How do you guys manage multiple units at once, without turning around and finding half your units are dead?

[Vinnart]

The fact that this roster concept was brought up and heavily discussed over 3 years ago only solidifies my fear that not a damn thing in the Combat Mission series is ever going to change.  

 

Not true. I have been playing CMx2 since CMSF and there have been improvements albeit it has to be in baby steps. BF is a very small company with small business budget. Many times with good improvement threads the guys at BF would love to do, but unfortunately it has to be in baby steps because of the reason I gave that Steve has repeated through the years. For instance you can find threads saying how great it would be to have a FOLLOW command. Hell, Steve will tell you it is on the top of things he would like and you see there still no FOLLOW command. And HE is ONE of THE OWNERS! It is not like they do not want to make enhancements, but they are limited in resources.  Just be patient, and remember development is an ongoing process. As far as CM goes CMBS is SO much more polished than CMSF to show there has been progression. Despite CM’s shortcomings it is still the best thing out there in this genre. It will only get better with each build.

Edited June 23, 2015 by Vinnart

[moeburn]

Not true. I have been playing CMx2 since CMSF and there have been improvements albeit it has to be in baby steps. BF is a very small company with small business budget. Many times with good improvement threads the guys at BF would love to do, but unfortunately it has to be in baby steps because of the reason I gave that Steve has repeated through the years. For instance you can find threads saying how great it would be to have a FOLLOW command. Hell, Steve will tell you it is on the top of things he would like and you see there still no FOLLOW command. And HE is ONE of THE OWNERS! It is not like they do not want to make enhancements, but they are limited in resources.  Just be patient, and remember development is an ongoing process. As far as CM goes CMBS is SO much more polished than CMSF to show there has been progression. Despite CM’s shortcomings it is still the best thing out there in this genre. it will only get better still.

 

Well if they're so limited in resources that they don't have the time to code a follow command, where did they find the time and money to develop all the new 3D models, research the realistic characteristics, design new missions and campaigns, and develop a storyline for Black Sea?

 

I understand that this is a small company and there's only so much they can do, I just find the choice of what they choose to do with their limited resources questionable, from what I can see here as a consumer.  But then of course, I'm not seeing things from their perspective, I don't know how things really work on the inside, and I know it's way more complicated than my brief paragraph forum posts can imply.  Maybe they had to quickly whip up something like Black Sea to keep the company afloat, I don't know.  I'm just not feeling the labour of love in this series anymore.  

 

But you're right, despite it's shortcomings it is still the best thing out there in this genre, and I do still love it, I have a great time playing it, and I will continue to play it.  But unless I see some changes, I don't think I'm going to pay for any new releases in this series any more.  Maybe that's what it would take to see some improvements to Combat Mission - a competitor.  If people keep buying rehashed versions of the same old engine in new scenarios, they're going to keep churning them out until people stop buying them.  

Edited June 23, 2015 by moeburn

[Jargotn]

Yes, CM moves in tiny baby steps. However, there were some improvements that I'd call "mayor". Being able to shoot at planes. Onmap mortars.

 

If you look at the core of it, CM is a very tiny game. Extremely complex, but also, just like BFC, rather small. However, I do like that BFC seems to have found the right speed to both deliver us regular upgrades to the engine while at the same time staying in business.

[A Canadian Cat]

Why is that? 

 

Because you are throwing a hisssy fit because *your* favourite feature has not been implemented.  Just because it is important to you does not make it the top priority.  Sorry.  There have been lots of improvements in the game since CMSF just not the one that you really want.  Steve has mentioned before that he plans to do a major UI improvement push at some point and so has been intentionally not making a lot of UI changes in the mean time.  We all just have to be patient and see what he comes up with.  Then you can throw another hisssy fit because it does not do some other thing you really wanted

[moeburn]

Because you are throwing a hisssy fit because *your* favourite feature has not been implemented.  Just because it is important to you does not make it the top priority.  Sorry.  There have been lots of improvements in the game since CMSF just not the one that you really want.  Steve has mentioned before that he plans to do a major UI improvement push at some point and so has been intentionally not making a lot of UI changes in the mean time.  We all just have to be patient and see what he comes up with.  Then you can throw another hisssy fit because it does not do some other thing you really wanted

 

Oh come on now, there's no need for hyperbole.  I hardly think anything I've said so far could qualify as a "hissy fit", but I did offer some constructive criticisms and shared my pessimistic feelings about them getting implemented, and I understand some people don't like to hear that sort of thing, so I'm sorry you had to read it.  

