Is it me?

[Kieme(ITA)]

I dont have anything against the graphics besides that they look to comic like and the awful "floating in nirvana" map thing.

+ BFC should finally fix all the graphic glitches.

 

It's a matter of tastes, And tastes, as any person will tell you, are not really a surface to debate on, since there's nothing right or wrong.

Besides, it's interesting to distinguish artistic choices, such as the "tabletop effect" of the terrain map. (thinking of alternatives, there aren't many others, none capable of adding any great realism - not a case the most realistic games out there are Always set on an Island, quite convenient).

As regarding the glitches, tech support forum is that way--->

[Stagler]

Engine improvements and artwork is a lot of work, but making content is also a ton of work. Anybody who has made a scenario knows this. And I mean a scenario with full bells and whistles, fit for publishing. Maps, OOBs, briefing text, briefing graphics, playtesting (!!!), etc. The whole shabang.

 

Many of this content is made by volunteers and playtested by volunteers. They are willing to dedicate their time and talents to make this game shine together with the small staff of BFC. 

 

To dismiss games like CMRT, CMBS and the upcoming Bulge title as just trivial texture/scenario packs... This is beyond me.

 

Well they are kinda texture and scenario packs aren't they, the actual content you pay for is the missions isn't it. Some TO&E alterations there, a new vehicle here, a bunch of new skins. That's all the game changes are, the actual point of the new module is the missions.

Edited July 5, 2015 by Stagler

[PanzerMike]

Well they are kinda texture and scenario packs aren't they, the actual content you pay for is the missions isn't it. Some TO&E alterations there, a new vehicle here, a bunch of new skins. That's all the game changes are, the actual point of the new module is the missions.

For modules this is mostly true. Much less so for base games. Red Thunder was a great step forward for example, the list with improvements was quite impressive IMHO. 

[slysniper]

Wiggum15 : Is this the new definition for jerk, or do I look under Stupid in the Dictionary.

 

Never mind I think I found it in both.

 

Actually, I think the whole thread is funny, because he has some valid points but he cannot come to grips with the fact that he is asking something that just is not possible with whom he is wishing it from.

 

BF is not doing or appears it will be doing to produce games in the way or method you are hoping for. (Can you get that through your thick skull - Wiggum)

 

Now, my real interest is, if you hate the outdated, not to your liking aspects of the game so much - Why do you keep buying them. (Stop with that lie and trying to think we believe you- the answer is, you would not buy them if they did not fill some of your needs).

So in other words you are ranting like a 3 year old and we are ranting back at you like your 4 year old sister. (That sums up this thread so far)

 

But when you do ever find that game you are wishing for and think you can Rant about to make happen, which appears you will need to find somewhere else. Please or please let me know, because I would love to have it also. ( I just know better than to think I will see that type of improvements in a timeframe that matters from this group of guys).

 

Really I just appreciate what we have, even with all the imperfections. Which Wiggum has so willing wanted to point out for us once again. Thanks for the reminder

[Wiggum15]

The line between a "module" and a "base game" is quiet blurry.

For example MG was a module but the bulge game will be a "base game"...mhhh.

[Glubokii Boy]

Let us see what the bulge-game brings us before we compare them...

[PanzerMike]

But when you do ever find that game you are wishing for and think you can Rant about to make happen, which appears you will need to find somewhere else. Please or please let me know, because I would love to have it also. 

This. Is there a game out there that blows CM out of the water? I too would like too know. I have not found anything that comes close so far.

[waclaw]

I agree CM is brilliant and does not require any improvements.

 

CMBulge - it will be a real revolution! new scenarios! (may be as many as 10) two campaigns (five scenarios) and new skins vehicles!

and may in the future will add a packet of vehicles without scenario - we'll see them in the editor.

 

honestly? I already bored with this evolution - I want a real revolution.

[Wiggum15]

@ waclaw

...and Snow !

Dont forget Snow...i mean how great is a white ground-tile ?

 

This. Is there a game out there that blows CM out of the water? I too would like too know. I have not found anything that comes close so far.

GTOS blows CMx2 "out of the water" in some aspects:

Graphics [CMx2 is not even close]

Operational layer

Airstrike modeling

It has flares for night combat

A bit more detailed modeling of armored vehicles

Simulation of wired communication networks

Some commands CMx2 lacks [inf and Vehicle formations, "use roads" command, Inf-Armor cooperation].

...and if you take a look at the upcoming "Mius Front" game they are working on, well look for yourself on youtube...

You will be surprised !

Edited July 5, 2015 by Wiggum15

[sburke]

Well unfortunately BF believes in evolution.  Something about maintaining their financial security or some such other nonsense that you guys don't have to care about.  So if you want revolution, you'll have to find it somewhere else.

