landser

I thought I remembered seeing a comment showing that BFC did indeed intend to eventually release the early war, but working backwards after F & R, so '43, then '42, then '41. At the current rate though of one every six years, that's 18 years down the road Of course I may mis-remember and things may have changed too. Seriously though, I would also jump on a Barbarossa module. Not too interested in F & R to be honest. But 1941-1942 especially has great appeal for me. Red Thunder is a good module and I recommend it, and especially the excellent Blunting the Spear campaign. Relatively speaking there is not much campaign content for RT, but enough to justify the purchase. I absolutely loved CMBB when it came out, with the command delays, Operations and getting overrun by Russian submachine squads in the dense evergreen forests. Over the past year or so I revisited CMBB and played through many of these scenarios and campaigns/operations which made me long for it to be covered in a newer engine and at the same time showing me how much better Combat Mission is now compared to then, with so many features and QoL improvements that become starkly evident when you play the CMx1 games today.

I agree, and you hit on a couple of the things I had in mind when I said I can think of a number of ways to overcome this in my previous post, but declined to spell out. This sort of direction, and addressing what I see as the shortcomings in the player experience, are what I hope to see in the future from Combat Mission. With the limited number of campaigns especially, features designed to increase replayability would be very welcome, from my point of view. Frankly, I think a think-on-its-feet AI is vital, so that even if everything else were the same, the way the AI prosecutes the battle would change. Tactical withdrawal, exploiting breakthroughs, closing gaps and that sort of thing, where the AI is capable of reacting to the battle as it unfolds, would go a long way toward achieving this as I see it. But I'm straying in to what it could be territory, not what it is.

Replayability is one of Combat Mission's core weaknesses in my view. Battles are compelling when I do not know what I face, but once I do the game loses a big part of it's appeal. AI plans address this issue in a way, but it is position, not composition. Having the AT gun moved to a different spot does fundamentally alter the scenario, but how many AT guns I face does not change. Once I have played a scenario I know what I face, have a general idea of enemy positions (AI plan alterations notwithstanding), reinforcement location and timing, off-board assets, key terrain, avenues of approach, covered ground and best vantage points. There is little built in to Combat Mission to offer a new or different experience once the scenario has been run-through. And as mentioned above, there is no guarantee the player will actually get a different AI plan, even in those scenarios where the designer took the time to make them. So I very rarely play something twice. And frankly all I play are campaigns, aside from a QMB or three when I first buy a new CM title. Single scenarios are not my bag really, but I like campaigns, and there are a few that I really like that I've played more than once. Devil's Descent and Blunting the Spear are two that come to mind. Quality offerings that I liked enough to give another go, but if I'm honest the subsequent runs had lost some of their luster, as it's difficult for me to forget the details. Forgetting the details then becomes key to replyability for me. But it takes many years it seems for the memory to recede enough to make the scenario feel novel to any degree. But like most CM players I imagine, we have good memories borne from analytical minds. Blunting the Spear for example I played six years apart. I remembered all the maps, but there were details of the battles I had forgotten, enough that the second run felt unfamiliar enough to carry me through. Without this though, I don't have proper motivation to replay it, as Combat Mission then becomes more like painting by numbers and less free-hand artistry, if you'll indulge this analogy. I need to be surprised, and not simply apply experience to what I know is coming. A good example is the opening phase to the first battle in Blunting the Spear. The big map is divided left-to-right by a river. On the near side of this river on the right-hand side is a small village. There is no enemy deployed here. But since I couldn't know this, I cleared it house by house, deploying smoke screens, bounding overwatch, covering and speculative fire, fire by recon -- all the things I feel I need to do when approaching terrain that could hold the enemy. In the end, it was all expended to no purpose, aside from the knowledge gained that the enemy is somewhere else. This took many turns, expended a lot of smoke and ammunition, but it followed the maxim to plan based on the capabilities of your enemy not their intentions. Since the enemy could have been there, I needed to approach it as if they were. If I were to replay that mission I would just ignore this part of the map entirely. Perhaps an alternate AI plan would catch me out by doing so, but then again perhaps not. In the end I would make faster progress to where the enemy actually is, risk fewer units crossing open terrain and have more smoke rounds as a result. For me this is part of the reason why replaying scenarios loses the compelling aspect of unknown tactical problems. There are a number of ways I feel this could be overcome in the series, but that's better left for a different discussion, or, offering my thoughts on what Combat Mission is, not what it could be. Hmm, why doesn't the italics thing work? Nevermind, I worked it out