 

If more people would prefer new scenarios and units over feature and UI changes, then I guess mine is the unpopular opinion.  But if nobody voices their opinion on what they'd like to see, then Battlefront will just have to make their best guess as to what would sell well, and it might not be what any of us would want to get out of this game we all love so much.  

[moeburn]

Yes, CM moves in tiny baby steps. However, there were some improvements that I'd call "mayor". Being able to shoot at planes. Onmap mortars.

 

If you look at the core of it, CM is a very tiny game. Extremely complex, but also, just like BFC, rather small. However, I do like that BFC seems to have found the right speed to both deliver us regular upgrades to the engine while at the same time staying in business.

 

Weren't being able to shoot at planes and on-map mortars available in the very first CMx1 games?

[sburke]

Weren't being able to shoot at planes and on-map mortars available in the very first CMx1 games?

it isn't helpful to draw conclusions from CMx1 for CMx2.  It is a new game from the ground up.  As to some of the reactions you are getting - you may want to tailor your responses differently - for example saying

 

Well if they're so limited in resources that they don't have the time to code a follow command, where did they find the time and money to develop all the new 3D models, research the realistic characteristics, design new missions and campaigns, and develop a storyline for Black Sea?

 

Those items are absolutely necessary to have a product to make money and survive.  Creating a follow command generates zero additional income, but sucks up resources.  You are comparing apples and oranges - time to develop a new feature versus time to create necessary components for a new game.  In addition a lot of the scenarios and campaigns are done by folks who are volunteers and do not have anything to do with writing code.  The follow command demands time from one specific critical individual - Charles and he apparently does not feel it is an item at the top of his queue.

 

The fact that this roster concept was brought up and heavily discussed over 3 years ago only solidifies my fear that not a damn thing in the Combat Mission series is ever going to change. 

 

That is simply venting.  It is blatantly wrong, even ridiculously so.  It is totally human to be frustrated, but venting like that will immediately get you a reaction on these boards.  You can just say you are simply frustrated over the slow development of the UI.  It has been quite a few years since CMBN came out so that is not an outrageous thing to say.  Steve would likely agree, unfortunately as a resource versus income issue it just hasn't reached the priority queue yet and if Steve wants it and it hasn't gotten there then you gotta realize that it isn't from lack of desire.  First and foremost it is a business.

[moeburn]

Those items are absolutely necessary to have a product to make money and survive.  Creating a follow command generates zero additional income, but sucks up resources.  You are comparing apples and oranges - time to develop a new feature versus time to create necessary components for a new game.  In addition a lot of the scenarios and campaigns are done by folks who are volunteers and do not have anything to do with writing code.  The follow command demands time from one specific critical individual - Charles and he apparently does not feel it is an item at the top of his queue.

 

I wasn't aware that taking the old engine and putting it in new theatres and scenarios was "absolutely necessary to make money and survive".  And you're saying that improving the UI and adding more features generates zero additional income?  You wouldn't believe the number of people to whom I've shown this game who say they want to enjoy it, but can't get past the UI.

 

 

 

That is simply venting.  It is blatantly wrong, even ridiculously so.  It is totally human to be frustrated, but venting like that will immediately get you a reaction on these boards.  You can just say you are simply frustrated over the slow development of the UI.  It has been quite a few years since CMBN came out so that is not an outrageous thing to say.  Steve would likely agree, unfortunately as a resource versus income issue it just hasn't reached the priority queue yet and if Steve wants it and it hasn't gotten there then you gotta realize that it isn't from lack of desire.  First and foremost it is a business.

 

It is venting, and I made every indication that that is what I was doing.  It isn't "blatantly and ridiculously wrong" though - Normandy, Afghanistan and Black Sea and the like all amount to expansion packs for Shock Force.  The game hasn't changed, aside from minor bug fixes and tweaks, just the scenario it's in.  

 

I understand it is a business first and foremost.  But, like a friend of mine said when I showed him this game, "I can't support this business model".