GTOS blows CMx2 "out of the water" in some aspects (graphics [CMx2 is not even close], operational layer, airstrike modeling, it has flares for night combat, a more detailed moddeling of armored vehicles ect.).

That would be funny except you are serious.

How long has it been out and you can't even play against an opponent? Seriously? But if you really like that great, go play that.

It is a solid game and I wish those guys the best, but it is not Combat Mission. Sorry sell that line somewhere else.

Edited July 5, 2015 by sburke

[Wiggum15]

That would be funny except you are serious.

How long has it been out and you can't even play against an opponent? Seriously? But if you really like that great, go play that.

Did i say everything in GTOS is better then in CMx2 ?

No !

I said -> GTOS blows CMx2 "out of the water" in some aspects

Thats something you cant denial if you played the fully patched Steam version of GTOS !

[sburke]

Did i say everything in GTOS is better then in CMx2 ?

No !

I said -> GTOS blows CMx2 "out of the water" in some aspects

Thats something you cant denial if you played the fully patched Steam version of GTOS !

No, won't be happening because I don't play for the eye candy and I get bored playing the AI.... hey but go knock yourself out. If it works for you fannntastic! Why you bother bringing it to the discussion here is confusing. You were asked for this better game you pontificated on, not a better game in some aspect. Hell chess is better then CM, in some aspects.  What is this supposed wonder game being developed in Kharkhov?  If AP is the best you could come up with, you are running on empty.

[Fizou]

GTOS infantry is worse than cmx1 and that ruins the game completely for me. Infantry is the most important aspect in a tactical ww2 game imo. It cant be compared with cmx2 at all if you ask me.

Bulge will contain more stuff than you list waclaw, wait and see.

[Wiggum15]

Sorry sburke but you are so hypocritical...

Why cant you accept that a 3D computer wargame called GTOS is in some aspects superior to another 3D computer wargame called CMx2 ?

Its not about eye candy but the graphics, map and terrain features of GTOS blow CMx2 "out of the water"...if you really denial that then this says much about you.

Do you know that there are many CMx2 players who only play against the AI ? I would bet they are the majority by far.

You try so hard to cover up the fact that there is another similar wargame thats better in some aspects that you come up with the cheap "bah no multiplayer" argument.

 

GTOS infantry is worse than cmx1 and that ruins the game completely for me. Infantry is the most important aspect in a tactical ww2 game imo. It cant be compared with cmx2 at all if you ask me.

CMx1 was actually superior to both thanks to abstraction.

Yes the Inf in CMx2 "plays" better then in GTOS, you can micro-manage them more. But i dont see such a huge difference when it comes to TacAI behavior.

Edited July 5, 2015 by Wiggum15

[sburke]

I never said it wasn't superior in some aspects.  Find me that quote.  What I said was it being better in some aspects wasn't enough.  Man you are really floundering for an argument aren't you, it is getting pathetic.  You are so far out in left field you can't even see home plate.   Bet all you want, I don't frankly really care what you think.

 

Fact is BF has a business strategy and it has been successful.  Unlike your proposals, BF is clear what is possible and what isn't if they are going to keep producing games.  Thank god for that because if they followed your strategy we would have had CMSF, then nothing.  Despite your hyperbole the game rocks to the point that even an insufferable whiner keeps hanging around here and will still buy the next game. 

 

We win!!! 

Edited July 5, 2015 by sburke

[Wiggum15]

As a wargame fan and a long time CM player yes, i will most likely buy the Bulge game (but again, if i had to "care" about 55$ i would not buy it and install the Bulge Mod for CMFI instead).

To be fair, both games have a different focus, CMx2 is all about micro-managing while GTOS has a operational layer and is more about Macro-management.

Its been developed by a small team to and go look at the "Mius Front" videos on youtube and tell me thats not very impressing !

I wish CMx2 would be able to include features from GTOS, they already "stole" the hit decals feature (but with less functionality) from them anyway...

Edited July 5, 2015 by Wiggum15

[Glubokii Boy]

Your reasoning makes no sence at all, Wiggum15...

 

If GTOS only surpass CM in some areas and fall short in some others...

Does that not mean that GTOS is an absolutelly lousy game since they cant even beat the CM design and the people working on that game does not have a clue as to what they are doing ?

You don't accept the shortcommings with CM...Why would you do it with GTOS ?

Why would GTOS not need to be perfect ? but CM do ?

[Wiggum15]

I never said CM needs to be perfect.

Its only about the lack of progress since CMSF, 8 years and no big step forward, no game changing new feature, no new level of realism for one of the best wargame series ever...that makes me sad and angry because i suspect BFC became lazy somehow.

