Battlefront's Combat Mission Eastern Front Sneak Peek

[MengJiao]

If you survive the Uncanny Valley you will enter Happy Happy Joy Joy Valley, otherwise known as the Infinitely Having Fun Valley.
It's a good place! I have been there before, but I tend to get drawn to the Valley of Gorgeous Women more often.

Anyway, I'd like a PBEM match against you once you're settled in on the Ostfront later!

In the mean time for anyone who'd like a long tutorial on the gameplay of CM(BN) watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbE8795rt2s

It's a long (2h43m!) video about a guy explaining how CM works. His tactics are (admitted by himself) up for debate, but the point is that he shows off some great tips and explanations about how CM thinks and how the interface works along with some pr0-tips.
Recommended to watch (smeared over a few sessions).

  I always forget how much learning and re-learning the CM series takes.  There's a lot of different modes and levels and they change really fundamental things about how the game flows.  I can remember absolutely loving everything about the primary iteration (I got Barbarosa to Berlin and Afrika Korps wasn't out yet) and being very disturbed with SHock Force until I  let go of WEGO and went with the flow.

   Even so...CMBN was a difficult way into a tricky world.  It was fun, but I'm taking a CM break until the East Front arrives.  the only exception has been the first stage of CMFI.  Another rather disturbing look at a disturbing world.

   The AAR/DARs on the battlefront site can be very helpful.  I think they are all wego, but still a lot of the mechanics of fire and movement and spotting come through.

[Grim.Reaper]

I thought this series of videos was also very good on tactics for using within the game.....

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/combat-mission-battle-for-normandy-tactics-a-video-series

[MengJiao]

I thought the main problem with Rome 2 was its pisspoor AI - or is that no being worked on and improved by CA?

  The AI thing in games -- I think you can always find something "pisspoor" about the AI in a game.  As far as I can tell, what people
put forward rhetorically in the cottage industry of hating Rome II, was that the AI could not sense that you needed to be destroyed
right away diplomatically.  Which seems unfair to the player if they work on their diplomacy.  Another thing that was brought up about the
AI was the usual complaints about what happened in the battles -- which was more about the battles than the AI.  The AI has varied a lot
since then (I recall that in Patch2, the battle AI seemed okay, but everthing else was nutty in a way that allowed me as the Normal Parthenians to overrun the world pretty fast) and there are lots of mods that change the battles.
  As for me, I try not to use the AI's problems against it in most games.  I try to put myself in the place of a commander at the time and give orders as they could be given:  deploy your forces, have them do what troops of the time could do and so on.
  In CMBN, I did occasionally over-manage things in real time, but usually not in a way or scale that would alter the overall conditions of a battle.
I can recall cornering an AI Panther and killing it pretty unfairly by pinning it with small arms fire and sneaking up with a 6 pdr from behind and various slightly doomed rescues of troops or crews that had gotten too far into enemy territory.  But I don't blame the tac AI for being defeated by second-to-second micro-management.  Similarly, in Rome II, there are things the AI does that make sense most of the time, but that can be used (rather unfairly I think) against the AI pretty often.

[agathosdaimon]

If though the ai literally just stands at its starting place and lets,you approch its units and destroy piecemeal and does even bother to stop it, not use even its arhcers that are just standing there, that is a bad ai. I like to play from the position of the commander too and all the limitations that imposes, but few games reallly d this well.

[undercovergeek]

If though the ai literally just stands at its starting place and lets,you approch its units and destroy piecemeal and does even bother to stop it, not use even its arhcers that are just standing there, that is a bad ai. I like to play from the position of the commander too and all the limitations that imposes, but few games reallly d this well.

I've never seen this happen - unless and its a big unless you're playing a user made scenario with no AI plan for the enemy - it happens

[Zonso]

I have heard that Uncanny Valley description used before for CMx2 and never fully grokked it in terms of the game. There are no jarring moments when playing, in fact only more immersion from my perspective. I guess I am immune also. I just think that term was used as a 'point' of contention during the transition to the newer engine to give some something to talk about. I do have moments when I see people on TV or on magazine covers who have had varying degrees of plastic surgery to their face. <shudder>

Only got snips throughout, but that's an interesting video from the Games Pusher. Sometimes I forget or overlook where people who play CM are coming from, in this case it appears a more general RTS background. My preference gravitates more towards the excellent videos from Col. Paulding, all of which I have watched in entirety. It's not elitism but a difference in background, and generally why CM appeals so much to me. Yes it is work to play well, sometimes unforgiving even when you do everything 'by the book' but in the end that work is also the reward. I think that was one of my hang-ups with the Achtung Panzer game; it felt too much like a more serious version of Company of Heroes and not reflecting real life tactical WWII situations. As I recall, the best 'tactic' was simply round up your troops in a big group and engage the enemy in turn, who simply died piecemeal. The scarcity of units on the maps simply reinforced that RTS feeling of play.

