Is there anything that comes close to the CM games?

[LukeFF]

On 7/30/2019 at 10:30 AM, Johnlondon125 said:

Wow, this can happen?? I thought this stuff was die rolls...

It's not the 90s any more.

[RockinHarry]

3 hours ago, Thewood1 said:

In case anyone wants clarification on POA2 and Tigers Unleashed, here are three of the white knight cycles I am talking about.  In each, there are one or two people who keep pushing that they are in touch with the devs and everything will be sorted soon.  Its amazing seeing pattern repeat.

http://dogsofwarvu.com/forum/index.php/topic,2907.msg30136.html#msg30136

http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/index.php?forums/point-of-attack-2.52/

http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=17642.msg508963#msg508963

I know there are a couple that go back further than 2015 on wargamer.com and a magazine site, but I can't be arsed to bother with that.

You´re a programmer/coder or publisher? I don´t want to be in that shoes for sure, even if I criticize BFC quite a lot recently. So then lets scrap it all yes? Better support the big biz guys with lots of $ and house full of skilled coders I guess. "White knight" .... whoever that is supposed to be, me certainly not.

[Thewood1]

/Rant mode on

I will support any company that produces good games, communicates to its customers, and is honest.  HPS, for POA2, is none of those.  I have managed multiple large and small programming projects in the industrial space.  If HPS was treating a business customer like they have treated their POA2 customers, they would have been sued out of existence.

I suspect you didn't even look at those links did you?  Take a look.  In development since 2003.  Then take a look at 2018 posts on dogsofwar.  Their new white knight is complaining about the same stuff from 2005.  Tell me what us customers should do?  Should we just let someone like you come in and start this all over again?  Won't happen.  

I can't believe you of all people, who nitpicks BFC to death, would give HPS a pass on this.  Lets look at what BFC has accomplished since 2003 with CM.  Released CMAK, all CMBN modules, CMFI, CMSF (twice), CMBS, CMRT, and all the numerous upgrades and feature adds.  HPS released dozens of beta updates and it still doesn't work right.  

So, I am going over to the HPS forums and see if you are over there nitpicking.  Oh wait...they don't have forums because they don't communicate with customers.  So why don't you stick around here, nitpick BFC some more and try to convince everyone here to buy a 16-year old broken game with no future.

/Rant mode off

One thing I will do from now on is every time you have a complaint about a CM game, I'll ask how it works in POA2.  I'll ask what kind of response you got from the devs.

 

/Rant mode really off

Edited August 1, 2019 by Thewood1

[RockinHarry]

take some valium mate. Or weed maybe. 

[Artkin]

On 7/30/2019 at 12:37 PM, Barkhorn1x said:

Ummm....don't think your going to get an in-depth discussion of Battlefront competitors on thee Battlefront FORUM.  You should ask your question on a non-publisher forum.

lmao battlefront is not getting their business diverted. These games are far too niche, and are far too well done. 

[Thewood1]

Not while HPS somehow convinces these white knights to find new boards to bring the message to the masses.  To defend HPS in any way leads me to believe you are on something stronger.  How'd the call go with Scott?  Is that still the only way he communicates?  Or has he moved on to email finally?

Maybe typing in bold or different colors will help get the point across better.

[Thewood1]

Yeah, it probably should be in the General Discussion forum.  But let's face it, it is probably a good advertisement for them.  The only games getting significant mention are:

A game that has been rehashed and relaunched a dozen time (Close Combat)

A game that, at its heart is a military tank procedural trainer (Steel Beasts)

A game that ended up being a rip off after 16 years of development (POA2)

A game built by a Ukrainian team that could have the potential if they put their mind to it, but most likely won't. (Graviteam)

and a few odds and ends.

And none of them really compare directly, feature for feature.

[BletchleyGeek]

1 hour ago, Thewood1 said:

A game built by a Ukrainian team that could have the potential if they put their mind to it, but most likely won't. (Graviteam)

Good summary @Thewood1 - but here I would say that they put their mind to it, but their mind goes to places ours does not. I can't read their Russian-speaking forums, I would love to hear if the feeling is similar across the language divide. Maybe  @DMS can chime in?

