Armchair General praises Final Blitzkrieg

[Kevin2k]

3 hours ago, SgtHatred said:

What's the point of me mentioning that? Of the 8, I am the only one who has ever heard of Strike Fighters. No wonder they struggle. If you can't put your product in front of people who are willing to pay for it, you won't get anywhere.

 

1) I agree the Dev could have tried harder to get game exposure. Around 2012 I suggested that fans of the series better stop whining and instead try to expose the game more themselves, by posting articles or youtube video's ( too little, too late ). The dev did not think Steam was viable financially. I don't know his stance towards Good old Games (GoG).  Besides some old CD releases, these games were only ever sold in the ThirdWire store**, and since the switch to mobile games the PC games are actually hard to find on the website. Rather Strange...    (**Strategy First had a contract for 'Wings over Europe' and published it on CD and seemingly also on Steam)

2) I figure your friends did not really try to map out their options regarding other available Jet Sims. For example, if they frequented SimHQ before 2012 they would have noticed the Strike Fighters reviews (at that time SimHQ actually had material to cover ). Besides the 90's classics there are just three AFAIK: Lock-on DCS / Strike Fighters / Falcon BMS. Some game-specific forums hardly ever mention alternatives; Like on the closecombatseries.net forums nobody cares to write about 'Combat Mission'.

[Macisle]

1 hour ago, weapon2010 said:

 The micromanagement is one of the elements that makes CM so unique, so many decisions need to be made,the total outcome of those hundreds of collective decisions equals  victory or defeat, the thought process that goes behind "the micromanagement" is  Combat Mission to me. 

Agree 100% here. I think that's ultimately why I couldn't get into the GT series. I wanted to be able to get down to a deeper level of team and equipment control (split off the squad LMG and an assault team, etc.) for more effective/real world tactics at the platoon/squad level and couldn't. The more I played, the more I missed what CM gives me, and the various strong points of GT weren't counterbalancing enough for me to stay with it.

That's why I don't consider CM and GT to actually be in direct competition. GT serves people looking for a (SP) tactical experience that minimizes micromanagement and/or limits them to a certain level of command. CM serves players looking for the ultimate game/simulator combo where they can be the brains of any level of command and do MP as well. CM requires A LOT more work, but that is exactly what makes the game so good. If you tried to make it more user-friendly to the mainstream, you would kill the magic.

Which is why I said I'm glad that GT is out there because it is an in-between point that can allow players to move from the mainstream into serious tactical, with the really hardcore folks then branching further to the CM series.

Like someone mentioned, people here who are quick to criticize GT generally do it in response to other people trying to use GT as a bashing stick against CM, and it's mostly done in reference to the graphics. As far as those go, some things are better in GT, some things are better in CM, and the rest are pretty subjective. Overall, I like CM's graphics, effects, and sounds better. But there are some very nice touches in GT, like the tank track breakage animations and mud/snow movement particle effects (but I'd trade those for better looking soldiers in GT in a second!).

Edited January 5, 2017 by Macisle

[weapon2010]

1 hour ago, Macisle said:

like the tank track breakage animations and mud/snow movement particle effects .

Im pretty sure that better damage models(such as thrown tracks) and graphical animations  is on the "to-do "list for vehicles and tanks.

Edited January 5, 2017 by weapon2010

[Macisle]

7 minutes ago, weapon2010 said:

Im pretty sure that better damage models(such as thrown tracks) and graphical animations  is on the "to-do "list for vehicles and tanks.

I would think so, too. Lookin' forward to those!

Still, it's not like CM doesn't already have some nice touches with knocked-out tanks. I love the occasional explosion crater and its impact on the tank--especially with Vein's effects and Aris's tank textures.

Some examples from recent days:

 

 

 

[Michael Emrys]

53 minutes ago, Macisle said:

I love the occasional explosion crater and its impact on the tank...

It's not a big issue with me at all, but I feel obliged to say that I think these are vastly over-represented in the game. After having over the years viewed scores if not hundreds of pics of knocked out tanks—including many that have had violent internal explosions—the only ones I can recall sitting in a crater as shown in the game had been hit by naval or similar caliber gunfire. And chances were that the shell landed close but not on the tank. The force of internal explosions tends to get vented vertically by blowing the turret off and not even much laterally and almost none at all downwardly as would be required to create a crater. Like I say, not a big deal for me, but as long as we are discussing fidelity of representation, I thought I'd mention it.

Michael

Edited January 5, 2017 by Michael Emrys

[sburke]

two things on this whole thread

1 it is funny to watch the disparity in what everyone wants - it becomes obvious pretty quick that BF will never make even most of us happy all the time.  That they make most of us happy most of the time is pretty darn good.

