Difference between CMBS (CMx2 v.3) and CMSF/CMA (CMx2 v.0)

[Pericles]

Can anyone give a solid answer as to the differences between the first version of the CMx2 engine ("v.0") that was used for CMSF and CMA (not upgradeable, apparently) and the newest version (v.3) that is used for CMBS (and WWII titles CMFB, CMRT, and CMFI (and probably soon CMBN))? 

I own and play CMBS. I have been watching gameplay videos of CMSF and CMA - also set in modernish settings with similar equipment - and am struggling to notice the difference. The model skins are different (with some necessary exceptions). But in terms of animations (e.g. infantry unit movement (running, hunting, jumping in/out of vehicles), vehicle movement (tank track flexibility, which is great either way, I wouldn't have them change it), explosion and ballistic animations), there is no noticeable difference to my eye. My guess is that the main differences have to due with AI (e.g. infantry don't throw grenades as easily maybe). 

[Machor]

I only have CMA, and for me, the HUGE difference between it and the 3.0 titles is the inability to cherry-pick equipment and support in QB. You are allowed to choose between parameters like 'armor' or 'light infantry,' but for example Soviet armor can give you AA trucks in lieu of tanks, and there are rare Mujaheddin AT teams that can turn the tables against a Soviet player used to encountering nothing more dangerous than RPG-2.

Other than this, I think there's no tallying of 'kills' for individual units. There are a bunch of cosmetic improvements in the 3.0 titles as well.

On the positive side, CMA has a very special charm to it just like CMFI does among the WW2 titles, and you should at least check out the demo if you're even mildly interested.

BTW CMBN can be updated to 3.0 for a small fee, like CMFI.

[Euri]

From what I can recall: 
Spotters and Air controllers were much more efficient in CMSF, if I remember correctly (it has been some years since I last played it). They can plan sequential missions with different artillery and air assets, while in CMBS this is not possible. Also I have the impression that the rate of fire of MGs and assault riffles is slower in CMSF

Edited November 19, 2016 by Euri

[Pericles]

So the consensus so far seems to be that there are few perceptible differences between version 0 (CMA and CMSF) and version 3 (CMBS). 

[kraze]

Completely not true. The differences are absolutely major

http://community.battlefront.com/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=2921

Page 10

You are welcome

And that's far from a complete list, for example it does not mention ERA, which not only makes a random T72 a lot more survivable versus Abrams, but is modeled down to individual pieces being blown off

Edited November 19, 2016 by kraze

[Pericles]

Thanks for the letting me know that the changes are listed in the CMBS manual. I shall take a look. However, upon an initial review of the changes listed in the manual (particularly those since CMSF, starting on page 14, I feel that describing the differences as "absolutely major" might be going too far. Anyway, I'll read more so that my opinion is more informed. 

[Erwin]

CMSF looks very similar/identical to the more recent CM2 releases.  The differences are in the mechanics and in-game features.  There is less flexibility in some cases.  Eg: In CMSF a vehicle cannot drive thru walls.  The waypoints don't have quite the same features etc. 

Personally, I don't find the differences anything major. Many of us still love playing CMSF.  Also, BF says they will bring CMSF up to CM2v3 standards at some point. 

The existing CMSF bundle when patched up to IIRC v1.32 is wonderful and a bargain.  Now it's getting close to winter, just being in a desert environment with sun and sand and some very long LOS battles is a wonderful change in pace from the relatively "claustrophobic" short LOS range European environment of most CM2 battles.

[Pericles]

17 hours ago, kraze said:

Completely not true. The differences are absolutely major

http://community.battlefront.com/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=2921

Page 10

You are welcome

And that's far from a complete list, for example it does not mention ERA, which not only makes a random T72 a lot more survivable versus Abrams, but is modeled down to individual pieces being blown off

So I've had a look at the manual, and I must say that characterizing the difference between CMSF and CMBS as "absolutely major" is objectively wrong. 

The CMBS manual first lists improvements over CMRT (starting on page 10). These improvements are nothing more than new units that are pertinent to modern battlefields (UAVs, precision artillery, active protection systems, etc.). These features of CMBS are great and central to the CMBS product, but these do constitute fundamental changes in how the game plays, feels, and looks. Perhaps that would require a new engine. But my point that the differences b/w CMSF (v.0 or v.1) and CMBS (v.3) are negligible still stands. 

