Graphics suck?!!?!?!

[Thewood1]

The point being missed in the back and forth is that old genres like wargame, RTS, and FPS are converging.  Go and look at ARMA and Wargame:RD discussions.  They are having the same types of discussions about equipment and tactics as at BFC.  I play ARMA not as an FPS, but as a wargame.  I play Steel Beasts the same way.  In fact, both of those games have added functions specifically so they can be played that way.  Wargame added pauses specifically as feedback from traditional wargamers.  To dismiss any of those games as simple Command & Conquer type games because they aren't turn-based shows some pretty solid ignorance.  You can play them as a clickfest, but you can also play them in a nice comfortable session at your own pace.

[Thewood1]

And I don't think we are talking cross over of genres.  My concern is that BFC gets squeezed out from multiple sides as newer wargame players get their tactical fill through those other games that many people on this forum dismiss.

[niall78]

The point being missed in the back and forth is that old genres like wargame, RTS, and FPS are converging.  Go and look at ARMA and Wargame:RD discussions.  They are having the same types of discussions about equipment and tactics as at BFC.  I play ARMA not as an FPS, but as a wargame.  I play Steel Beasts the same way.  In fact, both of those games have added functions specifically so they can be played that way.  Wargame added pauses specifically as feedback from traditional wargamers.  To dismiss any of those games as simple Command & Conquer type games because they aren't turn-based shows some pretty solid ignorance.  You can play them as a clickfest, but you can also play them in a nice comfortable session at your own pace.

 

The Wargame series of RTS is good fun. Are you seriously comparing this decent RTS to a tactical combat simulator like CM:BS though? No matter how seriously you play the game it is still a highly simplified RTS game.

 

ARMA is a great high fidelity FPS depicting modern combat made even better if you hook-up with a serious group of players. It is but a minor blip in the market compared to the rest of the FPS genre where realism takes a back seat every time to 'fun'. I'm still not sure what a high fidelity FPS game has to do with tactical combat simulators like the CM series though - their have always been high fidelity FPS games - a minor subset of the FPS genre. Were people years ago comparing the Rainbow Six games to CMBB and bemoaning that the graphics of CM couldn't compare to the Rainbow Six standard?

Edited February 19, 2015 by niall78

[niall78]

And I don't think we are talking cross over of genres.  My concern is that BFC gets squeezed out from multiple sides as newer wargame players get their tactical fill through those other games that many people on this forum dismiss.

 

I've often bemoaned Battlefront for their lack of viability its products receive on mainstream websites and even niche sites - let alone visibility in print media. This is an area that needs improvement to draw in more wargamers.

 

That's a different thing though from claiming thousands of Total War or Company of Heroes fans will jump to CM if only CM graphics got better. Which frankly is a ridiculous argument.

[Sulman]

I actually really like the appearance of CMBS. I'm not sure what it is about it, but there's something about the colour and lighting that is really immersive in a way none of the other CMx2 games have grabbed me. 

[Thewood1]

There have been significant functions added over the years to allow you to use ARMA as tactical simulator.  There have been armor mods to make armor more realistic and whole game versions around you being a commander vs a shooter.  It is the only way I play it and I play it a lot.  I have played with several hundred soldiers on each side and scripted to perform actions that can be adjusted in real time.  There is morale and suppression that has been added in.  Radio communications are modeled.  Artillery and air support.

 

I have built and played as a sandbox game as complicated scenario as most you will see in CM.  It is not easy to learn how to do it and took me years of experimenting.  It can all be recorded and the mod community is huge.  Combat Mission's main benefit is they do WW2 very well.  The play is a lot easier.  And you can manage large battles easier.  But for fidelity in commanding company-sized engagements, ARMA has some good/bad spots and CM has some good/bad spots.  Building a scenario is a lot of work and testing in ARMA...much more so than CM.

 

As to Wargame, you can set it up as a sandbox to some extent.  You'll never have the fidelity in scenario building as a sandbox like CM.

 

The real point is that the market is speaking.  There are few new people coming to CM.  ARMA has hundreds of thousands buying everything they can.

[BlackAlpha]

 

tactical combat simulators

 

 

Did you try Arma? That's one of the best tactical combat simulators out there. With a few mods, it's a lot more realistic than Combat Mission even.

