AstroCat

Haha... I know the engine history of CM but I'm still floored when I try it out again just how terrible it runs on high end hardware. I know it's opengl, and all the in my opinion bad engine choices (remember no Speed tree?) back in pre CM2 days but you'd think through the years some kind of improvements would have been made. 

Haha... I know the engine history of CM but I'm still floored when I try it out again just how terrible it runs on high end hardware. I know it's opengl, and all the in my opinion bad engine choices (remember no Speed tree?) back in pre CM2 days but you'd think through the years some kind of improvements would have been made. 

Campaigns are where it's at for single player.  When you have to take care of your core units across an entire campaign it changes everything and makes single player a lot more interesting.  I love playing well done campaigns and find I get totally immersed even though it's against the AI (scenario designer).  Losses in core units are exponential across campaigns and it really does change the dynamic.  When you are briefed that reinforcements are coming but then only 20 show up instead of a whole company because they were completely decimated two battles ago, it does change everything.  You feel the loss of each soldier and every tank, and gun, and FO, and platoon leader, a LOT more deeply.  
I've been playing these games since the beginning and I love playing both PBEM and against the AI for all the reasons stated above.  Currently, I have 4 PBEMS going against the same opponent (CMCW, CMRT, CMFI and CMFB) and still play my campaigns against the AI when I have time.
A well written and crafted campaign put together by one of our many community designers can be just as fun and entertaining as playing humans, in my opinion, just in a different way.  If you haven't played @George MC's campaigns (just 40 minutes to go on the first battle Five Days One Summer!) or even just his scenario's you really don't know how devious a good designer can be.  Breakthrough to Kovel, by @Lille Fiskerby took me nine months (literally hundreds of hours) to complete but it was entirely epic and challenging and a really great experience.  One of my favorite campaigns ever, honestly.  
Just my unsolicited two cents.

BFC had an idea way back to make their games have "modability" and sent along the rezexplode and rezpack utility programs. The game manual explained where to put mods. Then at some point the modtag feature was introduced. I can't say if this was really an offering to modders or just an internal feature that helped them and ALSO benefited modders. Either way, it is great. Hey! Whoever thought of modtags, maybe not even BFC?---Thank you! Now, in September 2022, I can't think of anything since modtags that has increased the modability of their games. AI group increases and such do help with writing scenarios but not modding. Modders have limits that BFC could help them overcome but taking on to solve and implement is not on the BFC list of things to get done. I wish modders had a small module that would just be a huge pile of workarounds for modders. For FREE, the modders try and create content. I wish BFC would help modders do more. I guess several of the BFC insiders seem to somewhat like and often support the fringe modder work but at the very top it is a BFC business decision to focus elsewhere. Best wishes

One of my ongoing side projects (aimed, mostly, at the new influx of Steam Players) is to host an 'All in One' for every CM game here.
This is my initial effort for CMBN & its primary feature is a large collection of weathered vehicle & guns mods (almost entirely by @Aristoteles & @umlaut). It also features terrain mods by @SeinfeldRules, @Falaise & @patboy. UI mods by @Juju, @Marco Bergman& @Mord alongside loading screens by @umlaut. Infantry mods by Vincenzo21, @Damian45, @Vein, Jacquinot, @EZ, @mjkerner,  @Jorge MC, @nik mond& @Aristoteles. Building mods by @Tanks a Lot & @Juju as well as the ME effects package, ME soundscape, subdued @Taranis& HQS voices plus many others.
It has integrated & default early summer & early autumn (using the [holland] tag) options as well as a couple of zip files which can activate a late autumn & late summer look.
Additionally it comes with a vast quantity of content (hundreds of scenarios, scores of maps & 20 odd campaigns).
Here's a taster of some of what you can expect...
 







Here's the link for the CMBN 'All in One'...
https://www.mediafire.com/file/bplqhvfkl4da5pq/CMBN_Initial_%27All_in_One%27.7z/file

I knew this was coming. Looks and play has nothing to do with each other.
I was talking about what it should look like, not what it should play like.

