First impressions

[Battlefront.com]

Battlefront will provide all patches for CM: Afghanistan. The only reason Paradox provided their own patches was because of their copy protection. The patch itself came from us anyway.

Cobra2001,

I could care less about wether it's realistic or not.

That seems to sum up most of your complaints. Combat Mission is both a game and a simulation, with emphasis on simulation. If you want perfect intel in your briefings, always getting the support you want, never wanting to run out of ammunition, demanding that every guy on the battlefield behaves like an ideal in a book, etc. means Combat Mission is not a game for you. Not now, not ever. Not set in Syria, not set in Afghanistan, not set in Normandy, not set in any place. You appear to want a different game than we have chosen to produce. And there's nothing wrong with that. I just think it would be equally unproductive to contact the developers of Company of Heroes and say you don't like their game because it's an RTS with very little attention to realism.

Each to his own, we always say. Obviously CM is not for you.

Separate from that, there's been several discussions (here and amongst testers) about "honesty" in the briefings going back to the original CMBO Beta Demo. I think the consensus is that omission is a better form of imperfect intelligence info than contradictory statements. The former produces uncertainty based on a lack of info, the latter produces false certainty based on incorrect info. Both are ENTIRELY realistic and are probably far more common in real life than accurate intel. One doesn't know what he doesn't know until he knows it Having said that, my sense is most people feel that contradictory info in a briefing should be done very sparingly.

As for the shooting through wall issue, we'll look into it right away. If something is wrong it should be a very easy fix. Sometimes things that have worked for a year are accidentally "nerfed" because of a change made for a different form of Combat Mission. That's one of the downsides of a common codebase.

Steve

[Capt. Toleran]

Back to first impressions....

I'm sure I'm in good company here in terms that I have been playing CM since CMBO came out. I've gotten great use of out all of the games, but my enthusiasm waned with CMSF. This isn't because anything was wrong with the game, so much as the industry and game landscape had changed in the intervening years, and CM had a lot more competition, but in and out of the military niche, for my gaming time.

That being said, I have bought pretty much every iteration of CM (except British, no interest there), and I am really enjoying CM Afghanistan. Last night I played the very first scenario that comes up alphabetically (I forget what it is called, but you are using airborne troops and trying to disrupt an ambush), and it really took me back in some ways to CMBO. Same dense terrain, same complex battlefield, and the same wonder at the power and proper utilization of weapons and tactics. I'm completely happy with the game thus far.

One issue -- I couldn't help but notice that it was pretty light on scenarios compared to other releases. I sure do hope more folks crank out new material like they did for CMx1. I miss the old Scenario depot -- maybe I just haven't been around for a while, but the volume for CM2 just doesn't seem to be as much as the CM1 engine in terms of folks here making scenarios.

[cobra2001]

Each to his own, we always say. Obviously CM is not for you.

I actually own the previous combat mission games and liked them those were excellent games. I had zero problems playing them. I had tons of fun playing them Shock Force and this demo not so much.

[BFCElvis]

I am quite aware of the abstractions in the game having played it for 3 years. However, this specific 'bug' allows soldiers to shoot through building walls where there are no doors or windows.

I dont get the simulated cracks in walls idea unless this means all walls are cracked all the time.

I have been trying to duplicate it for hours and have not been able to recreate it. I have no doubt you saw something. Here is a screen shot of what I set up:

The Muj will (and should) fire at the building using area fire and that fire will affect the Russians inside but the TacAI does not fire at the enemy units on its own and as I said before I can't get a target line from inside the building to the outside so I can't force it.

If you see it again and are able to make a save game file it would be a big help.

[MikeyD]

doesn't matter ... what side you play as you are ALWAYS outnumbered.

Now that's a neat trick, considering forces do not change depending on which side gets selected.

[MikeyD]

Back again.

Just wanted to mention if there's anything you feel is lacking in the scenarios feel free to create your own and post, just like CMSF!

CMA has the advantage of taking place in much more varied terrain, over a full year, with more types of terrain tiles. If CMSF wasn't able to satisfy your desire to fight a pitched battle in the high mountains in the dead of winter - CMA can! I'll confess that mountain peak scenario is mine, I had more fun making that map than the last six CMSF maps put together. There's lots of potential to go CRAZY playing with the CMA map editor. :eek:

[Wengart]

If fire through walls is allowed when there is a door present how is return fire handled? Does it have to penetrate the wall?

