landser

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.

Normandy. If you already have a modern title, you should round that off with a WW2 title, and CMBN gives you the most content (including user-made, especially campaigns). If money's tight (as indicated) then I think CMBN will give you the most bang for your buck.

Iron mode for me too, I prefer it because I feel it gives me a better feel for the disposition of my troops, easy to see which formations are 'in contact' with their neighbors, a better idea of battlefield observation, and that sort of thing. We are conditioned to see the highest settings as the most difficult, but in Combat Mission this isn't necessarily true, and Iron could be seen as 'easier' in a sense. Maybe easier isn't the right word, but I think it gives more useful feedback as to the state of affairs on the battlefield, and additional information is always useful. Occasionally though I will drop it for the reason Mikey said, on call wait times. When I played Kampfgruppe Engel campaign I had read how challenging it was supposed to be (one guy even said don't bother as it's too hard), so I played on a lower setting just to get my artillery faster. I wish the artillery on call times thing was a separate setting and not tied to the other levels.

To address a couple of the last few posts. Yes, there are more campaigns than what I listed. I have about 20 for CMBN, mostly thanks to a dropbox that forum member Blazing 88s was kind enough to provide back in 2016. I could argue though that a new player wouldn't know about that and what would he find? But my point isn't really about how to find them, but about what actually exists. If it's 20, or 25, is that considered a good amount for a game that's been out for almost 8 years? And honestly, these are all over the place, in scope, in quality, and featuring different forces. What if a player wanted to play company sized American paratrooper campaigns? Four? What if he wanted to play company sized FJ campaigns? None? As to Ian's point, yes I agree to a point. PBEM is my favorite way to play. Nothing beats it. But as mentioned I blow hot and cold. As a result single player has to be my bread and butter so that when I get the itch I can dive right in full bore. And frankly, while PBEM is awesome, my experience has been that there is a fluctuating level of motivation from opponents, especially if things on the battlefield are titling my way My point entirely discounts the logistical aspect of the request. I have zero idea how difficult it would be. It's not my hard work and long, long hours, it's not my dime at risk. And I think it's clear that for a campaign generator to succeed it would require a new AI system. So it's a big undertaking I have no doubt. Whether this is a profitable idea is another question entirely. I'm just speaking to my experience and adding my own little lane to the roadmap thread. On another forum we were discussing this and I said that I am willing to put my money where my mouth is. I've never crowd funded anything. But I'd be willing to throw in another $120 for a campaign module. Maybe that's a no-no around here, I don't know. But I want it enough I am willing to do my part to see that it happens.

