Pericles

Agreed. The consensus is that there is no noticeable difference in core gameplay or unit behaviors. Differences b/w CMSF and CMBS are marginal, incremental, etc. There are new theatres of war and unit types/capabilities, as MikeyD pointed out.

I think MikeyD has a Point.

I wrote in response to this: "I did not call BF dishonest, I implied that their list of "far, far more extensive!" features in CMBS vs. CMSF had elements that were more marketing gimmicks than actual improvements in the engine (e.g. "conduct combat operations in lush rural landscapes, dense urban settings, or anywhere in between")." You then quoted me from earlier: "Changes from version to version are necessarily incremental, I get that. However, some of the rhetoric used by Battlefront in their advertisements/instructions (as I noted above) can give the impression to those who have not played or watched youtube videos of CMSF and CMBS that the differences between the two are of a fundamental character (for example, see kraze's opinion on the matter above). The differences between CMSF (2007) and CMBS (2014) are indeed marginal. I am happy with the new context and factions and the added interface and AI features. But the differences are marginal and rhetoric implying otherwise is dishonest." So let me clarify: I am saying that the rhetorical elements used by BF in their advertisements/instructions are dishonest ("rhetoric implying otherwise is dishonest"). I am not saying, nor have ever said, that BF is dishonest as a company. But they are not perfect, and they are using marketing tactics (i.e. being dishonest) when they write hype like that. In any case, I may give the demo a spin shortly and see if I notice any difference.

Please provide some examples of major changes in tactical AI. Although I have not purchased and played CMSF myself, I have watched many videos of gameplay, which provides ample information on how the game plays. I did not call BF dishonest, I implied that their list of "far, far more extensive!" features in CMBS vs. CMSF had elements that were more marketing gimmicks than actual improvements in the engine (e.g. "conduct combat operations in lush rural landscapes, dense urban settings, or anywhere in between"). Those legitimate improvements that are listed by BF are rightly characterized as "marginal" or some related synonym. sburke wrote: "If you are going to make characterizations like that you at least owe it to them to find out if in fact they are correct and not just assume from some light reading. A youtube video is not going to give you a feel for improvements in TAC AI." So unless I buy the game, I can never form an opinion of what it will be like relative to CMBS. Wrong. The AI improvements can be gleaned from gameplay videos. They could also be gleaned from anyone here on the forum who is willing to deliberate honestly and provide some solid examples of improvements to AI. The only example that has been listed yet in this thread is the inclusion of "triggers", which apparently increase the situational flexibility of AI. What other examples can you give?

kraze, you mentioned that the tactical AI has "improved greatly". You give the example of triggers in v.3, which cause the AI to be more situationally flexible than v.0/v.1. Can others confirm that AI is more flexible in v.3 vs. v.0/v.1? kraze, can you give other examples of how the tactical AI has improved? Is close quarters infantry combat somehow improved in CMBS? From what I have seen of CMSF on youtube, combat dynamics are the exact same as CMBS.

I thought micromanagement was one of the main strengths of CM. In fact, I'm sure of it.

The answer to your question, after almost a decade of new theatres of war, associated skins and techno-features, and incremental interface and AI improvements, is: A new engine. Until the new engine, I will give Battlefront my money for the current engine and versions, and incremental improvements contained therein.

I'm quoting my initial post. This thread has confirmed that the differences b/w CMSF and CMBS are marginal. That is all I wished to sort out. I agree with you Muzzleflash1990, fundamentally the game is sound. Major changes in my mind would involve new animations (e.g. better animations of infantry movement), an addition to the interface that made the player aware that units were under fire (at present, you are only made aware of contact if your units see/hear the enemy or are injured/killed by the enemy, not when a bullet whizzes by... to be made aware of that, you have to follow your troops' movement at ground level which can become cumbersome for multiple platoons (something Tim Stone over at rockpapershotgun once noted)), graphical improvements (although this would probably require a new engine, so feel free to leave it out). That's all I can think of right now. I agree with Euri's point that choosing formations and determining stances would be "major", but disagree with the hunting example (the ability to influence the direction of hunting is already possible with hunt tracks and cover arcs IMO). But keep in mind that I was never arguing that the changes should be major, I was merely attempting to clarify what more seasoned veterans of the CM franchise (like IanL) already know. Changes from version to version are necessarily incremental, I get that. However, some of the rhetoric used by Battlefront in their advertisements/instructions (as I noted above) can give the impression to those who have not played or watched youtube videos of CMSF and CMBS that the differences between the two are of a fundamental character (for example, see kraze's opinion on the matter above). The differences between CMSF (2007) and CMBS (2014) are indeed marginal. I am happy with the new context and factions and the added interface and AI features. But the differences are marginal and rhetoric implying otherwise is dishonest. That being said, my next purchase will probably be CMSF, although if Erwin is correct and Battlefront will eventually upgrade CMSF to v.3, maybe I'll hold off and go for some WWII action instead. Then again, since the differences don't amount to much, maybe I'll just buy CMSF as is.