[RockinHarry]

1 hour ago, Thewood1 said:

 

A game that ended up being a rip off after 16 years of development (POA2)

 

in fact a "rip off" of a 25 year old thing from DOS times (Tigers on the Prowl). Liked it in mid 90ies quite much but off course switched to Grigsby´s Steel Panthers as soon as I could put my hands on it (not that easy that times, mostly through dedicated importers/vendors at rather high prices ). So beside G. Grigsby (with close associates), David Heath and BFC staff I pay due respect to Scott Hamilton for sure. 

[Thewood1]

You could say the same thing about Norm Kroger and Jim Rose.  They made some great games for their rimes.  But after Distant Guns and Jutland, no one will touch them.  And just like them, Scott will be remembered for POA2.

btw, The Tigers on the Prowl and Panthers in the Shadows engine has as much to do with POA2 as CM1 did with CM2.  It was completely rebuilt and only some of the most basic concepts carried over.

[76mm]

18 hours ago, RockinHarry said:

So then lets scrap it all yes? Better support the big biz guys with lots of $ and house full of skilled coders I guess.

Whoa, there is a huge difference between supporting the "big biz guys" and supporting companies like HPS that sell over-priced programs that just don't work even a decade after release.  While admittedly I wish there were more, there are quite a few small developers that put out quality products that work for a reasonable price.  Hard to believe in this day and age that HPS can't be bother to set up a forum, although maybe that would just go to show that no ones plays their games...

10 hours ago, RockinHarry said:

I pay due respect to Scott Hamilton for sure. 

No respect from me.  Besides putting out a game that remains broken a decade after release, the guy's absolute refusal to engage with the player base even a single time over the years (on the various forums that had sections for TU or PoA2) is the clincher for me.  Total lack of respect for the players that bought his half-baked games.  I'll never touch a game with his name on it.

[DerKommissar]

Yeah, the Steel Panthers games (WinSPMBT & WinSPWW2) make HPS games feel obsolete, over-priced and limited in scope. If you are into 2d, turn-based, hex-grid, tactics games -- I highly recommend you check out their demos (they're pretty much the full game).

The problem with 2d wargames, is that an entire dimension has to be abstracted. They're not even on the same level of authenticity as Combat Mission.

[RockinHarry]

4 hours ago, Thewood1 said:

btw, The Tigers on the Prowl and Panthers in the Shadows engine has as much to do with POA2 as CM1 did with CM2.  It was completely rebuilt and only some of the most basic concepts carried over.

If you say so. Matter of definition maybe. But I don´t claim I know how it´s to be in the shoes of a single programmer trying to build a high complexity war simulator all alone. Maybe there´s reasons for it but I don´t know. So while I respect your grief on certain facts (ever lasting WIP, higher price unfinished product) it won´t change any my opinions the slightest bit. So quitting with an agree to disagree. 

[RockinHarry]

1 hour ago, 76mm said:

Whoa, there is a huge difference between supporting the "big biz guys" and supporting companies like HPS that sell over-priced programs that just don't work even a decade after release.  While admittedly I wish there were more, there are quite a few small developers that put out quality products that work for a reasonable price.  Hard to believe in this day and age that HPS can't be bother to set up a forum, although maybe that would just go to show that no ones plays their games...

No respect from me.  Besides putting out a game that remains broken a decade after release, the guy's absolute refusal to engage with the player base even a single time over the years (on the various forums that had sections for TU or PoA2) is the clincher for me.  Total lack of respect for the players that bought his half-baked games.  I'll never touch a game with his name on it.

Well, ever attempted to take a developer POV? Even if I criticize BFC and raise my voice (sometimes), I never forget that they do great stuff and at last it´s THEIR game, THEIR vision of it and THEIR way doing things to THEIR liking! I see no reason to deny Scott Hamilton and his works the same rights. That´s the reason I´d never want to become a programmer or publisher. You just can´t do it right to all the "know it all better" folks who know nothing but their limited consumer views. The Jon Snow´s of wargaming world. 

so quitting here now as well. HPS and related stuff is ****ty crap not worth the dirt under ones nails. And off course (as I wrote in my very first response) NOT comparable to BFC products beside it´s all wargaming sort of stuff. 