2. no one seems to ask what BF wants - the assumption is they want a bigger audience and more money.  I am not sure that is a valid statement unless you include that it adds no additional "business" overhead.  Steve, Charles and Co. get to make a game they really enjoy in an environment that allows them to have a lot more control over their lives (except when they decide to release a major update the day before Christmas ).  There is a lot to be said for that. It is worth stopping a moment and considering that BF LIKES their current size user base and the commensurate work it requires.  I don't know that is true, but I definitely understand that money should never be your first priority in what you do for a living - liking what you do is a lot more important as long as the money is sufficient.

[Michael Emrys]

5 minutes ago, sburke said:

2. no one seems to ask what BF wants - the assumption is they want a bigger audience and more money.  I am not sure that is a valid statement unless you include that it adds no additional "business" overhead.  Steve, Charles and Co. get to make a game they really enjoy in an environment that allows them to have a lot more control over their lives (except when they decide to release a major update the day before Christmas ).  There is a lot to be said for that. It is worth stopping a moment and considering that BF LIKES their current size user base and the commensurate work it requires.  I don't know that is true, but I definitely understand that money should never be your first priority in what you do for a living - liking what you do is a lot more important as long as the money is sufficient.

Hear, hear! This is an extremely important point. CM is very much a labor of love and Steve has made the point in the past that if they were in it simply for the money, they could all find more remunerative employment doing something else. As long as they are making enough to keep the doors open, there is little point in them bustin' their butts to make more. Y'know, it became clear to me a long time ago that the modern world had lost sight of the truth that enough is enough. Always seeking more of something to the exclusion of everything else is the ideology of cancer.

Michael

[IICptMillerII]

4 hours ago, weapon2010 said:

 The micromanagement is one of the elements that makes CM so unique, so many decisions need to be made,the total outcome of those hundreds of collective decisions equals  victory or defeat, the thought process that goes behind "the micromanagement" is  Combat Mission to me. 

This is the point that I and that Ron excellently explained further. You would have to drastically reduce/remove all the micromanagement in order to make the game more appealing to a wider audience. 

Essentially, in order to make CM more marketable to a larger gaming audience, it would have to water itself down to a point where it would lose the essence of what it actually is. It would cease to be a simulator, and it would become a "throw cool toys at each other and see the explosions" (a la MoW)

Just to clarify, I do not have anything against the MoW series, or the CoH series, or most other RTS games out there. Playing them is much like watching a movie about WWII. Very fun to watch and play, but of little if any historical value. CM is more like cracking open a good history book or combat memoir. The two types of games are attempting to do inherently different things, and thats fine. Just so long as CM stays the course its on (being a simulator)

[Macisle]

46 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

This is the point that I and that Ron excellently explained further. You would have to drastically reduce/remove all the micromanagement in order to make the game more appealing to a wider audience. 

Essentially, in order to make CM more marketable to a larger gaming audience, it would have to water itself down to a point where it would lose the essence of what it actually is. It would cease to be a simulator, and it would become a "throw cool toys at each other and see the explosions" (a la MoW)

Just to clarify, I do not have anything against the MoW series, or the CoH series, or most other RTS games out there. Playing them is much like watching a movie about WWII. Very fun to watch and play, but of little if any historical value. CM is more like cracking open a good history book or combat memoir. The two types of games are attempting to do inherently different things, and thats fine. Just so long as CM stays the course its on (being a simulator)

I don't play any of those games because they just don't do it for me, no matter how good elements of them might look. I'm actually happy with my purchase of RO2 as a shooter with tactical elements, though, despite the "arcade" mechanics of things like artillery. I accept it for what it is and it delivers on that level. I actually prefer the bots there to Arma bots, as RO2's bots seem more human-like overall. Arma bots tend to alternate between vegetable stupid and alien predator. But of course, that's not directly comparable to CM. I just mention it because I'm suprised that I prefer it to Arma (for a short first-person play session when I need a break from CM), and it is an example of a more mainstream game that I enjoy.

One other point to mention on trying to open CM to a wider audience...

The more you move the goal post away from the uniqueness and real-world fidelity that CM's micromanagement-style play brings, the more you are directly competing against games with bigger graphic budgets. It's a lose-lose. Lose what makes you special. Lose your core player base. Compete against a much larger field of competitors for players with less and less vested interest in what you have to offer.

Now, there's a great strategy for success!

Edited January 5, 2017 by Macisle

[littleGuy]

I have to say, as someone who has lurked on this forum for quite some time, and has been teetering on the edge of purchasing CMFB since release , The graphical fidelity is not my primary concern.  What has sold me on, or rather kept me interested in, this series is the stories told through the numerous AARs - the seemingly endless opportunities for success or failure and the comprehensive tactical options.     Now, though intimidating to a beginner, the complexity of this game is not what has delayed my purchase; it's how poorly the game runs (at least in my case).

