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

[Guest]

Thanks for the feedback.

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.

"Basic" physics are expensive. There's a reason that APOS only supported a couple handfuls of platoons per battle until recently. I'm not claiming it's physics, but I'd be surprised if they had real physics and it *wasn't* a contributing factor. In CM multiple battalions are not only possible but quite doable. On my middle-of-the-road laptop I regularly play battles involving several battalions of infantry and vehicles.

The thought of trying to explicitly simulate physics-based stimuli and reactions for a thousand or two infantry, or a couple hundred vehicles... well, let's just say it's not something that I think would be possible without crushing most CPUs. I can't rule it out, as I don't make those decisions, but I'd guess it's not high on the priority list.

Explicit multi core support... that'll probably happen, eventually. I don't think it will be all that helpful.

I'm pretty sure that fire has been mentioned elsewhere as something we plan on adding eventually too.

Eye candy will very likely come in various forms, but it'll come when there's time for it. We're all wargamers, too, and we all want eye candy as well (I do!), but there are priorities. BFC has stayed in business a long time and turned out some excellent games by keeping their priorities straight. So... eventually.

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

And yet, I know a (very) significant number of wargamers with Macs. Including myself. Good thing you're not the one deciding whether a Mac version is worth it, eh?

[ridethe415]

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

They're the computers with all the eye candy...should try one.

[Wodin]

I imagine CMBN is far more hi fidility with ragrds to claculations and ballistics\spotting etc etc than APOP. Hey I enjoy both AP games and yes they look better and show damage better but it doesn't mean there actually modeling it in game as detailed and as specific as CMBN.

I honestly expect the physics and ballistics are no where near as detailed as CMBN and it unfortunately has a poor AI.

A well made CMBN campaign\scenario comes out miles on top in comparsion with regards to AI and challenge.

AP is a very detailed RTS game (the only RTS game I actually enjoy as it's not a click fest) CMBN is a very detailed tactical combat simulator. Then going on a step up again we have something like Tigers Unleashed whose concept is super hi fidility tactical simulator with no graphics at all and it takes a large scenario about 7 hours to run 10 turns (10 mins game time) and thats just turn waiting time as it goes through all it's calcualtions and AI movement\los etc etc it's not including anytime you spend moving troops and giving orders. For em that shows that the more detailed we want our tacticla game the more we have to lower our expectations in the graphics department so we can at least have a playable game that doesn't take hours waiting for all the calculations to be worked out.

[Sublime]

I tried the APOS demo. I wouldnt even consider it competition for CMBN at all. Just doesnt have the right feel to me at all. The UI is counterintuitive, you cant seem to click on a lot of things, you need to hit the corresponding keyboard button, etc etc.

And of course like mentioned above, when I saw the infantry fight I was pretty sorely disappointed.

I want the Eastern Front as much as anyone else, but this game wont do it for me. I didnt even stick around to see the vaunted tank on tank combat. If the infantries fudged, or if the game just doesnt feel right at all (UI, issuing orders, etc) I cant play it. This game lost both on that score. Reminded me in a way of Panzer Elite. Had a lot of promise, but when I saw the horrible infantry modelling it.. killed it.

[AslakH]

Thanks for the feedback.

"Basic" physics are expensive. There's a reason that APOS only supported a couple handfuls of platoons per battle until recently. I'm not claiming it's physics, but I'd be surprised if they had real physics and it *wasn't* a contributing factor. In CM multiple battalions are not only possible but quite doable. On my middle-of-the-road laptop I regularly play battles involving several battalions of infantry and vehicles.

The thought of trying to explicitly simulate physics-based stimuli and reactions for a thousand or two infantry, or a couple hundred vehicles... well, let's just say it's not something that I think would be possible without crushing most CPUs. I can't rule it out, as I don't make those decisions, but I'd guess it's not high on the priority list.

Explicit multi core support... that'll probably happen, eventually. I don't think it will be all that helpful.

I'm pretty sure that fire has been mentioned elsewhere as something we plan on adding eventually too.

