landser

I suspect some pushback from purists will occur Which was also me at one point. I'll use Total War as an example. My first Total War game was Med 2. I absolutely wore the finish off that game. Thousands of hours over the years, and most of it modded, like Stainless Steel which was the one I liked best. But I was also aware of the Third Age mod, which seemed wickedly popular. It's a Middle Earth/ Lord of the Rings style conversion. I didn't play it, but did note how popular it was. I considered myself a historical player, dismissing these fantasy type approaches. I only had interest in versions which adhered to historical reality. Then Warhammer happened. Again, I noted it's popularity and glowing reviews, but passed on it, as it wasn't historical, and therefore not appealing to me. Then.... Warhammer 2 happened. Immensely popular, fantastic critical reviews. So I decided what the hell, I'll give it a go and see what all the fuss is about. And I absolutely loved it. It became my favorite Total War title of them all, which is saying something considering how highly I rate the series. It soon became evident to me why the fantasy based war game worked so well. It worked because it was not tethered so strictly to history. Designers are hamstrung in a sense when doing historical war games. The Prussians are the Prussians, and the French are the French, and how much different is one from the other really? OK, the Prussian infantry's slightly better, or France has better homelands, but the difference from one faction to another is slight. There's not much of a shift when you choose one over another. But Warhammer 2 opened my eyes. Here was the sublime Total War formula re-imagined. Suddenly the designers were not constrained by the history and were free to imagine and create a diverse and compelling game, where the factions are wildly unique. Each and every faction gives a singular experience and the replay value is off the charts, especially compared to historical titles. So yeah, I support this idea, I've seen it work, and know that if creative people are given free license to re-imagine a proven standard, they can craft a fantastic experience, one that breaks free of the inherent constraints of replicating history.

Yes, another recommendation for the big bundle. It's easy for me to spend your money but I think it's a good idea because it will give you many more choices for downloadable content -- scenarios and campaigns. Even if a scenario/campaign is Market Garden-centric, the author may have used a piece from another part of the bundle, which you'd need to play it. With the big bundle, every CMBN mission is in play. The big bundle includes the battle pack and vehicle pack right? In US dollars I think it's an extra $15 to get the whole works over just Market Garden. Best of luck whatever you choose and good hunting commander.

I do this too from time to time. There are things I prefer in CMx1. Not enough to elevate those games over CMx2, but enough to get me to fire them up from time to time. I like the concept of Operations (more than the execution) and have fun with those. I prefer the way the Hunt command works. I like the command delay mechanic I like the full-war scope of CMBB Little things like that. Keep on keepin' on

Agreed, and one of the series' biggest weaknesses. Until we have a campaign system that makes tomorrow important, it will continue along this trajectory. Operations in CMx1 were on the path to resolving this but were discarded for the narrative-centric, episodic system we have now. As to the OP question, I'd say not very close. Pacing is compressed due to the time constraints, and casualty percentages are too high in most battles. I find it interesting that there is a vein of thought here that CM players would make great trench warfare generals, throwing their pixeltruppen away to achieve victory. Casualties are inevitable in battle, but I'm sure I am not alone in making force preservation a paramount consideration in every battle, regardless of whether I need to worry about tomorrow.

Welcome. Good hunting, commander.

What a thread, not the first time the curtain's been pulled back, and thanks to Steve for engaging. Not much I've read here surprises me, and Combat Mission is what it is as a result of this mindset. There's good in that and bad in that. Each player/customer can judge what that is on his own criteria. I'll continue to vote with my wallet as all of us can, and should, do. Ultimately the buck stops with Battlefront, it's their skin in the game, and rightfully they should call the shots as they see it. Any other thing is just noise. I'll be critical of Combat Mission, but not of Battlefront. I could just make my own damn game if I don't like it. Well, no I can't, but you get the point.

For me it's a dead heat. I enjoy playing both sides, with all of their inherent strengths and weaknesses. If forced to choose I'd pick Germans as favorite, mostly down to their machine guns and top-tier armor, which I find more interesting (but not necessarily better) than the Russian tanks. Their advantages in optics, command and control and the aforementioned weaponry swings the vote. Command delay is not a thing in CMx2, which would swing it even more. In 1944, the two sides are pretty well-matched from an equipment point of view, even if it's dissimilar in some ways. Germans tend to feel like a sharper, more surgical, but more brittle option than the Russians do. So in Combat Mission it comes down to scenario design, and often the real-world advantages one side may have had are less evident in what we play in this game. It's tactical of course. If Combat Mission were operational or even strategical, then things would perhaps look different. For me, the word 'balance' has a negative connotation when it comes to war gaming. There's a sense that balance is a thing to strive for in scenario design, and while I get it, I think it serves to skew perspectives. Balance in (single player) historical wargaming should not be a priority in my view. It's OK to face difficult odds, or have no chance at all. The lack-of-balance should be a feature too, and if it was more woven in to scenario design I think I might have a different perspective on the subject of Russian vs German in Red Thunder.

