CMBN vs. APOS, and the future of CMx2(?).

[AslakH]

Well, I've been rocking CMBN hard this december. It still tastes a little sour to me, but I still enjoy it.

A few days ago I bought Achtung Panzer: Operation Star (because it had two types of Marder II!! ).

So, just playing that for a while, I wish there was a hybrid between CM and AP.

The damage model in AP is way better, at least visually. It actually has physics, which is standard in 2011. And decals! If a tank explodes, bits and pieces fall off (tracks, track guards, stowage, etc.)

While CMBN is superior in some effects (explotions), infantry combat and unit control, I find it less immersive.

Like this situation I had last night in APOS:

I had a Tiger providing overwatch over a gully which had an objective in a crossroad at the bottom of it. Then I spotted a KV1S rolling across the gully at a range of approximately 450-500 meters. It started driving up the hill on the other side of the gully, exposing it's side to my Tiger. It was an easy target, moving slowly up the steep hill. First shot ripped off the rear track guard. Second shot hit it in the fuel tanks. Crew bailed out, tank started burning very slowly and started to roll back down the hill. Out of the shellhole in the side, a jet of flame shot out and set the brush alight. A trail of fire followed the tracks of the KV1 down the hill. How awesome is that!?

CMBN doesn't have that.

I really wish there was more physics and eye candy in CMBN. It's almost 2012, so stop it with the single core 32x stuff. In the very least decals should be there.

I still find CMBN somewhat superior to APOS. Probably because of the artillery and infantry combat. I do enjoy me some small unit action.

So where does it go from CMBN? Anyone got an idea?

I've spammed my facebook with screenies I took in CMBN, just to spark interest. But the game is too archaic for my friends. No MP (PBEM doesn't count, nor does the RT. It just sucks.), no physics, no AI (it has no real AI. **** you if you think it has.), poor optimisation, not modder friendly (changing skins doesn't count. BFC is all about the DLC now.), etc.

I've noticed that criticism isn't taken lightly here, but I don't care. Just be honest, and share the hopes for the future of CM.

[DLaurier]

I googled APOS.

I have not found a game with that name.

Several outfitters companys in Alberta, and an explanation of grammer, but no game.

[AslakH]

Ah, forgot to say it's "Achtung Panzer: Operation Star".

I found it to be somewhat improved over the first one.

[DLaurier]

Ah, Thankyou

[Pak40]

google Achtung Panzer: Operation Star, there are lots of links

[Guest]

I strongly suspect you're not trolling, but saying things like "**** you if you think it has [decent AI]" and "It just sucks" to ALL forms of available multiplayer certainly makes you sound unreasonable. Worse, it invites other people to come in and turn this into a shouting match.

Could we try to keep that from happening, please? Maybe keep a lid on the hyperbole? Parts of your post merit response, but I'm not going to get into a discussion with you if the aforementioned is where this is headed.

[Statisoris]

... no AI (it has no real AI. **** you if you think it has.)

First off, there is no need to insult those who disagree with your opinion.

I think the reason we do not have more modern graphics and a high end, fully featured physics engine is that Battlefront has to pick and choose their priorities. They can only do so much with their small staff and limited budget. CMBN could have all those things, but we wouldn't have CMBN for another two years and/or features and content we already have would have to be sacrificed for those things. Eye candy is great fun, but that is about all it is, fun. CMBN is meant to be a simulation that attempts to realistically model all the fundamental aspects of company level combat in WWII. A lot of people believe Battlefront has designed the game to do that fairly well and would rather have the game now than wait 2 more years to see decals and bits and pieces flying off tanks. I think it would be crazy awesome to have all that stuff in CMBN, but personally I'm very happy with what we have considering the current state of PC gaming.

[BletchleyGeek]

I still find CMBN somewhat superior to APOS. Probably because of the artillery and infantry combat. I do enjoy me some small unit action.

So where does it go from CMBN? Anyone got an idea?

I've spammed my facebook with screenies I took in CMBN, just to spark interest. But the game is too archaic for my friends. No MP (PBEM doesn't count, nor does the RT. It just sucks.), no physics, no AI (it has no real AI. **** you if you think it has.), poor optimisation, not modder friendly (changing skins doesn't count. BFC is all about the DLC now.), etc.

