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

[AslakH]

Agreed. Gameplay of CM series, graphics of something like world in conflict. Perfect game right there. Immersive gameplay, immersive visuals, jobs a gooden.

I also agree on AI. The AI needs to be able to come up with a plan itself. Identify key pieces of terrain, split its forces up, and occupy them. Thats the simplest plan the AI could possibly do besides just move forces toward you and hope for the best. Even if that is implemented so the AI works things out differently every time, and is dynamic enough to do this on user maps. I would be happy.

It would just be done even by simply making the AI pick a list of key terrain features based on the contents of a square 100m of terrain, those with buildings, cover, or more height would obviously be the places to go.

I also only play realtime, because it seems more immersive and thats what I am used to when it comes to playing strategy games. Turn based is good and all but it just doesnt cut it for me. I like to have to react fast to friction.

I would be happy if we could get the planned/scripted AI _but_ you could choose between the "plan" and just "attack objectives". It would help with the creation of simple engagements on custom maps. Right now it takes too damned long.

Realtime is most fun, and realistic. When the crap hits the fan, you can always just pause it for a little while. Some people tend to forget that you can pause the game, plan moves, then unpause. I constantly pause the game, give some orders, unpause and just see what happens. I don't have to wait for the minute to go by.

Having troops that act like robots for 60 seconds isn't realistic. I like babysitting my troops, keeps the casualties low.

[tdogg]

I got APos on gamers gate during the holiday sale along with 5other games. I installed it and jumped into a quick mission, wholly crap is that Ui screwy. I turned it off and moved on to another game. I'll come back to it down the road, just not in the mood to learn some funky Ui right now.

I do play CMBN mostly RT, I find it the most fun for company sized engagements. Once it gets up to battalion I have to switch to wego out of necessity. How about blending both Rt and wego by allowing you to playback the last 2 or 3 minutes of game time for viewing only. This way the community isn't fractured into wego or RT. The best of both in one form.

My problem with wego is with loading rearming then unloading of squads came take several minutes because you have wait for the action phase. There are several other cases where I prefer real time to make corrections.

CMBN is a perfect blend of realism and enjoyable game. It could use some Ui improvements to max out the enjoyment. If I want simulation I would play steel beasts, dcs a10c, or command ops battles from the bulge.

[Duke d'Aquitaine]

There is a review here (www.eurogamer.dk) of the new DLC in Achtung Panzer: Operation Star, Sololovo 1943. Mentions Combat Mission too.

Direct link: http://www.eurogamer.dk/articles/2012-01-03-achtung-panzer-operation-star-sokolovo-1943-anmeldelse

Google translate: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eurogamer.dk%2Farticles%2F2012-01-03-achtung-panzer-operation-star-sokolovo-1943-anmeldelse

[Apocalypse 31]

From the review...

it's hard to get back to the Combat Mission glacially slow graphics engine .

Ouch.

[LJFHutch]

Haha, from the comments section in the translated page:

"No comments found, sorry you are old." Google translate produces some hilarious results

[Ranger33]

After reading this update on the game over at RPS, I couldn't help myself and took the plunge. The extremely reasonable price and lack of DRM didn't hurt either. Haven't played yet but it looks like many of the complaints have been addressed and some fundamental changes have been made as well. I especially like the looks of that operational map and this feature right here.

A glorious LOS tool if there ever was one.

They even have a Summer 1942 DLC coming out on Jan. 15th,

Will report back on whether it lives up to the hype.

[Apocalypse 31]

They even have a Summer 1942 DLC coming out on Jan. 15th,

Will report back on whether it lives up to the hype.

Holy crap that looks amazing

[Sublime]

it looks very impressive. gases escaping gun barrel after firing. but still, its all eye candy. From the little I played of the demo, I lost interest, armor is important, but infantry, ESPECIALLY in the Eastern Front, is essential to be done correctly.

Plus the controls and UI were very counterintuitive...

[Statisoris]

That APOS LOS tool is badass and BF should shamelessly copy it for future CM UI versions.

[Vark]

First thing that struck me is the way the tanks move, slowly, ponderously, not bouncing around like a 70's car! Sorry real suspension of disbelief killer at the way armour in motion is modelled, I prefer CMBB, to be honest, at least my Panthers look threatening, not lightweights when they move or shoot. Should have sick bags for the crew!