Lots of ideas and I understand everyone has their favorites, or the course they'd like to see Combat Mission take and that's understandable and quite useful even. So I'd like to throw mine in as well. I'm concerned about the future of this fantastic tactical simulator. In my opinion, while new units, theaters and modules are all welcomed, the thing that the series is in most need of is a way for the player to more easily generate his own content. I've been playing since the CMBO demo so I've been along for the whole ride, as many here have. I'm not a continuous player, I take breaks and then come back to it from time to time. I really do love the gameplay, to me Combat Mission is the best game of it's kind, and I want to see it succeed and evolve. In my view the biggest problem is the lack of good content. Part of this is the fact that single scenarios leave me cold, so unfortunately this brushes aside much of the quality content that actually does exist. My preference is campaign play. And here the series falls woefully short in my opinion. I'll give you a little insight from my experience as a part-time player, if you'll indulge me. Around 2015 I got back in to Combat Mission and bought both the CMBN big bundle and Red Thunder. I played (or at least started) every campaign I could find for both titles. It wasn't very many, maybe a dozen or a few more. Some of them I found excellent (Devils Descent, Outlaws, Kampfgruppe Engel and more). Some I found of poor quality (no need to mention which), and some I found far too large for my taste. I played for about a year and then shelved Combat Mission as I moved on to other stuff. Recently I had the itch to play once more. Excited to see what new content there was for me to play, I forked over the $10 for the engine 4 upgrade for CMBN and went in search of new campaigns to play. What a disappointment. What I found is there are very few new campaigns since two years ago. The Repository doesn't exist anymore correct? So I found what was available on the Scenario Depot and on IanL's site, which are mostly the same ones anyway. On the Scenario Depot here's what I found for WW2 titles Battle for Normandy -- 11 campaigns Fortress Italy -- 2 campaigns Red Thunder -- 4 campaigns Final Blitzkreig -- 1 campaign All of those CMBN and CMRT campaigns I played two years ago. Combing through forum threads reveals a few more, and more recent. But in the end that's a very small number of campaigns, with little new coming out. The nature of Combat Mission's current campaign system leaves me with little motivation to replay campaigns I already have. AI plans only go so far. Essentially you already know what you're up against, and the best AoAs, even if the AT gun is in a different place. So I'm left with a choice of campaigns to replay with little desire to do so. And while I am willing to try anything, I really enjoy campaigns that feature a core force of about reinforced company strength. I really don't enjoy scenarios that are about a battalion or stronger. These aren't necessarily harder or easier, but much more involved. It's personal preference, and I'm glad they exist for the folks who enjoy them Lions of Carpiquet comes to mind. It seems a quality piece of work from a knowledgeable and skilled author, but it's just not my cuppa. So back to my main point. As a campaign player I am at the mercy of the scenario designers. One might say well then make your own and stop bitchin'. But what fun is it playing a campaign I designed myself? The scripted nature of Combat Mission means I will know every unit, where they are, what time they are reinforced and so you lose the very things that make playing new campaigns so interesting, like uncertainty. If I know the enemy has four AT guns, and I've already taken out four I know there are no AT guns left. That's no good. I have to proceed as if there might be another four still waiting for me. At the heart of the matter is there is no way to generate my own content. And little new stuff comes out I presume because making campaigns is so difficult. Didn't I once read that Paper Tiger spent 800 hours making Road to Montebourg? 800? If that's true it's no wonder that so little comes out. What I think the series desperately needs is a way for the player to generate his own campaigns. This idea isn't new around here, and clearly isn't on the roadmap (right?) But until something like this exists, folks like me who want to play campaigns of a certain scope will be left out in the cold, reading AARs instead of actually playing the game. I have very specific ideas of the sort of system I'd like to see, but I doubt my ideas haven't already been offered here at one point or another so I won't make a long post way longer by detailing them. At the time CMBB came out I was happy with the Operations feature. Sure it had it's wrinkles and there were things I wished worked differently or that were changed. But that system was removed and while the episodic system we have now can be fun, and a good story can be told, it's not the answer in the long run. Not only does it appear prohibitively difficult to use, it leaves little replay value in my view. Combat Mission Campaigns was the light at the end of the tunnel, but it failed and nothing has filled the void. This post is way longer than intended so I'll wrap it up. I fully support new theaters and modules. I am as eager as anyone to see a new engine. But unless there is also a new way for me to enjoy the game then in essence nothing's really changed. I don't need better uniform textures or additional armored cars and trench types. I need a new campaign system that offers flexibility and a way for me to generate endless content that appeals to me. I hope one day this comes to be.

I haven't run in to this issue in CM. But it was a big problem playing Silent Hunter 4 using the bigger conversion mods like Trigger Maru Overhaul. CTDs in many of the most memory-intensive situations, like returning to port (because of cities, port facilities, numerous ships, etc). To fix it I followed the procedure in the following link. I make no claims as to suitability for anyone's particular situation, but it does allow you to make 32-bit programs large address aware with a few clicks. The instructions are perhaps more simple than they first appear. Make a backup of your exe and give it a go. http://www.subsowespac.org/the-patrol-zone/give-silent-hunter-4-a-memory-boost.shtml Edit: I see this is a rather old thread, but may still help someone

There's plenty to like about Combat Mission. But I'll pick spotting. CM handles spotting (visual and auditory) elegantly, never fails to impress me.