I think the tactical AI in CM is excellent. Units, both yours and the AI's, act and respond in an appropriate manner for the most part, down to the individual soldier. There is a bit of randomness to account for the unique type of individual. :) CM's strategic AI is scripted by the designer and I know that carries a lot of negativity regards replayability and even responding realistically to the situation at hand. However for me, I find the single player scenarios and campaigns much more rewarding with the newer engine, largely due to the excellent scenario designers. I would guesstimate about 75% of my play now is single player, with the rest being pbem, whereas with CMx1 it was 95% pbem as I found no interest or challenge in the AI. The next step forward would be some form of AI trigger. I think that would take the play to another level.

Anyways, the house is alive to the sounds of children doing their thing Christmas morning. Time to join them. Merry Christmas everyone.

[agathosdaimon]

If though the ai literally just stands at its starting place and lets,you approch its units and destroy piecemeal and does even bother to stop it, not use even its arhcers that are just standing there, that is a bad ai. I like to play from the position of the commander too and all the limitations that imposes, but few games reallly d this well.

I've never seen this happen - unless and its a big unless you're playing a user made scenario with no AI plan for the enemy - it happens

Oh sorry, it wasnt an example fro Rome2 - i dont have Rome 2, the example was from Legion Arena, which did happen exactly like that and made me glad i bought that game only second hand on ebay and never paid the large price at Matrix games for it. - i just meant it as a general example of ai specifically being bad.

scripted AI is okay, if it is scripted with some room to move - i would have to imagine that in CM the ai must at least respond to new threats,

[undercovergeek]

The tac ai in cmbn makes the enemy and you do the right things with the right guns.... the ai gets you to that spot

If the enemy has no ai it will wait for you in it's set up zone and then use the tac ai when you're in range - the enemy is only as good as the programmer and without leading you down a linear path it's anyone's guess where you decide to attack and if it's where the programmer figured you wouldn't be then you'll steamroll the ai

[Staggerwing]

I found that out when I tried the training scenario from the German side. I waited for quite a while, running turns, to see how the Americans would advance. I finally got tired of it so I advanced a squad up along the road a ways. Nothing. Then I advanced them almost to the trees in front of the farm. Still nothing. finally, figuring that the scenario was completely broken playing from that side and that there were actually no allied units in game I marched my little Pixelmacht guys through the trees and into the farm yard...


... where they were promptly dispatched by all the M-4s sitting there in a bunch.

[Yskonyn]

Most, if not all scenarios have a description mentioning how suitable it is to play in a given setup e.g. H2H only, or German vs AI only.

[Nefaro]

Most, if not all scenarios have a description mentioning how suitable it is to play in a given setup e.g. H2H only, or German vs AI only.

Doesn't "recommended for H2H" generally mean the scenario creator didn't bother putting in an AI plan?

[undercovergeek]

It does - but there's a uge difference between 'didn't bother' and couldn't or didn't want to

I use to make maps, loved it, did the whole of carentan once, made a few others, but putting AI into them is a whole other skill altogether. There are people who love making the maps and there are people that love plotting the AI, very rarely are they the same person - my suggestion was always to have a team of makers and a team of AI bods and the map guys hand their work over to the ai ones

[MengJiao]

It does - but there's a uge difference between 'didn't bother' and couldn't or didn't want to

I use to make maps, loved it, did the whole of carentan once, made a few others, but putting AI into them is a whole other skill altogether. There are people who love making the maps and there are people that love plotting the AI, very rarely are they the same person - my suggestion was always to have a team of makers and a team of AI bods and the map guys hand their work over to the ai ones

  I've used the following tricks for getting fun small battles out of the editor:
1) get a quick battle map (these have (AI) objectives for both sides as near as I can understand)
2) get a general idea of what the attack and defend areas are on the map (the notes will say, interestingly enough....perhaps to help AI design?)
3) put in forces (not too big and not too taylored for what you think the battle will be)
4) play as either side