[ShiftZ]

They even have a Summer 1942 DLC coming out on Jan. 15th,

Will report back on whether it lives up to the hype.

That ain't a game mate,

[Erwin]

I recall playing SB over ten, fifteen(?) years ago(!). This new version looks amazing.

I recall that with the old SB there was a lot of programming of moves needed. And I didn't enjoy the solo game vs the AI. Is that still the case? Is this new version designed for multiplayer online play primarily.

[ShiftZ]

The mission editor is a scenario designers dream, it's simple and yet affords a great deal of complex scripting. The AI is as good as any out there and I make the assumption that it's light years ahead of the original (I never played it). Single play is solid and you definitely won't go wrong with multiplayer as that is where the team play really shines.

[Apocalypse 31]

The mission editor is a scenario designers dream, it's simple and yet affords a great deal of complex scripting. The AI is as good as any out there and I make the assumption that it's light years ahead of the original (I never played it). Single play is solid and you definitely won't go wrong with multiplayer as that is where the team play really shines.

Steel Beasts has, BY FAR, the BEST mission editor i've ever used. Scripting made easy!

My only beef with Steel Beasts is that the game (graphically, and physics) are so far out of date. The developers put up this shield, in that they say that they're not developing the sim for the public, but rather for military contracts.

I'm getting tired of hearing it.

I purchased the 2.6 'addon' but I dont play it. It's just not good. The AI pathfinding is still terrible, and infantry serve no purpose other than graphical representations of dismounted soldiers. they have no soul, and are literally cannon fodder.

Hopefully eSim will eventually realize that they are sitting on a gold mine. Instead of focusing on being a good armor simulator, they can develop their sim a bit further into a good ground combat simulator

[Sergei]

My only beef with Steel Beasts is that the game (graphically, and physics) are so far out of date. The developers put up this shield, in that they say that they're not developing the sim for the public, but rather for military contracts.

Didn't the development of the original Steel Beasts start when the programmer was trying to make a golf simulator, then noticed that instead of simulating the ballistics of golf balls it could be used for the ballistics of 120mm APFSDS? That's what I call 'emergent feature'!

[kipanderson]

Hi,

I have to say that after giving AP a very long go about two years ago I reached the same conclusion as Steve, superbly atmospheric, but no matter how much I tried could not get into the game play.

However, the new English language manual and the big changes added in their new winter expansion may have cracked it.

The Danish reviewers certainly think so.

Will probably give it another go now... always had huge potential.

All the best,

Kip.

[BadgerDog]

My only beef with Steel Beasts is that the game (graphically, and physics) are so far out of date. The developers put up this shield, in that they say that they're not developing the sim for the public, but rather for military contracts.

I concur ....

I liked that product, but stopped playing it because of the realism fanaticism. I bought it as a game, not as a real life tank simulator. I got enough of RL tanks in RL ...

CM isn't like being in a real life Sherman, but it's still a fun game experience for me sharing it with a terrific adult community.

Regards,

Doug

[ShiftZ]

My only beef with Steel Beasts is that the game (graphically, and physics) are so far out of date. The developers put up this shield, in that they say that they're not developing the sim for the public, but rather for military contracts.

I'm getting tired of hearing it.

I purchased the 2.6 'addon' but I dont play it. It's just not good. The AI pathfinding is still terrible, and infantry serve no purpose other than graphical representations of dismounted soldiers. they have no soul, and are literally cannon fodder.

Hopefully eSim will eventually realize that they are sitting on a gold mine. Instead of focusing on being a good armor simulator, they can develop their sim a bit further into a good ground combat simulator

I agree with you on the graphics and particle physics. When you see what has been done with games like battlefield 3 and soon Amara 3 and indeed VBSM 2 and those visuals you

wonder if eSim is aware of whats going on with other sims in this department. Of course eSim has never once said that they are trying to be anything other then what they are

which is first and formost a classroom training aid meant to assist the Armour trainee in the study of combined Armour tactics up to the company level at a very cost effective

price (obviously on a national financed level).

I don't make the assumption that militarily make allowances for the latest graphics cards/chips sets and OS's unless it's located at a static training center which means that

the troops are brought in, fed, housed and spend a minimum of time in the simulators that cost millions which in turn means very little time spent at the simulation on a

annual basis, not really cost effective. The Pro PE brand as sold to army customers is ment to be used outside of a classroom at the students leisure year round in conjunction

with their "professional" software costing thousands (cheap by comparison) all of which is very portable and can be set up anywhere, even in the theater of operations.