Spoilers! Haven't been around and with so much time having passed since the question was asked it is likely no longer needed, but.... Line of sight is a challenge in that mission no doubt. In my case I set the ATG up on the left along with a Mark IV. The Panther was redeployed to the main road after assisting in the recovery of the King Tiger, which was also moved here along with another Mark IV. MG teams and mortars were set up on the hill to the right of the main road, where they caused havoc with the enemy's push up the German right flank before this hill was eventually targeted by a barrage and they were mostly wiped out. But by then everything was already heading for the exits. The ATG and Mark IV on the left were stars, as the enemy was thick there, but they seemed to lack drive. If they had pushed harder on the German left they could have broken through by overwhelming the meager assets deployed there. The Panther and King Tiger did great too. You are heavily outnumbered in armor (23 tank kills in my run) and it's just a fantastic mission, as are most of them in this campaign. I played this campaign in March of 2016, amazing how this stuff sticks with you. Quite memorable. I even still have the screenshot of the debrief. Only vehicle loss was the Kubelwagen, and the troop casualties were mostly the support weapons on the hill taken out by the enemy barrage. Almost three years and I can still picture the battle. Good stuff.

Agreed, I think reinforced company sized battles are CMx2's sweetspot. But I don't mind a larger one now and again, especially if the briefings and battles are well done. Keeps me engaged. Overall though you can tell how much work went in to this one, and frankly, good campaigns for CM games are limited, so I'll take them all.

Yes, aside from the final mission, which branches, I found the missions to be varied, challenging, and inventive. If you get the Deliverance mission as the finale, it is brutal. I lost that one, and frankly I don't think I would win it if given a hundred tries. I enjoyed most missions, but Guardian Angels stands out as one I didn't care for as much. The Dives River crossing mission you mentioned was particularly tough. Because you only have what was left from Hunters in the Mist (including ammo and repair state) it is made that much more difficult. You have all of this heavy armor, but with empty or mostly empty racks and various degrees of damage. I entered that mission with shot out optics, radios, barrels and several damaged tracks. So it forced me to find another way through, since I could no longer rely on pounding the enemy positions with heavy tank fire from range. I really enjoyed the first two missions especially, the battle against the recon units outside of town, and then the assault on the town itself. Those battles played out well, and set the tone for the rest of the campaign.

Fair points, Bulletpoint. The night mission you are referring to is The Last Kilometer. In my case, I got through it fairly easily, and frankly was shocked at the debrief to see how strong the enemy was. It seemed to me that if I didn't fire, I could pass by the enemy within a few yards. But any shot brought a fusilade in return. I liked Hunters in the Mist. But your points are valid. In all I thought it was a fantastic campaign. 9/10 would get my optics shot out again. And again.

Haven't been around lately, so just seeing your post now. Do you recall which mission(s) gave you that feeling? I really enjoyed the massive enemy armor formations, but yes, there were some times that the tank kills were piling up, like in the Tiger Poaching mission. But I really enjoyed playing this campaign.

I like the way CC3 handles the core forces and the requisition/refit/upgrade system. It's a good CC game, but I find something sterile about the campaign system. CC4 is sort of like CC3 on the battlefield, but without any sort of requisition or force selection in the campaign. You have to play with what you're given, which has it's own charm I suppose. CC4 introduced the strategic/operational campaign map and I like it. But CC5 made it better. For me, CC5 Invasion Normandy is the closest to CC2 in the way the battles play out.

I know what you mean, and oftentimes the games don't stand the test of time. But not only do I want to go back, I already did. It's still fun. I've already completed campaigns on both sides in CC2, the Allies in CC5 and part way through as the Germans in CC5. CC3 campaigns aren't my favorite so I only got through two Operations before I shelved it. If you are suggesting that games like CM will have spoiled me for games like CC, well I don't agree. But that may not be what you mean. I used to be big in to Falcon 4, but that didn't mean I wouldn't fly Strike Fighters for example.