I can tell you for free that 'designed with the idea of humans playing vs humans' is a false assumption.  The rule for bundled scenarios is that they can be played in all modes although exceptions to that rule were made for CMCW in relation to the Soviet Tactical Doctrine primer scenarios and a couple of others in that title.  None of those exceptions include H2H only.  There was no direction given to any of the scenario designers to optimise their scenarios for H2H for any title I've been involved with (CMSF-1 &2, CMRT, CMFB, CMFR, CMCW).
The challenge of following the rule, particularly when making a scenario based on a real action, is that the scenario has to be winnable by both sides in all three modes.  The get out clause is the one-liner in the 'Load New Game' screen where you can say 'best played as (insert side).'  Designing H2H is even more variable:
How do you know how skilled every single player is who buys the title? Which of those players is going to take Blue/Allied in your scenario? Which of those players is going to take Red/Axis in your scenario? Is one of those players going to play to their skill level or just have a bad day? Is one of those players going to have a good day and play above their skill level? Steve from Battlefront posted some time back that the data/feedback he has indicates that most people play the title in Human vs AI mode.  This would likely explain why the rule of playable in all three modes was introduced.  It also reinforces the point that your assumption is not well-founded.
Nonetheless, designing for all three possible combinations is achievable but it generally involves employing most of the victory point combinations, asymmetric objectives and time limits.  Achievable of course does not necessarily mean that your scenario is awesome in all three play modes.  It should be in one of the three and if you can do it in two, then so much the better.  If you can do it in all three then your name is @George MC
Linking the above to your point that designers 'boost' defenders with 'tons of points' - that is correct in many instances.  I 'boost' one side or the other or both sides with victory points in order to achieve the effect I intend.  As an example, to avoid a turn one cease fire resulting in a victory for a defending force that typically occupies all of the high victory point objectives that the attacking player needs to capture I will 'boost' the attacker by giving that side the equivalent number of victory points for friendly casualties at a threshold that will only be achieved by the defender's actions half way through the battle (ballpark figure for illustration would be 20% casualties).  The turn one ceasefire would; therefore, result in a draw.  The intent here is to make both sides commit to the scenario and play it through.  If both sides commit then the attacker will not get those victory points and is not intended to.  You confirm these thresholds by testing and adjusting as necessary if that 20% (or whatever) threshold is achieved too early.  Some of those 'boosts'; therefore, are never intended to take effect if the scenario is played with good intent by both sides through to its time limit or to a point where one player or the other genuinely elects to cease fire.

I don't agree. While I agree the AI has issues, I don't think it's the complexity that causes it. It's more down to how the game was designed, and how the AI is scripted. There are perfect storms where the designer seemed to have been in your head and the AI puts up a great fight. But in general the AI is limited, unable to 'think' on the fly and react, exploit or withdraw as the battlefield evolves, unless the scenario designer created it that way.
In a sense it's not really an AI at all, but pieces that react rigidly to the instructions the designer gave them. TacAI muddles the question to a degree, but in a broader view the AI lacks the intelligence part. AA is more accurate in my view, Artificial Automoton
Automoton: a machine that performs a function according to a predetermined set of coded instructions,

The Three Digit System simply identified the company/platoon/individual vehicle in that order and allowed the commander to direct his units effectively on the battlefield. For example a vehicle numbered "223" would mean: 2nd company - 2nd platoon -3rd vehicle.

framerates....give me framerates...my eyes are aking for framerates

Jesus Christ...don't bring that sh*t here. There's twitter and tumblr and facebook and a thousand other places for the oppression olympics.
As for the question...THERE'S HUGE diversity, unless of course you think all "white" people are the same. We have Americans, Canadians, British, Germans, Russians, Ukranian, New Zealanders, South Africans,  French, Poles, Dutch, Italians, (along with skins for black and brown citizens of those nations where viable) as well as Brazilian, Syrians, Indians, Sikhs, and plenty of portraits for Maori, Gurkha, Goumiers, Algerians, Japanese Americans, Druze, Assyrian, Palestinian, and Shi'ite. Hope that's enough "diversity" for you.
EDITED: CMBB and CMAK also had Finnish, Romanians, Hungarians, and Australians.
Burn it before it lays eggs...
Mord.
 

In turned based mode the performance is the same. But everything is calculated in advance. In other words, there are zero calculations going on and performance is still abysmal.
No, calculations are not the reason.

Try playing Graviteam games. Smooth performance, insanely complicated calculations. More realistic ballistics than CM. (but worse interface and gameplay)
Please stop propagating the myth that the CM performance problems are due to simulation calculations. Those calculations are not going on while the game is paused, but still the performance is the same, whether you pause or not.
 
