Erwin

The incremental approach for CM2 development has worked well for some years and put some very well deserved $ in BF's pockets.  But, I feel a boredom setting in.  Each module has virtually identical gameplay value as the previous - just adding a few new units, and perhaps a few bugs cleaned up.  Until there is another big step forward in evolution I predict a slow decline as we saw with CM1 over the past 6-7+ years.  The amazing work that Aquila has accomplished for graphics and the outstanding innovations of designer like MOS with his TOC and COUP scenarios has been exciting.  Perhaps the "Heaven and Earth" project will breathe some new life into the system for a while.  But, after playing the CM game series since 1999 for over 20 years, I find my interest flagging.  I have always bought whatever BF released immediately.  But, I just can't summon the interest to preorder the new CMFI module (as yet).  And am sad about that - like an old friend fading away...
 

The incremental approach for CM2 development has worked well for some years and put some very well deserved $ in BF's pockets.  But, I feel a boredom setting in.  Each module has virtually identical gameplay value as the previous - just adding a few new units, and perhaps a few bugs cleaned up.  Until there is another big step forward in evolution I predict a slow decline as we saw with CM1 over the past 6-7+ years.  The amazing work that Aquila has accomplished for graphics and the outstanding innovations of designer like MOS with his TOC and COUP scenarios has been exciting.  Perhaps the "Heaven and Earth" project will breathe some new life into the system for a while.  But, after playing the CM game series since 1999 for over 20 years, I find my interest flagging.  I have always bought whatever BF released immediately.  But, I just can't summon the interest to preorder the new CMFI module (as yet).  And am sad about that - like an old friend fading away...
 

This is what is great about Campaigns.  It's nice to have superiority but one should have to use the minimum needed to accomplish the mission and keep the rest in reserve for future missions - if one uses too much ammo one can be hamstrung later.  Also, I find that when deploying "too many" units that is when one can get careless and lose units unnecessarily.  Some of my most memorable/enjoyable battles in the early days of CM were when I had lost too many units and was forced to fight much more intelligently with depleted forces in order to win.

That's like saying that an experienced player is cheating.  You'll learn all of the above by playing long enuff.

Well... there is approx 54% US inflation and over 71% UK inflation(!) in terms of what money will buy since 1999 till 2019.  The other issue is that the prices charged in 1999 for CM1 games was not economically viable - ie: they were way underpriced.  In addition the CM2 games are far more sophisticated than CM1.  While it is annoying to have to have so many game families installed on a computer, the fact is that each game family provides almost as many hundreds of hours of play as one of the CM1 titles.  And the pricing (hopefully) enables BF to stay in business when so many competitors have disappeared - leaving BF with a monopoly on realistic tactical 3D wargames of this genre.

Yes...  Aquila is doing things that for the past 12 years since CM2 was released, we all thought was impossible.  Amazing work.

That was because atm one can´t export metadata on custom models with CM2Tools and Blender which caused issues particulary with wheels. I took an invisible t55 hull as primer (other models/flavor objects like the usual crate would likely work too), moved the t55 crew positions to new hull and turret, and renamed and organized specific parts of the new custom model to "track", "turret", "mount", and "weapon" as the internal game engine recognizes this names thus producing working vehicles without metadata.
The best is to check the blender project file to gain an overview about this method. It is included in the download.
You or 37mm talked with me about bringing a Patton to H&E but I couldn´t remember which one was requested. This was likely discussed on Discord and I don´t have a chat log anymore because I needed to reinstall everything. So I assumed the M60 Patton was the right one.
Just to be clear you talking about this one:
https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/m48a3-patton-medium-tank-toshueyi-3f00c27f2b284776a46a0663f1250806

Looking forward tho that.  One could always introduce "reinforcements" in subsequent missions that are "new" but higher experience, and named exactly the same as the lower experience units in the previous mission(s).  Would that be a simple method of simulating increasing combat experience?  The only problem is that the new units would not have suffered the same losses as may have previously occurred since the designer would not know about that.  But, one could make a guess...