 

 

 

 As to some of the reactions you are getting

 

Actually for the most part, most of the reactions I am getting have been quite positive and supportive, and I feel we've been having a really productive discussion here, don't you?  I think one person was highly offended by my criticisms.  

Edited June 23, 2015 by moeburn

[agusto]

I wasn't aware that taking the old engine and putting it in new theatres and scenarios was "absolutely necessary to make money and survive".  And you're saying that improving the UI and adding more features generates zero additional income?  You wouldn't believe the number of people to whom I've shown this game who say they want to enjoy it, but can't get past the UI

 

Oh no! Not another discussion about Battlefronts business strategy. They usually end in lots of quarrel, no results and Steve dropping by saying something along the lines of: "Had our strategy in the last 10 years been so bad as you claim, our company wouldnt exist anymore. So naturally we must have been doing something right. Let the market decide whether our not our business model works"..

Edited June 23, 2015 by agusto

[moeburn]

Oh no! Not another discussion about Battlefronts business strategy. They usually end in lots of quarrel, no results and Steve dropping by saying something along the lines of: "Had our strategy in the last 10 years been so bad as you claim, our company wouldnt exist anymore. So naturally we must have been doing something right. Let the market decide whether our not our business model works"..

 

Another example are all the companies that get away with selling preorders to broken games that they rushed out the door before they were finished.  It's a sound "business strategy", because it makes them money - if it wasn't, they would have stopped doing it 20 years ago - but it doesn't mean it is one that anyone would knowingly support.  

[agusto]

Regarding the case you brought forward, i think it' s (in most cases) not their busniness strategy to sell broken games via preorders - that' s just the result of their actual business strategy failing. It' s either an attempt to save what' s left of an overly ambitous project or the result of the gamestudio failing to meet a deadline set by the publisher. I assure you it would not be a sound business strategy to intentionally sell broken games via preorders. Firstaval, who, in his right mind, plans on developing a broken game in the first place? LOL! Secondly, starting a company with the intent to sell broken games via preorders would be a very short sighted plan. You maybe get away with it once, but not a second time. I know a couple of game studios that went bankrupt over releasing an alpha/beta as a full priced title, doing that is nothing you want to do.

[sburke]

It is venting, and I made every indication that that is what I was doing.  It isn't "blatantly and ridiculously wrong" though - Normandy, Afghanistan and Black Sea and the like all amount to expansion packs for Shock Force.  The game hasn't changed, aside from minor bug fixes and tweaks, just the scenario it's in.  

 

Actually for the most part, most of the reactions I am getting have been quite positive and supportive, and I feel we've been having a really productive discussion here, don't you?  I think one person was highly offended by my criticisms.  

Expansion packs to CMSF?  LOL that is so out there it is simply funny and not really worth responding to.  But I did get a laugh.

 

As to the response from others, you may want to look around a little more closely.  Most of this forum is probably suspecting you are a return poster that had been previously banned and is probably headed for it again.

 

I personally am not offended because the opinions you have expressed are so far off the mark they simply are not worth taking seriously.

[moeburn]

Regarding the case you brought forward, i think it' s (in most cases) not their busniness strategy to sell broken games via preorders - that' s just the result of their actual business strategy failing. It' s either an attempt to save what' s left of an overly ambitous project or the result of the gamestudio failing to meet a deadline set by the publisher. I assure you it would not be a sound business strategy to intentionally sell broken games via preorders. Firstaval, who, in his right mind, plans on developing a broken game in the first place? LOL! Secondly, starting a company with the intent to sell broken games via preorders would be a very short sighted plan. You maybe get away with it once, but not a second time. I know a couple of game studios that went bankrupt over releasing an alpha/beta as a full priced title, doing that is nothing you want to do.

 

And yet, there is plenty of evidence to show that it happens.  My point is that the fact that a company hasn't disappeared after 10 years isn't necessarily an indicator of a healthy business strategy.  

[moeburn]

Expansion packs to CMSF?  LOL that is so out there it is simply funny and not really worth responding to.  But I did get a laugh.

 

Oh come on now, I almost thought I was going to get a productive discussion with you.  That kind of immature tone is uncalled for. 

