Jump to content
Sequoia

Just a thought-Combat Mission is so authentic and immersive we nickpick any blemish?

Recommended Posts

Just wondering if the standard we hold Combat Mission games to is higher than that of other games? That is, the standard needs to be close to a perfect rendition of reality.  When one sees a blemish, and the blemish may be different things to different people, we exaggerate the importance of the blemish as far as actual game play goes. It's an psychological thing perhaps I'm thinking. The games are immersive and that immersion is appealing, so when that one finds that one blemish that breaks the immersion for them, they're passionate about the blemish. In a way this passion towards the blemish is a credit to the passion and immersion the CM games can bring.   I think the combat flight simulators fall into this category as well but that's about it.

Edited by Sequoia
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  Yes I couldn't agree more, the bar CM has set on simulation is it's own worst enemy,  because it creates a never ending turntable of criticism comparing what can be done in a software programing world with a business budget vs real life mechanics , and I'm guilty of it, for instance I want spreading fire in the game, but if there was fire someone would point out "why isn"t it causing ordanance to explode?why isn't it spreading at a proper rate? there isn't enough smoke relative to the size of the fire?it will never end , and if CM3 comes along it won't end there either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • When people are passionate about something, often they want to help improve it. Reporting bugs and suggesting ideas are not attacks on the game or the company behind it - quite the opposite.
     
  • The people who play Combat Mission often have a keen interest in WW2, and they like that the game is generally realistic and takes history seriously. When they find something that could be improved, they are likely to mention it.
     
  • CM is based on tech from 2007. It's been tweaked and improved along the way, but the age has really started showing when comparing to other modern wargames.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

when comparing to other modern wargames.

yes graphically, but CM is still far superior in the way it is constructed and plays , what current modern wargame are you referring to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

where are these other wargames that make CM so dated.

Other than graphics, Which CM is behind on - there is still nothing out there that compares as far as I am concerned.

But please, really please. Show me the light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, weapon2010 said:
23 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

when comparing to other modern wargames.

yes graphically, but CM is still far superior in the way it is constructed and plays , what current modern wargame are you referring to?

 

16 minutes ago, slysniper said:

where are these other wargames that make CM so dated.

Other than graphics, Which CM is behind on

 

I actually mostly meant about the graphics, which is one point that people have been "nitpicking" about.

But there are games out there where trenches and foxholes are dug into the terrain, where tanks turn at the right speed and leave tracks, where the damage model is more advanced than in CM. Where you can order one or more vehicles to cross from one side of the map to the other by road, and they will do it automatically. Where there's an operational layer that means conserving ammo and resupplying troops becomes a factor. With larger maps that make long sight lines and engagement ranges more important, and where damage from each engagement carries over to the next.

All those things have been suggested for Combat Mission as well, many times. Is that nitpicking? I don't know. But the contrast between the CM engine and what's possible today is getting pretty big. That's the only point I was making.

I don't really want to make advertisement for specific games here on this forum, or start a boxing match.

Edited by Bulletpoint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bulletpoint- I have no argument with your prior points. Pointing out bugs and making suggestions are not attacks. There may be disagreement on what constitutes a bug however. I think the Battlefront team also agrees the engine is aging. There will also be wide disagreement on what is essential for immersion and authenticity and what is nit picking. My list will be different than yours I think you'd agree.

At this point I also think there would be a wide range of opinions as to the desired future course of Combat Mission.  Some would desire engine improvements or perhaps even a new engine. Some would want just more content so they can play a favorite period or army as soon as feasible. If we polled the forum here as to the choice, those answering would still only reflect a small percent of all BFC customers.  Perhaps the BFC team has made the choice already, but I can understand if they're not ready to share the choice until things are much farther along in development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sequoia said:

Bulletpoint- I have no argument with your prior points. Pointing out bugs and making suggestions are not attacks. There may be disagreement on what constitutes a bug however. I think the Battlefront team also agrees the engine is aging. There will also be wide disagreement on what is essential for immersion and authenticity and what is nit picking. My list will be different than yours I think you'd agree.