  Either because the AI does have some understanding of objectives (though seemingly better on the offense), the AI will attack or defend after a fashion.
   Of course you can (and I have) do a lot to script the AI, the Ai will do some basic stuff with nothing more than objectives, set up zones and friendly and unfriendly directions (I think, though maybe there is more in the quick battle AI than meets the eye)

[Michael Dorosh]

I have heard that Uncanny Valley description used before for CMx2 and never fully grokked it in terms of the game. There are no jarring moments when playing, in fact only more immersion from my perspective. I guess I am immune also. I just think that term was used as a 'point' of contention during the transition to the newer engine to give some something to talk about. I do have moments when I see people on TV or on magazine covers who have had varying degrees of plastic surgery to their face. <shudder>

Only got snips throughout, but that's an interesting video from the Games Pusher. Sometimes I forget or overlook where people who play CM are coming from, in this case it appears a more general RTS background. My preference gravitates more towards the excellent videos from Col. Paulding, all of which I have watched in entirety. It's not elitism but a difference in background, and generally why CM appeals so much to me. Yes it is work to play well, sometimes unforgiving even when you do everything 'by the book' but in the end that work is also the reward. I think that was one of my hang-ups with the Achtung Panzer game; it felt too much like a more serious version of Company of Heroes and not reflecting real life tactical WWII situations. As I recall, the best 'tactic' was simply round up your troops in a big group and engage the enemy in turn, who simply died piecemeal. The scarcity of units on the maps simply reinforced that RTS feeling of play.

I think the tactical AI in CM is excellent. Units, both yours and the AI's, act and respond in an appropriate manner for the most part, down to the individual soldier. There is a bit of randomness to account for the unique type of individual. :) CM's strategic AI is scripted by the designer and I know that carries a lot of negativity regards replayability and even responding realistically to the situation at hand. However for me, I find the single player scenarios and campaigns much more rewarding with the newer engine, largely due to the excellent scenario designers. I would guesstimate about 75% of my play now is single player, with the rest being pbem, whereas with CMx1 it was 95% pbem as I found no interest or challenge in the AI. The next step forward would be some form of AI trigger. I think that would take the play to another level.

Anyways, the house is alive to the sounds of children doing their thing Christmas morning. Time to join them. Merry Christmas everyone.

I believe I wrote a rather contentious review of CM:SF using the term "uncanny valley". I recreated it here:

http://boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/5811/combat-missions-wrong-left-turn-into-the-uncanny-v

I used the term in this manner: "In fact, I think we've reached the Uncanny Valley in CM, where it is so close to real life as to heighten expectations about game performance unrealistically, but not close enough to be convincing in actual play." Stuff like seeing every man in every squad, but finding out that, for example, whole squads would shoot at the same 8m grid on the map even if attacked by a men coming at them on a 200m front.

I discussed the move to 1:1 representation and concluded it wasn't the wrong way to go, but the method of implementation wasn't optimal. My opinion hasn't really changed. BFC has a very popular product in CM, of which there is no doubt. My personal opinion is that the product could be much better. The developers obviously agree, which is why they continue to work on improvements. These improvements have been hailed by the fanbase every time they are introduced. Yet the rallying cry (we have seen it in this very thread) is "who else does it better?" It's not much of an endorsement, frankly.

I think long-time fans of the series were most disappointed to see so many common sense features stripped out for what they saw as trivial reasons, or for principle. And other things added in which added little value for them. But above all of it, the commentary by the developer was handled with less tact than some of the fans would have liked circa 2007; essentially saying "we're moving on with or without you." I don't doubt that was a decision they had to make - they could not keep updating the original game engine ad infinitum - but there was some alienation expressed by a few fans at the time at the harshness of the message.

The good news is that the series is an ongoing work in progress, and those features are slowly working their way back in; things like vehicle covered arc commands, and new features like scenario testing tools. Some of the earliest promises have yet to be realized - the random map generator is apparently gone for good, but in its place, they postulated that some form of geomorphic map "tiles" would be possible. We're still waiting on that one, so that semi-random terrain would be possible in the quick battles. A minor point, given the availability now of pre-made quick battle maps. But, the list is long.