Edited February 19, 2015 by BlackAlpha

[Vinnart]

I have to be honest. The graphics do not bother me at all. I agree some of them could be improved, but to say the "graphics suck" is a bit harsh and not accurate. Some of the graphics such as the vehicle models I think are very good. Perhaps it is open GL vs DirectX?  The bottom line for me is; are the graphics adequate considering the depth the game has to offer in gameplay and realism.? The answer is certainly yes.  Of course having the greatest graphics along with that is always the goal. I feel in the CM development process is something that that will always be ongoing.

 

Many CM fans have been playing it since CMx1. We still enjoyed the game for its depth, and concepts. In comparison CMx2 is a major improvement graphically. CMx3 will be further improvement too I am sure. Overall the graphics are decent to good, but it is more the depth, realism, and gameplay that CM has to offer is why people play it. I am sure Battlefront would agree the game is not perfect and has room for improvement. This is a good thing as it keeps them striving to improve the game.

[Wiggum15]

 

 

 

 

Did you try Arma? That's one of the best tactical combat simulators out there. With a few mods, it's a lot more realistic than Combat Mission even.

 

 

I would doubt that, the damage model in ArmA is hitpoint based. ArmA3 is a infantry simulator but vehicle combat is bad.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Wiggum15

[Pelican Pal]

If you see them as just another computer game company, ... maybe.

 

But if you see them as an alternative miniature tabletop war game company... 

 

It really depends on, what do you think Combat Mission games are.

 

Just imagine the costs (time, money, space), that you would have to invest to play a CMBS battalion size battle on a huge map ...with miniatures...

 

 

I think this post is a really nice summation of the community split here. Is CM a replacement for your table-top collection or is it just another game on your hard drive. Personally I would never consider buying models (back in Highschool i played tabetop 40k and I will not be doing that again). So to compare CM to a tabletop game is absurd to me.

 

 

Anyway, yea wargames are getting more mainstream. Arma 3 can be played as a Plt./Coy commander if you do it right, btw thewood could you PM the mods you use are something? Wargame does a good job of a wargame at 1 level up from CM.

 

The bit that you are all overlooking is that this current iteration of Combat Mission is based on a engine designed by BFC sometime in 2005. It has matured since then, but at its heart it is still at 2005ish engine. It only has single core support, I suspect it doesn't utilize video cards very well, it is a 32 bit process which severely limits the amount of RAM available to it. These are hard limitations to what the game can do. So while Wargame or Arma can look better their engines are more modern and are able to access more power.

 

BFC just can't magically make things better, just like you can't drive your car across a marsh. A road needs to be built. The infrastructure needs to be there. My computer has a GTX 780, 8 CPU cores, 10 GB of ram.

 

CM can only use 1 of my 8 processors, 3 of my 10 GB of ram. There are hard limits on what it can do.

 

What Steve was alluding to early was that at this point to greatly increase the capabilities of the Combat Mission series a new engine would need to be built. The last time this was done it took something like 5 years before the customers saw any new product, and even then Shock Force had unpleasant teething issues for another year or two and I would say that it was only with CM:BN that things got smooth. So essentially 8 years of development. To get another big leap would require another big engine push and how many years to get it up to speed.

 

 

Edit:

 

We aren't waving magic wands here.

 

On top of all this, while I have a pretty state of the art computer, not every customer has a super powerful PC. So releasing the game with textures 2x the size of what we have now means the game will be prettier, but someoen isn't gonna be able to play it.

 

Wiggum, the base model is HP based but I believe some of the more serious mods take it more seriously.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Pelican Pal

[Wiggum15]

Edit: Wiggum, the base model is HP based but I believe some of the more serious mods take it more seriously.

Maybe but they just work around the hitpoints, vehicle combat always feels dull in Arma.

[BlackAlpha]

I would doubt that, the damage model in ArmA is hitpoint based. ArmA3 is a infantry simulator but vehicle combat is bad.

 

Well, there is some armor simulation being done (not every hit will result in a kill, depends on where you hit and such), but it is more simplified than CM in that aspect.

 

On the other hand, Arma simulates a lot of things that CM does not. For instance, does Combat Mission have a realistic radio simulation with signals that can bounce off the environment and such? Arma does. Arma also has a more accurate join ops simulation because you can have an actual person doing all the different roles, which comes with its logistical, planning and command issues. Artillery is a lot more awesome, making it so you have to adjust fire and such. You can even use something like this to make that task easier (it has a fairly realistic simulation of how it works in real life to find the range difference between two points):

http://www.vectronix.ch/html/en/products/handheld_equipment/rangefinders/vector_rangefinder_binoculars/vector_iv_the_all-purpose_infantry_device

 

I could go on and on...

