What has changed since Combat Mission 1.0 ?

[denalipop]

Hi, I got into Combat Mission back when it first came out.  I bought the first game, and then Afrika Korps.  I played them both for a few months, progressing methodically through the scenarios, documenting my progress in a spreadsheet.  When I heard about an upcoming campaign system, I stopped playing, because I was tired of having to use that spreadsheet! 

However, the campaign system never happened... and then the WW2 theme was dropped in favour of modern combat... and I never returned to Combat Mission.

So here it is, 2018, and I stumble upon a mention of Combat Mission.  I read up a little on it, and see that the CM series returned to WW2, and has higher version numbers (4.0 instead of 1.0).  The screen grabs don't look that different from what I remember, and the Let's Play videos seem about the same as I remember.

So I am curious: what are the most important changes since that initial version back in 2000 or so? 

Here are some specific questions to make this easier to answer:

1) Is there a campaign system now?  If so, do units gain experience between missions? 

2) Is there a system to keep track of progress through campaigns and standalone missions?  Can I finally get rid of that [18 year old] spreadsheet?

3) Are mods still the primary way to make the game look good?  I remember having to heavily rely on "mod packs" back in the day!

4) Does the game make it easy to save in the middle of a mission, and resume the next day?

5) Is there any else that has been added to increase the immersion factor?

 

I will never forget those early days with CM 1.0.. watching tanks stalk each other in the woods, and then swivel toward each other and start shooting...  I loved that tension, those cinematic moments.  But as a "game" it it all felt so temporary, with no real sense of progress or "victory".  It felt more like a sandbox, a sim.  Sure, it was entertaining, and at times challenging, but that endless list of standalone missions (some official, some downloaded) ultimately started feeling repetitive, and soon after I set CM aside while waiting for the campaign to give that badly needed sense of progress, other, more "gamey" strategy games came out, and any sense of momentum in CM was lost.  It would be nice to try it out again, but only if feels more like a "game" than it did back in 2000.  I'm not really interested in adding yet another Sim to the already enormous backlog!

[JoMac]

Just briefly as others will chime in...

CMx2 (as opposed to the CMx1 system of 15 yrs+ ago) has a couple primary differences: Infantry & Armor are modeled 1:1 in scale and Bullets & Rounds are individually tracked to a larger degree with built in Savings Rolls for many factors, including Unit Moral, Stance, Terrain, etc...It's considered more or less a Simulation Game (thou, it's still not an actual Simulation Game), and less a Competition Game as it was before.

Yes, you still have Battles, and with Campaigns there are Unit & Ammo Loss and Gains in between Battles (thou, Campaigns are handled slightly different), Moral I believe doesn't change since Battles within a Campaign happen within a week or so.

CMx2 also retains the WEGO Mode with 60 sec turns that you can rewind and watch, but also adds a RT Mode (Real-Time) that you can Pause at anytime to give Orders, but can't rewind to watch.

If you have downloaded any of the CMx2 Demos or watched the Youtube videos, then you will have a good idea of the above.

Joe

Edited November 2, 2018 by JoMc67

[Warts 'n' all]

You can't beat playing a demo, and watching the Armchair General vids to give you a feel for how much has changed.

[Bulletpoint]

5 hours ago, denalipop said:

1) Is there a campaign system now?  If so, do units gain experience between missions? 

2) Is there a system to keep track of progress through campaigns and standalone missions?  Can I finally get rid of that [18 year old] spreadsheet?

There is a campaign system now, but it's basically a predetermined series of missions on a string, where some of your units carry over (so losses hurt later on). Troops won't gain experience between missions.

However, several of those campaigns are really good, with everything from the terrain to the OOBs meticulously researched, and the briefings well written. Despite the shortcomings, I found myself very immersed in most of the campaigns in CMBN and CMFB.

 

[Erwin]

5 hours ago, denalipop said:

 

So I am curious: what are the most important changes since that initial version back in 2000 or so? 

The CM2 game system is essentially a different game from CM1 .  They share a similar name (for marketing purposes).  CM2 is much more of a detailed simulation, more complex. 

Here are some specific questions to make this easier to answer:

1) Is there a campaign system now?  If so, do units gain experience between missions? 

There is a campaign system which tracks casualties and ammo expenditure between missions.  Units still do not gain experience.  The campaign system is not like the CM1 system where one could have persistent damage.

2) Is there a system to keep track of progress through campaigns and standalone missions?  Can I finally get rid of that [18 year old] spreadsheet?

No print out if that is what you mean.  You do get end of mission and end of campaign kill stats for every unit.

3) Are mods still the primary way to make the game look good?  I remember having to heavily rely on "mod packs" back in the day!

Yes.  Mods make a very big improvement.