At this point I also think there would be a wide range of opinions as to the desired future course of Combat Mission.  Some would desire engine improvements or perhaps even a new engine. Some would want just more content so they can play a favorite period or army as soon as feasible. If we polled the forum here as to the choice, those answering would still only reflect a small percent of all BFC customers.  Perhaps the BFC team has made the choice already, but I can understand if they're not ready to share the choice until things are much farther along in development.

My post was not a criticism of the game or the developers. It was just an attempt at answering your question: When people nitpick, or make suggestions, is that because people expect the game to be perfect?

As I see it, no, people don't expect the game to be perfect. People comment because they like the game, notice things that could be better, and hope to see the game improve.

Edited by Bulletpoint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

trenches and foxholes are dug into the terrain, where tanks turn at the right speed and leave tracks, where the damage model is more advanced than in CM. Where you can order one or more vehicles to cross from one side of the map to the other by road, and they will do it automatically. Where there's an operational layer that means conserving ammo and resupplying troops becomes a factor. With larger maps that make long sight lines and engagement ranges more important, and where damage from each engagement carries over to the next.

of course I would like all of that in CM, CM also has many things that those competitors do not have

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:
  • When people are passionate about something, often they want to help improve it. Reporting bugs and suggesting ideas are not attacks on the game or the company behind it - quite the opposite.
     
  • The people who play Combat Mission often have a keen interest in WW2, and they like that the game is generally realistic and takes history seriously. When they find something that could be improved, they are likely to mention it.

I see it also in this rather optimistic way. Sure there are always people that make out of proportion or rude demands but you have stuff like this in in every game forum. From what I´ve seen it appears even worse in forums of more casual games which might have something to do that a game like CM might attract more mature individuals in the first place, which additionally might be looking for the most definitive wargame representation, while understanding that the market and dev resources are different here. I personally see the bar CM has set as one of its biggest strength and selling points, absolutely not as its enemy. 

About graphics, I am not a graphics fetishist but not a nostalgia grog either. I like beautiful and authentic games, I have a strong machine, and alot of recent strategy games like Steel Division 2 or other genre games like PS, HLL etc. at my disposal and still when somebody would ask me "show me the most beautiful and definitive audiovisual experience in a ground strategy game" I would show him CM2 footage. Never gets old too look at the detailed vehicles and uniforms, never gets old when a big firefight errupts and the surrounds start to go down in an absolute apocalypse of gunfire, explosions, and shouting. No other strategy game reaches even close to this and I am talking here only about the (audio)visuals. Furthermore the terrain - not in a how much diverse objects there are - but talking rather about terrain complexity: In alot of strategy games you have this rather abstracted "wood, plains, urban, high ground etc." terrain features but in CM its on another level, hard to put in words but if you ever reconnoitered terrain for whatever reason, you might understand what I mean. Better than any real strategy game, even better than in some military first person shooters.

Sure I run a heavily modded audiovisual setup together with a personal fav of Reshade profile there. Some might argue "thats not part of the game" but I don´t make this differentiation. If I can do something myself in order to improve a situation or to better met certain criteria, I do it. Personal conclusion: CM2 looks to me beautiful like any current gen strat game with some aspects like uniform, vehicle detail, and combat fidelity even being on an higher level.

