Is Combat Mission getting competition?

[rocketman]

A promising looking game that is planned for release in Q3 17 that aims to combine aspects of CM, Close Combat, strategy and tactics. What do you think?

http://www.wargamer.com/news/the-tactical-art-of-combat-the-next-catch-all-combat-king/

http://www.tackom.com/news.htm

[para]

check out the vehicle modelling lots of errors and they don't like the constructive criticism..a bit of talking down of CM too

Edited April 6, 2016 by para

[rocketman]

Too bad if they have that kind of attitude

My impression though was that vechicle models are WIP.

[para]

15 minutes ago, rocketman said:

Too bad if they have that kind of attitude

My impression though was that vechicle models are WIP.

you are probably right and I hope it turns out to be what they are suggesting 

[A Canadian Cat]

It does look interesting but there seem to be some inconsistencies - the kind you get when you have concept that is not implemented yet.  For example they say they will have the most detail ever in their models but then say the camera will not allow you to view things up close because that is not needed in a tactical game.  They also are very unclear on the size of battles.  On the one hand they have a plan to have an over arching strategy layer (their term) that the tactical battles will fit into.  But then elsewhere they also say the tactical battles will be at around 300 soldiers or less.  It is hard to square how all this will play out because they still have not made the hard choices and compromises that come with implementing things. Not trying to be down on them they do have progress - models, uniforms and maps.  It will be interesting to watch how it goes.

@para are you the same para on their forum?  My cat avatars match...

[StieliAlpha]

Looks interesting, indeed. But let them deliver first. I have seen a couple of interesting projects in the past, which all ended up nowhere close to CM. Think about CM^s development time. I guess it will take 10 years before this AOC really flies, if ever. And that costs a lot of money.

[A Canadian Cat]

Yeah, based on what they have said they have done and the Q3 2017 estimated release date I had my salt shaker ready.  Hey you never know, they may have more done than they are saying.  At the very least it will be interesting to watch.

[para]

6 hours ago, IanL said:

It does look interesting but there seem to be some inconsistencies - the kind you get when you have concept that is not implemented yet.  For example they say they will have the most detail ever in their models but then say the camera will not allow you to view things up close because that is not needed in a tactical game.  They also are very unclear on the size of battles.  On the one hand they have a plan to have an over arching strategy layer (their term) that the tactical battles will fit into.  But then elsewhere they also say the tactical battles will be at around 300 soldiers or less.  It is hard to square how all this will play out because they still have not made the hard choices and compromises that come with implementing things. Not trying to be down on them they do have progress - models, uniforms and maps.  It will be interesting to watch how it goes.

@para are you the same para on their forum?  My cat avatars match...

Yes mate IanL

'' For example they say they will have the most detail ever in their models but then say the camera will not allow you to view things up close because that is not needed in a tactical game''  I asked pretty much that same question

[A Canadian Cat]

Cool.  Thanks for asking that I was going to but now I don't have to.

[Bootie]

I tend not to get too excited about kickstarters and the like.... seen too many fall by the wayside or are so underwhelming that what they advertised was not what was delivered.

[gnarly]

Digging through some of the developer's forum posts, I had to google " solipsistic". I still don't know what it means...

[Pak40]

I tried posting a reply to Sulla about their choice to not let the player zoom in all the way, but the forum wouldn't let it post. It suggested I was using bad or "spammy" language?

Anyway, I think  the game looks promising, but they are promising a lot and have just over a year to implement it by their time line. I'm skeptical until I get some answers and see a demo etc.. I've been burned before with promises like these. Remember GI Combat?

[Battlefront.com]

Interesting!  Just came upon this myself when checking out the Wargamer's review of Final Blizkrieg.

The frontman for this has been around for a long time and it's not surprising to see lots of talk about Close Combat rather than Combat Mission.  It's very, very easy to beat Close Combat's battlefield modeling and not too difficult to beat Graviteam's modeling.  Beating Combat Mission's modeling, on the other hand, is extremely tall order.  We've been perfecting the "literal" simulation of combat for almost 10 years and have lots of stuff out in the public eye to prove it. 