Eye candy will very likely come in various forms, but it'll come when there's time for it. We're all wargamers, too, and we all want eye candy as well (I do!), but there are priorities. BFC has stayed in business a long time and turned out some excellent games by keeping their priorities straight. So... eventually.

And yet, I know a (very) significant number of wargamers with Macs. Including myself. Good thing you're not the one deciding whether a Mac version is worth it, eh?

Well, the physics doesn't need to be extreme, just a tad more interaction with the enviroment and effects. That would add to the immersion a great deal.

As far as power goes, my computer has enough of it. But large CMBN battles with the graphics turned all the way up, then massive artillery strikes, the FPS will drop a bit. But only for a few seconds. Real time for the win!

I don't know a single GAMER with a Mac. Most gamers I know wouldn't even consider a Mac. Don't know why, because I don't know anything aboot that kind of stuff.

-

Well, it's not a contest. In content, realism, variety, etc. CMBN will win hands down. But can't we have the best of both worlds, in the future perhaps?

I've always seen AP as a game where you tell your units "go there", and on the way there and once in position, they pretty much do what ever they feel like. It adds to the difficulty.

Infantry in AP/APOS is just sad. Artillery and air support is even worse. Stukas miss by over 500m!!! I've seen that so many times that I stopped counting. Artillery will hit within a small area, call in time is too long for the gameplay style, etc.

AI will get you killed more times than you making a bad move. Oh! And this one: Try ordering a Sd.Kfz 251/2 to give indirect support whilst in cover. They'll fire EVERYTHING, rifles, SMGs, etc. in the general direction of your marker, even though they're 300m away from the target and behind a wooded hill. That's poor AI.

Try to imagine a hybrid. Now that would be sweet-a-rooney-roo!

[AslakH]

I tried the APOS demo. I wouldnt even consider it competition for CMBN at all. Just doesnt have the right feel to me at all. The UI is counterintuitive, you cant seem to click on a lot of things, you need to hit the corresponding keyboard button, etc etc.

And of course like mentioned above, when I saw the infantry fight I was pretty sorely disappointed.

I want the Eastern Front as much as anyone else, but this game wont do it for me. I didnt even stick around to see the vaunted tank on tank combat. If the infantries fudged, or if the game just doesnt feel right at all (UI, issuing orders, etc) I cant play it. This game lost both on that score. Reminded me in a way of Panzer Elite. Had a lot of promise, but when I saw the horrible infantry modelling it.. killed it.

Ah, yes, forgot to mention the UI in my previous post.

The UI has that distinctive "eastern bloc" feel. It's not intuitive at all, but you get used to it. The same goes for the infantry combat - you get used to the suck factor. They'll act like retarded zombie robots most of the time. Never really hitting anything, never really reacting to the situation. BUT, you can order them to take cover in the general area, and if that's, say, a row of houses besides the road, they'll spread out amongst the houses. That move has saved my ass in so many counter attacks. That I like. But it only takes 1-2 shells to destroy a house, or just the one to set it on fire. Also, they'll sometimes leave the house, and run up to a tank to place a HHL. I don't know if it's animated, but they do it. Dat be kool, bro-ham.

[sburke]

Ah, yes, forgot to mention the UI in my previous post.

The UI has that distinctive "eastern bloc" feel. It's not intuitive at all, but you get used to it. The same goes for the infantry combat - you get used to the suck factor. They'll act like retarded zombie robots most of the time. Never really hitting anything, never really reacting to the situation. BUT, you can order them to take cover in the general area, and if that's, say, a row of houses besides the road, they'll spread out amongst the houses. That move has saved my ass in so many counter attacks. That I like. But it only takes 1-2 shells to destroy a house, or just the one to set it on fire. Also, they'll sometimes leave the house, and run up to a tank to place a HHL. I don't know if it's animated, but they do it. Dat be kool, bro-ham.

This isn't the first thread to compare the two products. While the animations sound interesting, the loss of infantry combat is a real show stopper for me. That is what I get the most enjoyment out of CMBN, but hey more products on the market means more folks are generally happy. Fortunately we do not have to choose, folks can get both if they so desire.

[Franko]

It says something about Battlefront's self confidence that they allow this thread to continue.