I rarely use mods, and hadn't really thought about why, but this thread made me think about it. The point above about playing from on high applies to me, and that's certainly part of it. For example uniform textures... I really couldn't care less. I never even notice. If the Russians were wearing Japanese uniforms I'd be fine with that. I also find searching the mod sites a bit of a chore. Not to disparage the fine and valuable service to the community these sites provide, but actually finding the thing I want is not always easy. The only mods I search out for every title are UI mods and sometimes sound mods. If mod packs were more comprehensive I might just do. But I have no desire to download + install, farm buildings, then roads, then trees, dead cows, individual vehicles, sky boxes, uniforms, machine gun animations and so on. Then I factor in the fact that I have installed say CMBN on three or four different machines through the years and I just can't be bothered to re-mod my installs, since it doesn't really matter to me in the first place. I don't play Combat Mission for the graphics of course

IIRC, that was a fellow called tankerace.

Wow, this is some thread. The tribalism is strong. I've been playing Combat Mission for 20 years and I probably would NOT recommend it except for very specific players. I praise WEGO, the tactical battlefield, and particularly the spotting, C2 and ballistics. But for me virtually everything else is out of date or substandard, including but not limited to the transaction process (Steam takes care of this), the upgrade method (also good now with Steam I suppose), AI, campaign system, editor, UI, QMB, graphics, and more. How do I get Steam keys?

+1, and it's a point I have made too But for me, the thing I most want out of Combat Mission is a new campaign system. Not necessary to go through in detail, but for me a new system and way to generate this content is what I would most like to see.

MP, I guess? Balanceism CMx1 allowed setting the points didn't it? QB was more fun in CMx1 for me. There's a lot to like about Cmx2, but QB isn't at the top of that list in my view. Three things come to mind One, there is no longer a Combined Arms selection. This setting in CMx1 seemed to do a good job of getting the AI to pick reasonable force composition. If I let the AI pick in CMx2 it's usually a mess. And if I pick them I already know what they are. Two, no custom points, as above, arbitrarily restricting the scenarios that can be created using the QB Three, no procedural maps. I know there is pushback on this point. And the hand-made maps included in CMx2 are usually top-drawer. But there is also something to be said for randomness and the lack of balance in a given scenario. I wish both options were possible in the current engine.

Good stuff Simon, thanks for the detailed post. Maybe I'll pick it up on the next sale.

This is a game I've been on the fence with. I hear things like omniscient enemy artillery and that sort of thing and it makes me think I'd see the good in the game, and the frustration over what could have been, in equal measure. Your last post Simon did more to make me want to buy it than all of the videos I've watched and reviews I've read. More of this please. In wargames, I really enjoy disparate or or assymetrical scenarios with a wide variety of possible compositions and courses of action, like what you describe here. And to have it all mean something in the larger, maybe operational sense is even better. Like delaying with ad-hoc forces while awaiting the arrival of 5th Panzer. Gives the game a more organic feel and replayability too. I'm one of those who feel balance is a consideration for multiplayer, but has no place really in single-player wargaming. It's really only possible to make this compelling gameplay if each tactical problem is part of larger operational one. Just the fact that it seems you have so much leeway to approach the problems you're being given, and again in the operational sense, seems very appealing. I hope you post more about this. What would you say are the most frustrating aspects of the game?

So I am playing real time PBEM?