If i look at the improvements GTOS got through the latest patch alone or the Mius Front videos...

Its not about being perfect...its about progress !

I dont want BFC to become the next JTS !

Edited July 5, 2015 by Wiggum15

[agusto]

Oh GTOS is cool, and good that you remind me of it, i gotta try how it looks like on my new PC. And what' s wrong with JTS? They do have some cool titles. Currently i am thinking of buying Danube Front '85 because it' s the only wargame i have ever heard of that features the Austrian Bundesheer as playable faction, and for me, as Austrian, this makes this game really attractive, despite all the 1998 2D Hex stuff going on there. I am also a big fan of 1985 Cold War gone hot kinda games in general. You know what i currently dislike most about CM? There is no 1985 game! AH! Regarding JTS, Middle East '67 also look like i might try it soon.

 

EDIT:

 

BTW i still prefer CM over GTOS, just saying, although i do like GTOS as well. What i like better about CM is the Action Spot system, WeGo and the GUI. It just in general feels more comfortable to me.

Edited July 5, 2015 by agusto

[Vanir Ausf B]

- 8 years and the map still floats in nirvana

You keep bringing this up as if it were a major problem, but I actually prefer it this way. Knowing at a glance where the map bounderies are is a boon to gameplay.

[Wiggum15]

There is nothing wrong with JTS except that they developed a "engine" somewhere in the early 90's and keep them nearly unchanged till now using it for all kinds of time periods and foce size (group-division).

They dont care about artwork or sound. Every game is a TO&E and scenario pack slapped onto those ancient engine.

I dont want BFC to do the same with their "cash cow" the CMx2 engine.

If in another 8 years they release CMBN (Combat Mission: Battle for the Netherlands) and it still feels and plays like CMSF then something went wrong.

 

You keep bringing this up as if it were a major problem, but I actually prefer it this way. Knowing at a glance where the map bounderies are is a boon to gameplay.

It looks ugly and especially on small maps you often have n other choice then to advance on the map edges which is unrealistic and feels like cheating.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Wiggum15

[agusto]

Alright Wiggum, so we know now that you are unhappy with the pace of the CM engines development and that you would prefer BFC to focus on engine improvements rather than adding more theaters to the game. Well, as i said, none of us here can do anything about that. But how about starting a poll? The new forum lets you do that, and maybe it would help to make BFC aware of a certain amount of people beeing interested in them shifting the focus of their work. I suggest the following questions:

 

a- Would you like BFC to focus on CMx2 engine improvements?

b- Would you like BFC to focus on adding more theaters to CMx2?

 

If you do that, I ask you to avoid suggestive question, please, it' s in your own interest to create a poll that can be taken seriously. Of course you now could ask again: "...and what would that achieve?". But honestly, i suggest you just try it, it' s at least better than doing what you are doing currently. You know, i am actually trying to be constructive here (something that hasnt happened to often in the past few pages of this thread) and help you despite our different views.

Edited July 6, 2015 by agusto

[sburke]

How many people remember this particular entry and the AAR it is part of?  I dunno about you guys, but I distinctly remember at the time thinking how much improved over CMSF was the stuff in CMBN.

 

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/93414-cmbn-beta-aardar-bois-de-baugin-german-side/?p=1211977

 

edit:

 

ha own goal! Seems that was added in the NATO CMSF module.  I feel like an English women's soccer player..... kidding, they did beat Germany.

 

Still the rest of the AAR is instructive on how we all felt when CMBN came out.  It was definitely not a moment of huh CMSF in ww2.

Edited July 6, 2015 by sburke

[MikeyD]

Modding CMFI to Bulge is like painting a racing strip on a panel van and calling it a Ferrari. Sure, they both have four rubber tires and travel at the posted speed limit, but beyond the grossest generalizations the two products diverge radically. Steve spends months meticulously researching the TO&E for the relevant units, the scenario designers are creating 3-D maps of actual Bulge battle locations with amazing fidelity. The campaigns read like a college thesis on modern European history. The equipment list is far more than the mere approximation that you can scrounge off an early '44 Italian title.

 

And on other the other topic. Did someone just post that creaky old CMx1 is the superior wargame? Hey, I'm as big on 'nostalgia' as the next guy. I suppose Pong would be the ultimate in gameplay in that case.

[LukeFF]

(but again, if i had to "care" about 55$ i would not buy it and install the Bulge Mod for CMFI instead).

 

The Bulge mod for CMFI doesn't come close to what's actually being developed for the Bulge title. No insult intended to the mod's creator, but it's as MikeyD wrote above.