This of course doesn´t mean that engine overhauls or visual improvements are not welcome. Wouldn´t say no to improved rain visuals, problematic shadows in certain situations, better backgrounds, a more attractive void (the empy space beyond the map), ballistics analysis, better briefing and campaign/core force interfaces etc etc.. But if it would be gameplay/content vs. visuals right now I would go with the first. And when CM3 eventually becomes a thing, well then we´ll see 🙂

Edited by Aquila-SmartWargames

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

a game like CM might attract more mature individuals

Mature? I hope you are not accusing me of being mature. I take that very badly....I am always in touch with my Inner Child. It's the Outer Adult I have difficulty with. 😉

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Effectively, I see the Combat Mission games as more like virtual board games than video games in the conventional sense. If you want to understand Combat Mission it's helped me quite a bit to see the games as a logical conclusion of the Advanced Squad Leader series, having made the jump from tabletop to desktop. It's nearest sibling is the Close Combat series....which I think also emerged from some of the same guys at one point. Much of the war-game market Avalon Hill used to cater to is being served by Matrix Games and Slitherine these days, and to a lesser extent Paradox Interactive. 

Operation Flashpoint dominated my free time for a decade after it's release (also Jedi Outcast and Halo) but after Resistance nothing was heard from Bohemia Interactive for years (they were in fact in the middle of a breakup with Codemasters) and I just moved on. I was browsing YouTube one day when I just happened to basically trip over some videos showing off Shock Force 1 which was the first i'd heard of the entire series let alone that something of ASL's legacy existed anywhere. Signed up for the demo and purchased the next day after the extremely favorable impression the demo left me with. 

Edited by SimpleSimon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All games. All active public forums have this to varying degrees. The more realistic the game is, yes you are correct, more nitpicking. The more abstract, then some issues are avoided, like Bomber Crew and their cutsie cartoon B17's. But even that gets its share of nit picking. Nothing I see on these forums is different compared to other game forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Until CMx3 IS DEVELOPED, We will not know what Steve and BF is seeing as the next important step as to what the future game engine should include.

I hope that the graphics do step up to similar levels that we see out there in other games.

but that is not the make or break of the game for me.

I am sure, what ever they produce. It will somehow reflect the games focus that I see that they have in even a more realistic manor than it does now. 

And that focus is: Putting you the player in a tactical environment and commanding your units to respond in a realistic manor to the combat they are engaged in.

That is what their game does that hardly any other comes close to.

 

So for me,  I like hearing suggestions from players that would make the game even better as to that focus.

 

GRAPHICS, TIME FRAME, UNITS, and all such things add flavor to the product. But it is not the core of what they give us. that's just the window dressing

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blemishes aren't a thing I concern myself with. Matter of fact, the drilled-down level of detail of the series isn't important to me. Things like uniforms and accurate OoBs are cool and all, but I would hardly notice if it weren't so meticulous. That's for other players and for them I am happy they get it from Combat Mission.

As to the question of datedness, I'll go against the grain a bit. On the battlefield, Combat Mission for me is excellent. The finest tactical wargame. Ballistics, command and control, spotting and the WEGO system are yet to be surpassed in my view. This game is a fantastic simulator on the field of battle.

Outside of this I have to say that it is dated. The menus, the installation process, the purchasing transaction, how content is created, battlefield feedback, graphics, animations,  debrief information, campaign system and lack of a proper AI all seem outdated to me. I still enjoy it, because the combat is so compelling and fun. But for me, outside of this Combat Mission is in need of an overhaul.

And the forum. This is great forum software :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree with all the positive things mentioned.  However, am hoping that more attention now gets given to making the UI better and enabling players to make what are currently complex orders with lots of time wasting mouse clicks much more simple.  Eg:  A road convoy, or formation command; "Wait in Ambush then Shoot and Scoot" orders for snipers, AT teams, and ambushes; an easier resupply from vehicle procedure (similar to getting ammo from a dump) etc. etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used the word outdated, but that's not what I mean to say. Dated is. Outdated connotes that it no longer is relevant or has a purpose or place, which is not what I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an old friend who, back when he was in college (sometime last century), found himself sitting at a social event table with the senior editor of 'Consumer Reports' magazine. My friend spent the entire evening detailing exactly what was wrong with the magazine and exactly what the editor needs to do to fix it. I'm SURE the poor editor really-really appreciated all that advice from a random teenager. CM gets criticized, toaster ovens get criticized, municipal public service workers get criticized. Not because they're any more deserving of criticism but because there are personality types in the world who are compelled to criticize stuff. Steve had once mentioned the term (unrelated to CM, so don't worry) 'C.A.V.E. people', which is short for 'Citizens Against Virtually Everything'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

