Eurogamer Review - translation

[umlaut]

Hi there. As a service for those two or three forumites whose danish might have become a bit rusty, I have made a hasty translation of the words:

The original is here:

http://www.eurogamer.dk/articles/2013-05-27-combat-mission-gustav-line-anmeldelse

Combat Mission: Gustav Line - Review

Don´t think you´ll be allowed to relax in Combat Mission. That is how it has always been. This is not a game where you draw a few lines on a map and lean back to watch how things unfold. Combat Mission is hard, mouse damage-inducing, tough work that will punish the gamer mercilessly if he is caught unawares.

That is the strenght of the game, but might also make some people shy away from it, if their temparement isn´t for micromanaging whole batallions. But there is no other way around. If you want the realism and the real historical thing - and that is what you get in Combat Mission - it is necessary that the gamer is present all the way.

What´s new in the Gustav Line module - that requires that you own the previous Italy mod - is a lot of new units and vehicles that will make it possible to recreate the battles around Monte Cassino, Salerno and Anzio. The germans have recieved the legedary Fallschirmjäger (paratroopers, for the uninitiated) and the allies get englishmen, poles and kiwis. On the equipment side there are tanks, Brummbär, Nashorn, Elefant, Wolverine, Sexton and Priest (familiar names to all us Squad Leader relics).

Since the latest module the graphics engine has recieved a bit of attention even though there hasn´t been any actual revolutions. But it has become faster and that is a relief. There is also a new shader called "war". When you activate it the scene becomes blurred, almost black-and-white and the color composition resembles movies about WWII. As a gimmick for screen shots and movies this is bound to become popular. There is also a new popup menu that appears when you press the space bar and that deserves special praise. It is lightning quick and super easy to control with the mouse.

The shadows have been optimized, but they are still a gigantic drain on the ressources that cost up to 20 FPS in an ordinary medium size scenario on the test computer. That is not good enough. To make things even worse it seems like the game actually looks better without shadows (I am not sure what the writer means here, but I think he might have misinterpreted the term "shaders" and is speaking of "shadows" when he means "shaders". Umlaut). The shadows are serrated and when you move the camera you get the impression that they have been sticked upon the world and arent an integrated part of it, because the show up with a tiny delay. We are talking small details here but CM invites this because of the gradual - some will say slow - development of the game.

Since the last patch MG´s have become much more dangerous. They shoot at a higher rate and can surpress a larger area. This adjustment changes the dynamics of the game completely. It has become harder, as tactical errors are punished much harder. A group of soldiers that ventures into a field where a hidden MG suddenly opens up will be decimated in no time. As the MG has become deadlier area fire has also become more efficient. This leads to the side effect that the work load - which is already pretty heavy in CM - has been turned up a notch as you now have to control area fire more zealously than earlier. Without laying area fire on suspected enemy positions it is suicide to send troops out into the open.

Combat Mission Gustav Line is still good old Combat Mission and is - as usual - accompanied by deep satisfaction, a feeling that says: "this thing works goddam well". Combat Mission is the gold standard in tactical simulators, let there be no doubt about that. The series is constantly being expanded by new modules - the next one will apparently be Operation Market Garden - and they are always of high quality and of great interest to "grognards".

The series weakness - if you´ll accept it as a weakness at all - is that it year by year loses pathos. It was on exactly this parameter Combat Mission swept all other competition aside when it was released in 1999. Never before had wargamers been able to watch war at such close quarters. But as years have gone by the drama of war have kind of sanded a bit over. If you want to analyze the reasons for this feeling, the causes are probably a combination of several things. Objectively, the game has never been prettier graphically, but time doesn´t stand still and in recent years competitors have appeared that are doing better on this parameter. Graphics aren´t essential, though. There is also the way campaigns are presented in the game. They are played out as a series of scenarios with no other connection than the forces you are playing with. This could provide the coveted sense of drama, that you would be able to follow your men though thick and thin. But also here the game gets in the way: Normally you are not told which units are core units and which are lended to you, and even though there are good reasons for this, the net result is that you feel less immersion because you don´t get to know your troops.

Battlefront has a strong reluctance towards making campaigns that are more dynamic. Despite the fact that one of the most popular features of the old Combat Mission was the ability to fight a series of battles on the same map over a period of days or hours. That is the stuff that creates story telling in the gamer´s mind, drama - pathos in other words. But Battlefront has through the years argued that the concept was unrealistic and suffering from errors, and they replaced it with the current system. I think this is characteristic for the game design. The design gets more and more technical, more realistic, more engineer-ish and thus - perhaps - a little more soulless.

The is stille drama in Combat Mission. Hand grenades are thrown between small groups of men fighting bitterly in a forrest. You can follow the last survivor in a group draw his revolver against superior opposition and - after seeing him shoot four enemies a close range against all odds - finally watch him succumb from a bullet in the back. But if you play real time - and the game invites doing this - you will easily miss the many fine details like this in Combat Mission.

Rating: 9 out of 10

-------------

Note on the translation: This is a very hasty translation - but it should definitely be better than anything Google translate could come up with. If there are unclear passages it could be my mistake as a translator, but more likely the lack of clarity is in the original. There are passages in the text I simply don´t understand. That makes it rather hard to translate them, as I had to guess what the writer´s intentions were.

