I mean 'review', the forum section at Wargamer has more.

I sense that you have an axe to grind.

I  bought the game as a preorder and I am interested in anything that is written about it as it provides more levels of information for my enjoyment.  Call it whatever you like I am just glad that someone went through the effort to write about CMRS and did so in a thoughtful way with in my opinion calling out there own background and potential bias.

Thanks to all those of you in this hobby who do put the time in to share your thoughts and I for one appreciate that you are contributing and not destroying.

Con

Quote from: Bletchley_Geek on April 08, 2014, 06:48:20 PM
I reckon that the 'Tom Chick affair' essentially boiled down into Battlefront getting black balled by Troy Goodfellow (who is interestingly connected to Paradox, CMSF's 'side publisher'), Rob Zacny and Bruce Geryk.

I've known Zacny for a few years now, and I've never known him to be a vindictive person.  But I've also not read everything he's written, either.

Quote from: Redirected on April 08, 2014, 11:01:37 PM
I guess since it was published at Wargamer, and Dorosh is an administrator there, Battlefront will probably post a link to it on the Home Page.  For those wanting even more discussion of the Blog, er...I mean 'review', the forum section at Wargamer has more.

There's no one 'right' way to write a review.  They can come in all shapes and sizes.  Heck, just look at the different ones I've done here

A Distant Plain:  http://grogheads.com/?p=3815  pretty straightforward
Eight Minute Empire: http://grogheads.com/?p=3407  straight-up review, with a bit of occasional snark; it is me, after all
Card Hunter:  http://grogheads.com/?p=2570  describe the game, and then all the implications for the game outside the game
Seasons:  http://grogheads.com/?p=2408  Maybe not the best review I've ever written, but certainly off the beaten path

There are lots of ways to write reviews.  The question really is "do you have enough information to make an informed decision about the game - even if the decision is 'no thanks' and you look elsewhere?"  If you got good info out of the review, fine.  If not, then either the review was lacking, or perhaps you were already more informed than the target audience of the review.  In any event, the style in which the review was written might not agree with you.  C'est la vie.

And a 'verdict' up front isn't wrong.  It's just different.  Some people live in a BLUF world. YMMV

Quote from: bayonetbrant on April 09, 2014, 07:18:58 AM

Quote from: Bletchley_Geek on April 08, 2014, 06:48:20 PM
I reckon that the 'Tom Chick affair' essentially boiled down into Battlefront getting black balled by Troy Goodfellow (who is interestingly connected to Paradox, CMSF's 'side publisher'), Rob Zacny and Bruce Geryk.

I've known Zacny for a few years now, and I've never known him to be a vindictive person.  But I've also not read everything he's written, either.

I don't know him personally, but some of his 3MA's become a sort of "Let's Rip" session. The Rome Total War II one was a bit juvenile, and I got the impression that one of the main reasons for the snark was related to a presentation given by CA at some games conference, which was found to be jarring by the members of the panel that attended that talk because of its assertiveness. An 80$ game released like that deserved some snark, but I think they got a bit carried away.

The Combat Mission Normandy one sounded a bit like a Stalinist show trial: judge, prosecution and defense all being the same person. A healthy thing in a panel is to have people with opposing views debating, rather than corroborating each other shallow statements like "Nah, didn't press any buttons for me, mate".

On the other hand, I consider him a serious reviewer. Stardrive was a huge case of unsubstantiated hype, and he panned it out very incisevily on IGN.

{MOD VOICE ON}

so here's the deal guys - and I'm addressing everyone here in this thread

Combat Mission games get people's blood pressure up.  I have no idea why.  They're good games at what they try to portray, but they're not my personal favorite.  Some of the games I love aren't your personal favorites.  We've all got different tastes, and that's why there's all sorts of games out there.

We can all hang out and have civilized disagreements about what we do and don't like about the game and take all day talking about it.  We can discuss how cover and concealment are modeled, if the AI is more "A" than "I", and whether the uniforms should've had square buttons on them.  Talk about the game.  The.  Game.

We need to stop talking about each other, other reviewers, other writers, etc.  We need to stop it with the assessments of other people's playing style, behaviors away from GrogHeads, and whether or not someone insulted someone else in the Great CM Throwdown of 2006 on some other site that no one goes to anymore.

The mod team is sick of getting reported post after reported post for what are, quite frankly, silly and stupid quasi-infractions.  At this point, the majority of this thread is crossing the line on rule #3 of the GrogHeads forums (http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=66.0).

We tend to let a lot of things go, because we have sought, attracted, and retained a (mostly) civil and intelligent crowd capable of reasonable discussions about wargaming and all manner of other topics.  We have (by and large) wiped the slate clean on people's previous behavior on other sites, and focused on their behaviors here for any sort of moderator attention, and previous antagonists elsewhere have pretty much played nice at GrogHeads.

This thread is proving to be an exception and at this point, we are going to rein it in more tightly than most other threads around here.  Why?  Because you guys have proven unable to keep yourselves in check.

I am not going to embarrass people by calling people out by name, so let's just approach it this way:  assume that I am talking to you and get yourself in check.  Stop reporting every post because there's some misplaced adjective you don't like, and start worrying about what you say and how you say it.  Focus on not fanning flames instead trying to play some stupid tit-for-tat game of veiled insults.

{MOD VOICE OFF}

Quote from: bayonetbrant on April 09, 2014, 07:35:01 AM

Quote from: Redirected on April 08, 2014, 11:01:37 PM
I guess since it was published at Wargamer, and Dorosh is an administrator there, Battlefront will probably post a link to it on the Home Page.  For those wanting even more discussion of the Blog, er...I mean 'review', the forum section at Wargamer has more.

There's no one 'right' way to write a review.  They can come in all shapes and sizes.  Heck, just look at the different ones I've done here

A Distant Plain:  http://grogheads.com/?p=3815  pretty straightforward
Eight Minute Empire: http://grogheads.com/?p=3407  straight-up review, with a bit of occasional snark; it is me, after all
Card Hunter:  http://grogheads.com/?p=2570  describe the game, and then all the implications for the game outside the game
Seasons:  http://grogheads.com/?p=2408  Maybe not the best review I've ever written, but certainly off the beaten path

There are lots of ways to write reviews.  The question really is "do you have enough information to make an informed decision about the game - even if the decision is 'no thanks' and you look elsewhere?"  If you got good info out of the review, fine.  If not, then either the review was lacking, or perhaps you were already more informed than the target audience of the review.  In any event, the style in which the review was written might not agree with you.  C'est la vie.

And a 'verdict' up front isn't wrong.  It's just different.  Some people live in a BLUF world. YMMV

Points taken.  But it seemed to be hastily written and also drifting away from it's own drafted 'questions'. 

I don't think the car analogy (75 mustang classic??) is quite correct.  I am not even sure what CM products it is even referencing.  In the case of CMSF, that car is no longer being 'made'.  His analogy might work for CMSF if BF does do a Product Improvement on it.  That remains to be seen.  But CMSF and CMRT are worlds apart.  Even CMBN 1.0 and CMRT are strange cousins.  I played a CMBN game with Elvis and he was, of course, not used to playing a version of the game so "far back".  I believe it may have been a 1.x version.  In any case, he can comment on his experience but I could see it was like being 'left back'. 

As an aside, BF really needs to update it's demos.  At this point, it is leaving a trail of work behind in its wake.  I wonder if a "all inclusive demo" that can showcase ALL theatres might be a viable solution.  They certainly need to get a 3.0 demo going...

I digress...The focus of the review seemed to be to get to what interested the author.  Mostly scenario design aspects and pontificating about other things.  It really seemed to be more a Blog than a review.  Since it was being written for a wargaming website, and the author is an administrator for that website, perhaps it should reflect the game primarily and not the interests of he author.  Maybe not. 

In any case, BLUF?  Hopefully not this...

http://bluf.com/blog.php?221

Quote from: Elvis on April 08, 2014, 06:37:46 PM
I did like that I got personal positive shout out in it though.

You didn't, in that the comments weren't addressed to you by name or individually, but the sentiments regarding BFC's tech support were sincere, and as the lead you should rightly take pride in the good work all of you do.  The website still lists an "Ian" as an IT contact, for example, and I've talked to him via email in the past. Whoever "Schrullenhaft" is, I think just about everyone who has had a tech issue has been exposed to him over the course of the last dozen years or so as well. I assume there are other resources among the BFC staff and volunteers that you and the tech support team interact with to find out answers to questions - whatever you are doing seems to be working well.

My interactions with tech support have always been positive. The reps have been knowledgeable (or able to find answers quickly), friendly and helpful. You're doing great work that may not be much talked about but is certainly appreciated. Tech support is one of those things, like admin support or government, that gets discussed more when it is bad than when it is good.

The help desk on the website has been a useful addition and, although I'm not sure if this is your bailiwick or not, it was nice to see the Repository modified to include CM:RT so quickly.

Quote from: Redirected on April 09, 2014, 08:38:39 AM
the author is an administrator for that website,

You've said that twice now, and both times you've been as incorrect as if you had suggested Ivor Novello was still alive.

As far as Admin, it looks like when you use the link to jump to the forum to discuss it further, it appears as 'Wargamer Administrator'.  and then they repeat the whole thing.  In any case, I see there is a discussion on the maps and did the single person there answer your question?

Quote from: Redirected on April 09, 2014, 08:38:39 AMI digress...The focus of the review seemed to be to get to what interested the author.

I went and looked.  It was a preview and not a review.  I don't know what WGer's standards are, but we're pretty loose with a preview here.

Regardless, please read the {MOD VOICE ON} post above and heed it going forward.  Thanks

Quote from: MengJiao on April 08, 2014, 11:17:37 AM

Quote from: Sir Slash on April 08, 2014, 09:22:20 AM
Very good review at the Wargamer. I haven't seen much about how the new aircraft involvement affects gameplay. How well does the AA units engage the enemy aircraft and do the air units overpower the ground units? Any thoughts anyone? Also, should I buy now or wait until after any new patch improves the game?