I've noticed that criticism isn't taken lightly here, but I don't care. Just be honest, and share the hopes for the future of CM.

Precisely the infantry model and the uncomprenhensive way it deals with artillery is the one thing that detracts me completely from Operation Star.

And perhaps I'll be ****'ed but I'll take any time of the day a well-scripted AI from a CM:BN scenario from the retarded, ludicrous, ahistorical tactics used by the dynamic AI featured by Operation Star.

If you can't do it right, don't do it at all. This was true for Squad Assault back in the time, and to a certain degree, to Close Combat.

I went over this point at wargamer a few days ago, after calling out the Rock, Paper, Scissors "review" and I won't go over it again here by quoting myself:

http://www.wargamer.com/forums/posts.asp?t=581832

And I guess all the multiplayer you get with your friends is by sharing screenshots of Operation Star with them over Facebook. There's no multiplayer whatsoever in Operation Star.

What I did indeed like were some of the ideas they used on the User Interface, and the operational layer.

[AslakH]

I didn't really mean to offend people with the "**** you if.." thing. I was mostly listing complaints from friends.

As I said, I find CMBN superior to APOS, and it's better where it counts. It's more realistic, feels more "tight", but some of it is still lacking. It's hard to put my finger on exactly what.

I haven't really posted any screenies from AP/APOS anywhere. I posted a screenshot from the CMBN demo, and many people thought it was from a AAA developer, getting E-boners from seeing the awesome Panther and Marder models. Then they tested the demo, and got turned off the game. I've been playing CM all the way since CMBO, so I don't notice all the stuff they moan about.

The MP thing was also complaints from friends, because they mostly play MP.

It would be awesome if we had both AI and scripted/planned stuff. Example: After the final order, you could issue an "attack objectives" order. That way the battle wouldn't just stop. And it would add the element of surprise when hidden enemies come pouring towards the objectives.

[herr_oberst]

A few days ago I bought Achtung Panzer: Operation Star

Oh, so that's what APOS stands for... for some of us, that acronym has a totally different meaning...

The damage model in AP is way better, at least visually. It actually has physics, which is standard in 2011. And decals! If a tank explodes, bits and pieces fall off (tracks, track guards, stowage, etc.)

While CMBN is superior in some effects (explotions), infantry combat and unit control, I find it less immersive.

etc, etc, etc

I won't quibble the eye candy stuff. Yeah, that would be cool, but that's not why I would purchase a game.

I really wish there was more physics and eye candy in CMBN. It's almost 2012, so stop it with the single core 32x stuff. In the very least decals should be there.

Now that point about the physics part I find interesting. Knowing nothing about APOS, I find myself wondering how accurate the meaningful (read: not eye candy) physics portion of that game is. Do they account for all the factors that CNBM does? 3D slope effects, armor type, shell type, velocity (shatter gap anyone?), etc, etc. All the stuff that causes me to like CMBN.

But the game is too archaic for my friends. No MP (PBEM doesn't count, nor does the RT. It just sucks.), no physics, no AI (it has no real AI. **** you if you think it has.), poor optimisation, not modder friendly (changing skins doesn't count. BFC is all about the DLC now.), etc.

Well, not every game works for every type of person, as evidenced your friends lack of interest. I have 2 teenage sons who are Xbox crazy, but can't 'get into' CMBN. No fault of theirs, no fault of BFC.

And while I may be in the minority, I play WeGo exclusively. I don't care about modding (though I do like to use appropriate skins for the scenario or campaign), nor do I often play multiplayer games (although back in the IL2 days, we did have a squadron from the Peng Challenge thread that flew together - or tried to fly).

The whole notion that CMBN players can create their own scenarios and campaigns is fantastic, and a well crafted campaign with good scripting is a phenomenal thing to play.

Like you said, just being honest.

[AslakH]

The physics are alright, especially for that kind of game. The engine is from a tank sim, so one would expect it to take all those things into account.

Tanks slide off roads if they corner too fast on the ice, tanks have tremendous momentum and don't just stop when hit. Stuff flies around when explotions abound.