Cheers

Umlaut

[The Steppenwulf]

Interesting reading - thanks for taking the time to translate and write up!!

[Erwin]

Insightful review.

[Nidan1]

Thank you for taking the time to translate for us.

[Sandokan]

"As a service for those two or three forumites whose danish might have become a bit rusty"

Thanks! Google translator is a real disaster for anything longer than one sentence one.

[Guest]

Thanks for the translation.

I am not sure what the writer means here, but I think he might have misinterpreted the term "shaders" and is speaking of "shadows" when he means "shaders". Umlaut

Definitely sounds like he meant shadows. Strange, though, pretty much all video cards should be seeing much better shadows since 2.0. I wonder what card he played it on.

[MikeyD]

...is that it year by year loses pathos.

Lucky for him BFC is working on a 'pathos' module right now!

[mjkerner]

Funny, all my P-truppen have clown or mime faces. I thought it was just my machine.

BFC, fix or sumfink, or you will scare all the children!

[Erwin]

That clownface is scarier than the SS skullshead mod.

[John Kettler]

umlaut,

Thanks! I especially liked the phrase "mouse-damage inducing!"

The noted changes in MG effectiveness strongly remind me of the painful instant tactical sobering up we CMBO players underwent when CMBB came out with realistic MG modeling. Proven assault tactics for storming MG nests in CMBO became suicide missions in CMBB. The CMFI players are undergoing a somewhat similar experience, as will those CMBN players who upgrade to 2.0.

I don't think of the game as soulless, but it has become, in my view, far more work, at a given size battle, then was the case under CMx1. Player focus must be constant, and lapses in that focus may or may not be recoverable as far as game outcome. At least at my skill level, the fluidity, ease of play and, to some degree, the fun I had in CMx1 aren't there yet in CMBN, but losses are, I think, more heartfelt, because the men are all individuals, not abstracted smaller images representing larger groups. Probably a good thing BFC doesn't model the blood, gore and body bits, since that would be upsetting to many, I suspect.

While the game may be soulless in that some of the zest and freedom of play may not be readily perceivable, it's more soulful in the sense that players are far less likely to use their men as throwaways who don't matter. What the British call man management has a real role here, and knowing who can do what, under which circumstances, helps greatly in improving combat performance. Also, men are more brittle, and once broken, those affected stay that way. This acts as a realistic curb on commanders.

More and more, we see players creating and timely introducing (gasp) reserves. They recognize that units in battle expend far more than ammunition and that men have multiple limits upon them. This, I feel, is all to the good. Given my current state, I find the new game system tough, but I am getting my sea legs. One chunk at a time.

Erwin,

ICP inspiration?

Regards,

John Kettler

[Battlefront.com]

Good review! No positive review is complete without finding things to remind everybody that nothing is perfect. A sentiment which I absolutely agree about in general and as it relates to Combat Mission. Though I do cringe when I see us take a knock for a graphics card problem that is probably due to problems with the driver/card and not our coding. But it's a common problem and there's really nothing to be done about it.

One thing though:

Despite the fact that one of the most popular features of the old Combat Mission was the ability to fight a series of battles on the same map over a period of days or hours.

That feature was "most popular" only amongst the people that liked it If it were really a "most popular" feature of CMx1, then it would be in CMx2 instead of the current Campaign system. The use and support of CMx2's Campaigns by players blows the doors off of CMx1 Operations, so we know for sure we made the right decision to change.

Steve

[Erwin]

I have wondered however if CMx2's campaign system discourages the creation of CM2 campaigns. In CM1, once you made a large map, all you had to do was worry about the reinforcement schedule for a campaign. With CM2, designers have to create new maps with new AI plans etc for every scenario.

[Bartokomus]

One thing I agree with the author is about campaigns; far and away the memories that have stuck with me are all predominantly in H2H campaigns. Surprise at Paislini's for CMBB was an epic event for H2H, 7 missions in a row on a huge map trying to stop a German advance. I would love to be able to do those again.

[Battlefront.com]

I have wondered however if CMx2's campaign system discourages the creation of CM2 campaigns. In CM1, once you made a large map, all you had to do was worry about the reinforcement schedule for a campaign. With CM2, designers have to create new maps with new AI plans etc for every scenario.

I would rather 3 Campaign happily played by 10 people than 10 campaigns happily played by 3 people. Obviously in a perfect world I would prefer 13 campaigns happily played by 13 people, but making and maintaining one campaign system is problematic enough. Trying to do two systems is outright idiocy. Hence us picking the one more people wanted to play. It's very clear to us that we made the right choice.

One thing I agree with the author is about campaigns; far and away the memories that have stuck with me are all predominantly in H2H campaigns. Surprise at Paislini's for CMBB was an epic event for H2H, 7 missions in a row on a huge map trying to stop a German advance. I would love to be able to do those again.

As the guy that bucked expectations and conventions back in 1998/99, coming up with both the concept and the design of the Operations system, I'm flattered you remember it so fondly all these years later. Unfortunately, the system failed to excite more than a small number of our customers, so it had to be shelved and a more appealing system made to replace it. For good.