Looking over their team's experience they seem to be heavily rooted in Close Combat, so it also makes sense that they have that focus.  One game that is lacking from Sulla's resume was being the Producer for Eric Young's Squad Assault (EYSA).  Heh... not surprising since that game was one of the most panned wargames of its time.  Everybody was told EYSA was going to put CMx1 to shame, then after it was out he had to reconcile the turkey people had in front of them instead of the shining masterpiece that was promised.  Once bitten twice shy?

Anyway, we welcome the competition.  Our market is larger enough to have more games.  Plus, I can already see that this new game is going to continue on with some of the core design decisions of the old Close Combat.  For example, it seems there will be no map (or even scenario?) editor with this game.  That has always been a major distinction between the Close Combat and Combat Mission franchises.  They are also not promising a Turn Based mode of play, which again is a major difference between the two philosophies.

There's also the issue that their new game will be competing against CMx2 as well as the brand new engine of CMx3.  Some of the things they hope to differentiate themselves against CMx2 won't likely apply to CMx3.

Steve

 

[Battlefront.com]

I spent some more time looking the game over and it's basically Close Combat 3D in terms of basic gameplay elements.  Which is fine for the people that liked that system, but not so good if you didn't like (or grew tired of) those features the first time around.  Here are some of CC's major design features that appear to be carried forward from CC pretty much as is:

1.  There appears to be no map (or even scenario?) Editor.  No making your own battles, no playing battles made by others.  Which means if they don't make a battle you are interested in, you're SOL.

2.  Generic "Battle Groups" instead of TO&E based formations.  Just like CC the units are generic force building blocks without inherent organizational structure.  Too early to say if this means there's pretty much zero C2 structure as was the case in CC, but even if there is it will be generic instead of historically based.

3.  Each side's forces have a limited number of "slots" that are filled by generic units.  This limits both the total number of forces on the map as well as their diversity.  Apparently there are only 18 slots in total, for all unit types, which is extremely small by CM standards.

4.  Like CC, this is a company sized game system.  The claim that 18 slots can simulate a "battalion" is nonsense.  A typical foot type Battalion requires about 80 slots.  The math on that is 5-6 units per Platoon (HQ, 3x Rifle Squad, 1-2x Weapons Team/s), three Platoons per Company.  Add 5-10 more units at the Company level (HQ, 4-8 Weapons Teams) and you get 20 teams MINIMUM and 28 on the high side just for a Company.  Three Companies per Battalion is 60 units minimum, plus Battalion level assets which sometimes is as large as a Rifle Company in terms of unit count.  This means a typical foot Battalion requires upwards of 80 slots.  A mech type Battalion requires around 100.  And that's not including any non-organic supporting arms such as tanks, artillery, etc.

5.  I'm not quite sure, but I think the Close Combat "squad" (which was really a team) concept continues.  Meaning, to have the manpower and firepower of a full US Rifle Squad you need to use up 2 of your slots because no unit is larger than 6 men.  This further restricts scope and diversity of historical gameplay above what I mentioned above.

6.  They are going to lock the camera to very specific heights and angles, so you can't get "down into the grass" like you can with Combat Mission.  Since we've been told over and over again how important "down in the grass" viewing is to CM players, this isn't going to be a good thing for them.  Bug for Close Combat types, I don't think that's a problem at all.  And I agree there's all kinds of shortcuts you can take for development costs and game performance by staying out of the grass.  Which is why we'd drop that level of detail in a heartbeat if we thought we would live to see the following day

7.  Realtime only, just as CC was.  Obviously we have nothing against realtime games since CM is a realtime game engine (contrary to some bizarre comment I saw on the forum that implied we aren't), rather I'm simply pointing out turn based players are just as much SOL with this game as they were with Close Combat.

What I wrote above isn't meant to slam Tactical Art of Combat at all.  I still rank Close Combat 2 as one of the best wargaming experiences I ever had in my life.  I played the HELL out of that game when it came out in the 1995 timeframe.  Therefore, a really good 3D rendition of the game deserves to be a success.  That said, Combat Mission was built with certain things in mind that were not part of Close Combat and are still not a part of Tactical Art of Combat.  Since those things are key to Combat Mission's 15+ years of success, I don't foresee significant "defections" of CM players to this new game.  Some will no doubt play and enjoy both for their own reasons, and that is a good thing.