Wut? Real time with fixed pauses sounds like turns to me. Is this a commonly held viewpoint here? I mean, if it's paused, and you can view unlimited replays how is it real time? And not everyone plays WEGO

I've played all TW titles aside from the first Medieval and first Shogun, and Rome 2 and the new Chinese one. Of the rest, Napoleon was my favorite. I feel like gunpowder is a sweetspot, much more tactical than melee. Shogun 2 was interesting because it was a mix of gunpowder and steel. I really liked Attila too. Great campaign. But ya know what, despite my affinity for history, and despite my bias, I ended up trying Warhammer. Fantasy TW didn't interest me. Even back in the Med 2 days with the Middle Earth mod, I ignored it despite it's popularity (Stanless Steel mod was the one I played). But now I rate Warhammer 2 as the best TW title. Some dismiss it because it is not historical, but I'm glad I stopped doing that. The 'factionality' as I like to call it is amazing. Each faction is so unique, and that means everything. Tech trees, mechanics, units, special abilities. Replayability is sky high on WH2, and especially combined with WH1 in to one, huge, epic campaign. Back on topic, Feyr, which Combat Mission title are you looking at here? You asked about turn based and I said it's WEGO, which, if you're not familiar, means both sides execute their turns simultaneously. Orders are issued, and there is a 60-second stage where each side carries them out. It then stops for the next round of orders. After 20 years it's still a brilliant system.

And I believe I mentioned this as well a little further up

You can choose either style. the turn-based is called WEGO and is brilliant for me. You can opt to play real-time as well.

Which title are you considering? I won't get in to the growth question, but all scenarios are free, and how many really depends on which title you get. If bang for the buck is paramount, I'd recommend Battle for Normandy. The big bundle is US $110 so maybe that's the one you are looking at? Lots of content, and especially campaigns, relatively speaking. For modern, the bang for buck best bet is Shock Force 2 in my opinion. Not sure how I could convince you if it would be worth it to you, but try the demo. If you like it, then I reckon you'll get plenty of value out of the game, and even the series. For most players, Combat Mission is peanuts per hour in the end. If you do not like it, it's an expensive mistake. So try the demo. It's a nice scenario. Edit: Link to demo CMBN Demo

Mortal Empires is great, and better all the time! I doubt the idea being floated here would see the light of day, and I wouldn't buy it anyway. But it's an interesting discussion.

For certain. I recall back in the day playing Electronic Arts' NHL '93 on Sega. I loved that game (and NHL '94 even more). The main issue I had with NHL '93 was the fact that it did not have any sort of season mode. It was single games only. But I really wanted to play a season, and have stats leaders, standings and playoffs, and a Stanley Cup champion. So I simulated it. Using the actual season schedule and copies of The Hockey News I simulated each and every game that the team I was playing, the Flyers, were not involved in. And then played out each of the Flyers games. I had notebooks where I would track stats and standings, all by hand. It was a massive project, and took a hell of a lot of time. But that was a long time ago, back when I had the enthusiasm for such endeavors. I've changed, and the gaming industry has too. Season mode is a staple in games now. Hell, in most you can play endless careers, season after season, while the software tracks the damn stats for me. There's zero chance I would attempt a similar thing now. It's the same with Combat Mission. I desperately want a new campaign system that introduces the chaos we talked about, that provides compelling replayability. While I admire the attempts creative players make to fill the gaps they find --like folks who use other games to simulate the operational side, and then play the battles out in CM -- this isn't the way forward for me. We will see if Grand Tactician offers up this sort of thing, or in the end, it's a static rock-paper-scissors game dressed up in Civil War period costumes. And in case anyone wonders, The Penguins won the Stanley Cup and Dougie Gilmour won the scoring title

Exactly. It's the chaos, as you put it, that makes the games worth coming back to. With many games, once you have 'worked it out', the challenge is mostly gone. You've worked out the correct way to play to achieve the best outcome. But with games like EU IV, Crusader Kings and the like, there's no perfect path, and that is in large part due to what happens with everything you don't control. So it remains compelling because you always need to be able to read the tea leaves, reacting to and trying to predict what happens. For example in this Grand Tactician game, if the enemy is always deploying in the same places, with the same forces, sooner or later you'll work out a strategy to defeat it. But if you first find a position heavily defended, and the next time completely unoccupied, then the game takes on an element of unpredictability (chaos? which can be defined as behavior so unpredictable as to appear random, owing to great sensitivity to small changes in conditions). This is the thing that gives it nearly unlimited replayability. I wouldn't have mentioned my ridiculous time investment in EU IV other than to show that the randomness of it, as opposed to a much more strict adherence to history, leads to it becoming a game you return to again and again, instead of 'beating it' and moving on, since you would just beat it the same way the next time. And that's not engaging long term. Frankly, I'd love for Combat Mission to have some of this.