Now, moving on to that part of the manual that lists the differences b/w CMSF and CMBS (starting on page 14), I see no evidence of absolutely major changes. The authors of the document note in a prelude to the list that the new features are "far, far more extensive!". But here are some examples, starting from the top: incremental improvements to multiplayer, incremental improvements to quick battle set-up, improvements to user interfaces (a few new hotkeys, "ammunition is now listed by name and in discrete quantities instead of with icons and depleting bars"), new floating icons, command lines, new AI targeting behaviors (single shot instead of burst at distant targets), new AI spotting behaviors (less effective vehicle spotting when buttoned), "conduct combat operations in lush rural landscapes, dense urban settings, or anywhere in between", ... I'll stop there. 

While I hail the Combat Mission series, this list appears to my eyes to be composed of marginal improvements to interfaces and AI, with some rhetoric and punctuation sprinkled in for the effect of marketing. 

So my informed conclusion is that CMBS is CMSF with additional units, additional unit features, and incremental interface and AI improvements. It is irrational to describe the differences b/w CMBS and CMSF (or CMA for that matter) as "absolutely major". 

[Muzzleflash1990]

46 minutes ago, Pericles said:

These features of CMBS are great and central to the CMBS product, but these do constitute fundamental changes in how the game plays, feels, and looks.

Personally, I hope they never change the fundamentals of how the game plays, feels, and looks. That would make it a fundamentally different game. But the changes do have impact. The addition of AA systems that actually shoots a planes is that not a major change? Previously, aircraft roamed uncontested? Amphibious vehicle redefines where you can go. Can you give examples of what you would categorize as major changes?

Edited November 20, 2016 by Muzzleflash1990

[A Canadian Cat]

LOL, exactly @Muzzleflash1990. This looks like yet another example of someone who has certain expectations and considers changes that don't meet them as insignificant. We all feel that way to a certain extent I suppose, most of us just choose to accept that there will be changes at times that don't excite us. I do have trouble visualizing what changes @Pericles is looking for that he would consider significant give that extensive list though.

[Euri]

3 minutes ago, Muzzleflash1990 said:

what you would categorize as major changes?

Some major changes would be for example:

- meaningful consequences of breaking Comand & Control (eg restriction of ability to give certain orders, as area fire - see discussion under Engine 4.0)

- abitliy to determine stance for teams (now small teams lie prone into vegetation and see nothing)

- abiility to determine towards which direction to pay attention to when hunting

- choosing formations  (column, wedge, line etc) 

[A Canadian Cat]

Those sound like interesting future changes - or not. But how does not having those in the v3 engine not make the features in v3 major improvement over the v.9 or v1 engine? Oops did I just triple negative myself into saying it wrong?

The point I am trying to make is here we are talking about is the feature set in the v3 engine significantly improved over the v1 engine. Not what you want to see in the v4 engine.

9 minutes ago, Euri said:

- meaningful consequences of breaking Comand & Control (eg restriction of ability to give certain orders, as area fire - see discussion under Engine 4.0)

Well there already is consequences in terms of morale and information sharing. Given that this sim pits you in the command role all the way from team leader up to battalion commander I don't see how it would be reasonable to prevent a squad's Sargent from ordering area fire on a suspected enemy position to protect his squad. Just because the Lt is out of site does not suddenly mean the Sargent will be unable to act in the protection of his men.

9 minutes ago, Euri said:

- abitliy to determine stance for teams (now small teams lie prone into vegetation and see nothing)

Yep, or have the tac AI make better choices. Improving the tac AI would be my choice here so that the AI gets the improvement too.

9 minutes ago, Euri said:

- abiility to determine towards which direction to pay attention to when hunting

You can do this now with cover arcs. 

9 minutes ago, Euri said:

- choosing formations  (column, wedge, line etc) 

Yep. Or again have the tac AI be able to figure it out. Pretty tough to figure out though.

[Pericles]

22 hours ago, Pericles said:

Can anyone give a solid answer as to the differences between the first version of the CMx2 engine ("v.0") that was used for CMSF and CMA (not upgradeable, apparently) and the newest version (v.3) that is used for CMBS (and WWII titles CMFB, CMRT, and CMFI (and probably soon CMBN))? 