My four favorite CMx2 campaigns are Blunting the Spear for CMRT, and Devil's Descent, Road to Montebourg and Kampfgruppe Engel for CMBN. Blunting the Spear is a big campaign. Normally I steer away from ones of this size, but I find this one compelling. It is not noob-friendly, quite challenging in fact. The campaign imparts a distinctly operational feel. Getting all of your assets brought to bear in a timely manner is key, and a nice test of the player's ability to manage his forces beyond the tactical. Great maps, gobs of long-range armor duels and a good challenge. Devil's Descent is much more friendly for a new player. Company sized makes it quite manageable and paras are fun to command in Combat Mission. Company sized forces are the sweet spot in CM for me. Large enough to allow some tactical leeway, while remaining very manageable and avoiding the cumbersome feel of larger campaigns. Top-notch campaign, from briefings, to map to missions. Play it. Road to Montebourg is one of the most ambitious campaigns in the series. Sixteen missions long I think. Overall it's moderately difficult, not noob friendly, but that shouldn't put anyone off. If I recall correctly, Paper Tiger (mission author) utilized branching difficulty, which if I understand correctly, means if you do poorly subsequent missions become easier. and if you do well, they become more challenging. I suppose this (if true) allows players of any ability to get through it, while maintaining the challenge for the best players. I'd prefer the opposite, finding myself at a disadvantage if doing poorly, and with an edge as a reward for good play. It's a must-play campaign in my view. Kampfgruppe Engel is likely the most innovative campaign I've played in Combat Mission, even if I did think the exit mechanic is overused. It is also difficult, as you'd expect when playing a German force in the Falaise pocket. A number of great missions, along with a couple I didn't care for. Great maps, some of the most fearsome armor in the German inventory, ammo and repair-state carry-over, and memorable missions. Core forces is what I like, and the carry-over effects mean results have longer-term repercussions than many Combat Mission campaigns. This sort of campaign imparts more of a sense of agency in campaign play, you come to know the names of your leaders, each loss more keenly felt. Two years ago I wrote a short thread @SimHQ with campaign reviews that includes a few more than I listed here if you're interested. I let it lapse when it was shown there was little interest, so only a few, but maybe you can take something from it. https://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/4490340/combat-mission-campaign-reviews#Post4490340

I like this concept and it' seems a 'poor man's' version of what I would like to see come to the series. An operational level campaign map. I often use Close Combat games, specifically CC5 (Normandy) as the reference. An operational map with battlegroups deployed, with the map divided up in to sectors. If anyone has played CC5 they'll know just what I mean. And exactly like that game, the Combat Mission version would allow the player to move those battlegroups from sector to sector during an operational turn phase. If the BG was moved in to a sector already occupied by the enemy, an attack or assault mission would play out, depending on factors such as how long the enemy had occupied the sector and perhaps other factors like ability to dig in or build fortifications (attached engineer/Pioneer, etc). If both sides move a unit in to the same sector during the operational turn phase, a meeting engagement would result. And if the enemy moves in to your occupied sector a defend battle results, again with considerations for how dug in the defenders are. Combat Mission is ideally suited for this type of operational level campaign. Persistent core battlegroups, logistics, the ability to outflank on an operational level, to cut lines of communication. A support pool of naval, air and artillery to be dispensed across the campaign map as available and needed. decisions made on where reinforcements go, where reserves are deployed. Attacks and withdrawals, salients and shortening of lines. Combat Mission is wonderful on the field of battle. An operational-level campaign system, even as simple as mirroring Close Combat 5 would bring the series to a new level. It's wishful thinking, and I know Battlefront have no plans to do anything like it. But for years this has been my vision of what Combat Mission could be. To take the wonderful tactical battles and tie them together in an engrossing campaign. All of the tools needed to pull this off do not exist obviously, it would need to be built from the ground up, and I have no illusions about the complexity of such an endeavor. For me though this is the sort of vision needed to move Combat Mission forward, and give campaign players something amazing, where the battle is no longer the sole focus of the commander, and one where each result has an effect on the campaign as a whole. Perhaps I am not seeing Benpark's vision in the same way as he does, but this does seem to point in this direction. His idea is one of practical considerations that can be done now, with the tools at hand. But with a little ambition and new thinking, Combat Mission could be transformed from a series of semi- or disconnected single battles in to one where the player commands an entire front, with all of the decisions and weight of responsibility it carries. One can dream, anyway