Now, there is one major thing I think will be much better in this game than CC; LOS/LOF modeling.  Getting better LOS/LOF was one of the things that sold me on the idea of a 3D wargame way back when Charles pitched the idea to me (oh, 1995/6 IIRC).  Therefore, even a moderately competent LOS/LOF system in Tactical Art of Combat is going to be better than what the original Close Combat had.  If it does the rest of Close Combat's features as well or better, then Tactical Art of Combat will be a superior game to it.

Steve

[landser]

31 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I don't foresee significant "defections" of CM players to this new game.  Some will no doubt play and enjoy both for their own reasons, and that is a good thing.

This is the main point as far as I am concerned. I was a big 'early' CC fan, and I, like Steve, played the hell out of that game (released in '97 incidentally, CC1 would have been in early '96). Personally I hope the new game is good, and I hope I will like it and play it, but I don't see, even if I do, that it would mean I stopped playing CM. For me it will probably come down to the campaign/operational level, if it exists, provided the battlefield mechanics are sound. I admit I know little about their plans. All games have strengths and weaknesses, CM included. But in any field, competition is good for the end user, as it drives innovation, quality and content. I don't know that the success, or failure, of the new game would cause Battlefront to do anything differently, but a successful competitor can only be viewed as a good thing for us grunts that love these sorts of games.

Edited April 14, 2016 by landser

[para]

ABTF was brilliant and i will probably buy TAoC and play it. i don't see it being a serious competitor for CM though.

[Pak40]

20 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

1.  There appears to be no map (or even scenario?) Editor.  No making your own battles, no playing battles made by others.  Which means if they don't make a battle you are interested in, you're SOL.

According to Sulla, there will be a map editor.

 

20 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

5.  I'm not quite sure, but I think the Close Combat "squad" (which was really a team) concept continues.  Meaning, to have the manpower and firepower of a full US Rifle Squad you need to use up 2 of your slots because no unit is larger than 6 men.  This further restricts scope and diversity of historical gameplay above what I mentioned above.

I think some of the later titles had full squads but my memory could be wrong.

Edited April 15, 2016 by Pak40

[Pak40]

20 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

6.  They are going to lock the camera to very specific heights and angles, so you can't get "down into the grass" like you can with Combat Mission.  Since we've been told over and over again how important "down in the grass" viewing is to CM players, this isn't going to be a good thing for them

Yea, I'm not thrilled about this at all. Players will want this feature to check LOS. However, in real time combat this will be time consuming and get players into trouble if they pay too much attention to one unit's LOS.

Yesterday, in response that their game is going to have an emphasis on realism, I posted two questions on their board - one about LOS (relative or borg), and the other about C2. Unfortunately they're going to stick with borg spotting system and it doesn't seem like they have implemented a C2 system as of yet. So, already it seems realism is taking a back seat.

Edited April 15, 2016 by Pak40

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, Pak40 said:

According to Sulla, there will be a map editor.

I figured I must have missed something because no Editor these days is pretty much the kiss of death.  Unfortunately, Editors consume a large amount of development resources so that's another thing piled onto their rather full plates.  Which is why Combat Mission was, and still kinda is, an exception in terms of the tools it provides out of the box.

Quote

I think some of the later titles had full squads but my memory could be wrong.

I stopped paying attention after CC3 as I cared most about the tactical combat and not the strategic layer and they chose to focus on the strategic portion from that point on.  But based on what has been said so far, the system seems the same as CC1-3 at least.  And that is generic "squads" which are put into a limited number of slots, with no command structure, for a total force count which roughly represents a reinforced company.  There is no physical way to portray a battalion sized formation, even a grossly inaccurately portrayed one.

As far as I'm concerned this is fine and an understandable compromise given the game is designed for an RTS crowd more than a wargaming crowd.  However, I don't think it's terribly smart to try and mislead people.   Tactical Art of Combat might turn out to be a really fun and high quality game which appeals to wargamers, but it will not be a very realistic game by wargaming standards.  I already dread the rebirth of CC fanatics trying to tell us that it's more realistic than Combat Mission... it was like arguing with religious fanatics that the Earth is a flat bit of 9000 year old rock which the universe revolves around.  No matter how easily or thoroughly you demolish their arguments, they keep right on claiming they're right.  Oh joy.