  I tried out airplanes last night in a modified version of what is probably the ANGRIFF scenario.  It's out there in some form in the Quick Battles Maps oddly enough and its a huge battle.  Anyway so if you are a Russian there is this huge cordon defense of 76mm AT guns stretched over rolling terrain behind some scrubby woodsy barriers in little valleys (for concealment and to force close range action).  Anyway, you don't know where the Germans are going to strike and they open the battle with a massive smoke barrage so...it was a good thing I gave the Germans some extra flak and brought in some PE-2s (heavily loaded) for the Russians....because I could spot the main German effort by watching the flak and bombs.  Sure enough they came right up the big bare hunk of high ground that the defenses surround to make a killing ground and the first three KingTigers through the barrages and smoke and woods and bombs were promptly knocked out with close range shots flanking shots from 85mm guns.
  Heavy bombs make blasts big enough to be quite visible even to my usual wandering Real time eyes.  The aircraft engine noises add a certain amount of immersion at least the first time you hear them.

  Wow.  I looked at Angriff and this mysterious scenario lurking in the Quick Battle Maps is not that.  Maybe its Gog and Magog?  Anyway it is an astounding scenario.  The Russian defense is so beautifully laid out as to be a work of art in itself.

Quote from: bayonetbrant on April 09, 2014, 09:08:33 AM

Quote from: Redirected on April 09, 2014, 08:38:39 AMI digress...The focus of the review seemed to be to get to what interested the author.

I went and looked.  It was a preview and not a review.  I don't know what WGer's standards are, but we're pretty loose with a preview here.

Regardless, please read the {MOD VOICE ON} post above and heed it going forward.  Thanks

Yes, I pointed out that it was titled a Preview, but it is being called a review by the author here.  As far as I know, a preview is when an unreleased product is given to someone to test out before release.  I am pretty sure this was not the case. 

Quote from: Redirected on April 09, 2014, 09:27:00 AM

Yes, I pointed out that it was titled a Preview, but it is being called a review by the author here.  As far as I know, a preview is when an unreleased product is given to someone to test out before release.  I am pretty sure this was not the case.

If the wargamer.com site is inaccurately listing the article, that should be brought up to the administrators there. It seems irrelevent in this thread, unless there is a point I'm missing.

Quote from: MengJiao on April 09, 2014, 09:14:01 AM

  Wow.  I looked at Angriff and this mysterious scenario lurking in the Quick Battle Maps is not that.  Maybe its Gog and Magog?  Anyway it is an astounding scenario.  The Russian defense is so beautifully laid out as to be a work of art in itself.

I opened up one of the QB maps in the editor myself the other day to see if I could use it as the basis for another scenario and noticed that BFC had stripped out part of the information from one of their scenarios before converting it to a QB battle - but left the Mission data for the Allied side in by mistake. I guess these are the BFC equivalent of easter eggs. The stuff is invisible when loaded as a QB so no harm done.

Has anyone started the campaigns yet?

Quote from: Redirected on April 09, 2014, 09:27:00 AM

Quote from: bayonetbrant on April 09, 2014, 09:08:33 AM

Quote from: Redirected on April 09, 2014, 08:38:39 AMI digress...The focus of the review seemed to be to get to what interested the author.

I went and looked.  It was a preview and not a review.  I don't know what WGer's standards are, but we're pretty loose with a preview here.

Regardless, please read the {MOD VOICE ON} post above and heed it going forward.  Thanks

Yes, I pointed out that it was titled a Preview, but it is being called a review by the author here.  As far as I know, a preview is when an unreleased product is given to someone to test out before release.  I am pretty sure this was not the case.

Redirected...who the hell cares at this point?

Brant has posted a very polite, professional and succinct statement of the kind of forum demeanor we expect here.  We have given you every benefit of the doubt and extended to you a lot of rope. You seem to have failed to receive the message, or are simply ignoring it on purpose so you can continue to carry on your personal battle with MD.  Enough already.

I'm not as nice or as patient as Brant. That is why they keep me around. So, yes, I am talking to you directly, and this is your last warning. Knock off the attacks, and the passive aggressive comments, or you are gone.

Combat Mission quarrels: i never get the point. Like some guy having an opinion but not actually trying the demo.
I am glad that this series is still around and i may take the plunge again with the newest offering.

Quote from: Keunert on April 09, 2014, 10:52:42 AM
Combat Mission quarrels: i never get the point. Like some guy having an opinion but not actually trying the demo.
I am glad that this series is still around and i may take the plunge again with the newest offering.

If you liked previous CMBN/CMFI, then I think you would be happy with the CMRT iteration.  It is certainly evolving as a system, hence the 3.0 product level, and is rapidly leaving CMSF and CMBN 1.0 far behind.  Considering the present jump-in price for a CMBN bundle, I would think the real available value is with CMRT.

I don't see any major goofs with the product.  Things like bridge behaviors in Market Garden, which seemed broken at first, have not popped up yet in CMRT.  I may have issue with the armor penetration modeling, but that remains to be seen.  It takes time to take it all in. 

To expand on this...

It is probably best to compare/review/analyze CMRT, a Family Starter, to the other Family Starters...namely CMBN and CMFI.

CMBN and CMFI shared a very limited number of formations and vehicles and substance (if you will).  One might describe it as almost intentionally narrow.  The thought being is that they are going to expand things with modules.

CMRT comes with a fairly broad range of vehicles and armor.  One could even make up battles from '1943' in many cases it would seem.  I am starting to move to playing Quick Battles and the whole 'Scenario Designer Artist' doesn't make or break my gaming experience.  I think CMRT quick battles are great ways to get extended value from the game.  It has enough varied terrain that I don't feel boxed into a "operational area".

CMBN started out 1.0 and it really needed a steep curve as far as fixing issues.  CMFI sort of stole a march and debuted as 2.0 and set a standard.  The 'back-porting' of the technology with an Upgrade to CMBN was received well (always with some not liking to pay) and so was the following patch.  The game had matured.  CMRT again sets a standard, so it is buying the latest at this point.

CMBN has two modules and is finished out, CMFI has one and is also "finished" (save for any Upgrade or possible "packs").  CMRT is said to cover through the end of the war.  Considering the actual combat actions that can be modeled from June 44 to May 45, CMRT (as a Family) will cover more time and forces than CMBN (since 'Bulge' will start a new family).  CMFI is the apparent 'runt' of the lot, at least it might be in Sales.  I don't own it and can't speak much except, IF it gets a 3.0 Upgrade AND is a bundle sale (CMFI+Gustov) THEN I might buy it.  Perhaps it became a cautionary tale for what is included in CMRT.

So, for the short term, if you want to play a game and have a budget nearing $55.00, and that game is Combat Mission, then I would highly recommend that you buy CMRT.

I think the time has come to stop comparing the present Combat Mission products to the old Combat Mission games.   These are clunkers now and relegated to a box in the corner.  They seem to play more in people's minds than on their computers.

I am pleased that Wargamer chose someone of Mr. Dorosh's knowledge of the system and its history to review it.  He is fair-minded and open about his background and biases which sets him well ahead of many who do reviews.

Perhaps it's because of the way my reading habits have changed over the decades ((, for one, no longer subscribe to a dead-tree magazine), but I have little interest in reviewer rankings as opposed to their narratives.  "Early access" and similar development schemes have only changed this conversation further.  This weighs, I think, against Mr. Dorosh's attempt to, well, rate --not review! - the game in a state he takes as incomplete.  Unless I wildly miss my guess, very few future PC games will be released in a fashion that this standard holds to be "complete".  Taking two recent examples, Rome II: Total War still isn't complete and neither is EUIV.  They're both playable in their own way -- in the latter case a very eccentric and opaque way -- but the patch change logs make clear they're not "done".

I am fortunate to have a great many games on my hard drive;  more than I could ever possibly play through.  With a gun to my head, though, I would give them all up save the Combat Mission series.  From the little I've been able to peck out of it, RT is a fine addition and I'm more than happy to contribute whatever percentage of the profits is rolled back into the creation of what I hope will be many successors.  This is BF's model and it appears to be a successful one.

And, as a regular listener to "Three Moves Ahead", I must now discover what the Tom Chick affair is!

Best,

Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)

Quote from: Redirected on April 09, 2014, 11:12:05 AM

Quote from: Keunert on April 09, 2014, 10:52:42 AM
Combat Mission quarrels: i never get the point. Like some guy having an opinion but not actually trying the demo.
I am glad that this series is still around and i may take the plunge again with the newest offering.

If you liked previous CMBN/CMFI, then I think you would be happy with the CMRT iteration.  It is certainly evolving as a system, hence the 3.0 product level, and is rapidly leaving CMSF and CMBN 1.0 far behind.  Considering the present jump-in price for a CMBN bundle, I would think the real available value is with CMRT.

I don't see any major goofs with the product.  Things like bridge behaviors in Market Garden, which seemed broken at first, have not popped up yet in CMRT.  I may have issue with the armor penetration modeling, but that remains to be seen.  It takes time to take it all in.

Yes, anyone familiar with the series immediately sees and feels the refinement and improvements with Red Thunder. It is not just the new forces (Russian play is different), terrain or palette, there's that too of course, but a subtle difference in the simulation itself. I have only played two scenarios so may be mistaken, but am very familiar with CMBN & CMFI, so there are apparent changes already to me, more play will determine if so - troops seems more resistant to artillery, ATGs are harder to spot, and the tank aquiring/firing process seems less automatic with more of a delay involved. As noted earlier BFC does not include notes for every tweak in their change log so you are not 100% certain. I'm certain though there are more changes to discover as I play more, in that regard I welcome BFC's approach as play is rewarded.

In a similar vein I tend to side with Redirected on the relevance of the review from Wargamer as it seems to slightly miss the mark on the game and the target audience, whether old or new. To highlight one area from my brief play, I can say without hesitation AI triggers are a game changer for SP play in RT. No question, in the hands of third party scenario designers it can only mean more good things to come for customers. This cup half empty stuff does get tiresome, as each and every release from BFC has been a complete and rewarding experience unto itself. The old adage it's the journey not the destination bears repeating. It may be an age thing nowadays I do not know, though I am in agreement with part of the article - to quote "Taken in total, there is more about the new game engine than first meets the eye." Ain't life grand?

Quote from: Redirected on April 09, 2014, 02:13:47 PM
I think the time has come to stop comparing the present Combat Mission products to the old Combat Mission games.   These are clunkers now and relegated to a box in the corner.  They seem to play more in people's minds than on their computers.

Sure, I think that was shot and buried a long time ago, just those remaining who think feature 'x' is more important than the sum. I would like to see the latest effort from Achtung Panzer reviewed and put through the paces to see if it has improved the simulation and UI aspects, as that seems to be the only potential competitor on the horizon.