I used the word outdated, but that's not what I mean to say. Dated is. Outdated connotes that it no longer is relevant or has a purpose or place, which is not what I think.

This is the same dev as Seven Years War, which came out a few years back. I never did pull the trigger on it because I was never convinced it was finished, and maybe by the time it was my attention was elsewhere. It had a lot of good ideas though. I feel much more convinced about this Civil War game. A sandbox approach is highly appealing. In my view these sorts of games are often too tightly tied to history, which is understandable. I prefer more of a what-if generator. I know what happened historically and don't need to recreate it. I'd rather it be left to me to say "well, what if Grant deployed here instead?", ya know? It's one of the things that appeals about Europa Universalis IV, a game which I have put in nearly 2600 hours over the past 7 years. The game begins in a historical stance, but what plays out from there is far from historical. No two runs ever play quite the same, and the player is left to forge his own path. Beyond that, the machinations of the various nations combine to always create something interesting, compelling and unpredictable. Of course a Civil War game is two factions only, so the scope of divergent history is limited. But if we have the ability to proceed without being tethered to historical realities and recreation, I think this game has the potential to be really good, and I've had my eye on it. The fact that the dev has Seven Years War under his belt bodes well, and I have high hopes.

Blemishes aren't a thing I concern myself with. Matter of fact, the drilled-down level of detail of the series isn't important to me. Things like uniforms and accurate OoBs are cool and all, but I would hardly notice if it weren't so meticulous. That's for other players and for them I am happy they get it from Combat Mission. As to the question of datedness, I'll go against the grain a bit. On the battlefield, Combat Mission for me is excellent. The finest tactical wargame. Ballistics, command and control, spotting and the WEGO system are yet to be surpassed in my view. This game is a fantastic simulator on the field of battle. Outside of this I have to say that it is dated. The menus, the installation process, the purchasing transaction, how content is created, battlefield feedback, graphics, animations, debrief information, campaign system and lack of a proper AI all seem outdated to me. I still enjoy it, because the combat is so compelling and fun. But for me, outside of this Combat Mission is in need of an overhaul. And the forum. This is great forum software :)

Well done and congrats on finishing that one. It's a beast of a campaign. One of the best I've played though. Yes, smoke is vital, and I use it liberally. Artillery ammunition is fully replenished after each mission in this campaign if I recall, so no compelling reason to conserve it for later use. Are you saying the 120mm mortar got a penetration kill on a T-34? I didn't know that was possible.

Yes it is, but I don't want to approach it like "I better get all my tubes emptied as soon as possible in case my spotter dies". If he does, he does. But I wouldn't use that as part of my planning or as a guiding principle for conducting fire missions (its rare anyway). Long-duration fire missions are desirable for their suppression effects as well as keeping some rounds 'in the locker' for later use on targets of opportunity. Destroying the enemy with artillery is great and all, but it's a bit of a crap-shoot most of the time. More reliable is the fact that raining shells keep heads down and cause the enemy to sometimes expose themselves as they shift positions due to the effect of the falling shells around them. This is a good thing and I want to extend this capability as long as possible, particularly when the fire is speculative. If you are targeting a single target, or trenchline or what have you, then longer, lighter fire missions aren't the solution. But for most of my arty missions it's more a case of using this fire to suppress any enemy that may be there. In the case of direct-fire mortar missions, light and long is essentially a requirement, due to the rate of fire. That, or target briefly and shift it next turn. I've never been satisfied with the options here in CM. Would love to be able to pre-select multiple targets and have the crew shift fire mid-turn. Or just simply an 'area fire' option for direct fire mortars with a draggable targeting circle like in indirect fire missions would be great.

+1 This allows you to keep the shells raining down if that becomes necessary. It's the most flexible approach and I do the same.