My only reaction to the Eastern Front announcement is that for those who enjoy playing the Germans, they really haven't seen much new. The equipment in CM:BN, CM:FI and now the eastern front module, are all set in roughly the same time frame. CM:FI had some slightly earlier model tanks (PzKpfw III) and I don't suppose we will see much new in Russia. It will certainly ease the development budget for BFC. My favourite scenarios in CM:BB were early war matchups, where early-war tanks had much less chance of first-shot kills. PzKpfw II vs. T-70 or seeing some of the Italian and Romanian tankettes in action were always nice changes of pace. But, there is something to be said for bouncing shells off of T-34s as well.

I passed on the Italian modules as I thought they were too similar in content to the Western Front modules, but I will be picking up the eastern front. I am hoping that there will be a little more 'flavour' to the depiction of the combatants (and terrain), and if tank riders are an example of that, so much the better. (I will be pleased when this capability is added to CM:BN and the western front as well, as Michael Doubler talks about the Americans using this tactic in Normandy as a response to the problem of tank-infantry co-operation in the bocage, at least in specific units. Riding on tanks was also common in non-tactical situations throughout north-west Europe, and not unimportantly, was a capability CMX1 players enjoyed. Riding the tanks was done even when contact was imminent - see the U.S. Army's famous writeup on the battle at Singling, for example.)

I'm not sure what other tactical elements to expect; I would suspect the 1944 time frame eliminates some tactical options such as human waves and makes the Russians more equal to the Germans in terms of things like artillery response times - perhaps even superior. In other words, play much like an American force. I think the Soviets may be limited in their ability to split squads, and I would expect incidences of surrendering to be lower, particularly when Waffen-SS troops are present.

The sale of new modules seem to have been linked also to major engine developments - I thought there was talk on the official forums about anti-aircraft weapons being given the ability to engage aircraft in this next iteration. The plan seems more tied to coupling universal engine developments to the new games as a hook, rather than concentrating heavily on flavour specific to individual theatres or combatants other than equipment types.

[MengJiao]

I have heard that I believe I wrote a rather contentious review of CM:SF using the term "uncanny valley". I recreated it here:

http://boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/5811/combat-missions-wrong-left-turn-into-the-uncanny-v

I used the term in this manner: "In fact, I think we've reached the Uncanny Valley in CM, where it is so close to real life as to heighten expectations about game performance unrealistically, but not close enough to be convincing in actual play." Stuff like seeing every man in every squad, but finding out that, for example, whole squads would shoot at the same 8m grid on the map even if attacked by a men coming at them on a 200m front.

I discussed the move to 1:1 representation and concluded it wasn't the wrong way to go, but the method of implementation wasn't optimal. My opinion hasn't really changed. BFC has a very popular product in CM, of which there is no doubt. My personal opinion is that the product could be much better. The developers obviously agree, which is why they continue to work on improvements. These improvements have been hailed by the fanbase every time they are introduced. Yet the rallying cry (we have seen it in this very thread) is "who else does it better?" It's not much of an endorsement, frankly.

   This might be a problem with niche games compounded by an encounter with the uncanny.  There's not many games in the battalion-level-show-every-man-and-machine in real time in fairly realistic terrain etc. category.  As far as I know its just GRAVITEAM and CMxx.  There aren't any cinematic conventions covering battalion-level man-by-man events.

    It's odd that FPS shooters don't seem to have the same kind of uncanny problems, perhaps because they resemble films somehow.  You don't see many movies where the camera lingers over some suspicious hedges because there might be something behind them, but you do see plenty of films where blasts of autmatic fire sweep the scene.  It's too bad Orson Wells never made --- actually Carol Reed's Agony and Ecstasy opens with about the only CMxx level battle scene I can think of as Pope Julius II (Rex Harrison) storms some tidy town in Italy with thousands of mercenaries.  But...as the Total War series shows all too well...what works for Rex Harrison in the 16th century, may not work for your average gamer in 2013.

    And there's another paradox: in the FPS world you are a camera, in CMxx and its ilk (wherever they may be), you have a quite definite role to play (roughly command of a battalion), but no definite location.  Rome II has the same problematic viewpoint combined with a definite role problem and it solves it sort of by letting you be a camera.  I guess in CMxx, you can lead a camera-like existence and I often do -- with results that resemble the results in Rome II: you lose track of the battle and the AI give you a lot of trouble.