And for the record, I also liked how Operations turned out.

Steve

[Canada Guy]

I also loved Operations. It reminded me a lot of ASL "Red Barricades" which is stIll one of my favourites. I liked the idea of having a front line and then moving some of your troops depending upon the situation from one area to another to change the direction of your push. Along we reinforcements and replacements. It was excellent.

I am surprised it was not more popular as it was fairly easy to create, use and play. I hope that one day we have some iteration (or perhaps an add-on like what was proposed for CMBB). I know resources are tight but an add-on that would be available for all modules would be something that I would pay for. I know this is never easy and priorities come up but something that would add on to CMv4 that addressed some of the issues of Operations or even gave us something with persistent maps and fixed lines to move troops around may be able to sell.

Not something high on your priority list but something to keep in the back of your mind for when EF, WF and North Africa is done. Since you have an iterative engine, you should not have to re-do theatres anymore. Great idea but what will you do in 5 years when we are still clamouring for more.

[womble]

...what will you do in 5 years when we are still clamouring for more.

Space Lobsters!

Someone had to say it...

[Battlefront.com]

And thank you for being that one

Yeah, I don't think we'll ever run out of things to do even if we said "we're not making a single new campaign feature, at all, ever." Though of course we'll never say that!

There were two primary problems identified with the Operations, in terms of why they weren't more popular:

1. Audience mindset. The established campaign concept is that you go from battle to battle and experience a larger slice of a conflict. Operations were deliberately created to be the exact opposite. We thought people would warm to the system, but they didn't. In hindsight it was clear that we gave people something they inherently didn't want.

2. Execution problems. While the system worked very well most of the times, it failed to draw sensible front lines and some other similar problems. Even supporters of Operations complained pretty loudly about these shortcomings. Unfortunately they were the sort of thing where functioning acceptably 95% of the time wasn't good enough. The amount of effort to get that 5% difference to work correctly was just too much to contemplate doing.

In the end we had to face reality that most people didn't like Operations because they were fundamentally not what they wanted, and amongst people who liked the concept there was significant discontent over gameplay related issues. The two things combined were enough to kill off Operations for good, but honestly... even if #2 wasn't a big problem we would still have abandoned them because #1 was enough to send us in a new direction.

Steve

[DavidFields]

The Crete German Airborne Campaign in CMAK was a classic, in my opinion.

For some reason, I am still having a hard time having fun with the CM2 series. I will stick with it, but I am puzzled by my feelings.

[Erwin]

It's probably all got to do with the "tug of war" between the "realism" fans vs the "fun gameplay" fans.

I am one of those who loved the CM1 operations system - especially dynamic campaigns where you could make progress on a huge map on which you played only on a section and could move the front line back and forth depending on each battle's result.

[Vark]

Ah Crete, apart from the a-historically lethal Bofors guns, that was an excellent operation. You really felt the progress as you slowly captured key positions and rallied your scattered forces. I spent most of the first game rounding up stragglers, putting them under a Co HQ and assaulting Allied positions.

I too am trying to put my finger on my feelings for CM2, I think partly its discordance between, feeling closer to your troops because it's 1:1, but having a game system that is remote and hidden. This is especially true with spotting, which at times is both counter-intuitive and undecipherable. The game still rightly punished poor tactics, but now seems to punish anything but a mathematical, almost sterile approach. In this it seems to follow other games, where the quest for greater realism means something gets lost on the way. I played far more Civ II than Civ IV, and hours more original SP than WinspWWII, my brother loved Sim City, but hardly played later versions.

It's like a juicy burger, laden with fatty toppings and a healthier meal. I know I should eat the later, it's far better for me, and I will enjoy it (probably more when I tuck in) but boy oh boy, that burger has got an attraction that belies all its faults!

How many times have you had an hour to kill and thought about firing up CM2 and then though, nah, when, with CM1, you use to say, nah, I'll just play one, or maybe two more turns and then, work/talk to family/go to sleep/eat, all of the above?

[mjkerner]

I never played any CM games before CMSF, but that Operation systems sounds tailored made for me! Someday, maybe, huh?

[MikeyD]

The smaller campaigns are starting to resemble Erzats operations. Building a monster master map then subdividing it into discrete battles. This comes from attempting to recreate real battles across real world terrains, like Primasole bridge for example. During a campaign you may recognize the southeast corner of map A as being the same as the northwest corner of map B.

[freeeman]

Well, it seems like the reviewer is saying that the game is not a GAME as much as a simulation, right on dude, this "game" lacks the element of fantasy, omg the enemy hits my panther in the gun, forcing my entire plan to go haywire..

It is somewhat easy to beat up the ai, but not for any noob... GLAD we are seeing armor target arcs again, loved the original... am so impressed with the graphics that

NEVER frame rate lag/skip on my rather inexpensive high end card bought in 2011...

whatever people get accustomed to with the "easy" gaming... dont take me wrong I love some beer and pretzel games too, but saying its too detailed or technical just gets me hot.. in a platonic way of course!

[nachinus]

I for one prefer the current Campaign system to the old operations.