 

 

 

As to the response from others, you may want to look around a little more closely.  Most of this forum is probably suspecting you are a return poster that had been previously banned and is probably headed for it again.

 

Well that is just a level of paranoia that I am not sure how to respond to.  Anyone else here feel okay with this guy speaking for them?  Anyone else suspect that even though I made this account 5 years ago, I for some reason made another account, got banned on it, and then came back to this original one?

 

 

 

I personally am not offended because the opinions you have expressed are so far off the mark they simply are not worth taking seriously.

 

You say that, and yet, my comments seem to have struck a nerve with you.  I mean I guess it is to be expected, you get the same thing anywhere else - criticize a niche product with a small, tight-knit community as an outsider, and some people are going to get pissed.  But how else do you expect this game to get even better?  Does Battlefront have a feedback button or take surveys?  Did I miss one?

Edited June 24, 2015 by moeburn

[sburke]

 

Oh come on now, I almost thought I was going to get a productive discussion with you.  That kind of immature tone is uncalled for. 

 

 

 

Well that is just a level of paranoia that I am not sure how to respond to.  Anyone else here feel okay with this guy speaking for them?  Anyone else suspect that even though I made this account 5 years ago, I for some reason made another account, got banned on it, and then came back to this original one?

 

 

You say that, and yet, my comments seem to have struck a nerve with you.  I mean I guess it is to be expected, you get the same thing anywhere else - criticize a niche product with a small, tight-knit community as an outsider, and some people are going to get pissed.  But how else do you expect this game to get even better?  Does Battlefront have a feedback button or take surveys?  Did I miss one?

 

But that is the point, the game is getting better.  That you can't see the difference between CMSF and CMBS just goes to show how little effort you are putting into examining them.

 

And as much as I would like something different there is no way we were going to have a productive discussion with a statement like

 

It is venting, and I made every indication that that is what I was doing.  It isn't "blatantly and ridiculously wrong" though - Normandy, Afghanistan and Black Sea and the like all amount to expansion packs for Shock Force.  The game hasn't changed, aside from minor bug fixes and tweaks, just the scenario it's in.

 

That is not the starting point for a productive discussion.  Sorry I can't entertain that as even remotely a valid position.  The world is not flat.

[moeburn]

But that is the point, the game is getting better.  That you can't see the difference between CMSF and CMBS just goes to show how little effort you are putting into examining them.

 

That is not the starting point for a productive discussion. 

 

Sure it is!  Here:  What kind of major changes have you seen, other than new units and new weapons in new theatres of war?  Maybe I missed some, or I'm not thinking clearly.  I think the most significant change I can think of was shader and bump mapping support, and I personally wouldn't qualify that as a major change.  We've gotten water, bridges, on-map artillery and anti-aircraft support, but that's just bringing us to the level we had in CMx1.  What else is there?

Edited June 24, 2015 by moeburn

[sburke]

 

Well that is just a level of paranoia that I am not sure how to respond to.  Anyone else here feel okay with this guy speaking for them?  Anyone else suspect that even though I made this account 5 years ago, I for some reason made another account, got banned on it, and then came back to this original one?

 

 

Sorry meant to respond to this too.  Don't read too much into it.  No I don't think you are any one of those individuals.  I did notice you have been around since 2010 as a member.  It was more about the nature of your posts.  They are eerily familiar to the point that you should probably recognize the similarity if you have actively been reading the forum over the last couple years.  I could probably drag up a dozen threads that usually ended up with a banning and always ended up locked.  That is why I cautioned you about tailoring your responses to be less all encompassing "the world is falling and BF is essentially ripping us off just cranking out the same old tripe"  My words, but they are pretty close to what you have said.

[moeburn]

  That is why I cautioned you about tailoring your responses to be less all encompassing "the world is falling and BF is essentially ripping us off just cranking out the same old tripe"  My words, but they are pretty close to what you have said.

 

Um, maybe it's just be, but I think that's a pretty hyperbolic exaggeration of what I said.  I think I've remained calm, polite and productive throughout this entire thread, aside from one time I said "not a damn thing is going to change", and while that might be an unfair and frustrated vent, it's a far cry from the kind of bannable whining you're talking about.  