I own and play CMBS. I have been watching gameplay videos of CMSF and CMA - also set in modernish settings with similar equipment - and am struggling to notice the difference. The model skins are different (with some necessary exceptions). But in terms of animations (e.g. infantry unit movement (running, hunting, jumping in/out of vehicles), vehicle movement (tank track flexibility, which is great either way, I wouldn't have them change it), explosion and ballistic animations), there is no noticeable difference to my eye. My guess is that the main differences have to due with AI (e.g. infantry don't throw grenades as easily maybe). 

I'm quoting my initial post. This thread has confirmed that the differences b/w CMSF and CMBS are marginal. That is all I wished to sort out. 

I agree with you Muzzleflash1990, fundamentally the game is sound. Major changes in my mind would involve new animations (e.g. better animations of infantry movement), an addition to the interface that made the player aware that units were under fire (at present, you are only made aware of contact if your units see/hear the enemy or are injured/killed by the enemy, not when a bullet whizzes by... to be made aware of that, you have to follow your troops' movement at ground level which can become cumbersome for multiple platoons (something Tim Stone over at rockpapershotgun once noted)), graphical improvements (although this would probably require a new engine, so feel free to leave it out). That's all I can think of right now. I agree with Euri's point that choosing formations and determining stances would be "major", but disagree with the hunting example (the ability to influence the direction of hunting is already possible with hunt tracks and cover arcs IMO).

But keep in mind that I was never arguing that the changes should be major, I was merely attempting to clarify what more seasoned veterans of the CM franchise (like IanL) already know. 

Changes from version to version are necessarily incremental, I get that. However, some of the rhetoric used by Battlefront in their advertisements/instructions (as I noted above) can give the impression to those who have not played or watched youtube videos of CMSF and CMBS that the differences between the two are of a fundamental character (for example, see kraze's opinion on the matter above). The differences between CMSF (2007) and CMBS (2014) are indeed marginal. I am happy with the new context and factions and the added interface and AI features. But the differences are marginal and rhetoric implying otherwise is dishonest. 

That being said, my next purchase will probably be CMSF, although if Erwin is correct and Battlefront will eventually upgrade CMSF to v.3, maybe I'll hold off and go for some WWII action instead. Then again, since the differences don't amount to much, maybe I'll just buy CMSF as is. 

[kraze]

Except these "negligible" changes make the game play different in many ways vs. Shock Force where a platoon of M1s reliably massacred a company of T90s, air assets were the indestructible weapon of doom (hence their gross underutilization in more or less balanced missions) and defenders had easy time turtling because no precision ammunition came at them after UAV broke their saving fog of war. All this was already present in the timeline of CMSF but not simulated.

And yes, tactical (and even strategic) AI was improved greatly, making fighting it a lot more fun than Shock Force. Especially due to triggers, that you dismiss so easily - but they turn stale pre-set missions where all AI plans are set in stone and will never change no matter the situation - into something a lot less predictable.

If you dismiss many gameplay changes and new features as "incremental" or "negligible" in a more or less direct sequel - then the question is - what will constitute a proper "difference"?

 

 

[Pericles]

1 minute ago, kraze said:

Except these "negligible" changes make the game play different in many ways vs. Shock Force where a platoon of M1s reliably massacred a company of T90s, air assets were the indestructible weapon of doom (hence their gross underutilization in more or less balanced missions) and defenders had easy time turtling because no precision ammunition came at them after UAV broke their saving fog of war. All this was already present in the timeline of CMSF but not simulated.

And yes, tactical (and even strategic) AI was improved greatly, making fighting it a lot more fun than Shock Force. Especially due to triggers, that you dismiss so easily - but they turn stale pre-set missions where all AI plans are set in stone and will never change no matter the situation - into something a lot less predictable.

If you dismiss many gameplay changes and new features as "incremental" or "negligible" in a more or less direct sequel - then the question is - what will constitute a proper "difference"?

 

 

The answer to your question, after almost a decade of new theatres of war, associated skins and techno-features, and incremental interface and AI improvements, is: A new engine. 

Until the new engine, I will give Battlefront my money for the current engine and versions, and incremental improvements contained therein. 