Given that campaigns can be thought of as taking place over several months (and there could well have been additional battles between the ones depicted in a campaign) it would be nice in CM3 to have the option a campaign designer of enabling units to gain experience over several battles.  
It would add to the gameplay fun to have at least some units go from a low to a higher experience level as a result of several battles and become the ones to watch and/or give the toughest assignments to.

Looks great, Olek.  Thanks for doing this.

Not really, cos after that one or two games, then what...?   Would much prefer to see a CM:Afrika Korps game.  Not only got many different weapons systems but also different terrain (pretty much already done for CMSF) and larger maps allowing for new tactics for WW2 maneuver (as well as longer range combat than the current WW2 titles).

Great to see you back, Olek.  Don't forget to tone down the colored badges.  A few days dust and they would all look greyish - currently they are so bright they make for good enemy aiming points.

In the past (20+ years ago) one practically had to pay someone to play the Russians.  Everyone wanted to play the Germans and with their cool black and white SS counters.  One reluctantly played the WAllies.
Something changed in the late 90's so that when CMBO came out that seemed to marked the start of an era where people wanted to play the "good guys" mostly the US, and shockingly to some of us, even the Russians.
It might make a decent PhD thesis regarding trends in wargame design and their relationship to generations, or perhaps economic and social trends in society.

Beautiful...   Wonderful work.