QuoteI would like to see the latest effort from Achtung Panzer reviewed and put through the paces to see if it has improved the simulation and UI aspects, as that seems to be the only potential competitor on the horizon.

If you were to look at the original Achtung Panzer and the new and improved version:Graviteam Tactics Operation Star, you would barely recognize it as the same game.

Over the last 2 years Graviteam has improved upon the series by leaps and bounds and a lot of the things that the CMRT crowd are fawning over now have been standard items with the GTOS series for years.

As far as I'm concerned CM is trying to compete with Graviteam, not the other way around.

Fearing a full-on thread hijack, but also knowing that the folks following THIS thread would be the most likely to know:

How soon is MP expected in the Graviteam products?

It's the only thing that keeps me out, although I think comparing that system to CM is a bit appley-orangey; different itches and audiences.

Best,

Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)

Quote from: Dolan50 on April 09, 2014, 03:21:39 PM

QuoteI would like to see the latest effort from Achtung Panzer reviewed and put through the paces to see if it has improved the simulation and UI aspects, as that seems to be the only potential competitor on the horizon.

If you were to look at the original Achtung Panzer and the new and improved version:Graviteam Tactics Operation Star, you would barely recognize it as the same game.

Over the last 2 years Graviteam has improved upon the series by leaps and bounds and a lot of the things that the CMRT crowd are fawning over now have been standard items with the GTOS series for years.

As far as I'm concerned CM is trying to compete with Graviteam, not the other way around.

Well I find that comment a bit odd. I have all the graviteam games and all the DLC - and frankly they seem exactly the same game to me then as now. Still the same UI and poorly written manual and still essentially an RTS game not a wargame as such - which to my mind is the gaping chasm between the two.  I would be interested to know what these game changers have been as I struggle to see them myself.

Quote from: Dolan50 on April 09, 2014, 03:21:39 PM
As far as I'm concerned CM is trying to compete with Graviteam, not the other way around.

Fans tend to be fans of genres rather than individual games, which means competition between games and publishers in the same genre is really kind of illusory. I bought the majority of Combat Mission titles and also the Panzer Command series.  Similarly, there are board gamers who will play ASL as well as Combat Commander, Band of Brothers, Fighting Formations, etc. because they appeal in different ways or provide different experiences. Mainly, though, I'm not sure many of the publishers would ever openly admit to actively "competing" against the others.

QuoteWell I find that comment a bit odd. I have all the graviteam games and all the DLC - and frankly they seem exactly the same game to me then as now. Still the same UI and poorly written manual and still essentially an RTS game not a wargame as such - which to my mind is the gaping chasm between the two.  I would be interested to know what these game changers have been as I struggle to see them myself.

Odd....?

What's so odd about it?
If you played the original APK43 and have followed the developments from that game to the present(GTOS) you will see an immense difference.

Here are just a few since I don't want to turn this into a pissing contest.

1)The UI is completely revamped-go back and look at the old APK43 and earlier versions of APOS.
2)The graphics have been improved immensely also along with a multitude of weather varieties.
3)No more 1 platoon per SqKm.
4)The modern and WW2 DLC content can be used together in QBs.(No family of games that aren't compatible).
5)The AI uses cover and concealment when attacking or counter attacking objectives when triggered instead of making a straight beeline assault.
6)There is now a command and control bar when issuing orders.

I could go on and on,but it's pointless if you haven't played this game as long as I have and played APK43 and taken notice of how far the game has matured since the beginning. If I really thought that CM was the better game I would be playing it instead GTOS.
Next up is Mius Front43 with a completely different UI and game engine and a bunch of other features that will take the game into a whole new era of improvements and new ground breaking ideas.

As far as I'm concerned Graviteam is looking at CMRT in the rear view mirror.(already been there and done that).

My biggest concern right now with this game are the problems in the Ukraine presently and how it will effect if the game will be released in the west.
I am not looking forward to CM as my only choice for this type of game in the future.

With that I'm going to refrain from posting in this thread anymore.  Way too much disinformation concerning Graviteam posted here that is getting bothersome and irksome to reply too.
Those of us who have played both CM and Graviteam and Squad Leader and ASL from the get go and have made the switch to Graviteam no exactly why we prefer Graviteam over CM.

I play both games pretty extensively in single player.  Graviteam appears to me a much better simulation of tactical combat on the eastern front.  It provides so many tools and tweaks to realism and gameplay that it can really span all levels of experience and levels of play.  It really sucks in the patching process and dealing with the devs.  But BFC is only slightly ahead in both of those categories.

I find the interface no more cumbersome than CM for learning...its just as quirky and non-standard.  In fact, there are many areas where it is significantly better than CM.  The big gameplay downsides are no full replay and no wego.  The game is pausable and orders can be issued.  The pace is no faster than CM, but can be sped up at boring points.  There are things in Graviteam that have been requested for years in CM: live OOBs lists, jump to action, time acceleration, mini-maps, etc.  The one main thing that is better than CM is the TacAI.  It is just awesome. 

CM's mapmaking and scenario builder is a big plus on the CM side.  But Graviteam counters with the operational level that CM can't come close to.  Graviteam's scenario builder is not as powerful, but the game is pretty moddable with the right skill set.

After playing Graviteam in a long session, CM always seems a little bland.  It also runs a lot better and looks somewhat better in my opinion.  There is a pretty significant amount of content out there for it, but nothing on the western front WW2.

Quote from: Dolan50 on April 09, 2014, 05:37:13 PM

QuoteWell I find that comment a bit odd. I have all the graviteam games and all the DLC - and frankly they seem exactly the same game to me then as now. Still the same UI and poorly written manual and still essentially an RTS game not a wargame as such - which to my mind is the gaping chasm between the two.  I would be interested to know what these game changers have been as I struggle to see them myself.

Odd....?

What's so odd about it?
If you played the original APK43 and have followed the developments from that game to the present(GTOS) you will see an immense difference.

Here are just a few since I don't want to turn this into a pissing contest.

Dolan, you come to this thread to piss on Combat Mission, not substantiating what you claim, and then you say you retreat because you lack the 'numbers' to 'win' the discussion. That's not a very constructive attitude, I'd say.

I bought GTOS - or APOS to be more exact, since it was rebranded, back in November 2011 from Gamersgate. I even posted a mini-AAR on Gamesquad back in Christmas 2011. Never played the old Kharkov 43 game, though.

Quote
I could go on and on,but it's pointless if you haven't played this game as long as I have and played APK43 and taken notice of how far the game has matured since the beginning. If I really thought that CM was the better game I would be playing it instead GTOS.

...

With that I'm going to refrain from posting in this thread anymore.  Way too much disinformation concerning Graviteam posted here that is getting bothersome and irksome to reply too.
Those of us who have played both CM and Graviteam and Squad Leader and ASL from the get go and have made the switch to Graviteam no exactly why we prefer Graviteam over CM.

This attitude I tend to see in some 'fans' of GTOS makes a huge disservice to the game by making statements like "I could go on and on,but it's pointless if you haven't played this game as long as I have and played APK43 and taken notice of how far the game has matured since the beginning". If you want Graviteam products to be more successful, then making a comparison between CMx2 and GTOS is far from pointless. It also bothers me these claims about "disinformation about GTOS". Indeed, there are some people out there who have been writing stuff like "I will never put Russian (sic) software in my computers", which is a bit like saying "I will never buy products from the corner shop because the shop owner speaks funny".

I'll be kickstarting a thread making a comparison of GTOS versus CMx2, which I think it will be interesting and should present an opportunity to compare both offerings for those interested in high-fidelity WW2 tactical wargames.

Frankly, all you have to do is show the patching process and that will turn most people off.

Quote from: WallysWorld on April 08, 2014, 05:15:15 PM
Very interesting post by the user "von Albert" on Battlefront's forum for CMRT to increase your frame rate performance for CMx2.

He posted to do the following for your video card:

1) Sett the Vertical Sync Tear Control to Adaptive
2)  and the Frame Rate to half the refresh rate of 60 Hz.

I have a 660 Ti and did the above using nVidia Inspector and wow! What a difference.

Now CMBN, CMFI, CMA and even CMSF run at a smooth 30 fps with even shadows on. Before I was lucky to hit 30 fps with my 660 Ti and more like 17-20 fps in the very large scenarios. After this change, I now run locked at 30 fps and CMx2 looks great.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=114616 (http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=114616)

When I get home I am going to post an article in the Knowledgebase recommending this for people that struggle with frame rate. But their will be a caveat about a possible side effect that we are aware of.

I get pretty good frame rate myself on my non sexy laptop.  But I might give it a try anyway. :)

I still find it both bizzare and disappointing that CM2 runs better on some older and low-end computers than on some pretty stoked rigs.  I went out and bought a brand new laptop that benchmarked almost 40% on Rise of Flight and Arma2 than on my older laptop.  CMBO runs 20% slower on the new one.  I have tried everything, including overclocking and nothing helps.

I am never quite sure what laptop to buy for CM.  It seems completely unpredictable.

btw, the above trick is only for nVidia, not AMD as far as I can tell.

Quote from: RyanE on April 09, 2014, 06:52:25 PM
btw, the above trick is only for nVidia, not AMD as far as I can tell.

Yes, I probably should have posted that it appears to be only for nVidia cards. I don't know if AMD cards have an Adaptive Vertical Sync setting.

Not stock.  You have to use a 3rd party app like RadeonPro, but I have seen issues with those apps.

I don't think we are too far away from BFC having to re-engineer CM.  They are stringing the OpenGL thing along too long and support for OpenGL as a modern platform is getting more and more limited.  Its the compromises they have to make to stick with OpenGL that hurts performance on modern PCs and video cards.

Does one have to set the monitor to 60 Hz?  Seems like an eye-bleed hack.

Quote from: RyanE on April 09, 2014, 06:52:25 PM
I still find it both bizzare and disappointing that CM2 runs better on some older and low-end computers than on some pretty stoked rigs.  I went out and bought a brand new laptop that benchmarked almost 40% on Rise of Flight and Arma2 than on my older laptop.  CMBO runs 20% slower on the new one.  I have tried everything, including overclocking and nothing helps.

I am never quite sure what laptop to buy for CM.  It seems completely unpredictable.

btw, the above trick is only for nVidia, not AMD as far as I can tell.