 

To compare to Combat Mission. Radio simulation is more simplified. Artillery magically falls out of the sky. The different units have an all-seeing eye because the player controls them all directly, resulting in some pretty unrealistic scenarios. Etc, etc. In Combat Mission's defense, the scope of the game is much more limited, while Arma allows you to simulate every single thing.

Edited February 19, 2015 by BlackAlpha

[Sulman]

I think, and I speak as someone that has played ever BI game since OFP, that is a very optimistic description of ArmA II/III. It is not reliable. It will frequently break serverside, and the forums are full of pissed off customers with regard to the absurdly high system requirements to get any kind of fidelity out of it.

 

Besides which, I don't even think the comparison works. They are totally, totally different things.  

[Pelican Pal]

I would have agreed with up to Arma III. Which is just leaps and bounds away from OFP, Arma 1, or Arma 2.

[BlackAlpha]

I think, and I speak as someone that has played ever BI game since OFP, that is a very optimistic description of ArmA II/III. It is not reliable. It will frequently break serverside, and the forums are full of pissed off customers with regard to the absurdly high system requirements to get any kind of fidelity out of it.

 

Besides which, I don't even think the comparison works. They are totally, totally different things.  

 

About the realism argument... Speaking as someone who has played Arma in a realistic fashion since like Flashpoint, Combat Mission has the upper hand in a few areas, but Arma certainly allows for a more accurate simulation than CM does.

 

The thing with Arma is that the developers aim to create a good technical platform on which the fans can create good mods. So, if you don't use mods, then you are missing out and Arma may seem a bit lacking. But if you play Arma 3 with some of the latest realism related mods, than it's the most detailed simulation that can still be classified as a game.

 

But yeah, comparing which game is better can't really be done because they are of different genres. Each game is good for its genre. And they are both some pretty hardcore tactical simulations.

 

By the way, Arma 3's popularity can be thanked to it's modding scene. Something to keep in mind is that not everyone plays that game for it's military simulation possibilities. A lot of things can be simulated in that game and as such some people only play roleplaying mods/missions in which people pretend Arma 3 is like real life and they go around making money, eating, working, etc. See here:

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=225716527

Edited February 19, 2015 by BlackAlpha

[Thewood1]

I would doubt that, the damage model in ArmA is hitpoint based. ArmA3 is a infantry simulator but vehicle combat is bad.

No, there is a real Armor mod that converts most units to real armor values and makes sure modern ballistics are used.  Even the vanilla system is not just hit points.

[Wiggum15]

Yes, ArmA3 MP is pretty buggy, to get the things BlackAlpha talks about you need to install 10 or more mods, fiddle around with them ect.

There are Radio simulation mods for ArmA, but radios and communication is simulated in CM too.
The mods you talk about are for MP, so different players can talk with each other with real restrictions, fiddle with the frequency and stuff...but thats not the scope of CM !
Artillery "magically falls out of the sky" ?!
Do you know that the spotting, calling, correction is done by the AI in CM ?
In ArmA you can play as Mortar guy or spotter yeah but all you describe only works in MP were you dont have to deal with the horrible AI and is out of scope in CM anyway...why would the CM player himselfe adjust artillery fire by using the voice chat (radio) ??

[Imperial Grunt]

"The bit that you are all overlooking is that this current iteration of Combat Mission is based on a engine designed by BFC sometime in 2005. It has matured since then, but at its heart it is still at 2005ish engine. It only has single core support, I suspect it doesn't utilize video cards very well, it is a 32 bit process which severely limits the amount of RAM available to it. These are hard limitations to what the game can do. So while Wargame or Arma can look better their engines are more modern and are able to access more power.

 

BFC just can't magically make things better, just like you can't drive your car across a marsh. A road needs to be built. The infrastructure needs to be there. My computer has a GTX 780, 8 CPU cores, 10 GB of ram.

 

CM can only use 1 of my 8 processors, 3 of my 10 GB of ram. There are hard limits on what it can do.

 

What Steve was alluding to early was that at this point to greatly increase the capabilities of the Combat Mission series a new engine would need to be built. The last time this was done it took something like 5 years before the customers saw any new product, and even then Shock Force had unpleasant teething issues for another year or two and I would say that it was only with CM:BN that things got smooth. So essentially 8 years of development. To get another big leap would require another big engine push and how many years to get it up to speed"

 

 

 

I think one aspect that is different is that the conceptual game engine function has matured while in CMSF it was entirely new. I don't know if CMx2 v3.0 can be upgraded to CM×3 by keeping it's current game engine but giving it the ability to use multi-core processing and maximize video card capabilities.  