I don't pop in here that often anymore, but saw this thread and wanted to chime in with my wishlist for Combat Mission. And it is three items long. This post will likely seem far longer than three wishes warrant, but I want everyone to get their money's worth
Wish 1: Campaigns
I used to play a lot of Combat Mission, going back to CMBO and on through most of the following WW2 titles. To get it out of the way, I love CM gameplay. For me it's the finest tactical wargame toolbox going. I can still, after nearly 20 years, remember specific moves I made playing the CMBO demo scenario over PBEM with one of my best mates. It takes a great game to have that sort of staying power in my limited memory. I say this to show that what I criticize is done out of a desire to see Combat Mission evolve, not out of contempt.
About 6 months ago I built a new PC. I have not reinstalled any CM title, which means this is the first PC I have used since CMBO that didn't have any CM games installed on it. And for me it comes down to content. Single scenarios don't light my fire. Campaigns are what interests me, and I've played them all. That might sounds like BS, but I mean literally, I've played every campaign that I could find for the titles I have. And honestly, that's not so absurd, as there aren't very many. Some I loved, some I didn't. Some were completed, but not all.
CM campaigns, with their episodic nature, lack replayability.  There are AI plans, sure, but moving the AT gun to a different spot doesn't make the scenario all that different really, and even then the designer needs to implement them in the first place.  Still the same forces, same map, same objectives. So I play it, either like it or don't, and then never play it again. The unknown is no longer. If I know the enemy has three tanks, and I've destroyed three tanks, I can deduce they have no tanks left. The uncertainty that makes each probe or advance so nail-bitingly thrilling is eliminated by prior experience.
Some of the campaigns are really well done, especially given the limitations of the engine, rules and toolset. But once played, I have no desire to try them again. Combine that with the very limited pool of campaigns available and you're left with nothing to play. I took a break of a couple years from CMBN. When I came back engine 4 had just been released. I ponied up the 10 clams and very excitedly went to find new campaigns to play. What a huge disappointment. After two years or so away I could find nothing new. Maybe there were a couple. I was expecting dozens.
For a campaign player Combat Mission has gone stale in my view. Why is this? Are campaigns so time-absorbing and difficult to make that few even attempt it? Are potential designers put off by the fact that what they finally do make didn't or couldn't match their vision? Are they left uninspired or dissatisfied by the process? Whatever the reason, the player base is left with little new, unseen content to tackle.
Well, I could just make my own campaign you might say. I could, but I don't want to, mostly because by designing each scenario myself, all of the uncertainty is once again gone. So that won't do. It's something you do for the good of the community, not for yourself to play I reckon.
For me this needs to change in order for Combat Mission to evolve. And for me there is only one practical way to do it. A dynamic campaign generator. The player needs to be unshackled from the tether that binds him to the mercy of folks generous and talented enough to provide this content for us. We need a way to create this content for ourselves, free of the laborious methods currently required, methods that remove any sense of mystery should we then want to play it ourselves. The current model doesn't work in my opinion.
If Battlefront won't give us this content (and I am not expecting it necessarily) and instead rely on talented players to do it while providing tools that don't make it easy, then it's clear a new way is required. For me, the single most important and needed advance in the Combat Mission series is a way for players to quickly and easily generate the content they are interested in.
I want to fire up Combat Mission, whip up say a company-sized campaign for US paras and have at it for the next two or three weeks. Persistent forces. Persistent map end-states. When I'm done I do it again, with whatever combinations I find interesting or intriguing. For me, this is the way forward. We have this amazing tactical simulator, but little focused content that I'm interested in, and I'd say my tastes are fairly broad. If Combat Mission had started three years ago I'd give it some slack. But after 19 years? it's beyond time to shake up how players get the content they are interested in playing. Put this in each player's hands, and cut that tether.
Wish 2: Artificial Intelligence
I stepped off my campaign soapbox as I'm going on too long, though there is more I'd like to say. But campaigns are reliant on the AI. The way it's done now, designers need to rely on placement and timing, and each scenario is playtested within an inch. Any subsequent changes to the engine tend to throw this off balance. If a scenario is designed with infantry acting a certain way to shellfire, and that reaction is later changed, it fundamentally changes how the scenario plays out. This needs to be disassociated from the design of the scenario. And the only way to do that which I can see is a good AI system, that allows units to decide for themselves how to proceed, not just acting on the whim of the scenario designer's vision. Combat Mission would improve exponentially in my opinion with a good AI, and it would be a fundamental requirement for a dynamic campaign generator. Until or unless the AI is redone, the campaign idea won't fly.
Wish 3: Combined Arms
I play campaigns as I've noted. But now and then I would enjoy a Quick Mission battle. Remember the Combined Arms setting for QMB? Where did it go? What happened to it? It was the only setting that both allowed me to fight a balanced AI opponent and at the same time not know ahead of time his composition (because I picked it).
I'll end with that. I could write pages of all the things I'd like to see in the next step for Combat Mission, but I'll spare you my ramblings. What I want most is a relatively simple way to create the content that interests me, in the format (campaigns) that I like, and do so without relying on anyone making it for me.
 

Am pretty sure that that were all included when I sent them to Bootie for CMMODS IV.  So, they will turn up.

Have found friendly fire casualties can be fairly common - caused mostly when a friendly "big gun" (50 cal and larger) fires on an enemy that is close to or in line of fire of a friendly - the friendly can easily get killed by proximity - eg: fire grazing the ground where the friendly inf is lying.
Care has to be taken using arcs etc and relative placement of friendly inf and vehicles to avoid the above (as much as possible).  Generally, you want to avoid having any friendly to be along the fire line of a "big" gun.

Weird.  I don't think anyone has noticed this before.  

Weird.  I don't think anyone has noticed this before.  

Well, you go find a man to do the heavy lifting work - like always...  Silly...

Also a revamp of the ACQUIRE system so that adjacent units could swap ammo (at least) with some limitations and time penalties - thus eliminating the non fun "make work" aspects of 1) split squads 2) embark several teams 3) ACQUIRE ammo and weapons 4) Disembark 5) reintegrate the squad 6) split the squad again to desired teams.
Also would like to see a "Wait in Ambush to shoot, then scoot to cover" order for snipers and AT teams.

Some of started with CM1 in 98/99 if that's what you mean.