It's overdone some places, and underdone on others. But it looks good when you see a T-34 take a hit, hatches open up, and the damn tank is still in gear and driving at high speed. I saw a abandoned T-34 drive off map once.

[Medex]

Tanks slide off roads if they corner too fast on the ice,

Yeah i saw a tank go sliding around a corner in a youtube video, pretty wild stuff. At least you got me to check out that game.

I agree with some stuff in your OP and other stuff was kinda like .. meh! apples and oranges. It was one of the better " I want to see improvements" threads I have read. Except for the AI comment, that was kind of .. meh!

And I don't care what others really think about the game. It will have it fans and it will have its critics. Can't please everybody all of the time

BF knows their is room for improvement... i have read them say this tons of times. They always seem to be tweaking things.

They just don't jump when somebody snaps their fingers, which is probably a good thing. You just have to be patient.

[ridethe415]

No Mac version for APOS...nuff said. I don't like playing using Parallels.

[HarryB]

But the game is too archaic for my friends. No MP (PBEM doesn't count, nor does the RT. It just sucks.), no physics, no AI (it has no real AI. **** you if you think it has.), poor optimisation, not modder friendly (changing skins doesn't count. BFC is all about the DLC now.), etc.

This isn't Command & Conquer. I play PBEM almost exclusively; for someone who has a busy life and other interests it is by far the best way to play. You get the challenge of playing against a human opponent and you don't have to set time aside to get together with someone to play; you just plot your turn when you feel like it and send off your file. Although, with the larger file sizes of CMBN vs. CMBO, it isn't really PBEM anymore, it's Play By Dropbox, because I like to play Huge or Large QB's and the file size can get over 50 megs for some of the larger engagements.

If you are someone who hasn't tried PBEM and just goes against the AI, I would heartily recommend that you give it a try. Just find an opponent who likes the same type of games you do. Playing against a human is far more interesting and enjoyable because you never know what they will do.

[ClarkWGriswold]

I haven't played any of the Achtung Panzer games outside of a single demo. IIRC, it didn't support PBEM so I didn't bother. Having said that, there is a LOT there to like (especially from a graphics/physics perspective). I like that tanks coast to a stop (or not!) when hit. I like that parts fly off, hits are shown graphically, treads can be broken off, etc. Even the little stuff makes a huge difference in immersion. Watch a tank drive through a fence in AP versus CMBN. One looks very realistic while the other basically just disappears (and only after the middle of the tank touches). Tank treads throw dirt and leave substantial tracks. It looks like a 50 ton object went across the ground. Trees fall over rather than simply disappearing. Vehicles slip and slide as they move and when they get stuck they LOOK like they're stuck, rather than just saying "immobile". I love that you can see the shockwave near a large gun's barrel when it fires. The headlights at night look awesome. The way that things catch fire and the fire spreads is incredible. The animations are very nice. Watching a crew pick up the legs of an AT gun to change the way it faces is a joy.

I get a LOT of enjoyment out of CMBN (despite the fact that I'm often extremely critical of it), but from a graphical perspective I think that Achtung Panzer just blows it away. Beyond the graphical stuff, I really wish objects in CMBN acted more realistically. The exaggerated way that tanks sway when they move and fire is annoying and unrealistic. The way that vehicles start and stop moving is jarring, and the way that objects intersect (or rather don't intersect) often looks wonky. I love CMBN, but I'd really like to see the next game adopt some of this stuff from the Achtung Panzer games (along with a much needed UI revamp).

[wombat_of_war]

sounds interestning i might have to pick it up to check it out for myself

[phil stanbridge]

This is an interesting thread. I haven't seen AP yet but it does sound like a good laugh. I'd like to try the demo. It's not necessarily an 'authentic' game judging by what people have said, and good graphics may be it's only saving grace. Some developers focus on the graphics because their content can be deemed somewhat lacking

[RockinHarry]

I haven´t worked through all of APOS features yet, so can´t really compare with CMBN. I particularly like physics, true 3D foxholes and trenches, setting of formations down to squad level, dynamic lighting...stuff that I remember right now. Support for non russian users is a bit lacking and the "operational" layer is hardly any, with moving platoon sized units in 1km squares. At least it never responded with any OOM issues, which makes CMBN just 50% functional for me.