[Battlefront.com]

The openings in walls are somewhat abstracted. It's been like that since the day buildings were put into CM:SF Alpha and will continue for probably the entire life of CMx2 and likely into CMx3 as well. The amount of computations and UI problems that arise from making window and door openings literal is not in balance with the end results. It is possible that is what is being noted here, especially since we haven't been able to identify a problem thus far.

Basically, the abstraction is the more openings available on the wall, the more opportunities there are to fire out and fire in. At present we don't have the soldiers dance around, back and forth, taking shots out of the openings. That's something we will probably get around to adding, even though it's pretty much a visual thing and not that likely to change game results.

There is some simulation of wall thickness vs. what's smacking into it, but there is no literal "5 rounds hit this little spot here so anybody behind it is at risk" simulation.

As with a few elements in CMx2, there are major improvements over the handling of a similar thing in CMx1, but it isn't visually and/or simulation wise "perfect". If "perfect" is the standard we will be judged against, we will always come up short. CMx1, CMx2, CMx3... whatever... perfection isn't possible.

Steve

[ZPB II]

After a couple of scenarios, I'm really liking it. The CMSF setting never really clicked for me personally, but this gritty Afghan affair is different. The battles feel a lot more even, with BTRs and BMPs being exceptionally fragile.

My complaint would be that in tiny or small quick battles, my favourite from early CM days, I've ended up facing nothing but technicals a few times. I guess that happened, but they get chewed up so fast that it's not much of a battle.

[Ron]

I have not seen any firing through walls without doors or windows either, though I have noticed the LOS through walls with just one window or door is kind of broad. I don't have a problem with the abstraction as long as there are appropriate penalties.

Personally I would rather not see this: "At present we don't have the soldiers dance around, back and forth, taking shots out of the openings. That's something we will probably get around to adding, even though it's pretty much a visual thing and not that likely to change game results." and just stick with the abstraction.

I have noticed that the Mosque in the demo battle and campaign does have some irregularities with the two adjoining sections. You can enter from there when you clearly shouldn't. The more I play the more I like the setting and scenarios.

[BFCElvis]

The openings in walls are somewhat abstracted. It's been like that since the day buildings were put into CM:SF Alpha and will continue for probably the entire life of CMx2 and likely into CMx3 as well. The amount of computations and UI problems that arise from making window and door openings literal is not in balance with the end results. It is possible that is what is being noted here, especially since we haven't been able to identify a problem thus far.

Basically, the abstraction is the more openings available on the wall, the more opportunities there are to fire out and fire in. At present we don't have the soldiers dance around, back and forth, taking shots out of the openings. That's something we will probably get around to adding, even though it's pretty much a visual thing and not that likely to change game results.

There is some simulation of wall thickness vs. what's smacking into it, but there is no literal "5 rounds hit this little spot here so anybody behind it is at risk" simulation.

As with a few elements in CMx2, there are major improvements over the handling of a similar thing in CMx1, but it isn't visually and/or simulation wise "perfect". If "perfect" is the standard we will be judged against, we will always come up short. CMx1, CMx2, CMx3... whatever... perfection isn't possible.

Steve

That matches up with what I have seen. No matter how many different things I try I can't get anyone to fire out of a building through a wall only building side. There is only fire if there is some type of opening.

[Phantom Captain]

I haven't noticed the firing through walls, so far, either but definitely have noticed my soldiers entering a mosque where different sections adjoin where there is clearly no door. I wasn't using engineers either and didn't blast in.

Here's my 4th impressions. I'm seriously loving Afghanistan and using Soviet era troops. There is something really dark and foreboding about the time period and setting. I'm a bit amazed at how much I was looking forward to this and how much it has grabbed me. The mood and feel of the environs is spot on in my opinion.

Really something to say about this engine and what CM can do. Amazing that a game can really transport you to different theaters, times and enviroments and really grab that feel. I waited a long time before getting in CMSF until it was patched up correctly and I was ready to jump into the modern era. Completely hooked me after the fact. I love how this game bridges the time between WWII and our modern era. It's so NOT CMSF and NOT CMBB or AK but feels just like home. I'm having a really hard time splitting my free time between the two. I'm completely enjoying using and learning the Soviet army. What a great change of pace. I can't wait to see what kind of scenarios the community comes up with.

I'm already learning the difference between using US Army surgical precision and using the Soviets like a sledge hammer. It's funny too that losses for my Russian troops don't affect me like losing 1 or 2 Army, Marine or Brit soldiers. With the Russians, losses are more expected and acceptable for that matter. ) Saving towns and villages is not near as high on my priority list. I find I'm going in guns blazing and simply laying waste to all in my path like the Soviets would have done. I'm not here to win hearts and minds, I'm here to defeat my enemy and crush him under my boot heel. Mosques, villagers, et al be damned.