 

 

 

They are eerily familiar to the point that you should probably recognize the similarity if you have actively been reading the forum over the last couple years.  I could probably drag up a dozen threads that usually ended up with a banning and always ended up locked.

 

Well I can't speak to whatever their attitude was to get them banned, but if the complaints are similar to mine, maybe that should suggest something?

Edited June 24, 2015 by moeburn

[sburke]

Sure it is!  Here:  What kind of major changes have you seen, other than new units and new weapons in new theatres of war?  Maybe I missed some, or I'm not thinking clearly.  I think the most significant change I can think of was shader and bump mapping support, and I personally wouldn't qualify that as a major change.  We've gotten water, bridges, on-map artillery and anti-aircraft support, but that's just bringing us to the level we had in CMx1.  What else is there?

I'll leave others to write up the several pages of response you are likely to get.  I won't do your work for you.  Go pull the features list in every release then come back.  I do have a better perspective as I have been one of the folks testing all the new stuff for a couple years now both for trouble reporting and bug testing for new releases.  If they weren't changing stuff they wouldn't have much need for beta testers....

 

Maybe one of the Old hand beta testers can comment about what it has been like for them going from CMSF to now.  I am a relative newbie there.

[sburke]

Um, maybe it's just be, but I think that's a pretty hyperbolic exaggeration of what I said.  I think I've remained calm, polite and productive throughout this entire thread, aside from one time I said "not a damn thing is going to change", and while that might be an unfair and frustrated vent, it's a far cry from the kind of bannable whining you're talking about.  

The "whining" isn't what got folks banned.

[moeburn]

I'll leave others to write up the several pages of response you are likely to get.  I won't do your work for you.  

 

You'd think if there were some changes significant enough to be called "major", they would be significant enough for you to remember off the top of your head.  But in my experience, whenever someone vigorously argues with you for a while and then finally at the end says "I'm not gonna waste my time answering that, I won't do your work for you", it's usually because they've realised they don't have an argumentative leg to stand on.  

 

 

Go pull the features list in every release then come back.

 

I do - I love pouring through features lists for every release, eager to see what they've come up with.  But because I was honestly curious to know if I had missed anything, I did it again, just like you asked.  Most of the feature lists are repeating what every other game has, because they aren't changelogs, they are meant to advertise the game to new customers.  Parts of it are listing off new weapons and units.  Many of them are listing features that were in CMx1 and have finally been made available to CMx2.  And then you get the odd minor change, like waypoint dragging or hotkey groups.  

 

And geez, gimme at least a couple minutes before you reply, I have a tendency to immediately re-read what I just posted and edit it

Edited June 24, 2015 by moeburn

[sburke]

You'd think if there were some changes significant enough to be called "major", they would be significant enough for you to remember off the top of your head.  But in my experience, whenever someone vigorously argues with you for a while and then finally at the end says "I'm not gonna waste my time answering that, I won't do your work for you", it's usually because they've realised they don't have an argumentative leg to stand on.  

 

 

And geez, gimme at least a couple minutes before you reply, I have a tendency to immediately re-read what I just posted and edit it

Sorry I hate missing typos. 

 

The alternative is they don't see the point of continuing.  For example suppose I gave you a great example right now.  You in all likelihood would say that isn't one or just argue why you disagree that is a "major" change.  I don't think anything I can say is going to change your position.  I honestly think you are totally convinced that you are correct and I am coming from a place where I can't even fathom how you came to that conclusion.  Hence my admittedly snippy little comment of the world is not flat.

 

I just don't see this being a productive discussion.  Others can take it up with you if they so wish, but I just feel like this is that Monty Python skit where the guy pays for an argument and all he gets is "no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't".

 

I am just not the right person for you to have this discussion with, ask for your money back. (That is again a reference to the Monty Python skit)

[Vinnart]

Another example are all the companies that get away with selling preorders to broken games that they rushed out the door before they were finished.  It's a sound "business strategy", because it makes them money - if it wasn't, they would have stopped doing it 20 years ago - but it doesn't mean it is one that anyone would knowingly support.  