  Having problems with high-end rigs seems to be pretty common these days.  Actually, I think it has been true for the last decade at least that buying a mid-range, two-years-behind-the-cutting-edge machine has been a better strategy for getting less frustrated in one's gaming experiences.

I have not encountered that in Arma, Rise of flight, IL2 (The old one), Steel Beasts Pro, Command, and a few others.  But CM2 really seems to lag on some top end video cards and processors.  And those games are not cupcakes.  They have a lot of graphics and CPU cycles spinning.

One of the issues is that there minimal tweaking you can do with CM2.  With all of the above games except SBPro, there are a lot of in-game tweaking options available,

Quote from: Dolan50 on April 09, 2014, 05:37:13 PM

QuoteWell I find that comment a bit odd. I have all the graviteam games and all the DLC - and frankly they seem exactly the same game to me then as now. Still the same UI and poorly written manual and still essentially an RTS game not a wargame as such - which to my mind is the gaping chasm between the two.  I would be interested to know what these game changers have been as I struggle to see them myself.

Odd....?

What's so odd about it?
If you played the original APK43 and have followed the developments from that game to the present(GTOS) you will see an immense difference.

Here are just a few since I don't want to turn this into a pissing contest.

1)The UI is completely revamped-go back and look at the old APK43 and earlier versions of APOS.
2)The graphics have been improved immensely also along with a multitude of weather varieties.
3)No more 1 platoon per SqKm.
4)The modern and WW2 DLC content can be used together in QBs.(No family of games that aren't compatible).
5)The AI uses cover and concealment when attacking or counter attacking objectives when triggered instead of making a straight beeline assault.
6)There is now a command and control bar when issuing orders.

I could go on and on,but it's pointless if you haven't played this game as long as I have and played APK43 and taken notice of how far the game has matured since the beginning. If I really thought that CM was the better game I would be playing it instead GTOS.
Next up is Mius Front43 with a completely different UI and game engine and a bunch of other features that will take the game into a whole new era of improvements and new ground breaking ideas.

As far as I'm concerned Graviteam is looking at CMRT in the rear view mirror.(already been there and done that).

My biggest concern right now with this game are the problems in the Ukraine presently and how it will effect if the game will be released in the west.
I am not looking forward to CM as my only choice for this type of game in the future.

With that I'm going to refrain from posting in this thread anymore.  Way too much disinformation concerning Graviteam posted here that is getting bothersome and irksome to reply too.
Those of us who have played both CM and Graviteam and Squad Leader and ASL from the get go and have made the switch to Graviteam no exactly why we prefer Graviteam over CM.

1. erm - You presume no one plays as much as you do - well that may be true - and you do seem to have some kind of vested interest in the game given the amount you post about it and seem to have access to things others don't - but to call the differences between the two interface from the original to current "a major revamp" is frankly ridiculous.
2. Nope - don't see that - I thought the graphics were always nice - but again - the chasm like difference you point to is not there
3. Yes - that is an improvement from the original - but in a comparison with CM - if its meant to make your point its a better game - is again frankly ridiculous
4. could care less - fighting a t62 against a Mk III doesn't really do anything for me
5. Does it - frankly I cant get my troops to line up against a fence properly so I am failing to see a masterful Tac AI in this. That's something I have not been able to do since the first game
6. Wow, just wow.

My presumption is - despite the fact "you could go on and on" is that you at least picked the best 6 from that endless list to make your point - and as might be gleaned above I think that's a pretty piss poor list overall - especially in an attempt to beat on CM as opposed to APOS.

There is no "disinformation" in regard to the game - as I said I like it - but for  equally as many others if not more - its easy for us to see why we prefer CM over APOS.

Quote from: MengJiao on April 10, 2014, 09:26:49 AM

  Having problems with high-end rigs seems to be pretty common these days.  Actually, I think it has been true for the last decade at least that buying a mid-range, two-years-behind-the-cutting-edge machine has been a better strategy for getting less frustrated in one's gaming experiences.

Well a lot of that is caused by two kinds of people.

The first is who buys CPUs with lots of cores but ends up with slower per-core speed than what their old rig had. This is poisonous for pretty much all non-blockbuster games, and most MMOs, too.

The second is people who trust AMD drivers.

The problem is, most mid-range laptops with Intel CPUs use Intel graphics and and far as I know, those still don't work with CM2's OpenGL platform.  Don't know if that has changed.  It is why I still buy AMD laptops.

Battlefront has confirmed there is a shader problem in RT. A hotfix should be inbound, probably with the next patch.
You guys spoke about a hotfix in this thread earlier? Any news on that one, cause I can't find anything on it over at BFC's forums.
Any ETA on the fix?

i see only that its been worked on - there are a few things, the shaders been the big one

Yes I understand a hotfix regarding the old shaders as well as the mixup of the hotkey files, to name two things I'm aware of, is in the works. I'm not aware of any eta. A proper hotkey file was posted by the dev and fixed the issue for me.

After playing a couple more small/medium scenarios I reiterate what I wrote earlier re gameplay. The scenarios are really well done, kudos to the designers, and not wanting to give away spoilers, the AI triggers kick it up to another level and you need to be on your toes. Complacency will get you in deep trouble. It feels like the Russian front with timed artillery barrages, fast armor thrusts and a callous disregard to casualties (from the Russian perspective). :)

The best part is that this evolution (CM v3 engine) will be made available for CMBN and CMFI as well. If they keep this up CMx2 will be a current game for a long time to come. I like the way BFC went with this so far.

Quote from: Yskonyn on April 12, 2014, 10:04:30 AM
The best part is that this evolution (CM v3 engine) will be made available for CMBN and CMFI as well. If they keep this up CMx2 will be a current game for a long time to come. I like the way BFC went with this so far.

And it looks like they are trying to shift CMSF to the new engine as well - which will give a whole new lease of life to a huge amount of content - even though these are still excellent games a play regularly years after the initial release.

Didn't Steve say that they would have to rebuild the CMSF models?  If they do, it seems like they are basically rebuilding the whole CMSF game.

I dont recall CMSF getting the upgrade. I do recall, though, that there is a new modern Era CM in the works, conveniently titles CMSF2.

Quote from: RyanE on April 12, 2014, 10:44:53 AM
Didn't Steve say that they would have to rebuild the CMSF models?  If they do, it seems like they are basically rebuilding the whole CMSF game.

There has been talk about doing this. Previously it was said that they wouldn't e able to do it. More recently it has been suggested that they may have found a way. I imagine it won't be a small task. My completely uninformed thought is that if they are able to pull it off then CMsF will be able to carry on in the same way as CMBN and CMFI as the engine evolves. That would be pretty cool, if you ask me.

I dunno.  I think there is merit based on this discussion of CM and GT APOS of Battlefront ripping up the old engine and moving forward with something that supports more modern programming architecture and takes advantage of dynamic lighting etc.

If they have the resources to do both than that would satisfy both camps (those who have machines that currently run CMSF with upgraded engine).  While simultaneously developing the new engine based on years of feedback and knowledge of what the current limitations are for graphics, gameplay, LOS, spotting and flat earth syndrome etc.  If you can only do one I would argue you are better putting those resources into the latter that can meet those needs and grow your market as opposed to always being limited in the scope of the abilities of the old engine and retaining your current customers only.

Con

I do not think its a case of either / or.
The CM engine as it is now, seems to be the evolving tech where the assets are just thrown in to make a specific Era game. The skeleton, if you will, is continuously being developed and updated.
If they may have found a way for CMSF then I suspect they have found a way to port the assets over to the new framework, namely the CMx2 v3 engine.
I would not expect this to have a big effect on the development of the other games / modules?

I do think there is a point though where an engine that started development 10 years ago can only go so far.  Multi-core processing, OpenGL sunsetting, 64-bit Windows, etc. are things that are making the CM 2.0 engine seem very dated.  They also seem to have a new programmer who has a better understanding of modern 3D programming.  But he seems somewhat hamstrung by CM's current architecture.

They had to make that decision on CM1 and will have to make that decision on CM2 at some point.

Absolutely, but I was making a point about the current standpoint of the engine and CMSF.

Quote from: RyanE on April 12, 2014, 02:02:12 PM
I do think there is a point though where an engine that started development 10 years ago can only go so far.  Multi-core processing, OpenGL sunsetting, 64-bit Windows, etc. are things that are making the CM 2.0 engine seem very dated.  They also seem to have a new programmer who has a better understanding of modern 3D programming.  But he seems somewhat hamstrung by CM's current architecture.

They had to make that decision on CM1 and will have to make that decision on CM2 at some point.

  As I recall, one of the reasons they dropped CM1 was that it was too hard to modify the basic engine.  I would think the CMXX engine is easier to modify or why would they have bothered developing it?

That is what they claimed, but look how long it was taking to develop new games.  It was two years between games for CMSF to CMBN.  It was only after they added a second programmer that the pace picked up.

In fact, the amount of time to build and release CMBN was no different then CMBO to CMBB.  I thnk it might have been a little longer.   ANd that was with a lot less scope and content.

Quote from: RyanE on April 13, 2014, 05:27:34 AM
That is what they claimed, but look how long it was taking to develop new games.  It was two years between games for CMSF to CMBN.  It was only after they added a second programmer that the pace picked up.

In fact, the amount of time to build and release CMBN was no different then CMBO to CMBB.  I thnk it might have been a little longer.   ANd that was with a lot less scope and content.

Well, that's a little unfair - they are a small operation and when you say CMSF in one go like that you are forgetting it includes the original game, marines module, the british module and the nato module.

Granted they were pitched as "packs" but  I think there is a huge underestimation of the amount of sheer leg work it takes to generate all the content and  the scenarios and campaigns for these things. sometimes it appears to me people think all this stuff can be knocked up in a couple of days by a couple of modders.

I'm not dissing them on how long it took.  CM1 and CM2 are big undertakings for a small company.  Its just that CM2 was supposed to be this huge advancement for them in developing content.  It didn't happen.  It was still five years between CM2 games, unless you count CMA and then its 2 years, for the same amount of content.  In all reality, it is less content.  But it does seem to have increased revenue.  Their pricing model has taken content like CMBO at $50 to a comparable of over $200 counting CMBN, its modules, and a future bulge game.  And even then, you might not get the same content.  Again, I don't hold that against BFC...I'm more than glad to pay.