The honest answer is that CM is based on an ancient engine that does not take advantage of modern CPUs and graphics hardware. And no, that's not an attack on BattleFront. It's just how things are.
The only thing you can really do to improve performance is going for a computer with very high single-thread performance. Usually this means going for as many GHz as possible, rather than multiple cores.

I love playing these games but I'm wondering as to why I can't achieve a high frame rate on any battle size despite having a modern gaming pc. I get a higher frame rate on more demanding games on my system like Metro Exodus or Total War Three Kingdoms.

But game performance does not improve noticeably while the game is paused - a time when no simulation calculations should be going on.
For this reason, I believe the performance problems are due to the graphics engine.

We can only hope one day, we get a graphics engine even at this level. I've upgraded to a i7-9700K@4.9GHz and an EVGA RTX 2080 Ti XC Ultra and still get terrible fps! Talking hitting 20fps and below on just a simple medium hills quick battle, not even with many trees. Super sluggish and laggy camera movement. lol!
IL-2 Sturmovik - Tank Crew
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwkTxyh21-g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tQVifFTGKY
https://www.facebook.com/il2sturmovik/posts/2026223027455545?__tn__=K-R
 
 

I believe it's a lost cause, I got a 2080 which is a super fast card, loaded up CM on a whim after not playing for months/years... small quickbattle (with all kinds of the usual shadow issues and shimmering, etc...), lol a very sluggish and laggy 20fps...bahahahaha. I'll back for CMx3, if?!
Honestly I really wish they could stop investing in the current engine, it's so outdated and is struggling more than ever. It's so bad that to me the game is broken, so I really can't justify any more BF purchases or recommendations moving forward unless there is a major engine rework. And I want there to be, the "game" is great it just can't be successfully realized adequately any more for me.

I'm struggling to convince myself that this module is worth buying. I've bought all CM games so far, although I never play CMBS and seldom CMSF2. My sense of loyalty towards BF isn't what it used to be after the endless delay. So buying it without a good reason is out. Winter in Italy is interesting, but not interesting enough for me. Brazilians, Indians etc. don't interest me at all. Goumiers might have, but they are unfortunately not in. The role of Waffen SS in Italy was small, so that's also not a good reason for me to buy this module. What about the campaigns and scenarios? Can anyone give me some details on the German campaign and German scenarios?

I used to love playing and modding the CM games (gen1 and 2) and still check in once and a while. I still have them installed even but I just can't bring myself to play them any more, for years now. My "criticism" is enshrined in the forums so need to rehash. Needless to say I still have a sadness about how I see the "death" or near death of the series. It's like a gaming relationship breakup, I probably shouldn't even be here, it's like checking in on an old girlfriend from years past, creepy! lol  
Now, "IF" we ever get a proper version 3 maybe we can rekindle the lost relations!   

CMx2 only "runs fine" for you if you have low standards. CMx2 works, but performance is an issue.

It's not.
The engine first roamed the land back in the days of the dinosaurs when openGL was the normal thing to use for a game. Driver support for OpenGL is waning, but CM is stuck using it. From what I read on this board, it's because the developers don't have the resources to switch engines.
In my experience, no. It runs, but not well. Lots of glitches with shading and shadows flickering on and off. Textures regularly seem to get reloaded (?), leading to temporary freezes. Performance is usually "playable" but varies from smoth to very sluggish.
In short, don't expect miracles in CM from newer hardware.

I used to love playing and modding the CM games (gen1 and 2) and still check in once and a while. I still have them installed even but I just can't bring myself to play them any more, for years now. My "criticism" is enshrined in the forums so need to rehash. Needless to say I still have a sadness about how I see the "death" or near death of the series. It's like a gaming relationship breakup, I probably shouldn't even be here, it's like checking in on an old girlfriend from years past, creepy! lol  
Now, "IF" we ever get a proper version 3 maybe we can rekindle the lost relations!   

We played some CMBO and CMBB together... I remember the last game was a snowy quick battle. She ran her guys into a house and then I blew the house up. That was the last game we played.
But she was cool about it, it was all for research, she was doing a game review (for CNN of all places) of the CM series way back when she worked the game industry. 

We played some CMBO and CMBB together... I remember the last game was a snowy quick battle. She ran her guys into a house and then I blew the house up. That was the last game we played.
But she was cool about it, it was all for research, she was doing a game review (for CNN of all places) of the CM series way back when she worked the game industry.