I have an old friend who, back when he was in college (sometime last century), found himself sitting at a social event table with the senior editor of 'Consumer Reports' magazine. My friend spent the entire evening detailing exactly what was wrong with the magazine and exactly what the editor needs to do to fix it. I'm SURE the poor editor really-really appreciated all that advice from a random teenager. CM gets criticized, toaster ovens get criticized, municipal public service workers get criticized. Not because they're any more deserving of criticism but because there are personality types in the world who are compelled to criticize stuff. Steve had once mentioned the term (unrelated to CM, so don't worry) 'C.A.V.E. people', which is short for 'Citizens Against Virtually Everything'.

You've told this same story about 5 times now and its still wrong.

Games should always be looking out for the good constructive criticism, there is nothing wrong with changing your game based on it as long as you do it responsibly. I guarantee you Steve doesn't agree with this ridiculous anecdote you drag out whenever someone has a minor criticism or suggestion.

Edited by AttorneyAtWar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MikeyD said:

I have an old friend who, back when he was in college (sometime last century), found himself sitting at a social event table with the senior editor of 'Consumer Reports' magazine. My friend spent the entire evening detailing exactly what was wrong with the magazine and exactly what the editor needs to do to fix it. I'm SURE the poor editor really-really appreciated all that advice from a random teenager. CM gets criticized, toaster ovens get criticized, municipal public service workers get criticized. Not because they're any more deserving of criticism but because there are personality types in the world who are compelled to criticize stuff. Steve had once mentioned the term (unrelated to CM, so don't worry) 'C.A.V.E. people', which is short for 'Citizens Against Virtually Everything'.

You know what? I write for a living. And when people tell me what's wrong with what I write, I take note of it. Because at the end of the day, I write for other people. Their opinion matters. Listening to feedback is part of what makes me a better writer.

The same goes for producers of toaster ovens and computer games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, AttorneyAtWar said:

You've told this same story about 5 times now and its still wrong.

Games should always be looking out for the good constructive criticism, there is nothing wrong with changing your game based on it as long as you do it responsibly. I guarantee you Steve doesn't agree with this ridiculous anecdote you drag out whenever someone has a minor criticism or suggestion.

You're right, but...

...there are a lot of real whingers on this forum.

As I was saying recently to an ex-boss of mine, sometimes you can tell how well you're doing, not by the volume of complaints, but how trivial many of the complaints become.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ther are games out there that are far less realistic but maybe as immersive such as campaign series. in its hayday of online play the game was teeth grinding. but got far more gripe action then cm. the game was gutted and changed to please others with only more griping about realism in a totally unreal simulation. it was made to grind teeth not please what were mostly novices in the game. cm is another world in realism and teeth grinding without the company caving to the lesser player to its detriment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, an engine update with more performance in big maps ( and bigger than the current) with a lot of units and objects in CMx3 would be sufficient to enlarge the scale of the simulation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2020 at 11:12 AM, Sequoia said:

Just wondering if the standard we hold Combat Mission games to is higher than that of other games? That is, the standard needs to be .  When one sees a blemish, and the blemish may be different things to different people, we exaggerate the importance of the blemish as far as actual game play goes. It's an psychological thing perhaps I'm thinking. The games are immersive and that immersion is appealing, so when that one finds that one blemish that breaks the immersion for them, they're passionate about the blemish. In a way this passion towards the blemish is a credit to the passion and immersion the CM games can bring.   I think the combat flight simulators fall into this category as well but that's about it.

Edited Thursday at 11:14 AM by Sequoia

 

Edited by BluecherForward
Brownie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...