I can tell you as as one who has beta tested is that the games are not rushed out the door. You may be surprised in how long it takes, and how many builds are gone through before a game is release. A lot of time and work goes into making the game, and I am just a tester. Even to make some of the mods out there, which I have done too take time and testing, and more time and more testing and changing ,,and more testing. Even after it is said and done there is testing and patching. In other words it is a very complex thing that one who does not do may find hard to understand from seeing it on the surface.

 

There have been changes, refinements, and features to the CMx2 engine since its inception. For instance moving waypoints just to name one. Are there as many changes at this point as we would all like? No, but like I said "baby steps" is just the way it is. As far as each games content. Yes, it is the same engine for the most part, but each game has a different feel. The unique units, and terrains do give each game a uniqueness as a series. Still we are all looking forward to the next engine rebuild when ever that may be.

 

As for business models we all have our opinions. I for one would like to see expansion of Real Time capabilities to Multi-multiplay to offer a unique team play experience. I would like to see BF sell 2 million copies like "Sudden Strike" did which was a big part of the appeal of it's success. The thing is it is their business so it is their decisions. Whatever they do i wish them well.

Edited June 24, 2015 by Vinnart

[agusto]

And yet, there is plenty of evidence to show that it happens.

 

That what happens? That companies intentionally develop broken games to cash off with pre-order sales as their business strategy? Really, i doubt that there are many companies doing this (if there are any at all), and as i already said, i think that the phenomenum you described is in most (if not all cases) the result of bad planning rather than intentional fraud. I also doubt that they survive very long, if such companies exist at all. Anyways i dont see any point in argueing further. You claim that there is evidence that proves me wrong, show me.

 

My point is that the fact that a company hasn't disappeared after 10 years isn't necessarily an indicator of a healthy business strategy.  

 

What is a healthy business strategy then if it' s not one that ensures the economical survival of your company and its employees without breaking any laws? Also Battlefront has been around for about 17 years, just for the record.

[sburke]

Ha funny kind of same subject in another thread.  This was one response

 

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=338&Itemid=583

 

 

ENGINE CHANGES SINCE SHOCK FORCE

If you are a strictly Modern Warfare setting player and have not played any Combat Mission titles since Shock Force, the list is far, far more extensive! The below list is just a highlight of what has changed since Combat Mission: Shock Force:

MULTIPLAYER

* WeGo TCP/IP with the ability to save but not the ability to replay combat action.
* Pausable RealTime TCP/IP option. A player can request a Pause and, if the other player agrees, the game is Paused until both players are ready to continue play.
QUICK BATTLES

* Redesigned Quick Battle Generator that includes the ability for players to purchase formations, units and support, for their own force and for the computer AI. By deleting subformations/units, setting experience, motivation, fitness, and leadership levels, and attaching Specialist Teams and individual vehicles, the player can custom-tailor their force for the mission.
* Automatically purchased force options are still available for the player and opponent, as well as a "Suggestion" button in the unit purchase screen that will quickly buy a force that the player can then modify.
* Players can now choose their own maps, and preview maps before playing.

USER INTERFACE

* Two new camera control modes have been introduced in addition to the traditional Combat Mission controls: First Person Shooter (FPS), and Real Time Strategy (RTS). These new camera controls allow a player the choice to control the in-game camera in a way that is more familiar to other game genres.
* Hotkey Unit Groups. Select units and assign them to number keys for quick navigation during gameplay.
* New Load New Game dialog screen. The list of scenarios can now be sorted by size, length, or alphabetically.
* Improved Saved Game dialog screen. The list of scenarios can now be sorted by newest file, oldest file, or alphabetically, or filter between single player and PBEM saves. Save games can be deleted in the game.
* Visual Hotkey binding. A new dialog in the Options menu allows you to specify and view key assignments.
* KIAs are shown in the Soldier/Crew Panels to track soldiers lost during the game.
* The Ammo Panel has been redesigned: Ammunition is now listed by name and in discrete quantities instead of with icons and depleting bars.
* Option to disable music separate from other game sounds.