[kraze]

27 minutes ago, Euri said:

 

- abitliy to determine stance for teams (now small teams lie prone into vegetation and see nothing)

- abiility to determine towards which direction to pay attention to when hunting

- choosing formations  (column, wedge, line etc) 

This should be up to TacAI improvements, since dealing with stuff like this is it's primary goal. Implementing this would add a lot of unnecessary micromanagement - the lack of which is one of the main strengths of CM. It's already too complex and time consuming when fighting large missions  and commander should not be dealing with such minor issues

[Pericles]

I thought micromanagement was one of the main strengths of CM. In fact, I'm sure of it. 

[Euri]

1 minute ago, kraze said:

This should be up to TacAI improvements

It would be great if this would be the case. We can only hope

[Pericles]

kraze, you mentioned that the tactical AI has "improved greatly". You give the example of triggers in v.3, which cause the AI to be more situationally flexible than v.0/v.1. Can others confirm that AI is more flexible in v.3 vs. v.0/v.1? kraze, can you give other examples of how the tactical AI has improved? Is close quarters infantry combat somehow improved in CMBS? From what I have seen of CMSF on youtube, combat dynamics are the exact same as CMBS. 

[sburke]

2 hours ago, Pericles said:

So I've had a look at the manual, and I must say that characterizing the difference between CMSF and CMBS as "absolutely major" is objectively wrong. 

 

So my informed conclusion is that CMBS is CMSF with additional units, additional unit features, and incremental interface and AI improvements. It is irrational to describe the differences b/w CMBS and CMSF (or CMA for that matter) as "absolutely major". 

Umm I think you need to actually try it before making any assumptions.  Personally CMSF is probably my favorite CMx2 game, but so much has changed since that it can sometimes be difficult to play.  Just as one example, target briefly can make a huge difference in tactical behavior.  Yes CMSF is a CMx2 game and the basics are all there.  Animations are little changed, not much bang for the buck there in programming time.  The TAC AI has changed though, sometimes subtly and sometimes in major ways.

You seem to already be drawing conclusions without actually having experienced game play and then make the leap to calling BF essentially dishonest.  If you are going to make characterizations like that you at least owe it to them to find out if in fact they are correct and not just assume from some light reading.  A youtube video is not going to give you a feel for improvements in TAC AI.  The announcement by BF that they want to bring CMSF up to date was one of the best news moments from them yet in my view.

 

[Michael Emrys]

6 minutes ago, sburke said:

The announcement by BF that they want to bring CMSF up to date was one of the best news moments from them yet in my view.

And may well provoke me to finally buy the game.

Michael

[Pericles]

1 minute ago, sburke said:

Umm I think you need to actually try it before making any assumptions.  Personally CMSF is probably my favorite CMx2 game, but so much has changed since that it can sometimes be difficult to play.  Just as one example, target briefly can make a huge difference in tactical behavior.  Yes CMSF is a CMx2 game and the basics are all there.  Animations are little changed, not much bang for the buck there in programming time.  The TAC AI has changed though, sometimes subtly and sometimes in major ways.

You seem to already be drawing conclusions without actually having experienced game play and then make the leap to calling BF essentially dishonest.  If you are going to make characterizations like that you at least owe it to them to find out if in fact they are correct and not just assume from some light reading.  A youtube video is not going to give you a feel for improvements in TAC AI.  The announcement by BF that they want to bring CMSF up to date was one of the best news moments from them yet in my view.

 

Please provide some examples of major changes in tactical AI.

Although I have not purchased and played CMSF myself, I have watched many videos of gameplay, which provides ample information on how the game plays.

I did not call BF dishonest, I implied that their list of "far, far more extensive!" features in CMBS vs. CMSF had elements that were more marketing gimmicks than actual improvements in the engine (e.g. "conduct combat operations in lush rural landscapes, dense urban settings, or anywhere in between"). Those legitimate improvements that are listed by BF are rightly characterized as "marginal" or some related synonym. 

sburke wrote: "If you are going to make characterizations like that you at least owe it to them to find out if in fact they are correct and not just assume from some light reading.  A youtube video is not going to give you a feel for improvements in TAC AI."

So unless I buy the game, I can never form an opinion of what it will be like relative to CMBS. Wrong. The AI improvements can be gleaned from gameplay videos. They could also be gleaned from anyone here on the forum who is willing to deliberate honestly and provide some solid examples of improvements to AI. The only example that has been listed yet in this thread is the inclusion of "triggers", which apparently increase the situational flexibility of AI. What other examples can you give? 