I welcome any and all stuff like this. But I do agree with Jon that what is shown in this trailer is disappointing from a grog's perspective. The vast majority of people who might see this would have zero idea that anything was less than authentic. Still, I'm happy to see things like this come out, even if some of it might make people like us cringe. I make no claims as to the accuracy of this info, but according to several sources I found on the 'net Kassel was indeed struck starting in 1942. Here's one Kassel Raids

+1. His 'Liberation Trilogy' is very good. Atkinson's books are meticulously researched, and he moves easily from a grunt's eye perspective to the inner workings of the highest command. I agree with Michael's assessment, and he can be rather dismissive of Monty, though not of the Commonwealth armies. He gives credit where it is due, and with respect to the Italian campaign covers the contributions of various allies like Berbers, New Zealanders and Juin's French troops, who were instrumental, and perhaps even responsible for, the unhinging of the Gustav line, despite their exposed right flank. You could do far worse than picking up this book.

I imagine many here cut their tactical wargaming teeth on the Close Combat series. My first real wargame was Steel Panthers, and it was a crash course in WW2 at a time when I knew little about that world-changing event. But it sparked a fire in me to learn as much as I could, which continues to this day. Back then, in the mid-90s, I also played games such as Talonsoft's Battleground Ardennes, Panzer General and those sorts of games. But then I bought Close Combat 1 and was instantly hooked on the formula and mechanics. I liked CC1 alot, but it went to an entirely different level with CC2:ABTF. What a fantastic game. I kept buying the games as fast as Atomic could pump them out. And amazingly, those 5 games (CC1 through CC5 Invasion Normandy) were released over just 4 years. Anyway, fast forward to a few weeks ago.... I recently bought a new house and in preparation for the move I was going through some boxes and found one that contained a treasure trove of games from around 1995 to 2005. It would take too long to list, but if there was a good wargame, shooter or simulation released in that time, it was probably in this box. A year or two ago I felt a little itch for Close Combat and visited Matrix's site. Without going in to the reasons I decided against purchasing and left that itch unscratched. And then I opened the box. Inside were all of the early CC games and I wondered if these old games would work on my system (Win 7 Pro 64 bit). Normandy gave me the most trouble getting it to run, but I got it working. I have yet to try CC4 because I just haven't gotten around to it yet, but the others all work and I have a few screens to share and bring back good memories for those of us who loved these games (and who haven't bought the Matrix re-boots). CC2 Battle Briefing Brutal Battle at Schijndel Dunes Day Two, as Allies. All Day One objectives completed aside from holding the 82nd's LZ. Most importantly, the 101st has captured Son Bridge intact, and the plucky troopers of 1st paras have reached Arnhem Bridge by the end of day one. The 82nd crosses the Wall to sieze the north end of Nijmegen Bridge Day Five. History re-written and XXX Corps approaches Arnhem. We recaptured the LZ for the 82nd, but were simultaneously booted off the other 2 LZ's by German armored counterattacks. Close Combat 3. My small detachment makes its opening move toward Lvov on June 22, 1941 Close Combat 5. The 82nd Airborne moves up Le Fiere Causeway on D-Day

Kampfgruppe Engel is a great campaign, probably my favorite CMBN campaign that I've played. I wouldn't call it newbie friendly per se, but that shouldn't put you off. If you play well enough that you only lost 15 men in the opening battle you should do fine playing through the entire campaign. That said, I see this campaign as more of an 'advanced' campaign, it is indeed very challenging. Keeping your armor alive is crucial to doing well later on. The opening battle -- the attack on the recon unit outside of town -- is the easiest of the lot, except perhaps The Last Kilometer, which poses it's own unique challenge and has the potential to be very difficult... or rather easy depending on the route the player chooses. But regardless, I think it's certainly worth playing, especially as I give high marks to the authors for their unique and interesting missions which shouldn't be missed. I'm not an expert CM player, and I played through the campaign with two lost battles, minor defeats in the missions Guardian Angels and Deliverance, which was the final mission and a real bitch which I stood zero chance of winning, even with most of my armor still kicking. The second mission is an attack on a town that was ostensibly screened by the force you defeated in the opening battle. If you can get through that one in good shape there's no reason not to keep on going. It's worth it. I posted a few thoughts on this campaign here: Kampfgruppe Engel Spoliers warning of course if you click the link.