 

If the new 'under the hood' architecture could be added to what we have right now, I would be a very happy customer! I think that would completely open the door for the game to have all the functions we want, graphics and game-play wise and the game would run fast, even on my old laptop, which has 4×1.73ghz processors. (I know..I know, will be upgrading soon!).

 

I don't want a 5 year investment on an entirely new engine. But I want the above ASAP. And more CM titles.

 

CM with better gamer appeal = more customers. Mo' money for BFC means more games that we all love. Bring it!

Edited February 19, 2015 by Imperial Grunt

[Thewood1]

I don't want to compare which game is better...this is about people saying there are no alternatives to BFC and CM.  There are.  And dismissing a game because it doesn't fit a very restricted definition of how a wargame is defined is a good way to watch your market get eaten away.  There are alternatives out there and people are playing them.  ARMA II/III is a tool box that will let you do almost anything you want if you have the time and experience.  I come back to CM when it comes to wanting a more simple experience that doesn't make my brain feel like sludge after a week of setting it up and playing.

 

Anyone who dismisses ARMA as an FPS alone, has not played beyond the basic level.

 

btw, as to armor hitpoints...we don't even know what BFC uses.  Has anyone actually seen the armor values being used.  At least in ARMA, its open and changeable.

[AttorneyAtWar]

How about the simple fact that Arma and Combat mission are completely different games trying to accomplish completely different ideas. ARMA is a third person/1st person infantry/armor/air simulator while Combat Mission is a company level RTS/WEGO simulator.

 

[Wiggum15]

Thewood1, the ArmA you describe is a ArmA modded with 5+ mods and played exclusively in MP !

Also, ArmA is still a FPS, you can play it like CM (commanding squads and vehicles while viewing the battlefield from above) but that makes not much fun, try telling a (AI) MG team to setup their MG in the second floor of a building...try it and cry...try telling a (AI) tank to drive backwards 50m and pop smoke...please try it.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Wiggum15

[BlackAlpha]

Artillery "magically falls out of the sky" ?!

Do you know that the spotting, calling, correction is done by the AI in CM ?

 

 

Look, I'm not saying CM is not realistic. All I'm saying is that Arma is more detailed in some aspects. If you want to go full realism in the artillery department, you can use mods in which a player needs to call in a proper fire mission, then another player on the other end of the line inputs that information into a firing computer, and then sends that information to a player manning a weapon who then fires, then the first player adjusts fire and that loop continues. That's a much deeper simulation than CM does, in which it loosely simulates artillery by playing around with some numbers behind the scene.

 

Although CM is really good, it's not the most realistic game out there...

[Thewood1]

My point is ARMA, especially ARMA 2, has grown to the point that people use it for similar activities as CM.  No, its not a direct competitor to CM, but when a game that sells hundreds of thousands of units, adds features that will scratch a similar itch as CM, you now have a solid alternative to CM.  Is it a direct feature to feature clone...no.  But real-time company-level in ARMA with morale and suppression modeled...yeah it can do that if you knw what you are doing.  Does it do everything CM can do...no.  But it does some other things that CM can't do.  SO if you are one of those hundreds of thousands of players playing ARMA, and you want to try your hand at platoon or maybe even company-level command, try Hetman add-on in ARMA 2 or CM.  Hetman is hard to get a handle on, but quite a few people play it and other add-ons that allow higher level command and sandbox play.

 

I don't want to portray ARMA 2/3 capabilities in the CM space as easy to use, they aren't, but some of them are becoming official and standard parts of ARMA and might keep those players from ever considering CM.

[Jock Tamson]

Does the AI in Arma know what a building is yet?  Don't get me wrong, I have got hundreds of hours in Arma2, but the amount of modding you need to do to get an immersive single player experience is crazy.  Eventually, I couldn't be bothered any more.

 

Having said that, I would love the CM editor to have even a tenth of the power / flexibility of Arma's.

[guetapens]

GetTactical mod for Arma 3 which is still a WIP shows a lot of promise and takes the FPS/RTS genre into new territory. You cannot deny it looks glorious.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?182473-GetTactical-a-tactical-RTS-interface

http://youtu.be/9L0Do1kMaGY?t=13m3s

 

There are community made missions that involve combined arms and huge armies, you will soon be able to play multiplayer, adversarial or co-op or both : D and of course the ability to 'be' any of the troops, pilots, tank crews etc under your command makes this a potentially amazing and unique experience for strategy fans.

Edited February 19, 2015 by guetapens