[HerrTom]

11 minutes ago, Pericles said:

So unless I buy the game, I can never form an opinion of what it will be like relative to CMBS. Wrong. The AI improvements can be gleaned from gameplay videos. They could also be gleaned from anyone here on the forum who is willing to deliberate honestly and provide some solid examples of improvements to AI. The only example that has been listed yet in this thread is the inclusion of "triggers", which apparently increase the situational flexibility of AI. What other examples can you give? 

You're in luck mate!  There are demos you can try out to make your own conclusions, minus the patches:

CM:BS : http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=340&Itemid=584

CM:SF : http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=42&Itemid=78

I used to have CM:N a number of years ago (before CM:FI came out, I think) but seem to have lost my key so can no longer play it ().  I can definitely say that while I couldn't put a finger on exactly what's changed, the TacAI has improved markedly from then, from decision making to reacting to understandable spotting, especially in vehicles.  While I do think infantry decision making and perhaps the types of orders could be worked on or fleshed out a bit (Steve, if you're looking, I'd like controls more like Graviteam Tactics has on its control panel to fine tune what I want them to do during the turn.  Maybe I'll make a new thread to discuss it in detail), it too has improved significantly in the same areas.

[sburke]

1 hour ago, Pericles said:

Changes from version to version are necessarily incremental, I get that. However, some of the rhetoric used by Battlefront in their advertisements/instructions (as I noted above) can give the impression to those who have not played or watched youtube videos of CMSF and CMBS that the differences between the two are of a fundamental character (for example, see kraze's opinion on the matter above). The differences between CMSF (2007) and CMBS (2014) are indeed marginal. I am happy with the new context and factions and the added interface and AI features. But the differences are marginal and rhetoric implying otherwise is dishonest. 

Your words.  I gave you one example of tactical behavior in the target briefly command.  What I and some others have tried to tell you is that there have been so many additions that trying to compile a list is just not going to give a holistic view.  Some times you see the release notes mentioning changes, but even those can be vague on impact till you actually try it.  Hell even CMBN feels very different that when it was first released.

Personally I would recommend buying CMSF which seems to be more your question than whether there are changes or not.  I have no idea when BF will get around to updating CMSF and how they will handle it.  In the meantime it is a unique environment with a lot of content.  Buy it, enjoy it and then let us know how you feel the differences show up in game.  I don't think you'll be disappointed in the purchase, but you will find yourself adjusting behavior for sure.

[Pericles]

35 minutes ago, sburke said:

Umm I think you need to actually try it before making any assumptions.  Personally CMSF is probably my favorite CMx2 game, but so much has changed since that it can sometimes be difficult to play.  Just as one example, target briefly can make a huge difference in tactical behavior.  Yes CMSF is a CMx2 game and the basics are all there.  Animations are little changed, not much bang for the buck there in programming time.  The TAC AI has changed though, sometimes subtly and sometimes in major ways.

You seem to already be drawing conclusions without actually having experienced game play and then make the leap to calling BF essentially dishonest.  If you are going to make characterizations like that you at least owe it to them to find out if in fact they are correct and not just assume from some light reading.  A youtube video is not going to give you a feel for improvements in TAC AI.  The announcement by BF that they want to bring CMSF up to date was one of the best news moments from them yet in my view.

 

I wrote in response to this:  

"I did not call BF dishonest, I implied that their list of "far, far more extensive!" features in CMBS vs. CMSF had elements that were more marketing gimmicks than actual improvements in the engine (e.g. "conduct combat operations in lush rural landscapes, dense urban settings, or anywhere in between")."

You then quoted me from earlier: 

"Changes from version to version are necessarily incremental, I get that. However, some of the rhetoric used by Battlefront in their advertisements/instructions (as I noted above) can give the impression to those who have not played or watched youtube videos of CMSF and CMBS that the differences between the two are of a fundamental character (for example, see kraze's opinion on the matter above). The differences between CMSF (2007) and CMBS (2014) are indeed marginal. I am happy with the new context and factions and the added interface and AI features. But the differences are marginal and rhetoric implying otherwise is dishonest."

So let me clarify: I am saying that the rhetorical elements used by BF in their advertisements/instructions are dishonest ("rhetoric implying otherwise is dishonest"). I am not saying, nor have ever said, that BF is dishonest as a company. But they are not perfect, and they are using marketing tactics (i.e. being dishonest) when they write hype like that.

In any case, I may give the demo a spin shortly and see if I notice any difference.