So I've had a look at the manual, and I must say that characterizing the difference between CMSF and CMBS as "absolutely major" is objectively wrong. The CMBS manual first lists improvements over CMRT (starting on page 10). These improvements are nothing more than new units that are pertinent to modern battlefields (UAVs, precision artillery, active protection systems, etc.). These features of CMBS are great and central to the CMBS product, but these do constitute fundamental changes in how the game plays, feels, and looks. Perhaps that would require a new engine. But my point that the differences b/w CMSF (v.0 or v.1) and CMBS (v.3) are negligible still stands. Now, moving on to that part of the manual that lists the differences b/w CMSF and CMBS (starting on page 14), I see no evidence of absolutely major changes. The authors of the document note in a prelude to the list that the new features are "far, far more extensive!". But here are some examples, starting from the top: incremental improvements to multiplayer, incremental improvements to quick battle set-up, improvements to user interfaces (a few new hotkeys, "ammunition is now listed by name and in discrete quantities instead of with icons and depleting bars"), new floating icons, command lines, new AI targeting behaviors (single shot instead of burst at distant targets), new AI spotting behaviors (less effective vehicle spotting when buttoned), "conduct combat operations in lush rural landscapes, dense urban settings, or anywhere in between", ... I'll stop there. While I hail the Combat Mission series, this list appears to my eyes to be composed of marginal improvements to interfaces and AI, with some rhetoric and punctuation sprinkled in for the effect of marketing. So my informed conclusion is that CMBS is CMSF with additional units, additional unit features, and incremental interface and AI improvements. It is irrational to describe the differences b/w CMBS and CMSF (or CMA for that matter) as "absolutely major".

Thanks for the letting me know that the changes are listed in the CMBS manual. I shall take a look. However, upon an initial review of the changes listed in the manual (particularly those since CMSF, starting on page 14, I feel that describing the differences as "absolutely major" might be going too far. Anyway, I'll read more so that my opinion is more informed.

So the consensus so far seems to be that there are few perceptible differences between version 0 (CMA and CMSF) and version 3 (CMBS).

Can anyone give a solid answer as to the differences between the first version of the CMx2 engine ("v.0") that was used for CMSF and CMA (not upgradeable, apparently) and the newest version (v.3) that is used for CMBS (and WWII titles CMFB, CMRT, and CMFI (and probably soon CMBN))? I own and play CMBS. I have been watching gameplay videos of CMSF and CMA - also set in modernish settings with similar equipment - and am struggling to notice the difference. The model skins are different (with some necessary exceptions). But in terms of animations (e.g. infantry unit movement (running, hunting, jumping in/out of vehicles), vehicle movement (tank track flexibility, which is great either way, I wouldn't have them change it), explosion and ballistic animations), there is no noticeable difference to my eye. My guess is that the main differences have to due with AI (e.g. infantry don't throw grenades as easily maybe).

The replay value of this game would be so much higher if there was an option to watch the entirety of a battle once it is over (instead of just once after every turn). i.e. you could save the complete movie file once the mission was over. Has this idea been floated here before? Why was this option not included in the first place? (Part of the appeal of Combat Mission is dynamic camera and film-type interface (play, pause, resume, rewind, etc.).

These are by far the best Combat Mission video AARs I have been able to find.

Your images and videos look great. What sort of mods are you using?

Red Orchestra 2/Rising Storm series IL-2 Sturmovik series

It seems like there are two arguments - one economic, the other technical - running in this thread: 1) Battlefront does not include mods because they do not have the resources to include them right now (including the resources to compare mods) 2) Battlefront does not include mods because this would slow down frame rates and loading times and negatively affect their customer base We can all agree that Battlefront's decision not to include superior mods (mods that unequivocally look better than what is offered in the base game) is probably a mixture of both concerns. But I believe they would be able to compromise by including a limited number of mods. For example, ignore the texture mods and focus on the sound and ballistics-related mods instead (e.g. tracers, smoke, etc.). I can't see this being a huge strain on resources. If they were modest (#nopun) about what they included, they would not affect performance for the vast majority of Battlefront customers.

Anyone have any idea whether the developers plan on including some of the better mods in the base games of CMFB and so on? I have been having a look at screenshots of the Aris smoke and dust mod and it is clearly superior to what is offered in the base game. The only reasons I can think that they wouldn't be included in future versions is: 1) Developers would have to pay the makers of these mods an amount of money that is unreasonable 2) There are serious technical barriers to including the mods in future versions of the game

Apparently the Ukranian forces are using UAVs. Any plans to give Ukranian forces UAV assets in the first "content pack" (or whatever term Battlefront uses to describe add-on features)?