It took them three years to build and launch CMSF from 2004.  It took until end of 2010 to complete it.  Then it was a almost four years after that for CMBN to get released, even though they had started working on it around 2009.  That is about the same timeframe from CMBO to CMBB, and then to CMAK.  And again, the scopes are narrower.  CMBB and CMAK covered almost the entire western hemisphere from late 1940 to May 1945.  CM1 averaged 2 years between releases.

So I don't think CM2 lived up to the expectations they initially had.  It took adding people to do it.  They seem to have added quite a few people to get anywhere close to what they claimed they would have.  IIRC, it was supposed to be two full games a year and a module every three months.  They have never hit more than a game a year.  In fact, until CMFI, they barely hit a module a year, let alone a game a year.  That's if you don't count CMA.  If you count CMA, they did CMSF Brits and six months later CMA.

Again, its good to see they were willing to adjust their plans and that they can make more money.  So the code reengineering wasn't the driver, it was being able to modularize the content and get the revenue to hire more people.  But the pace of content release is nowhere near what CM1 had, with all of its bad and difficult to work with code.

Quote from: RyanE on April 12, 2014, 02:02:12 PM
I do think there is a point though where an engine that started development 10 years ago can only go so far.  Multi-core processing, OpenGL sunsetting, 64-bit Windows, etc. are things that are making the CM 2.0 engine seem very dated.  They also seem to have a new programmer who has a better understanding of modern 3D programming.  But he seems somewhat hamstrung by CM's current architecture.

They had to make that decision on CM1 and will have to make that decision on CM2 at some point.

It is a bit of a mystery to me what Phil is actually doing. The Mac port and other tech things have additional programmers in the credits. I think he knowledge of computers such as about virtual memory isn't special. He certainly didn't help cleaning up the download and patch messes. To this day they have no employee who even considers what safe downloading and checksumming would mean.

The 64 bit windows port is probably all done, as the basic code needs to be 64 bit clean for Mac anyway. They don't want to release three binaries for each patch. That's why we don't have a 64 bit windows build.

Quote from: RyanE on April 13, 2014, 05:27:34 AM
That is what they claimed, but look how long it was taking to develop new games.  It was two years between games for CMSF to CMBN.  It was only after they added a second programmer that the pace picked up.

In fact, the amount of time to build and release CMBN was no different then CMBO to CMBB.  I thnk it might have been a little longer.   ANd that was with a lot less scope and content.

It is a classic case of Second System Effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-system_effect

Overall that is too bad. Charles is clearly an outstanding programmer. I think there would have been better way to get more of his work to more people.

Quote from: RyanE on April 13, 2014, 01:05:35 PM
  IIRC, it was supposed to be two full games a year and a module every three months. 

My personal feeling is, regardless of whether they are able do it or not, that there would be diminishing returns if they released that many titles per year. At it is now, most real fans of the game get everything that comes out (or close to it). If you were to release 6 titles a year, even some of those diehards would pass on a lot of things.

I'm not saying its not the right thing, for many reasons.  But that was stated as one of the few key reasons for the complete rebuild.  My point was it wasn't the code, it was the number of people.  I suspect that comes down to the effort of modeling being way underestimated, as it was in CM1.

Quote from: RyanE on April 14, 2014, 03:10:38 PM
I'm not saying its not the right thing, for many reasons.  But that was stated as one of the few key reasons for the complete rebuild.  My point was it wasn't the code, it was the number of people.  I suspect that comes down to the effort of modeling being way underestimated, as it was in CM1.

I didn't mean to imply that you thought it was a good idea. That comment just stood out to me because I always wondered if it was the right course of action.  I think the current pace is the right one. A good example is how many people here have posted that they got Red Thunder and we're still going strong with Market Garden.  I can only imagine what it would be like if Market Garden came out then 2 months later CMRT then 2 months later a pack for CMFI then 2 months later the Bulge game etc. etc.........

I can't see even the most devoted buying everything. 

Quote from: Elvis on April 14, 2014, 04:54:21 PM
A good example is how many people here have posted that they got Red Thunder and we're still going strong with Market Garden.  I can only imagine what it would be like if Market Garden came out then 2 months later CMRT then 2 months later a pack for CMFI then 2 months later the Bulge game etc. etc.........

I can't see even the most devoted buying everything. 

I can tell you that although I have MG and pre-ordered RT (and think it's the best CM yet), I haven't played a single MG scenario. I didn't have time to get to them because I was still working my way through the FI scenarios!

Now I'm working on my own ideas for scenarios, and I suspect my pace of play will slow even more. If the stuff came out any faster at some point I'd probably start skipping releases or would at least be slower to buy them.

Of course, if CMSF2 or CM:Black Sea were released tomorrow, I'd go buy them despite what I've just said!

That is what BFC's market boils down to...the majority at this point are almost collectors.  And guessing at the average age of players, BFC might want to accelerate production before its most common customer address is a nursing home.

Well I'm really pleased we have a developer like Battlefront out there making these types of wargames. Tactical wargames are what I love and my hobby would certainly be alot poorer if they weren't around.

I hope they they are around for a long time yet making the type of game I love.

Based on the current situation I bet that they would realize a lot more sales of the Combat Mission Modern Black Sea game set in Ukraine if they released it now!

Battlefront allowed that CMRT has taken more out of them and slipped the Black Sea release from Spring to late Summer.  Still if they threw more resources at it to release it early I think that would be money well spent based on their potential sales having a synergistic pull from real life events and constant media attention to the potential conflict.

Con

Quote from: Con on April 14, 2014, 10:18:41 PM
Based on the current situation I bet that they would realize a lot more sales of the Combat Mission Modern Black Sea game set in Ukraine if they released it now!

Yes,
but Battlefront is known for being shy of releasing stuff that slides to close from fictional to current military history in the making.
That's why CMSF was located in Syria (a good trick to have 'Iraq-style' settings and equipment, without someone can claim to be offended by the game, in a world of ubiquitously political correctness madness)
That's why an IDF module for CMSF was often asked for ....and of course never got produced
(so no user-build 'Gaza strip, drive Terrorists into the sea'-scenarios could surface in the repository)

... I would not be surprised if the "CMSF2"  get delayed until crisis in RL is solved (contained political) or a little shift in theater location/time is also possible. 

Quote from: MikeGER on April 15, 2014, 02:25:45 AM

Quote from: Con on April 14, 2014, 10:18:41 PM
Based on the current situation I bet that they would realize a lot more sales of the Combat Mission Modern Black Sea game set in Ukraine if they released it now!

Yes,
but Battlefront is known for being shy of releasing stuff that slides to close from fictional to current military history in the making.
That's why CMSF was located in Syria (a good trick to have 'Iraq-style' settings and equipment, without someone can claim to be offended by the game, in a world of ubiquitously political correctness madness)
That's why an IDF module for CMSF was often asked for ....and of course never got produced
(so no user-build 'Gaza strip, drive Terrorists into the sea'-scenarios could surface in the repository)

... I would not be surprised if the "CMSF2"  get delayed until crisis in RL is solved (contained political) or a little shift in theater location/time is also possible.

as it stands the story is locked in - not saying it wont change, but it looks fairly solid at mo

Quote from: MikeGER on April 15, 2014, 02:25:45 AM

Quote from: Con on April 14, 2014, 10:18:41 PM
Based on the current situation I bet that they would realize a lot more sales of the Combat Mission Modern Black Sea game set in Ukraine if they released it now!

Yes,
but Battlefront is known for being shy of releasing stuff that slides to close from fictional to current military history in the making.
That's why CMSF was located in Syria (a good trick to have 'Iraq-style' settings and equipment, without someone can claim to be offended by the game, in a world of ubiquitously political correctness madness)
That's why an IDF module for CMSF was often asked for ....and of course never got produced
(so no user-build 'Gaza strip, drive Terrorists into the sea'-scenarios could surface in the repository)

... I would not be surprised if the "CMSF2"  get delayed until crisis in RL is solved (contained political) or a little shift in theater location/time is also possible.

I was just typing a reply similar to yours, Mike. I wouldn't be surprised either.

Quote from: undercovergeek on April 15, 2014, 02:59:01 AM

as it stands the story is locked in - not saying it wont change, but it looks fairly solid at mo

I am not so sure; Ukraine is starting up 'anti-terrorist' military action in East Ukraine and the is rumour about a big Russian military operation into the East Ukraine.

Quote from: RyanE on April 14, 2014, 06:44:04 PM
That is what BFC's market boils down to...the majority at this point are almost collectors.  And guessing at the average age of players, BFC might want to accelerate production before its most common customer address is a nursing home.

True...once I hit a fixed income in the hopefully not too distant future...my game buying days will be over.

Quote from: Con on April 14, 2014, 10:18:41 PM
Based on the current situation I bet that they would realize a lot more sales of the Combat Mission Modern Black Sea game set in Ukraine if they released it now!

Battlefront allowed that CMRT has taken more out of them and slipped the Black Sea release from Spring to late Summer.  Still if they threw more resources at it to release it early I think that would be money well spent based on their potential sales having a synergistic pull from real life events and constant media attention to the potential conflict.

Con

I wonder what kind of resources you think they might have available to throw at this, though? They are publicly reporting that they operate with two coders and a handful of volunteer scenario designers. The coders are, one suspects, putting together the CM:RT demo as well as retroactive 3.0 engine patches for the other games in the series. In addition to Black Sea I suspect there will be some work to do around additional flame weapons for these earlier games - one hopes so. Not yet on the list that I have seen, but should be, is a rewrite of the documentation as many new features in the CM:RT release were poorly documented, or not documented at all.

If, as you say, BFC has suggested they were over-stretched enough to put off Black Sea, I have to be frank and say that the state of the CM:RT release does show evidence of a resource strain. The question is always, do you want it done fast, or done well?

The logic is a bit specious anyway. The CM:RT game is set in 1944 and seems to be popular even though the war has been over for 70 years. No reason to think that Black Sea wouldn't sell even if Ukraine and Russia kissed and made up tomorrow.

Frankly, I think they should focus on releasing a rebuilt CMSF with may a last module that brings in Russia and a more temperate climate.