UNITS

* FoW floating icons. FoW floating icons. Instead of getting a general area "?" icon and then immediately progressing to an accurate 3D representation, now there is an inbetween stage where you get a icon that represents the general category of enemy unit and no 3D representation. This tells the player "you know roughly what the unit is, but nothing more specific than that."
* Command lines are back! Command and Control (C3) links can now be shown on the battlefield, allowing you to quickly determine whether subordinate units are in contact with their headquarters. Use Alt-Z.
* Expanded floating icon categories. New unique floating icons have been added for Ammo Bearer, Recon, Engineer, MANPADS, LMG, Light Truck (Antitank), SPAA.
* Dismounted vehicles function as Ammo Dumps, allowing formations to have reserve ammo stored separately on map (automatically distributed for certain Skill Levels).
* Player-placeable static defenses and fortifications such as trenches, barbed wire, and mines.
* Active Protection Systems (APS) are now available for some vehicles.
* Some vehicles can salvo fire two ATGMs simultaneously at the same target.
* Vehicles with laser warning receivers will display hit text warning the player that they have been lased. The vehicle will then rotate towards the threat, deploy smoke launchers and back up to cover, unless it is immediately preoccupied with another task such as engaging an enemy vehicle or moving.

COMBAT AND SIMULATION

* Ground units are now able to fire at attacking aircraft using self-propelled anti-aircraft vehicles, emplaced anti-aircraft guns, or shoulder-launched MANPADS units. Aircraft that are fired upon may have their combat effectiveness diminished, be forced to abort the mission, or even be shot down.
* Soldiers with assault rifles are more likely to use aimed semi-automatic fire at distant targets instead of burst fire. Soldiers fire weapons faster at short ranges. MGs fire longer, more accurate bursts. More realistic and varied RoF of automatic weapons. Ammo bearers and heavy weapon assistant soldiers generally use their weapons only at shorter ranges.
* Soldiers can surrender to nearby enemy units and possibly be "rescued" by nearby friendly units. This replaces the "routing" behavior from CMSF.
* Wide range of weather types and environmental effects, including rain, fog, heavy winds (with ballistic effects), different types of ground conditions, animated water effects, and more...
* Vehicles and soldiers equipped with night vision and thermal vision have a significantly improved boost to spotting abilities in low visibility conditions such as night.
* Buttoned-up armored vehicles spot enemies to their flanks less effectively.
* Improved UI display for timing of preplanned artillery missions also indicates what delay would be after the battle begins.
* Small arms fire causes more suppression than before.

MAPS AND ENVIRONMENT

* Game performance for large maps has been increased while load times for large maps have been improved.
* Maps can now be up to 8 kilometers long or wide (up from 4 kilometers). However, total map size is still restricted to 16 square kilometers. This means that you can make a 2 kilometer wide map that is 8 kilometers long!
* Conduct combat operations in lush rural landscapes, dense urban settings, or anywhere in between.
* Heavy Rocks, Heavy Forest, Marsh, and Deep Marsh block all vehicle movement, while Deep Marsh additionally blocks infantry movement.
* Water terrain types added: Water, Reeds, Deep Ford, and Shallow Ford. Infantry can cross Deep Ford and Shallow Ford, while non-amphibious vehicles can only cross Shallow Ford.
* Bridges are now available as a terrain type. Bridges come in multiple varieties, including wooden foot bridges, small rural stone bridges, large concrete traffic bridges, and even railroad bridges. Bridge lengths vary from 16 meters to 600 meters long.
* New and improved tree and bush models added, representing a variety of European species ranging in size from small shrubs to towering evergreens. Forest ground tiles can accompany them for proper forest terrain.
* Generic buildings can now be up to 14 stories high, and have sloped roofs available in addition to flat roofs.

SOLDIERS

* Dynamic, context sensitive equipment loadouts for individual soldiers depending on what weapon and equipment are carried.
* Expanded Soldier details. A completely new way of assigning models and textures allows greater flexibility and variety of how Soldiers look in the game. It also allows for more flexible Modding possibilities.
* When available, pre-made soldier appearance options can be toggled in the editor or QB Purchase screen by using the Appearance button. For example, this allows the player to choose between Ukrainian troops equipped with either new digital camouflage uniforms or older TTSKO uniforms.
* Night vision equipment, such as goggles and weapon sights, will be automatically and visually equipped in scenarios with low-light conditions.
* Many new soldier animations, stances and positions, including kneeling and sitting positions for crew served weapons, pistol firing animations, hand grenade throwing, crew functions, first aid, and much more...
* Automatic ammo sharing between nearby soldier Units.
FIRE SUPPORT