Good point Raptor. Some things will need to be seen, or played, to get a feel for whether they are an improvement or a step back. I remember when EU IV was in it's development, the devs would state features, changes, what have you from EU III, and I thought at the time that sounds like a mistake, or I'll miss this or that. But after getting to grips with EU IV I came to feel that most everything was an improvement. It became more streamlined and intuitive, with less micromanagement (relative thing in Grand Strategy of course). It was just a superior game, despite my fears and reluctance to lose favored or pet features I had come to rely on. I've come to trust Paradox to do things the right way, and they could take my money now for HOI 4 if they would get around to it. At the risk of entering fanboy status I think this is going to be an epic game and a big evolution from HOI 3. I guess we'll know soon enough eh?

That's a good policy, and I am the same, though I don't wait that long. Thing is, Paradox is awesome, and using my experience with EU IV for example, the continual improvement and refinement through free patches and paid DLC is about as good as it gets in this industry. They really are, in my opinion, one of the very best developers. And the game looks amazing. They are shooting for a June 6th release. Check this vid. The game looks great, and is said to address most of what I didn't like about Hearts of Iron 3. https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/hearts-of-iron-iv-to-release-on-d-day-june-6th-2016.913907/ I look forward to dominating the world with my Belgian-Danish- Swedish alliance

By the way, as you may know HOI 4 is due for release in the near future. I'm a big fan of Paradox games, Crusader Kings 2 and HOI3 among my favorites.

Yes, I agree and didn't mean to recommend it for a newbie! Just as an example of a strategy game as opposed to a tactical game. I've been playing Close Combat 2 lately, and that would be a good recommendation as well, but the OP wants MP and would probably be tough finding opponents for that one

Welcome. Which demos did you try that felt too advanced? And do you have a favorite time period or war? There are so many games to choose from. Obviously, the folks around here are going to like the Combat Mission series, it's definitely recommended, but if you tell us which demos you were referring to it would be easier to judge if Combat Mission is right for you. Though even if you find CM too advanced at first, it's nothing some practice and hanging about the forums couldn't fix. If you are in to going back further in time, the Total War series is good. Personally, I rate Napoleon, Empire and Medieval 2 as favorites, though some will prefer the Rome era games. It partly depends on which era or time frame you find most interesting. But there are good games to recommend in any era, so give us a little more info of what you are looking for and what interests you. There is also the matter of a strategy game versus a tactical game. My all time favorite strategy game is Europa Universalis IV for example.

Quite possibly Michael, it's more curiosity than anything, but it certainly seems in that range, bigger than 5 inch craters I've seen from destroyer fire. Evidently forum member Mr X is the author? Appears he's still active 'round here so perhaps could shed some light, but again it's not that important, just curiosity. To get the thread back on topic, since I feel some guilt having derailed it, I personally don't feel it reveals too much info, and I would also like to see icons fade out more quickly, and completely if no longer heard. Though it is useful in MP to create the illusion of strength.

I've been hanging about sim and gaming related websites and forums since the mid-90s, back in the usenet and Combatsim.com days, and just wanted to post that I think this Battlefront forum software is easily my favorite I've ever used. There are so many little things about it that I like, the way it notifies you of replies, the way it remembers your posts that are still in composition, the classy appearance, and well, I could go on. For many years I was on the staff as an editor and moderator of what was arguably the leading Falcon 4.0 site, which sadly is no more, so I know a little about it. I wish we had used this software. Incidentally, another member of the staff from that forum is a member here as well. It's just one more thing about the Battlefront experience that is top-notch.