Quote from: Yskonyn on April 15, 2014, 03:27:19 AM

Quote from: undercovergeek on April 15, 2014, 02:59:01 AM

as it stands the story is locked in - not saying it wont change, but it looks fairly solid at mo

I am not so sure; Ukraine is starting up 'anti-terrorist' military action in East Ukraine and the is rumour about a big Russian military operation into the East Ukraine.

the last beta discussion about it was to go fictional - it didnt go down well

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on April 15, 2014, 07:01:07 AM


If, as you say, BFC has suggested they were over-stretched enough to put off Black Sea, I have to be frank and say that the state of the CM:RT release does show evidence of a resource strain. The question is always, do you want it done fast, or done well?

The logic is a bit specious anyway. The CM:RT game is set in 1944 and seems to be popular even though the war has been over for 70 years. No reason to think that Black Sea wouldn't sell even if Ukraine and Russia kissed and made up tomorrow.

My point was not to say it wouldnt sell but that they would sell more titles due to the ongoing "publicity" around Ukraine pulling in a potential larger audience for this game then would exist just among the current Battlefront customers

There are three legs to the production stool, Quality, Speed and Cost.  You can usually have two out of the three.  In this case they would have to increase costs (ie higher as many programmers as needed, pay overtime, outsource to a larger marketing organization, have specific document control implement quality by design etc) in order to get an earlier release.

CMRT is popular but as seen by the Flashpoint game there is gap in modern land combat operations (or at least a lot fewer choices than WWII) couple that with the ongoing non stop coverage of the Ukrainian crisis I would anticipate that you would pull in significantly larger market share with this title if launched at this particular time.

I bet if we polled here almost everyone who has combat mission would buy Black Fleet today if it came our regardless that CMRT was launched only two weeks ago.

Con

Quote from: RyanE on April 13, 2014, 01:05:35 PM
So I don't think CM2 lived up to the expectations they initially had.

  I write a lot of programs and I have some idea why (even if CM2 seems just as slow to develop as CM1) you'd want to move on to a more structured development environment and cycle even if it takes just as long to build games with it.  The feeling you get with something like
CM1 is that sooner or later you are going to hit a wall of bugginess and have to rebuild the thing anyway -- so essentially you are going to have to scrap it sooner or later and not at a point when you can necessarily afford it or plan for it.  I think (from a programming point of view) they did the right thing to get out of CM1 and into a cleaner, more predictable development cycle even if it does take as much time.  The advantages are predictability and that you can add progammers and other developers without as much risk.

Quote from: MikeGER on April 15, 2014, 02:25:45 AMThat's why an IDF module for CMSF was often asked for ....and of course never got produced
(so no user-build 'Gaza strip, drive Terrorists into the sea'-scenarios could surface in the repository)

I would almost suspect the opposite scenario would be the real reason for squashing this.

Quote from: Con on April 15, 2014, 08:13:35 AM
There are three legs to the production stool, Quality, Speed and Cost.  You can usually have two out of the three.

This is a good way to put it.

Quote
In this case they would have to increase costs (ie higher as many programmers as needed, pay overtime, outsource to a larger marketing organization, have specific document control implement quality by design etc) in order to get an earlier release.

There is pride of authorship, which I think runs high among the BFC staffers. I wouldn't discount it, even if it is not a traditional leg in the stool, member of the holy trinity, or any other way you want to describe it. And I think we know enough about the personality of at least one of the BFC founders to think that what you suggest is not likely. Not impossible, as they have certainly morphed from the "friendly little company" in order to suit their needs in other ways. But certainly out of characters. None of which is an insult. I think many with experience in creative endeavours can relate to the difficulties in letting go control. And look what happened during the CM:SF release and the partnership with - was it Paradox?

QuoteCMRT is popular but as seen by the Flashpoint game there is gap in modern land combat operations (or at least a lot fewer choices than WWII) couple that with the ongoing non stop coverage of the Ukrainian crisis I would anticipate that you would pull in significantly larger market share with this title if launched at this particular time.

I bet if we polled here almost everyone who has combat mission would buy Black Fleet today if it came our regardless that CMRT was launched only two weeks ago.

Con

Not trying to be argumentative, but I do want to suggest there might be a principled few who refused to buy it if there was even a hint BFC was attempting to 'cash in'. And given Steve's lengthy post on the subject on his forum not long ago, I think they are very sensitive to appearances. This is nothing new - games going back at least as far as M1 Tank Platoon had similar disclaimers from their publishers. Whether sales of games like A10 Tank Killer, F-16 Fighting Falcon, M1 etc were hurt by their relationship to ongoing events of the Cold War, I don't know - I tend to doubt it.

But I think society in general has changed its relationship to war and the military. Even at the height of Vietnam, the "World War II movie" had its glory days and the war was just becoming a subject for mass consumption by board wargamers as well.

We now have a more - I don't know if it is cynical so much as realistic - view of various missions like Afghanistan, Iraq, et al. Fictional Syria did seem - to me - a wiser choice than the real Iraq. Incidentally, I am of Ukrainian heritage, and I work in an office with a girl who was born there and still has family in the old country. A fictional game would be of more interest than the real deal. At least for now.

Quote from: MikeGER on April 15, 2014, 02:25:45 AM

Quote from: Con on April 14, 2014, 10:18:41 PM
Based on the current situation I bet that they would realize a lot more sales of the Combat Mission Modern Black Sea game set in Ukraine if they released it now!

Yes,
but Battlefront is known for being shy of releasing stuff that slides to close from fictional to current military history in the making.
That's why CMSF was located in Syria (a good trick to have 'Iraq-style' settings and equipment, without someone can claim to be offended by the game, in a world of ubiquitously political correctness madness)
That's why an IDF module for CMSF was often asked for ....and of course never got produced
(so no user-build 'Gaza strip, drive Terrorists into the sea'-scenarios could surface in the repository)

... I would not be surprised if the "CMSF2"  get delayed until crisis in RL is solved (contained political) or a little shift in theater location/time is also possible.

   Yes, after Syria turned in to a bloodbath after CMSF had covered that possibility, you can see why they might be nervous about what they simulate.
    I'm not sure why they are shy about representing the Modern IDF.  At the moment with the gear in CMBN and CMFI with the commonweath modules you could simulate many battles featuring the IDF from about 1948 (I guess technically there was no IDF in the Yishuv) to about 1958.
The IDF would look pretty American and the Egyptians would look pretty commonwealthy.  I don't find these to be tactically very interesting and will probably happily play whatever comes up for the East Front for the next few years.

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on April 15, 2014, 10:52:22 AM

Quote from: Con on April 15, 2014, 08:13:35 AM
There are three legs to the production stool, Quality, Speed and Cost.  You can usually have two out of the three.

This is a good way to put it.

I reckon this is the only way to put it that makes sense. Cost will be always a "hard" constraint for war game devs, you need to minimize personal risk (say you have an asset as a house to get a mortgage on, would that be sound?) and pay for the expenses up front (usually, there's no group of "investors" backing you up, and contributors to a KS aren't really "investors"), so one only can operate freely on Quality (that also includes the breadth and depth of the scope of the content covered and what is simulated in the engine) and Speed (deadlines are indeed moving targets, but keeping always an eye on making good what you had pony up to develop the thing).

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on April 15, 2014, 07:01:07 AM


I wonder what kind of resources you think they might have available to throw at this, though? They are publicly reporting that they operate with two coders and a handful of volunteer scenario designers. The coders are, one suspects, putting together the CM:RT demo as well as retroactive 3.0 engine patches for the other games in the series. In addition to Black Sea I suspect there will be some work to do around additional flame weapons for these earlier games - one hopes so. Not yet on the list that I have seen, but should be, is a rewrite of the documentation as many new features in the CM:RT release were poorly documented, or not documented at all.

If, as you say, BFC has suggested they were over-stretched enough to put off Black Sea, I have to be frank and say that the state of the CM:RT release does show evidence of a resource strain. The question is always, do you want it done fast, or done well?

The logic is a bit specious anyway. The CM:RT game is set in 1944 and seems to be popular even though the war has been over for 70 years. No reason to think that Black Sea wouldn't sell even if Ukraine and Russia kissed and made up tomorrow.

Not sure if you meant to say that either of the coders are expected to rewrite the documentation?  From the manual, Steve and some other people are supposed to do the manual.  And documentation 'slip' has been going on for the last couple of products.  Anyone that has worked on anything technical (besides a book), knows that documentation is usually that last thing on the list of "to do" and usually contains errors.  Good management will have documentation done in parallel to other design/development so as to capture what is going on.

I believe the coders need to work on the armor penetration modeling and some other odd things like tank rider behavior and perhaps tank movement (tanks doing odd turns).  They clearly need a hot-fix for some items and a patch (IMO) for others.  Certainly before documentation fixing.

I don't expect a Black Sea Pre-Order or product release soon.  And it would be unwise at this point.  Not for political reasons but for business reasons.  They should concentrate on a 3.0 Upgrade and also a 'sale' that moves as much CMBN and CMFI product as possible.  Perhaps a Pack can be developed for each of these Families also.  This might help in Bundle sales.

How they could possibly put resources into Reduxing CMSF is beyond me.  It isn't very clear what this will even be.  They may not be able to bring it up to '3.0-Tech' but some sort of 'Bolt-On-Build' version that might wring out some revenue.

Is Battlefront doing sales? I do not remember?

And when do demos usually arrive?

Quote from: Keunert on April 25, 2014, 02:08:01 AM
Is Battlefront doing sales? I do not remember?

And when do demos usually arrive?

I could be wrong, but I dont recall them having sales much....however I do think over time they do some times reduce the costs of the products but that usually isn't any time soon after release.

 I just bought Red Thunder last night and I am totally impressed. I own CMBN and some addons and it is running 2.X.

I think there is a large difference in the overall physical beauty of the game, let alone all the extra and under the hood workings.

I am too lazy to find the other thread, but in it I said some nasty things about BFs customer service and their DRM. it was a really bad week for me on several levels and I think I let outside influences cloud my post about the DRM etc.

I am still not a fan of DRMs like this, but I understand why it is done.

Through my own fault I messed up trying to purchase RT and the customer service was amazing.

Thank you, again BF.

Quote from: Grim.Reaper on April 25, 2014, 04:21:52 AM

Quote from: Keunert on April 25, 2014, 02:08:01 AM
Is Battlefront doing sales? I do not remember?

And when do demos usually arrive?

I could be wrong, but I dont recall them having sales much....however I do think over time they do some times reduce the costs of the products but that usually isn't any time soon after release.