[tdogg]

I've played both games and CMBN is by far superior. The eye candy is cool in AP, but the eye candy in CMBN is good enough. I can think of a dozen better UI or game play improvements that would take priority over just adding eye candy for CMBN.

Adjustable waypoints is one thats doable for instance.

An operational / strategic layer for a psuedo dynamic campaign is a must, and would be a game changer. APOS has this and it's ok, but think how good BFC could do it if they tried. I'd like to see it developed like a module so that those that don't care about it don't have to get it. There is a demand for it, I've seen lots of threads about people wishing for it or trying to use a third party program. We all were heartbroken when CMC died.....Can BFC please think about giving it a shot with the new engine ?

More work on AI in QBs for single player and a map generator like CMx1 would be good.

As you can see, theres so much more to improve than to just waste time with eye candy.

[AslakH]

This isn't the first thread to compare the two products. While the animations sound interesting, the loss of infantry combat is a real show stopper for me. That is what I get the most enjoyment out of CMBN, but hey more products on the market means more folks are generally happy. Fortunately we do not have to choose, folks can get both if they so desire.

Well, they can't really be compared. I think the thread might have been a bit misleading, but I wrote it as I was on my way out the door, so to speak.

But, as I've said before, think about CMBN with awesome graphics/physics/effects AND the tight BFC style. That would make me have an erection for days.

[AslakH]

It says something about Battlefront's self confidence that they allow this thread to continue.

Ssshh! Now they'll lock it!

But yeah. CMBN is a more polished and user-friendly product. I'll be playing CMBN for years after I've forgotten about APOS. I still play CMBN more than APOS, and I just got that a week ago.

I am, and will always be, a BFC supporter.

Had lotsa fun with CMBO, and since I was 14 when it came out, none of my friends got it. I was blown away, and they went "meh....".

[vincere]

The current outlook- the only thing that's going to best CM at tactical scale is CM.

The one thing that has made me look twice at this and the Matrix version of CMBB is at least some attempt at non-linear campaigns.

[BletchleyGeek]

While AP UI suffers from lack of documentation - you have to figure things by trial and error - and some pieces of Engrish placed in strategic places to increase the WTF factor, it also has quite a few very good ideas:

* The HUD overlay idea works really well.

* It has a Minimap.

* The event filtering and map hotspots (this I discovered by myself). For instance, you have the option to set the game so it autopauses when an enemy is spotted and then to either just have its location highlighted in the minimap/main display or have the camera zoom into the action.

* The ability to browse your force OOB and displaying stats or zoom into it directly by clicking on its icon.

* The ability to hide any of its components to suit the convenience or taste of the user.

But it has indeed a lot of warts - or bleeding cuts maybe - which make it a mixed experience at best.

Its physics engine is impressive, but really what Phil said. I also think it was one the main reasons for battles involving so few troops. And to be honest, spending so much resources in such eye candy is debatable, when one spends a lot of time keeping track of the action from a distance where such details can't be appreciated at all. And even more in a purely RT game, where you can't really distract yourself by admiring the decals on the tanks.

Nor the AI, which has frustrated me to no end.

Regarding to competition, I think Battlefront would do well to take note. Give these guys some more time - and sales in the west - so they get rid of some crazy ideas in it and the mortgage of using a tank sim engine, and there'll be some serious competition.

[Battlefront.com]

First off, I have to say I haven't played Achtung Panzer since it was in Beta. I think it's a good, solid game and probably the closest to Combat Mission of any other wargame out there. There's a lot to like about it.

That being said, I personally didn't get into it. Some might think this is a bias issue on my part since I one who makes CM games, but I don't think it is. I simply didn't get out of the gameplay what I was looking for. I'm sure the game has improved quite a bit since I played it, though the comments here seem to indicate the areas I would have liked to see improved haven't changed much.

As others have said, we have to make choices about where to focus our energies. We really like eye candy as gamers and as developers, so if there were no tradeoffs we would have much more of it in CM than we do now. The tradeoffs are:

1. Development time. If we're futzing around with visually showing tank damage we aren't doing something else. I don't think there is much in CM that people would say "yeah, I could live without that no problem!", so I think we have our priorities mostly inline with what our customers want from us.