[Wengart]

Okay so if there is a door then my men can fire abstractly through it by using an abstracted window. So how does this affect return fire? The men inside of the building can fire through the wall as if there is a window there. Is return fire treated the same? Or is the wall selectively permeable?

Also, would it be possible to have an intermediate phase for building damage or some other type of UI indicator that a wall has damage. Even simple cracks running along the wall would be good enough. IMO if it has an effect on the tactical situation then there should be some way for the player to interpret this.

One last thing, how are the QBs in CM:A. I'm assuming that there will be even fewer scenarios than in CM:SF which has had 2 modules and core game status to support it. I'm hoping that the reduced variety of situationally effective units has improved it (No more getting ATGMs to capture a small village, getting marine infantry units consisting solely of HMMVs).

Actually one last last thing, do the dates set for QBs effect the which units are available, or does CM:A pull from all available units no matter if its day 1 of the invasion or the final days of the Soviet occupation?

[LongLeftFlank]

This is not the Red Army of 1941 though; human waves were definitely not on. I spoke with some mujahideen who came to my university in 1983 to talk about the invasion and resistance, and they said the Russians were generally reluctant to leave their vehicles and extremely reluctant to enter CQC. Much like Western forces, they preferred to send bullets and shells, not men. The Russians lost ~25,000 dead in ~7 years; not inconsiderable, but also not indicative of high intensity infantry slugmatches with the muj.

I haven't tried the demo yet, but looking at the video of the urban assault, I'd tend to think it would be a lot slower-paced than shown here, with scouts (I love it!) cautiously probing forward to identify muj positions, which would then be systematically silenced from a distance using MGs, BMP autocannons and mortars. The infantry would then mop up. If the resistance was intense and the overwatch couldn't get direct fires in, the town would be bombed into rubble. One man's view.

[Phantom Captain]

This is not the Red Army of 1941 though; human waves were definitely not on. I spoke with some mujahideen who came to my university in 1983 to talk about the invasion and resistance, and they said the Russians were generally reluctant to leave their vehicles and extremely reluctant to enter CQC. Much like Western forces, they preferred to send bullets and shells, not men. The Russians lost ~25,000 dead in ~7 years; not inconsiderable, but also not indicative of high intensity infantry slugmatches with the muj.

Very true and I'm not using the close in human wave. No need to get into knife fights when I can sit back at range and lob all matter of projectile into my targets. Have to say though those Lee Enfields can reach out and do their damage. I too prefer to keep my men covered and use the BMPs in an overwatch role. I'm on the early campaign so I'm trying to find the balance and range of when to dismount my troops and get them moving. Had good luck so far dismounting and using the vehicles to suppress while my infantry does what it does. I've just been hammering away though with my arty and vehicle weapons before pitching the infantry in.

[Clavicula_Nox]

I'm absolutely loving it. I don't have the same "Oh my god!" moments when my troopers die, but I always notice the empty slot the next mission. It's easier for me to relate to the Soviet-truppen than to the BLUFOR in CMSF, which is something I wasn't expecting. I wish my guys carried more ammunition, though. I think I remember reading somewhere that they didn't carry much, so I'm sure it's realistic and just something to get used to.

My favorite mission, thus far, has been #6 in the 1980 campaign. It, however, also frustrated me. I achieved my objective, save for 1 truck that was disabled by small arms fire and took no casualties. I inflicted pretty heavy casualties (54 dead, 29 wounded, 3 MIA)on the Muj...and it was settled in a draw.

I failed 2 objectives: Friendly and Enemy condition, but I struggle to understand how I could have achieved those. My troops didn't even disembark from their vehicles and most of the battle was fought by 1 BMP and 1 very lucky T55. The Muj also received a "Bonus" of 500 points. Why? Should help with spoiler, I think.

[Battlefront.com]

I have to say we weren't really sure how distinctive Afghanistan would be from Shock Force because of the overlap of equipment and (to some extent) environment. Compare this to Normandy, which we knew would feel completely different (and is ). Like some of you have said, CM:Afghanistan does feel significantly different than CM:Shock Force. It's hard to pin down exactly what does it since it's likely a combination of many things. Similar to playing Brits or Germans in Shock Force compared to US HBCT or SBCT. Similar, but different.

The abstractions are not two way. A six man team inside a building with one window can only get a couple of guys to fire at one time. A six man team outside a building can have all six firing simultaneously (in theory, at least). Which means the outside unit has a realistic advantage in terms of concentration of firepower proportional to the enemy's size and firing opportunities. Further, the unit on the outside may score hits on the inside unit even if it misses, simply because it got lucky and penetrated the wall at just the right spot.