If I recall Battlefront is more into bundling older versions of their games after releasing a new module.  What this means for CMRT is not clear since it is a standalone new game.  I suspect you will need to wait until other modules are released before you see a way to purchase the game(s) for a discount.

Con

So I assume most of you are buying digital download and not getting the disc and manual. Any reason besides the extra $10 shipping?

I bought the hard copy as well.  No goo reason I just seem to do that for games that hold an emotional appeal for me like the Battlefront games.  I have physical copies of all the CM Shockforce and CM BN and CM RT games.  Almost all of them are still in the original wrapping having never been opened....

Typing this out I am coming to the realization that I might have a problem if I continue to do this :>

Con

Quote from: Con on April 25, 2014, 01:11:30 PM
I bought the hard copy as well.  No goo reason I just seem to do that for games that hold an emotional appeal for me like the Battlefront games.  I have physical copies of all the CM Shockforce and CM BN and CM RT games.  Almost all of them are still in the original wrapping having never been opened....

Typing this out I am coming to the realization that I might have a problem if I continue to do this :>

Con

Same here.  But Commonwealth is the last hard copy that I've gotten.  I looked at all my unopened hard copies and said -- wait a second -- this is just more stuff to move to the barn!  I can just get the digital stuff and save myself the many times I'll find the hard copies and say "What is this?  Oh?  Why do I have it?  Why isn't it in the barn?"
So since Commonwealth -- no hard copies.

Like some of you guys, I like to have the physical discuss too. Especially when they have the boxes that hold all the modules. But I would never buy the disc only.  The discs are shipped with the license key. If you lose the key there is no way to retrieve it......ever.Plus, if you damage the disc and didn't make a copy you're beat too. With the download you can get both back anytime you want.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JawAKRXGm0g

For those breathlessly awaiting the movie version of my review...a quickie glimpse at the 18 release scenarios.

Excellent video Michael. I instinctively flinch now when I hear the sound of AP shells impacting against armor. Post Combat Mission Stress Disorder (PCMSD).

(What ever happened to "Spoiler Alerts"?)

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on April 25, 2014, 08:27:14 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JawAKRXGm0g

For those breathlessly awaiting the movie version of my review...a quickie glimpse at the 18 release scenarios.

Well done MD...thanks, I really enjoyed it. 

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on April 25, 2014, 08:27:14 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JawAKRXGm0g

For those breathlessly awaiting the movie version of my review...a quickie glimpse at the 18 release scenarios.

Yeah, adding a spoiler alert would be a good idea. I haven't played many of the scenarios yet, so when that part started, I bailed pretty quickly. A better time for something like this is 6 months or a year from now.....Once all the people who just got their games have a chance to play them. But an alert at the minimum would be recommended.

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on April 25, 2014, 08:27:14 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JawAKRXGm0g

For those breathlessly awaiting the movie version of my review...a quickie glimpse at the 18 release scenarios.

Very well done. I especially like how you accompanied the music to the video. I don't think some sort of 'spoiler' alert is warranted here. It does say a quick glimpse at the release scenarios and tbh after playing many of those, what you see isn't much of a spoiler. I agree that the scenarios in Red Thunder are really well done. A combination of design expertise, AI triggers and very realistic map making create some of the best gaming I have experienced to date with CM.

Quote from: Zonso on April 26, 2014, 10:36:27 AM

I don't think some sort of 'spoiler' alert is warranted here. It does say a quick glimpse at the release scenarios and tbh after playing many of those, what you see isn't much of a spoiler. I agree that the scenarios in Red Thunder are really well done.

I just watched the whole thing and you're right. Unless you pause the video and really check out what is what, you won't get much intel. Just watching through it I didn't retain any information about any particular scenario.

It was a fun watch. Not 2 minutes and 33 seconds of my life that I am asking to have back.

I am just starting Gog and Magog as the Soviets.  I see a King Tiger in the 'video'.  How is this not a spoiler?  I suppose if one hasn't played any scenarios, it can be easily forgotten, but it is clearly giving out info and satisfies what a spoiler is to me.

To be fair, that Konigstiger got wasted pretty quickly by something on the Sov side.

Quote from: Staggerwing on April 26, 2014, 09:41:06 PM
To be fair, that Konigstiger got wasted pretty quickly by something on the Sov side.

How would you know that? Did you do the music?

In any case, I put some time into putting a defense in, and in going through six turns, and was finally 'rewarded' to see a King Tiger as forecasted during my setup.  Given that I took the advice to read the scenario designers notes etc......I was under the impression that I was facing a panzer division.  Not a Heavy (spoiler) Tank Unit.

People pay for the first run through.  Part of the value.  Even if a spoiler needs to use a video forum to get whatever it is across, how does that change the fact that video is just another form of Spoilage...if not something more?  How would a CM scenario designer like his work tinked on for a you-tube review?

Quote from: Redirected on April 27, 2014, 01:50:59 AM

Quote from: Staggerwing on April 26, 2014, 09:41:06 PM
To be fair, that Konigstiger got wasted pretty quickly by something on the Sov side.

How would you know that? Did you do the music?

In any case, I put some time into putting a defense in, and in going through six turns, and was finally 'rewarded' to see a King Tiger as forecasted during my setup.  Given that I took the advice to read the scenario designers notes etc......I was under the impression that I was facing a panzer division.  Not a Heavy (spoiler) Tank Unit.

People pay for the first run through.  Part of the value.  Even if a spoiler needs to use a video forum to get whatever it is across, how does that change the fact that video is just another form of Spoilage...if not something more?  How would a CM scenario designer like his work tinked on for a you-tube review?

Are you f@cking serious redirected? You've been warned before and I told you very succinctly that it was  your last warning. You're banned until further notice. Congrats! You've won the douche of the thread award.

Quote from: Jarhead0331 on April 27, 2014, 05:13:36 AM

Quote from: Redirected on April 27, 2014, 01:50:59 AM

Quote from: Staggerwing on April 26, 2014, 09:41:06 PM
To be fair, that Konigstiger got wasted pretty quickly by something on the Sov side.

How would you know that? Did you do the music?

In any case, I put some time into putting a defense in, and in going through six turns, and was finally 'rewarded' to see a King Tiger as forecasted during my setup.  Given that I took the advice to read the scenario designers notes etc......I was under the impression that I was facing a panzer division.  Not a Heavy (spoiler) Tank Unit.

People pay for the first run through.  Part of the value.  Even if a spoiler needs to use a video forum to get whatever it is across, how does that change the fact that video is just another form of Spoilage...if not something more?  How would a CM scenario designer like his work tinked on for a you-tube review?

Are you f@cking serious redirected? You've been warned before and I told you very succinctly that it was  your last warning. You're banned until further notice. Congrats! You've won the douche of the thread award.

Wow. That's a little harsh. I didn't read any personal attack in his comments and, initially,  agreed with him point.

Well, it's not my call.......

Quote from: Elvis on April 27, 2014, 10:26:39 AM

Well, it's not my call.......

Bingo!

Try reading the entire thread...then maybe you'll understand. Unless, of course, you've chased Michael Dorosh here from another forum to harass him, as well.

Any news on a patch? It's hardly suitable to call it a 'hotfix' anymore. :)

I think Redirect got what He deserved.
It seemed pretty obvious to me He has personal issues with Dorosh and used this forum in a negative way to further them.

Quote from: Dolan50 on April 27, 2014, 03:49:45 PM
It seemed pretty obvious to me He has personal issues with Dorosh and used this forum in a negative way to further them.

That certainly seems be true, but this particular instance contained no personal attack on Dorosh at all and was not even an unreasonable request...suggesting he adds "may contain spoilers" or something like that. He did post it here expecting comments and feedback, after all.

Quote from: Jarhead0331 on April 27, 2014, 01:10:47 PM
Unless, of course, you've chased Michael Dorosh here from another forum to harass him, as well.

Any bannings or chasings off that Dorosh has had in other places, he has come by honestly. As far as this forum goes, if you are implying that I have/am harassing him in anyway, I'd like to hear when. I know he has taken personal shots at me on this forum (in this thread, in fact).

You posted the banning on a public area of the forum . I assumed (incorrectly it seems) that was because people were free to express their thoughts about it, like Dolan50 did. Otherwise why do it publicly?

I haven't been here very long but if you feel I am some kind of problem case, we can say goodbye. I feel I have added to the conversation and was even able to help a member that was in a jam the other night when he asked for help on this forum that I was uniquely qualified to take care of. But if the sentiment of the folks running this show are different, fair enough. No hard feelings.

Elvis, everyone on here came from somewhere else at one point. We all have a history, for good or bad. Here at Grogheads we made the decision that everyone got a fresh start, regardless of what had happened on other boards, even boards we were moderators on. Granted, some individuals (and no, I'm not referring to anyone on this thread) had histories which were impossible to ignore, so we certainly kept an eye open for repeat behavior. Most of those people, like the proverbial scorpion crossing the river on a frog's back, didn't last because they immediately started the same old crap again.

That being said, unless someone engages in questionable behavior on this board, they have a clean slate. Now, I personally do not like to discuss the situation around an individual's banning with anyone other than the individual and moderators/admins....however, given that this has strayed outside of the lines let me say that before someone gets banned, however long or short, they have received a warning(s) from a moderator, usually including a private message or two. That is so in this case. Also evident in this thread (at least to the moderators...all of the moderators) is that a private grudge was brought her by Redirect, who failed to heed our warnings. It was the consensus of the moderator board that baiting was going on, not to mention thinly-veiled personal attacks.

Please understand that if you (or anyone) were considered to be a "problem child" by the moderator team....you wouldn't have to ask. We prefer to not ban anyone short of egregious behavior, and a troublemaker WILL be contacted directly by a moderator. All this being said, let's drop the discussion of Redirect's ban and refocus on what brought you to our board. If you have any continuing issues or problems, feel free to message a moderator. We don't bite.

+1 to that

and the forum is a beeter place for Elvis' presence and Combat Mission knowledge

If anyone is in doubt as to whether flamethrowers should be included on the Western Front, just found this while working on our regimental website:

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-dhp/gal/cao-aco/doc/D1_E-FOU_059.pdf

Note that they managed to get the year wrong in the first part of the document - should be March 1945 rather than 1944. Document references both manpack ("Lifebuoy") and vehicle mounted ("Wasp") flamethrowers.