2. Performance. Eye candy graphics come at an expense to system performance and/or system requirements. Phil has already mentioned this. We have a huge chunk of our customer base that would be cut off from CM completely if we asked more from the average computer.

Our development strategy for CM is pretty straight forward and logical. With each release we are spending more time on adding technically non-esscential features than we are basic stuff. That's because we focused on the basic stuff first and now, thankfully, have the vast majority of it working very well. This means we can focus more on things like improving game performance, adding eye candy, putting in new UI features, etc.

There's already much in the works for CM's future that even our testers don't know about

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Regarding to competition, I think Battlefront would do well to take note. Give these guys some more time - and sales in the west - so they get rid of some crazy ideas in it and the mortgage of using a tank sim engine, and there'll be some serious competition.

Fortunately for you guys, we never planned on keeping CM development "static" like nearly all wargame engines of the past which I can think of. Keeping CM in a state of arrested development is of no more interest to us at Battlefront as it is for you guys. That's the benefit of having wargamers making wargames for other wargamers

Steve

[Broadsword56]

There's already much in the works for CM's future that even our testers don't know about

Steve

Aaaah, wonderful! I'll add these fresh visions to the sugarplums that will be dancing in my head this Christmas Eve.

[Apocalypse 31]

It would be nice if CM had a point-and-click UI.

When you press the space bar, you get a list of options. I tried to map that to the right mouse button, but no luck.

[Steiner14]

If i imagine that CM would have that kind of operational layer and would allow to play campaigns on that layer against a human oponent via PBEM and/or REALTIME and then solve the tactical battles... :cool:

If this little russian company was capable to create that on their own, i can't understand, that BFC isn't developing at least an interface for a developer or the community, to come up with an op-solution. Once this interface is done, the op-layer would attract additional customers and players but wouldn't require BFC to invest time and money to keep the op-software up to date.

Also offering an interface for map creators should result in a big reward for BFC. If i look how navigation maps are making use of standardized data and how fast they are improving... Instead of developing and keeping a rudimentary map-editor up to date, only updaing an interface should free resources, too.

If both interfaces would exist i think we would already have more than one operational solution even working with huge AND realistical map-data without increased development costs for BFC.

[thejetset]

I downloaded the Operation Star demo this weekend and played around with it for a few hours.

Pros:

- The eyecandy is impressive.

- I like the concept of the operational layer -- working with supply, reinforcements etc ...

- I like the LOS option where you can click on a unit and see the full extent of their LOS

- I like certain aspects of the way they have the OOB on the screen and the concept of being able to select units or squads from the OOB (although, their implementation in the UI for this is not perfect)

Cons:

- The controls are so complicated and the UI so poorly designed that they kind of made me feel retarded. ... Is it my fault that I can't figure out how to control my units?? Am I too accustomed to the CM series and even the old Close Combat interfaces?? .... I don't have too difficult of a time figuring out other interfaces for all sorts of software ... but man, even after about 4 hours I still really didn't feel I had a grasp of how to effectively control my units and move around the map and sub-menus.

- Poor Infantry modeling. Several other posts have stated this pretty clearly ... I won't repeat again here.

- No "WeGo" system. Real-time only. At least I couldn't find a "WeGo" type system inside the game. For me, this is fundamental. This is the thing that I love the ABSOLUTE MOST about all of the Combat Mission series of games. Especially for playing PBEM battles and just enjoying a large-scale battle without having to pause every 2 seconds to issue orders .... It gives you so much control and even an added layer of realism when your orders are delayed by up to a minute.

- Poor "fundamentals" ... As Han Solo once famously said regarding the less aesthetic aspects of his Melinium Falcon: "She's got it where it counts kid!" Operation Star doesn't have it where it counts. The core engine doesn't seem correct. It seems like they have tried to take game engine to areas where it wasn't originally designed to go. .... These flaws express themselves on many small and large layers when you play the game.

Summary:

Combat Mission is still VERY in control of the genre!!! If I, from my total ignorance of programming perspective, could make the holy grail "perfect" tactical WWII game by merging the best of CMBN and Operation Star, it would probably have 85% of Combat Mission and only about 15% of Operation Star.