The balancing factor of this is the interior unit has more target opportunities than the outside unit. In short engagements this advantage holds, but as time goes on it disappears and firepower wins out. It's like a hiding in a tree... great concealment until someone notices you, after which lying prone in a field would likely be safer.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Careful about spoilers

Steve

[Kwazydog]

Guys with regards to firing through walls...keep in mind that walls have an 'armor' value just like anything else, and bullets will pass through them depending on penetration ability, range, etc. Not saying thats what some of you guys have seen here, and of course firing out is different as you cant see the target...just thought Id mention it

Dan

[Secondbrooks]

Do i suck or are the campaign missions designed to be ruthlessly hard and nearly impossible to win?

Now to spoiler warning:

First mission was easy. But after that i should do something what i consider to be impossible. Today i was doing third mission in 1980 campaign (night ambush) and even when majority of enemies lying dead and me loosing 6 men i still lost the mission because some did get away. Casualty treshold-limits seems to be somewhat off. True war ain't fair and CMA should not be either, but it makes my small ego to crumble. And when my ego crumbles it makes me to cry. This far i've played to 6 or 7 mission, and i must admit that half of them are somewhat impossible to finish with victory on my side.

I admit that my CM-skills are bit rusty.

In campaign i'm even more attached to my men than in CMSF because it seems to be quite clear that i have lots less men at my disposal and they get hurt much more easily. 6 men wounded would have made my not to care in CMSF, but in CMA it makes me to re-play the mission.

Overall i like it. Good game, but my impressions of the campaign are not so good. I haven't touched single-scenarios yet. Maybe i should?

[cobra2001]

Now that's a neat trick, considering forces do not change depending on which side gets selected.

already brought out why I was outnumbered in that mission due to the other side getting renforced made that a couple posts later

[Clavicula_Nox]

Do i suck or are the campaign missions designed to be ruthlessly hard and nearly impossible to win?

Now to spoiler warning:

First mission was easy. But after that i should do something what i consider to be impossible. Today i was doing third mission in 1980 campaign (night ambush) and even when majority of enemies lying dead and me loosing 6 men i still lost the mission because some did get away. Casualty treshold-limits seems to be somewhat off. True war ain't fair and CMA should not be either, but it makes my small ego to crumble. And when my ego crumbles it makes me to cry. This far i've played to 6 or 7 mission, and i must admit that half of them are somewhat impossible to finish with victory on my side.

I admit that my CM-skills are bit rusty.

In campaign i'm even more attached to my men than in CMSF because it seems to be quite clear that i have lots less men at my disposal and they get hurt much more easily. 6 men wounded would have made my not to care in CMSF, but in CMA it makes me to re-play the mission.

Overall i like it. Good game, but my impressions of the campaign are not so good. I haven't touched single-scenarios yet. Maybe i should?

I think some of the victory conditions need to be tweaked, but I am looking at the campaign goal as survival instead of trying to win missions.

I haven't had much difficulty with the actual missions.

[Guest]

Hi mate

You don't need a save game file. Just play the Demo mission as Mujhd. There are no doors. Small arms and RPG fire through the walls. Seemingly where windows would have been in CMSF.

Unhide you forces and watch the fun. It's so glaringly obvious I can't imagine why it wasn't spotted pre-release.

There's one unit of Muj that I found in the demo scenario that starts facing the Russians through a wall with no door or windows. They absolutely do fire through it. I'll make sure a save game gets into the right hands.

My off-the-cuff guess is the issue shows up only on some maps... and in the case of the demo scen it's one unit out of thirty that's doing it. I don't think that's glaringly obvious unless you're seeing more units doing it... in which case please post a save. None of us can exactly recreate what you're seeing - it's a big scenario and there are lots of ways it can go down, and lots of walls without windows and doors to keep an eye on. Your save file could save a lot of time.

[Erwin]

Only playing the 2nd scenario in the demo, but I noticed that it's very common that some units (HQ's and MG's esp) seem to ignore orders a lot.

Trying to keep guys with AK74's AKM's and SVD's etc. supplied with the correct type of ammo is a challenge. Altho' I wonder if programming effort might not have been directed somewhere more useful than in ammo resupply challenges.

[Secondbrooks]

I think some of the victory conditions need to be tweaked, but I am looking at the campaign goal as survival instead of trying to win missions.

That is probably very healthy attitude, which i should re-learn. My attitude is too much victory-centric right now.