Now admittedly my experience is limited to the CMRT demo, I've yet to try the FB demo, but irrespective of graphical settings I was unable to achieve a frame rate above 30 (with lows in the teens) making the camera clunky and unresponsive.  Perhaps things have improved in FB, still I think further optimization (the CM games seem CPU bound) would be far more beneficial than improved graphical fidelity.

for reference I'm running a 3570K @ 4.2 gHz, 16 gb ram, a GTX 970 and off an SSD

[sburke]

10 minutes ago, littleGuy said:

I have to say, as someone who has lurked on this forum for quite some time, and has been teetering on the edge of purchasing CMFB since release , The graphical fidelity is not my primary concern.  What has sold me on, or rather kept me interested in, this series is the stories told through the numerous AARs - the seemingly endless opportunities for success or failure and the comprehensive tactical options.     Now, though intimidating to a beginner, the complexity of this game is not what has delayed my purchase; it's how poorly the game runs (at least in my case).

Now admittedly my experience is limited to the CMRT demo, I've yet to try the FB demo, but irrespective of graphical settings I was unable to achieve a frame rate above 30 (with lows in the teens) making the camera clunky and unresponsive.  Perhaps things have improved in FB, still I think further optimization (the CM games seem CPU bound) would be far more beneficial than improved graphical fidelity.

for reference I'm running a 3570K @ 4.2 gHz, 16 gb ram, a GTX 970 and off an SSD

I'd give the FB demo a go.  If you still have issues try opening a ticket to the helpdesk.  It could be something really simple is holding up your ability to enjoy the game.  It is definitely a CPU bound game, but regardless that shouldn't stop you.

Keep in mind the demos are not often updated and may not reflect the latest - hence my request to try the CMFB demo, I believe it is a lot newer.

[MOS:96B2P]

10 hours ago, sburke said:

I<Snip> Keep in mind the demos are not often updated and may not reflect the latest - hence my request to try the CMFB demo, I believe it is a lot newer.

This would be worth a try.

10 hours ago, littleGuy said:

<Snip> for reference I'm running a 3570K @ 4.2 gHz, 16 gb ram, a GTX 970 and off an SSD

We have similar rigs and I have no problem running any of the CM game titles.  I have an i7-4790K, 4GHZ, 16 GB RAM, GTX970 and a SSD.  I'm not a tech geek but I don't see an obvious problem with your system.  There is a thread on the forum about settings for Nvidia that may also be of use.   

[A Canadian Cat]

A couple of threads that might help (probably what @MOS:96B2P is referring to):

 

 

[Battlefront.com]

one thing to keep in mind is that CM does govern framerate in ways that might not necesarily make sense to gamers.  One of the worst things to experience in a 3D game is a "yo-yo effect" where the game is liquid fast and then suddenly slows down for a few seconds then speeds back up again.  The brain is a lot more likely to notice and object to small, but dramatic, changes in speed vs. a generally slower experience that is more steady.

CM faces a lot of uncertainty about CPU demands from milisecond to milisecond.  It therefore must remain somewhat conservative about how much it can afford to spend on graphics at any given space of time.  Otherwise when you do something like group move 5 units or have a sudden flair up of combat you could see your framerate whacked from 40 to 30 or perhaps down to 25.  Although 25-30fps is quite acceptable in terms of fluidity, your brain will overreact to the decrease and that in turn creates a perception that the game isn't running smooth.  Much better for the game to keep CPU cycles in rreserve, when possible, and NOT use them to bump up the framerate.

That being said, we built this game engine from scratch back in 2004-2007.  Althoguh we have made major improvements to it over the years, it definitely isn't using all the bells and whistles that other games made today are using.  That and we don't have a half dozen programmers working on nothing but graphics means CM will not perform equal to other games.  Espeially since most don't try to do 1/10th of the game calculations that CM does.

Steve

[AstroCat]

I am going to risk sticking my neck out to ask. What if any performance and/or graphics improvements can we expect moving forward, and if there are to be some is there any kind of realistic time frame for these changes to be implemented? Thanks.

Also... I have found using nvidiaProfileInspector to put an FPS limiter on has helped "smooth" out the experience. I have choosen 40fps without Vsync using a Gsync monitor.

 

Edited January 6, 2017 by AstroCat

[littleGuy]

So I've finally had an opportunity to play the FB demo - loved it, but FPS is still an issue -  low 20's is common.    

However Alt - Ting the trees solves the problem. So looks like it's GPU/render related not CPU.     I'll give some of the nvidia tweaks a go, see if that help. It would also be interesting to see the GPU load.

I did have have a bit of a laugh when my m8 had a bit of a brain fart and took the long route around to its assigned way point, and in doing so moved out of cover,  into the LOS of a pak40,  narrowly missed getting taken out by a 75mm shell,  before safely arriving at its intended destination - in cover.