I think it's great that you still find it so rewarding, and I like your post. I wish I could say the same. I also got in at the start, with the CMBO demo. Combat Mission remains my favorite tactical simulation on PC. I cannot praise enough the spotting, ballistics and Command and Control. WEGO remains brilliant all these years later. But I feel apathetic about it all. The game has failed to evolve, and in my view everything outside the actual tactical battlefield is out of date. Haven't fired it up in a year, and haven't made a purchase, aside from engine upgrades, since SF2. I wish I felt like you do about it all, but the enthusiasm is mostly gone. I'm sure I'll play again, but if there's no major evolution in the series, especially in regards to things like the campaign system, content generation, UI, and yes, even graphics, then I can't see it ever reclaiming it's rightful place in my gaming rotation. No big drama, these things happen, and my opinion is not that of the next man. I'm happy folks still get so much enjoyment out of the series. I check the forum regularly, enjoy the discussion. But Combat Mission, for me, has fallen behind the times and the development roadmap isn't going in my direction. I guess our paths are diverging, to put it one way. Maybe I should follow your lead and lift a few and see if that changes anything

Yeah, that potato isn't going to be very fresh a year after failing to take the objectives in time

Are you certain of this? Thanks anyway.

Blunting the Spear is one of the best campaigns in Combat Mission, any title, as far as I am concerned. but it's massive and definitely not noob friendly. For me one of the best campaigns for new players is Task Force Raff in CMBN. It's an excellent primer scenario that gives the player a taste of bocage without feeling restricted, plus attack and defend missions on very nice maps. Time limits are generous, allowing plenty of time to scout, recon and maneuver without feeling rushed. Reinforcements are also generous, and you get a real feel for combined arms and using off board artillery. The lavish tank strength eventually on hand allows for some setbacks without losing momentum, making it an ideal scenario for new players (and vets too!).

Like finding a twenty in your pocket. Or early Christmas. BFC super deal sounds great.

Well, only one way to find out!

QMB Command /Set Combined Arms

You must feel so vindicated as Battlefront lights it up on the leading edge of the computer gaming industry. Well done mate.

Not only that, but the thing was nice to have around. The tank was used to clear snow from the town's streets, or so I've been told. So no reason to rat him out when it was such an asset to the townsfolk

For me it's CMBN. Partly it's due to the number and quality of the campaigns available, and partly due to the airborne side of things. Allied para operations in advance of the landings (and after it too) are endlessly fascinating for me. As a campaign player who does little else, CMBN stands out. SF2 has a lot too, but the gameplay is not nearly so compelling. So CMBN gets the nod from me. The paras, the terrain, the historical significance of the operations and battles depicted, and the force/weapon balance of that brief time period all add up to make Normandy the title I have the most fun with.

Playing battles I designed, knowing everything about it, is a nonstarter. Sure the ability is there, but I have no real desire to play scenarios I designed myself. I won't even pick the enemy forces in a QB.

That sounds fine in theory. But in practical terms I have to disagree. And the reason is that scenario and campaign designers tend to use parts of any and all modules. For example they may use just a few pieces of one. And then in order to play that scenario or campaign you must have the module. Even if it's not designed around British army forces, it may still use units, or map elements or anything really. And with how precious campaigns are in the Combat Mission world, not having these modules restricts our choices more than they already are. Just imagine a CMBN player who opted not to get the vehicle pack So while technically your point is true, I think for most players that not having the whole works is too limiting when searching for new content to play. And I concur with the point above about a base game with plug-in modules. I hope this is Combat Mission's future, a point I've made here myself before too.

If I take the years 2001 through 2021 in to account, and average all the sales data over that period, including but not limited to flash sales, community events, door prizes, bundles and giveaways, the best prediction based on the data is the next sale will be in never.

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,

Sounds like a Battlefront issue lol. Fictional armor? How'd that make it in the game? I guess you mean not present at the time and place being depicted? Anachronistic? Plagiarized proximity? What specifically are you referring to? I played through it a couple times and didn't notice anything out of ordinary. Actually there wasn't much armor at all. I remember StuGs and halftracks, kubelwagenen and maybe some heavier stuff in the final missions. Been a while.

If you liked Devil's Descent, I'd recommend The Outlaws https://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/4490522/re-combat-mission-campaign-compendium#Post4490522 Similar in scope to Devil's Descent. American paras, with some help from the straightlegs near the end.