* On-map mortars, both dismounted and vehicle-mounted, are now available. On-map assets such as mortars are able to fire in both direct and indirect modes, using their own spotters or separate forward observers.
* Spotters are now restricted to directing only one Artillery or Air Support Mission at a time. Assets can now be group fired by shift-left-clicking them, allowing more than one Asset to be assigned to the same Mission. EXCEPTION: Spotters directing one UAV Observation Mission can also simultaneously direct one Artillery or Air Support Mission.
* Player-placeable Target Reference Points (TRPs) allow simulating prepared support strikes and ambushes. Support missions aimed at TRPs do not require LOS from the spotter, or any spotting phase.
* Precision artillery missions are available for Point targets. These missions are only available for certain artillery assets and 120mm mortars.
* UAV Support Missions are now available. These missions use UAV support assets which can share spotting information with the player and ground units.
* Helicopter and UAV Support Assets no longer require Line of Sight (LOS) for the spotter to call in a mission. In other words, the mission can be called anywhere on the map.

COMMANDS

* Scout Team Command splits off 2 men to act as scouts.
* Target Armor Arc Command. Instructs units to engage only armored units within the specified arc. As with nearly every Command, outcome varies greatly depending on unit quality and battlefield conditions.
* Target Briefly Command. Tells a unit to fire all its guns on a designated spot for 15 seconds, then cease fire. Issuing the command repeatedly increases the duration in increments of 15 seconds.
* Mark Mines Command for Engineer teams and squads.
* Waypoint dragging. A waypoint can be clicked on and moved by dragging it to a new location.
* Grouped Spacebar Command system. Instead of getting all of the commands in a big list when the Spacebar is used, instead you get four groups of commands: Movement, Combat, Special, and Administrative. Selecting one of these presents the Commands specific to that Commands Group.
* For vehicles with more than two weapons systems, such as an IFV armed with ATGMs, cannon, and MGs, the Target Light Command will fire only MGs on the target, while the Target Command will allow all weapon systems to be fired.
GRAPHICS AND PERFORMANCE

* Shaders.
* Faster graphics, including FPS improvements, especially for infantry-heavy maps and faster video cards.
* Possible speed improvements depending on video card hardware and drivers.
* Movie Mode.
* Bright Night Mode.
* Hit impacts to vehicles and bunkers now shown graphically ("hit decals").
* Improved rendering. Normal and Bump mapping allows for more texture detail while using less system resources and improving the pressure on framerates.

EDITOR

* Independent Vehicles and Specialist Teams can be purchased and attached to any formation, allowing players to tailor their formations.
* Exit objectives.
* Improved Scenario briefing format, including a new Designer Notes subsection.
* "Reduced headcount" option to simulate previously depleted formations.
* "Ditch Contours" feature. Map editor elevation changes can be "sharp" by holding the control key when clicking tile elevations. This allows the creation of realistic ditch contours.
* Ability to create AI Triggers that execute actions based on other units or interaction with Objectives.
* Improved responsiveness of 2D editing, especially for large maps.
* Improved load time for 3D Preview, especially large maps.
* Customized "Mod Tags" for most graphics. This allows for multiple mods for the same item without the need to move items in/out of Data folder.
* Ability to specify specific mods be used for a specific Scenario. If CM fails to find the specified mod it will use the default graphics.
* Auto-Assemble linear terrain tool. Roads, walls, fences, and hedges can now be automatically drawn across the map instead of placing them one tile at a time. The old manual selection interface still exists to allow tweaking specific Action Spots.
* BMP map overlay. Instead of having to create game maps by freehand you can now trace over a real world map within the Editor. Four different levels of transparency make the process easier by adjusting for different needs as work progresses.
* More AI Groups. The number of AI Groups available has been increased from 8 to 16. This allows for greater fidelity of AI Plans and their assigned units.
* Copy and paste AI Plans. Create a solid AI Plan, copy it, and paste it into an unused AI Plan slot. Once done the copied Plan can be modified to make a unique variant without having to build the Plan up from scratch.
BONUS

* Combat Victories (Kill Stats) for individual units showing how many and what types of units the soldier or vehicle has eliminated in the mission (totals tracked for campaigns)