moeburn

You'd think if there were some changes significant enough to be called "major", they would be significant enough for you to remember off the top of your head. But in my experience, whenever someone vigorously argues with you for a while and then finally at the end says "I'm not gonna waste my time answering that, I won't do your work for you", it's usually because they've realised they don't have an argumentative leg to stand on. I do - I love pouring through features lists for every release, eager to see what they've come up with. But because I was honestly curious to know if I had missed anything, I did it again, just like you asked. Most of the feature lists are repeating what every other game has, because they aren't changelogs, they are meant to advertise the game to new customers. Parts of it are listing off new weapons and units. Many of them are listing features that were in CMx1 and have finally been made available to CMx2. And then you get the odd minor change, like waypoint dragging or hotkey groups. And geez, gimme at least a couple minutes before you reply, I have a tendency to immediately re-read what I just posted and edit it

Um, maybe it's just be, but I think that's a pretty hyperbolic exaggeration of what I said. I think I've remained calm, polite and productive throughout this entire thread, aside from one time I said "not a damn thing is going to change", and while that might be an unfair and frustrated vent, it's a far cry from the kind of bannable whining you're talking about. Well I can't speak to whatever their attitude was to get them banned, but if the complaints are similar to mine, maybe that should suggest something?

Sure it is! Here: What kind of major changes have you seen, other than new units and new weapons in new theatres of war? Maybe I missed some, or I'm not thinking clearly. I think the most significant change I can think of was shader and bump mapping support, and I personally wouldn't qualify that as a major change. We've gotten water, bridges, on-map artillery and anti-aircraft support, but that's just bringing us to the level we had in CMx1. What else is there?

Oh come on now, I almost thought I was going to get a productive discussion with you. That kind of immature tone is uncalled for. Well that is just a level of paranoia that I am not sure how to respond to. Anyone else here feel okay with this guy speaking for them? Anyone else suspect that even though I made this account 5 years ago, I for some reason made another account, got banned on it, and then came back to this original one? You say that, and yet, my comments seem to have struck a nerve with you. I mean I guess it is to be expected, you get the same thing anywhere else - criticize a niche product with a small, tight-knit community as an outsider, and some people are going to get pissed. But how else do you expect this game to get even better? Does Battlefront have a feedback button or take surveys? Did I miss one?

And yet, there is plenty of evidence to show that it happens. My point is that the fact that a company hasn't disappeared after 10 years isn't necessarily an indicator of a healthy business strategy.

Another example are all the companies that get away with selling preorders to broken games that they rushed out the door before they were finished. It's a sound "business strategy", because it makes them money - if it wasn't, they would have stopped doing it 20 years ago - but it doesn't mean it is one that anyone would knowingly support.

I wasn't aware that taking the old engine and putting it in new theatres and scenarios was "absolutely necessary to make money and survive". And you're saying that improving the UI and adding more features generates zero additional income? You wouldn't believe the number of people to whom I've shown this game who say they want to enjoy it, but can't get past the UI. It is venting, and I made every indication that that is what I was doing. It isn't "blatantly and ridiculously wrong" though - Normandy, Afghanistan and Black Sea and the like all amount to expansion packs for Shock Force. The game hasn't changed, aside from minor bug fixes and tweaks, just the scenario it's in. I understand it is a business first and foremost. But, like a friend of mine said when I showed him this game, "I can't support this business model". Actually for the most part, most of the reactions I am getting have been quite positive and supportive, and I feel we've been having a really productive discussion here, don't you? I think one person was highly offended by my criticisms.

Weren't being able to shoot at planes and on-map mortars available in the very first CMx1 games?

Oh come on now, there's no need for hyperbole. I hardly think anything I've said so far could qualify as a "hissy fit", but I did offer some constructive criticisms and shared my pessimistic feelings about them getting implemented, and I understand some people don't like to hear that sort of thing, so I'm sorry you had to read it. If more people would prefer new scenarios and units over feature and UI changes, then I guess mine is the unpopular opinion. But if nobody voices their opinion on what they'd like to see, then Battlefront will just have to make their best guess as to what would sell well, and it might not be what any of us would want to get out of this game we all love so much.

Well if they're so limited in resources that they don't have the time to code a follow command, where did they find the time and money to develop all the new 3D models, research the realistic characteristics, design new missions and campaigns, and develop a storyline for Black Sea? I understand that this is a small company and there's only so much they can do, I just find the choice of what they choose to do with their limited resources questionable, from what I can see here as a consumer. But then of course, I'm not seeing things from their perspective, I don't know how things really work on the inside, and I know it's way more complicated than my brief paragraph forum posts can imply. Maybe they had to quickly whip up something like Black Sea to keep the company afloat, I don't know. I'm just not feeling the labour of love in this series anymore. But you're right, despite it's shortcomings it is still the best thing out there in this genre, and I do still love it, I have a great time playing it, and I will continue to play it. But unless I see some changes, I don't think I'm going to pay for any new releases in this series any more. Maybe that's what it would take to see some improvements to Combat Mission - a competitor. If people keep buying rehashed versions of the same old engine in new scenarios, they're going to keep churning them out until people stop buying them.