Also, as Steve said in this post somewhere, Combat Mission is going to work more on the "Eye Candy" and UI issues. .... but this is fluff. CM has the basic "core" in place and a solid foundation to continue evolving . Operation Star will need to do some major fundamental changes to become a serious alternative to Combat Mission.

[tdogg]

There's already much in the works for CM's future that even our testers don't know about

Steve

That sounds vague but very promising at the same time. Kind of like "just wait and see" overtone.

Any chance for a roadmap / insight to any of these future works planned in the near future ?

[Battlefront.com]

There's a rough roadmap, yes.

CM:SF = basic game system

CM:BN = WW2 setting and temperate environment (plus the overhauled QB system)

CM:?? = UI improvements, performance improvements, some extensions of gameplay elements

CM:?? = Campaign improvements, increase graphical ties to gameplay

We haven't thought much about what comes after that.

The basic plan for each major release is to hit 2-3 areas of the game really hard, a couple of areas with a few significant improvements, and a smattering of minor improvements for the rest. For example, I didn't mention the Editor in what I just wrote. However, I can tell you there are already 3 major improvements to the Editor already in various states of coding that will be in the next major release. Mutliplayer won't be left untouched either.

Now, some of you might say "crap, they aren't planning on major Editor overhaul for a while!". True, we are not planning on putting 1-2 months of development time into the Editor any time soon. However, that doesn't mean we won't put a week of time into a feature that will cut map making time and frustration levels by half.

In other words, with each release you guys will notice HUGE improvements in various areas of the game, but numerically some will have far more than others depending on our focus for that particular release.

Steve

[pnzrldr]

Curious -

Someone in this thread mentioned Panzer Elite. That was just about my favorite gaming experience of all time. I am an Armor Officer by profession, and that sim actually had me doing the things that I do in the real world to fight and command - at least at the PLT to CO(-) level. They are the only ones I know of that got the scale of terrain vs. time correct. "Driver, move up about three meters. Stop. Hang on, gotta check my binos. Nope, a little more driver. Gunner, scan that woodline at 11 oclock. Hang on, gotta check my map - what is this grid square? Black Six, Red One, grid 3598 looks clear, preparing to move to checkpoint A4. C'mon wingman, look at me. Okay, move out over there, where I'm pointing! I have cover from here. " I really miss that. If you were a good tank commander, you were good at that game. I assume vice versa as well.

I am not overly addicted to eye candy, but am bored with high-end production games and want to try something that has depth. Used to play Close Combat but got bored at the repetition and artificial scale. A friend of mine turned me on to CM back in CGSC in 04-05 and I thought it was just okay. Think he was showing me CMAK. What would you gents recommend I try (not into struggling w/ Russian and clunky interface) in the CM world? Is CMBN the right way to go? I don't typically play much of anything against other folks so need at least some rudimentary AI to get my fix. Any opinions appreciated.

Oh, and yes, this post is off topic and my first on this forum. Apologies to admin, feel free to delete it, move it, etc...

[Baneman]

... What would you gents recommend I try (not into struggling w/ Russian and clunky interface) in the CM world? Is CMBN the right way to go? I don't typically play much of anything against other folks so need at least some rudimentary AI to get my fix. Any opinions appreciated.

...

I can't speak for the other game (APOS), but why not just d/l the free CMBN demo and have a go ? It's probably a bit higher level control than what you described, but the AI is decent and will certainly whip you before you've had some practice.

I do, however, recommend trying PBEM against some of the good folks around here.

[Erwin]

Re Panzer Elite, it was a superb game/sim for its day. But, buggy as hell. You had to be a part-time programmer to make it work right especially when using the otherwise xnt. mods. It was also a resource hog.

I still have the Special Edition and always planned to load it up again one day. But, who knows if it will even run on Win7.

[benpark]

"3 major improvements to the editor" somewhere in the future...that sounds most intriguing.

I'll hazard a guess (meaning the three things I want them to be):

1. Image overlay so that maps may be placed over the editor interface

2. Triggers

3. Editing in the 3D environment, rather than just the 2D interface

Warm?