4) Does the game make it easy to save in the middle of a mission, and resume the next day?

Yes.

5) Is there any else that has been added to increase the immersion factor?

Yes - but you should check out the free demos and make up your own mind.

 

 

[MOS:96B2P]

9 hours ago, denalipop said:

1) Is there a campaign system now? 

3) Are mods still the primary way to make the game look good?  I remember having to heavily rely on "mod packs" back in the day!

 

4 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

However, several of those campaigns are really good, with everything from the terrain to the OOBs meticulously researched, and the briefings well written. Despite the shortcomings, I found myself very immersed in most of the campaigns in CMBN and CMFB.

@Bulletpoint answer made me think of the branching system in campaigns which you might find interesting. 

Many of the campaigns have branching paths that you can take.  Example: If you win scenario #3 then you advance to scenario 3A.  If you lost scenario 3 then you go to scenario 3B.  This also allows for a change in the situation.  Since you won #3 now scenario 3A might have some advantage for you (because you broke through the main line of resistance (MLR) etc).  If you lost scenario #3 then scenario 3B would probably reflect that new situation in some way.  

The mod thing is kind of subjective.  I think the game looks pretty good in vanilla however I do use mods.  There is also a new location for 3rd party user made mods, scenarios, campaigns and maps.  You might want to browse through that site.  A lot of cool stuff.  Link is below.

Welcome back!!!

http://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/

 

Edited November 2, 2018 by MOS:96B2P

[Michael Emrys]

9 hours ago, denalipop said:

3) Are mods still the primary way to make the game look good?  I remember having to heavily rely on "mod packs" back in the day!

I want to address this issue since there isn't much I can add to what others have posted in answer to your other questions.

I used a lot of mods in CMBO because in those days the out-of-the-box artwork was pretty primitive. I don't offhand recall using mods in CMBB and CMAK because the original artwork in those games was acceptable to me. For the same reason, I haven't used any mods in CMx2 at all. I find the stock artwork quite acceptable in most cases and not infrequently dazzling. This is a minority view, I realize, which is why I feel obliged to speak up in behalf of it. I always welcome graphics improvements as long as they don't come at the expense of play value or historical accuracy, but I am not a graphics fanatic like some players appear to be. I find that if the action is engrossing on its own account, I don't really notice the graphics at all.

Michael

[Bulletpoint]

20 minutes ago, MOS:96B2P said:

4 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

However, several of those campaigns are really good, with everything from the terrain to the OOBs meticulously researched, and the briefings well written. Despite the shortcomings, I found myself very immersed in most of the campaigns in CMBN and CMFB.

@Bulletpoint answer made me think of the branching system in campaigns which you might find interesting. 

Many of the campaigns have branching paths that you can take.  Example: If you win scenario #3 then you advance to scenario 3A.  If you lost scenario 3 then you go to scenario 3B.  This also allows for a change in the situation.  Since you won #3 now scenario 3A might have some advantage for you (because you broke through the main line of resistance (MLR) etc).  If you lost scenario #3 then scenario 3B would probably reflect that new situation in some way.  

I decided not to mention the branching, because I think the way it's been done so far is a bit underwhelming.

For example, the difference between missions in the Peiper Campaign seem quite minor. No matter if you rush Stavelot or arrive later, you're still going to find it full of troops. If you decide to keep going and not rest, I don't even think your troops get any stamina penalty for it? At least I didn't notice any. And I think you get Tiger II's no matter if you captured the fuel depot or not?

I love the idea of making decisions in campaigns, it's just that I don't think the way it's been done so far really has any meaningful impact.

[Erwin]

19 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

I love the idea of making decisions in campaigns, it's just that I don't think the way it's been done so far really has any meaningful impact.

Yes, v good point.  Only a few campaigns have done this well.  Found that the better campaigns tended to be made for CMSF1 in its last few years as designers had gained so much experience.

[General Jack Ripper]

On ‎11‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 11:20 PM, denalipop said:

I will never forget those early days with CM 1.0.. watching tanks stalk each other in the woods, and then swivel toward each other and start shooting...  I loved that tension, those cinematic moments.  But as a "game" it it all felt so temporary, with no real sense of progress or "victory".  It felt more like a sandbox, a sim.  Sure, it was entertaining, and at times challenging, but that endless list of standalone missions (some official, some downloaded) ultimately started feeling repetitive, and soon after I set CM aside while waiting for the campaign to give that badly needed sense of progress, other, more "gamey" strategy games came out, and any sense of momentum in CM was lost.  It would be nice to try it out again, but only if feels more like a "game" than it did back in 2000.  I'm not really interested in adding yet another Sim to the already enormous backlog!

I would say it does not feel more like a "game". It's still a simulator.

However, you can always play it like a game. I do.