1 hour ago, Pak40 said:

Yea, I'm not thrilled about this at all. Players will want this feature to check LOS. However, in real time combat this will be time consuming and get players into trouble if they pay too much attention to one unit's LOS.

Yup, for an RTS that is definitely the way to go.  I play CM in RT for the most part and I don't get down into the weeds very much.  So it's not a criticism they have the camera locked, it's just me noting a major difference between the two game systems.

Quote

Yesterday, in response that their game is going to have an emphasis on realism, I posted two questions on their board - one about LOS (relative or borg), and the other about C2. Unfortunately they're going to stick with borg spotting system and it doesn't seem like they have implemented a C2 system as of yet. So, already it seems realism is taking a back seat.

Given the "slot" system for units, it's not surprising.  Close Combat supporters always overemphasized how realistic the game system was on its own or vs. Combat Mission.  It seems that will continue.  C2 and accurate organizational structures are what realism is based on.  They are not optional elements if one wants to claim a game is realistic.  Of course opinions can differ on this, but some opinions have less inherent validity than others.  For example, some people think that Adam Sandler movies are funny

Steve

[rocketman]

41 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

For example, some people think that Adam Sandler movies are funny

Steve

No, surely, there can't be anyone who does. Really?

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, rocketman said:

No, surely, there can't be anyone who does. Really?

SOMEONE goes to see those movies!  I suppose the box office receipts could be the result of the CIA trying to skirt around what is "torture".  I can just see the Senate oversight hearings now... "the Justice Department advised us on this manner and they said taking legally detained suspects to the movies does not fall into the legal definition of torture."

Yeah, I think that's making some sense.

Steve

[Thomm]

Lots of drama at this thread: Close Combat Series Thread.

Best regards
Thomm
 

[[MyIS] Buffpuff]

On 4/15/2016 at 1:16 PM, Battlefront.com said:

 For example, some people think that Adam Sandler movies are funny

Steve

Just Go With It (Jennifer Aniston....drool!!!)

Billy Madison (Yes it's stupid but come on...If you don't pee your pants you ain't cool!!!)

Big Daddy (Mediocre at best Steve. I'll give you this one)

The Waterboy (Just so many lines in that one. And The Fonz plays the Coach...Come on Steve!!!)

Grown Ups (Salma Hayek...To quote Wayne and Garth....SCHWING!!!)

Happy Gilmore (The price is wrong *****! )

The Wedding Singer (Love Stinks...Yeah yeah!)

You Don't Mess With the Zohan (OK Steve you got me on this one...Terrible movie)

Jack and Jill (I'll give you half credit here Steve as seeing Adam dressed up in drag is "disturbing" on so many levels...But Al Pacino doing the Dunkin Chino...Priceless!!!)

I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry (Jessica Biel...SCHWING SCHWING!!!)

That's My Boy (I'll give you another point for this one Steve. Bad movie)

The Longest Yard (Given that it's a remake of Burt Reynolds I found it to be quite entertaining. One of his better movies in my book)

Anger Management (Jack Nicholson..."I Feel Pretty". And "I said over easy!!!". Boo on you Steve!!!)

Pixels (Growing up in the 80's I couldn't help but to be reminded of the so many days of going to the Mall to go to the Arcade)

Grown Ups 2 (I'll give you 2 points for this one Steve. Some movies don't need a sequel. Grown Ups was one of them)

 

Sorry for the off-topic commentary...Carry on!!!

 

On 4/15/2016 at 1:58 PM, rocketman said:

No, surely, there can't be anyone who does. Really?

 

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, Thomm said:

Lots of drama at this thread: Close Combat Series Thread.

Best regards
Thomm
 

Sheesh, and some people think that we have a bunch of negative Nancies here.  From what I remember CC fans were the games' worst enemy sometimes.  Really strange.  Anyway, the game will either come out or not, be great or not.  The people acting like they know what it will be simply don't have enough info to judge.  Though that doesn't stop people from judging!

20 minutes ago, [MyIS] Buffpuff said:

Sorry for the off-topic commentary...Carry on!!!

As they say... there's always one in every crowd.  You, sir, are the one

Steve

[Sublime]

Ugh Steve remember when one of the CC decelopers started trolling the forums here around 2002 2003? Sad.