Edited January 16, 2017 by littleGuy

[IICptMillerII]

2 hours ago, littleGuy said:

However Alt - Ting the trees solves the problem. So looks like it's GPU/render related not CPU.     I'll give some of the nvidia tweaks a go, see if that help. It would also be interesting to see the GPU load.

You can try setting the 'Tree Quality' to 'Low" under the Advanced settings in options. I use this setting and don't notice much of a quality decrease, but it can help with FPS on maps that have a lot of forest on them. 

2 hours ago, littleGuy said:

I did have have a bit of a laugh when my m8 had a bit of a brain fart and took the long route around to its assigned way point, and in doing so moved out of cover,  into the LOS of a pak40,  narrowly missed getting taken out by a 75mm shell,  before safely arriving at its intended destination - in cover.

I know exactly the area you're talking about. I've had the same thing happen to me, and a friend of mine just had it happen to him tonight. The armored cars cannot go through the hedge, so they opt to go all the way around it using the main road. The same main road that is being covered by that Pak40. Its a tricky spot, but at least your M8 survived the encounter, and now you know where the enemy AT gun is. Good hunting! 

[Michael Emrys]

3 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

Its a tricky spot, but at least your M8 survived the encounter, and now you know where the enemy AT gun is.

And that's kind of what armored cars were for: reconnaissance by death. Although the Army didn't mention it in their recruitment materials, it was cheaper to lose an AC than a tank. Jeeps were cheaper still, so they generally got sent in first with the ACs providing overwatch. But if you were running low on jeeps, the ACs got the dirty work.

Michael

[LukeFF]

On 1/3/2017 at 7:06 PM, Kevin2k said:

On the other side a new IL-2 exists and DCS is still going, which is appreciated, but they sacrifice variety for graphics detail, so I stick to the original IL-2 and Strike Fighters instead.

The new IL-2 did/does not sacrifice variety in the name of graphics detail - rather, it's everything under the hood - flight modeling, damage modeling, AI, systems management, etc. - that takes far more time than it did in the past. 

[littleGuy]

18 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

You can try setting the 'Tree Quality' to 'Low" under the Advanced settings in options. I use this setting and don't notice much of a quality decrease, but it can help with FPS on maps that have a lot of forest on them. 

 

I know exactly the area you're talking about. I've had the same thing happen to me, and a friend of mine just had it happen to him tonight. The armored cars cannot go through the hedge, so they opt to go all the way around it using the main road. The same main road that is being covered by that Pak40. Its a tricky spot, but at least your M8 survived the encounter, and now you know where the enemy AT gun is. Good hunting! 

I was using Low quality trees, and High Priority

 

The weird thing is that the m8 had not problem going through the same hedge on a previous play through.

[MOS:96B2P]

9 minutes ago, littleGuy said:

<Snip> The weird thing is that the m8 had not problem going through the same hedge on a previous play through.

In general more waypoints with vehicles is better.  The more waypoints the less likely the vehicle will get lost.  Infantry will briefly stop at waypoints and slow things down. However vehicles will roll right through waypoints.  When crossing an obstacle (fence, hedge, wall) I place one waypoint directly in front of the obstacle and one directly after.    

[Michael Emrys]

13 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:

When crossing an obstacle (fence, hedge, wall) I place one waypoint directly in front of the obstacle and one directly after.    

That's the way I do it and I almost never have any problems with crossing obstacles provided that I have first ascertained that that particular vehicle can cross that particular obstacle. And the most trouble-free way to discover if the vehicle will go there is to select a movement choice and carefully move the cursor over the terrain in question. If the cursor changes to a "no-go" passing over the terrain, you know you need to plot a different path.

Michael

[littleGuy]

On 17/1/2017 at 9:52 AM, MOS:96B2P said:

In general more waypoints with vehicles is better.  The more waypoints the less likely the vehicle will get lost.  Infantry will briefly stop at waypoints and slow things down. However vehicles will roll right through waypoints.  When crossing an obstacle (fence, hedge, wall) I place one waypoint directly in front of the obstacle and one directly after.    

Oh there were multiple waypoints, including on the hedge itself.    Not a criticism, more a funny anecdote to share with fellow player.

Anyway, I'll end up buying a CM title, and the 4.0 upgrade , within the month ( interstate for training for the next two and half weeks, so nowhere near my desktop) - the question  is do I buy FB or BS.    Trawling through the screen shots and AARs for both - would love  some modern mechanized infantry combat, but feel FB will be more forgiving to a new player.

[IICptMillerII]

35 minutes ago, littleGuy said:

Anyway, I'll end up buying a CM title, and the 4.0 upgrade

You'll only have to buy the base game. The only time you need to purchase the upgrades is if you own the games already. If you buy the games new now the new upgrade is already applied.

[rocketman]

And now the review is here: http://www.armchairgeneral.com/combat-mission-final-blitzkrieg-pc-game-review.htm

Not the best set of screenshots to promote the game