[strelok]

Now that point about the physics part I find interesting. Knowing nothing about APOS, I find myself wondering how accurate the meaningful (read: not eye candy) physics portion of that game is. Do they account for all the factors that CNBM does? 3D slope effects, armor type, shell type, velocity (shatter gap anyone?), etc, etc. All the stuff that causes me to like CMBN.

Look at this (excuse me for the bad quality - there are different kinds of arrows with description on the tank, that you can see after the battle):

Every hit is documented, you know precisely what effect it has.

For every weapon you have a hit table that you can check in the battle (excuse the russian language):

Maybe the best thing for me is this, that Graviteam are incessantly improving the game, and those are often big improvements. For example, they increased significantly the possible force size for the next patch:

Have a look at this site for all the discussion about improvements:

http://translate.google.ru/translate?hl=pl&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=180

Now, there is also a bad thing - the english version is secondary to the russian version, and the patches, addons etc. first go to the russian version. There is also not enough documentation for the english version. So I personally play the russian version, and some other persons which don't know russian also play this version.

And the last thing that I forgot - CMBN is very good too, I like it very much, the graphics is very nice, especially with modded models. I'm happy to see both games evolve.

[thejetset]

I'm downloading the demo now. The game visually looks incredible. It would be amazing to have these graphics and this level of detail with a Combat Mission game. I hope it supports "WeGo" and PBEM.

However, I suspect that Operation Star is more of a "game" and less of a simulation ....

I'm going to give it a try and report back here. And don't worry BF, I've been playing Combat Mission since 1999 and have NO intention of stopping, nor would I recommend anyone to stop playing Combat Mission.

[daisy]

Good luck with learning to play the AP series of games. The learning curve is very steep.

[Erwin]

I tried an Achtung Panzer demo a while back, but for some reason I found it very hard to learn or operate the UI.

Possibly the AP UI system was so alien after ten+ years of CM that I couldn't get a handle on how to efficiently control the troops.

But, it does look good. I agree with daisy, the learning curve seemed very steep.

[sgtstinky]

No Mac version for APOS...nuff said. I don't like playing using Parallels.

true that!!

also, I'm new to CM but I've played old school war games like panzer leader and squad leader all my adult life and what i want out of a game is not eye candy. I want to be able to play tactics. I want to play a game where I still have the feel of chess game but the thrill of simulated combat. I can't say anything about any other computer game that models tactical combat because so few of them have been made available to us Mac users, for me CMBN is the only computer game like this that I have played. But, I can say that CMBN has everything that I want in a game: realistic LOS, combined arms, and tons of scenarios.

[AslakH]

true that!!

also, I'm new to CM but I've played old school war games like panzer leader and squad leader all my adult life and what i want out of a game is not eye candy. I want to be able to play tactics. I want to play a game where I still have the feel of chess game but the thrill of simulated combat. I can't say anything about any other computer game that models tactical combat because so few of them have been made available to us Mac users, for me CMBN is the only computer game like this that I have played. But, I can say that CMBN has everything that I want in a game: realistic LOS, combined arms, and tons of scenarios.

How about when the "eye candy" reflects what would happen in real life?

That's way more realistic than just having a yellow base and a line of text saying "IMMOBILIZED".

I like it when the suspension on vehicles collapses in APOS and the other games with the same engine. It looks good, really good. And that shows a great and detailed damage model.

It started life as a tank sim (Steel Fury), and it shows. The newest tank sim from GT is also good.

Eye candy, as long as it sticks to that pesky "cause and effect", is just awesome. It's not like I would want lightsabers on my Marders, or have a Michael Bay-esque experience.

I'd be happy with some basic physics, fire and decals. And engine improvements to run on multiple cores, etc. After that, CMBN could have the same graphics for ten years and I wouldn't mind.

As for Mac... I don't know a single person that owns one.

[Sybma]

Tactic manual in English is made available yesterday for APOS.

Like both games buth the huge maps in APOS contribute to the 'real feeling', recon and suprise are what they mean to be. No direct contact but probing/ flanking.

Only downside for me in APOS is that after a while it all feels the same compared to CMN.