My copy of the sim which is the same copy that all "Joe Public" persons get and is a somewhat distilled version of their "professional" software so really, who knows what

they've done because I don't; each country's needs are specifically tailored.

I find the Path finding in Pro PE exceptional. Waypoints and rotes are all editable, even while a platoon is carrying out the movement order. If I'm in dense woods on a dirt

road and issue an assault order either for the waypoint or as a route command or both I'll make sure to change the formation to "column" as opposed to the pre-set "line"

formation thereby avoiding units getting stuck in trees or whatever. Improvements can be made however but eSim is constantly doing this and I challenge you to demonstrate

where any other sim of the same type does pathfinding better.

The infantry in Pro PE is there to illustrate the point of the effectiveness of infantry in the spotting, recon, FO and anti tank role. Remember, Pro PE is a simulation of

COMBINED ARMOUR TACTICS, not infantry tactics so learning how to deal with infantry from the perspective of armor is vital. Having said that though eSim is moving toward

asymmetrical features in it's sim so the infantry will be continuously fleshed out but there will be a celling somewhere. If you want FPS for infantry you have to go somewhere

else.

I'll go way out on a limb here and make the assumption that you don't enjoy multiplayer. The Pro PE community is very much active in this department. Every friday night there

is an online session. People gather on teamspeak, shoot the **** for a bit, then the host shows up, let's everyone know whats on tap. Teams are then drawn up and we move to

the proper channels. Once this is done everyone starts up their copies of the sim, enters the Ip of the server and regroups in the staging room. From there we all select the various units and platoons with vets taking the CO and XO for blue and red, ready up and the host takes into the planning/deployment phase. After this it's at least an hour of multiplayer fun.

I'm not seeing anything like that with other sim companies producing ground warfare type games (haven't really looked tho)

[Apocalypse 31]

My copy of the sim which is the same copy that all "Joe Public" persons get and is a somewhat distilled version of their "professional" software so really, who knows what they've done because I don't; each country's needs are specifically tailored.

I played the US Army version of SB a few years ago. Graphically, it was terrible. They don't have to worry about AI much because the vehicles are all crewed and driven by Soldiers. The scenarios weren't complicated that required alot of AI. It was usually Platoon vs Platoon, with the enemy sitting in a battle position with scouts deployed.

I'll go way out on a limb here and make the assumption that you don't enjoy multiplayer. The Pro PE community is very much active in this department. Every friday night there is an online session.

I have. The SB community is amazing. I've had people take the time to work with me 1 on 1 to help me troubleshoot some technical issues. I had total strangers offer to send me a router when mine went tits-up.

I'm not seeing anything like that with other sim companies producing ground warfare type games (haven't really looked tho)

That's my point why eSim has put so little effort into their sim. The militaries that buy this stuff don't really care about visual feedback, just basic functionality.

[ShiftZ]

That's my point why eSim has put so little effort into their sim. The militaries that buy this stuff don't really care about visual feedback, just basic functionality.

I think eSim is heading in the right direction. Their sim plays with high fidelity and I'm more than confident that "what's going on under the hood" is probably the most important aspect. They are after all a small company much like Battlefront. I'm more then certain that they listen to the rants and requests of their GP customers and will continue to invest in eye candy (but don't do this at the expense of performance...please) A lot of these requests may actually lead to SB2 being released down the road.

If enough people complain with enough pressure, they will eventually surrender on some aspects but much like high performance racing machines, looking pretty doesn't help win races. Give me reasonable AI and engine quality first, then add in all the other stuff but be car full not to wreck the drive train with to much weight.

Now if someone can just kindly tell Microsoft to add in the "specific stuff" that's in directX 9 that makes all these games I dig work to DirectX 11 I'll be happy (flippin' consoles)

[Apocalypse 31]

I think eSim is heading in the right direction.

For a sim thats been around for just under 10 years it's probably not where it should be. Again, they have a customer (not the people that buy SB Pro - the military) that is looking for a specific product, with specific specifications, and they meet those specifications.

If enough people complain with enough pressure, they will eventually surrender on some aspect

I respectfully disagree.

They have even stated on their forums that development is centered around military customers.

One can only hope...