Why is that? I mean it's true. I love this game to death but it's been 8 years since the last major update. Everything after Shock Force has amounted to what other companies would sell as expansion packs. I honestly cannot think of a single major change to Combat Mission that has been made since Shock Force.

So can any Combat Mission devs chime in as to why the heck this, or any kind of situational awareness aid hasn't been implemented yet?

The fact that this roster concept was brought up and heavily discussed over 3 years ago only solidifies my fear that not a damn thing in the Combat Mission series is ever going to change.

Yeah that is the best solution I've come up with, is hanging the camera in a position that keeps all my units in view. Of course there are instances when you really need to zoom in on something to target or navigate it properly.

Absolutely, I welcome those moments, when they are a result of my poor tactics and planning. When that happens, it makes the game feel more intense, more realistic, and I keep playing. Not when they are a result of a cumbersome UI. If I didn't even get a chance to see it happen, then it doesn't feel like I lost that unit because of my poor skills, it feels like I lost them because of a crappy interface, and that frustrates me and I end up reloading the last save game.

Yes! Even something just as simple as that.

That is absolutely me, and that's partly what I love about this game - the scenario editor lets you create your own personal war movie stories. But I just find it so baffling that I can have a floating camera to see all my unit's icons in mid air, and if any of them encounter any trouble, they start flashing, but they don't even make a beeping noise if they're off screen, or a text console to show me messages, or a minimap, or anything like that to make the game even more enjoyable. I like to lose because I was outwitted, because I didn't solve the puzzle, because my tactics weren't smart enough. I don't like to lose because of a cumbersome UI.

Well the company commander is quite capable of keeping his floating camera high up in the air looking down on the battlefield to see if any of his unit's icons start flashing, you'd think he'd have the resources to have a second monitor with that view permanently up, or a beeping noise in addition to the flashing when they're off screen, or a text console or something.

Yeah, I like WeGo's ability to go back and review what happened for each unit, but I don't like that I have to watch my guys die for a whole minute, so I play RT. I've figured out how to make it work - using high elevation camera angles to see the units flashing, pausing more, but this is really a simple feature that I feel should be added.

From an old thread a long time ago, asking about the quality of the graphics engine, one of the creators started to chime in. IIRC, he said something along the lines of "Shock Force was always designed to have Real Time, to appeal to more players, but we needed to keep WeGo to please the old players, so because of coding limitations and the way the realtime engine works, the game was built around realtime and configured to run wego as an option" - I think I was asking why the framerate didn't improve dramatically if the game pre-calculated everything before each turn in WeGo, and he said it's because WeGo is using the real time engine, so all the bullet and projectile flight paths are still being calculated in real time, just the AI movement decisions are precalculated.

Well yeah, but Shock Force and onwards were designed around Realtime, and without a realtime way of alerting you to various things happening across the map, it feels like an incomplete implementation of realtime.

Unlike a lot of real time strategy games I've played, Combat Mission seems to not like to alert you when your units are under fire. All you get is the floating icon above their heads starts flashing, but that's only if they're even on screen. I've found that if I'm zoomed in on some other unit, or my back is turned so that I can't see some of my friendly units, I'll turn the camera around and find that they all somehow died and I have no idea how. Especially when one of your units is already in a gunfight so the sound of gunfire gets washed out by the other sounds of gunfire. It would be nice to see some way of alerting you that one of your units is under attack. Maybe some voice acting, so they come on the radio and yell "taking fire!"? Or maybe a little flashing red arrow comes up on the screen to point in the direction you should turn your camera. Or maybe a small minimap so that you can see all your floating icons at once? Or maybe a text console at the top of the screen, so that even if your unit is off-screen, you can see something like "1h23m - M2A3 #4 - Laser Warning", and maybe even scroll back in history to see previous messages? Right now there's just no way for me to safely manage multiple units at once, so I end up doing everything one unit at a time, and it's very inefficient. Considering how little Combat Mission has changed over the years, I am feeling a little pessimistic about this series...

Maybe the mission designer also wasn't aware that they couldn't fire from a flatbed? It just seems random to give them the flatbed and not give it to any of the other humvee-mounted units in this mission.

I'm just wondering why they, and nobody else, got a flatbed version of the humvee in that mission, if it makes no difference whatsoever. I'm no military expert, but it seems plausible to me that, as long as the humvee isn't moving, they should be able to fire a stinger from the flatbed area.

Thanks for the reply! So why are they in a flatbed humvee if they have to dismount to fire a stinger?