Not sure where this period fits into BFC's plans - if the 'Battle of the Bulge' will have a module including the end of the war, or if the last months will be tacked on to the Normandy game somehow? However they do it, looking forward to the 3.0 upgrade to the other game families. It is getting harder to be enthusiastic about designing scenarios for CMBN/CMNI while missing the trigger tool.

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on April 28, 2014, 06:20:12 AM
It is getting harder to be enthusiastic about designing scenarios for CMBN/CMNI while missing the trigger tool.

I hope not too much... :'( I am a great fan of your work! 8)

Quote from: Steelgrave on April 27, 2014, 09:13:47 PM

Please understand that if you (or anyone) were considered to be a "problem child" by the moderator team....you wouldn't have to ask.

Thanks. I appreciate that. I just got the sense from Jarheads post that he was implying something like "that's right, mate. And if you don't watch yourself, you'll be next".

Moving on now. Who wants a PBEM game? It's the first time in years that I have none going. Drop me a PM, if you're interested.

Quote from: Elvis on April 28, 2014, 12:52:15 PM


Thanks. I appreciate that. I just got the sense from Jarheads post that he was implying something like "that's right, mate. And if you don't watch yourself, you'll be next".

Totally incorrect. I'm American and would never use the word "mate."

Quote from: Jarhead0331 on April 28, 2014, 02:31:26 PM

Quote from: Elvis on April 28, 2014, 12:52:15 PM


Thanks. I appreciate that. I just got the sense from Jarheads post that he was implying something like "that's right, mate. And if you don't watch yourself, you'll be next".

Totally incorrect. I'm American and would never use the word "mate."

:)

Quote from: Jarhead0331 on April 28, 2014, 02:31:26 PMTotally incorrect. I'm American and would never use the word "mate."

unless he's referring to the future Mrs Jarhead, and then it's a verb, not a noun ;)

Quote from: Con on April 25, 2014, 01:11:30 PM
I bought the hard copy as well.  No goo reason I just seem to do that for games that hold an emotional appeal for me like the Battlefront games.  I have physical copies of all the CM Shockforce and CM BN and CM RT games.  Almost all of them are still in the original wrapping having never been opened....

Typing this out I am coming to the realization that I might have a problem if I continue to do this :>

Con

My new snazzy hardcopy of CMRT just showed up today with 2 printed manuals.  A quick read of the CMRT manual looks like it has a lot of interesting information (tips techniques etc) in it while the CM v3.0 game engine manual looks like it provide a lot more information around the game mechanics.

I actually tossed the tin case because its mostly round so unless you stack it it doesnt really fit on a shelf (it has a slight flat edge but overall its a weird design choice for a case).  I am putting it in with the tin CMBN case because it has available space, also it is of a heavier gauge of metal giving it a more solid feel and lastly I like having all my CM disks together in one box.

Con

Quote from: bayonetbrant on April 28, 2014, 03:08:53 PM

Quote from: Jarhead0331 on April 28, 2014, 02:31:26 PMTotally incorrect. I'm American and would never use the word "mate."

unless he's referring to the future Mrs Jarhead, and then it's a verb, not a noun ;)

You know, I was going to say that, but then I decided to be less verbose.

I have a birthday coming up in June and was thinking of this game as a gift my wife could get me...I haven't played any in this series since the original Normandy and Barbarosa releases many years ago.  How easy is it to create your own quick battles on existing maps without having to build a map from scratch, i.e. a small scenario with limited numbers of units. Sorry if this was covered already, there are a lot of pages in this thread!

Quote from: Rayfer on April 28, 2014, 03:45:28 PM
I have a birthday coming up in June and was thinking of this game as a gift my wife could get me...I haven't played any in this series since the original Normandy and Barbarosa releases many years ago.  How easy is it to create your own quick battles on existing maps without having to build a map from scratch, i.e. a small scenario with limited numbers of units. Sorry if this was covered already, there are a lot of pages in this thread!

Extremely easy if you leave the force selection to the computer.  If you want to chose your own units, it can take 5 or 10 minutes. As others have said in this thread,  it is more cumbersome than the old system but once you've done it a couple of times, you can navigate it pretty easily.

The demo should be out before your special day. You might want to check that out before you put your birthday list together. Although it won't let you practice force selection.

Quote from: Rayfer on April 28, 2014, 03:45:28 PM
How easy is it to create your own quick battles on existing maps without having to build a map from scratch, i.e. a small scenario with limited numbers of units.

If you like fighting against anti-aircraft companies, you're in for a real treat.

Quick Battles are quite a lot of fun if you don't leave the choices to the game. Choose the map and both forces yourself.

Arranged this way the QB's play out very well and are quite entertaining.

Lately I have been arranging very small scenarios with a handful of units on small maps. The tactical situations that arise can be quite challenging.

Quote from: z1812 on April 29, 2014, 09:37:56 AM
Quick Battles are quite a lot of fun if you don't leave the choices to the game. Choose the map and both forces yourself.

Arranged this way the QB's play out very well and are quite entertaining.

Lately I have been arranging very small scenarios with a handful of units on small maps. The tactical situations that arise can be quite challenging.

That is exactly what I was looking for....thanks!

User selection is the only reliable way to play any CM2 quick battle.  It was a relief for QB playing in CMBN because they added player selectable units back into the QB process.  CMSF only allowed random QB selection...it was never fun playing 15 recon humvees against T72s.

Tried to purchase the game but can't. My account name and/or password come up as being wrong though I have bought from them many times in the past.  Sent for a new password, which they promptly sent me via email.  But this doesn't work either.  Not sure what the problem is.  To compound the issue, to contact support you must sign in....which is the problem, I can't sign in, so I can't ask their support for help.  Any suggestions?

Quote from: Rayfer on April 29, 2014, 02:14:44 PM
Tried to purchase the game but can't. My account name and/or password come up as being wrong though I have bought from them many times in the past.  Sent for a new password, which they promptly sent me via email.  But this doesn't work either.  Not sure what the problem is.  To compound the issue, to contact support you must sign in....which is the problem, I can't sign in, so I can't ask their support for help.  Any suggestions?

Yup. When I hear that it almost always turns out to be something in the browser settings.  First,  try a different browser.  If that doesn't do it, there is a Knowledgebase article about it. If I was on my computer instead of my dead sexy phone, I would send the link.

The most common cause for this is people remembering the wrong email address they used to set up their account but because you got the password refresh email, that isn't the case for you.

Quote from: Rayfer on April 29, 2014, 02:14:44 PM
Tried to purchase the game but can't. My account name and/or password come up as being wrong though I have bought from them many times in the past.  Sent for a new password, which they promptly sent me via email.  But this doesn't work either.  Not sure what the problem is.  To compound the issue, to contact support you must sign in....which is the problem, I can't sign in, so I can't ask their support for help.  Any suggestions?

There are 2 approaches you can use. Try chrome as your browser.

Re-register with a new ID and password.

You can create a new account but there are a couple of problems with that.


Your old account and new can't be merged.  So you'll always has to access your accounts separately.

I suspect that the problem you have with your current information will be the same with the new one.

In the email to reset your password your used name was included.  Make sure to use that. Just cop/paste both user name and password.

Quote from: Rayfer on April 28, 2014, 03:45:28 PM
How easy is it to create your own quick battles on existing maps without having to build a map from scratch, i.e. a small scenario with limited numbers of units.

Hi Rayfer,

Happy birthday and I hope that you could purchase the thing. I just posted an AAR about a quick battle. In this case all the forces were chosen by the computer.

We can discuss all day about the balance of forces, the infantry to armor ratio and the very composition of each side. But in the end I had a lot of fun.

(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-5TQgbdFWSWE%2FU2Ba11izhpI%2FAAAAAAAAMAI%2FI61V2Rvflw0%2Fs1600%2F29.jpg&hash=6a13b51bc27da30e32f3c96040dc4f8ad87b238f)

http://kriegsimulation.blogspot.com/2014/04/somewhere-in-eastern-front-combat.html (http://kriegsimulation.blogspot.com/2014/04/somewhere-in-eastern-front-combat.html)

Cheers,

is mate used for bromance stuff? if you call someone a mate you are also indicating that you wouldn't mind to mate him? is this some sort of a british navy tradition that Churchill disliked?

Thanks JC...I finally sorted out the login issue (was using the wrong user name) and made the purchase last night. Got it downloaded and look forward to starting the tutorial campaign today and going through some of those AAR's as well.

A fun quick but not easy scenario is Red Hordes

I have played it about three times with only marginal victories for the Axis.  You get a sense of the desperation that the Germans had when facing Ivan

Con

JC....read your blog AAR, well done! Nice touch pointing out the kill shots on your unfortunate armor. I don't feel so bad now, my first QB ended with a similar result only I was the attacking Russians....a tactical defeat.  Dug-in German infantry with PF's are deadly to Russian armored cars, they took out 5 of 8. The QB feature in this game is outstanding.

Quote from: Rayfer on April 30, 2014, 07:06:25 PM
JC....read your blog AAR, well done! Nice touch pointing out the kill shots on your unfortunate armor. I don't feel so bad now, my first QB ended with a similar result only I was the attacking Russians....a tactical defeat.  Dug-in German infantry with PF's are deadly to Russian armored cars, they took out 5 of 8. The QB feature in this game is outstanding.

You mean (singleplayer) QB is finally not broken anymore?

For those that don't frequent the BFC forums, here are a couple nice videos showcasing Red Thunder in its glory. Both guys did a really good job with these.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Po77kzyX7g (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Po77kzyX7g)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPYFHpejve0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPYFHpejve0)

Quote from: jomni on May 01, 2014, 08:57:37 PM

Quote from: Rayfer on April 30, 2014, 07:06:25 PM
JC....read your blog AAR, well done! Nice touch pointing out the kill shots on your unfortunate armor. I don't feel so bad now, my first QB ended with a similar result only I was the attacking Russians....a tactical defeat.  Dug-in German infantry with PF's are deadly to Russian armored cars, they took out 5 of 8. The QB feature in this game is outstanding.

You mean (singleplayer) QB is finally not broken anymore?

Yes, single player QB. I hadn't played any CM games since the original, first two all those many years ago so I can't relate to or comment on the broken QB issue. The 4 single player QB's I've played have been fun, easy to set up and very challenging.