[76mm]

4 hours ago, RockinHarry said:

Well, ever attempted to take a developer POV?...it´s THEIR game, THEIR vision of it and THEIR way doing things to THEIR liking! I see no reason to deny Scott Hamilton and his works the same rights. 

I see...so his game, his vision, and his way of doing things is to release very expensive games that don't work, not to fix them, and to never engage with the suckers that bought the game?

Gee, that's an interesting approach for a game dev, but probably not sustainable, since at least from my "limited consumer view" it is not too far from fraud and completely inexcusable.  The very least he could have done is to come on to one of the forums to say something like "Guys, really sorry, bit off more than I could chew, working on the problems but it could take ten years or more to do so..." (or whatever his excuse was).  Would that really have been so difficult?

 

Edited August 2, 2019 by 76mm

[sburke]

Raise your hand if you appreciate the utter irony of this thread.....

[Thewood1]

And not a mention of activations.

[Badger73]

[Thewood1]

btw, no one is denying his right to do anything.  The lowest form of weak debating skills is saying that complaining about something is denying someone their rights.  Scott Hamilton has every right to sell anything he wants within the bounds of a legal contract.  I have every right to point out people that some how feel they need to be Scott's white knight.  There are plenty of things to take a stand on in the world, but saying we can't call out Scott Hamilton and his unfinished and 16 year in development game is just north of ridiculous.

You have every right to your opinion that we are somehow being unfair to Scott Hamilton, but my expectation is that you give BFC the same level of consideration.  You've said some pretty harsh things about BFC's commitment to fixing things.  Do you think they have the right to do it their way?  These comments are going to follow you around on the BFC forum as you try to show how unfair BFC is.  I sure would love to see the emails you must be send Scott Hamilton about all the broken things and C++ errors.

 I also think, based on your own comments, you really don't know much about POA2 and HPS's history with it.  I think you have painted yourself into a corner in your staunch and uninformed debate about POA2.  The biggest sign of that is the desperate, "I'm not going to talk about this any more."  

[Aquila-SmartWargames]

WINSPMBT/WINSPWW2: Active development, 2D, turn-based. On first glance graphics, menues, and controls have an (too) ancient feeling but you quickly realize that its mechanics are pretty good. Probably the biggest nation and vehicle database I´ve seen ever in a ground wargame. In these two games you´ll find almost any vehicle from late WW1/early WW2 up to Future/Planned 2025. Tons of campaigns and scenarios you´ll find something about any (post-)WW2 conflict there. Dynamic campaign generator. Mechanic-wise not as deep as CM but still some sort of Combat Mission 2D as you need to apply authentic tactics and considerations in order to survive the engagements. Comes with the same core force+linear/tree campaign  idea which you have to lead through missions. My favourite campaign mode. However the campaigns and briefings often lack background, soul, and immersion which is very important for me. I also had the feel that it can get heavy on micromanagement but I don´t have much experience yet with the controls & capabilities so can´t tell.

Graviteam Games: Active, probably the most popular choice in the countless "CM vs X" fanboy debates. Somebody nailed my opinion pretty well. I like the fact that it models some exotic conflicts almost never touched by games.  But it indeed feels clunky and the UI is not my case. Often mentioned strongpoint is its dynamic campaign. Lot of players love dynamic campaigns so if you´re one of them take a look but for me it is also resulting in one of the biggest flaws. It generates these generic battles which often end up in simple line-defend line-attack situations and the TACAI almost never looks very good. For me no competition to the handmade scenarios/campaigns of CM. If they would offer handmade campaigns with the core-forces principle similar to CM more being focused on these big open terrain battles I certainly would dig into them.

Armored Brigade: Active, 2D, real time, also turn-based modes, cold war, good visualization. Powerful dynamic campaign generator which can be generated from real maps from Italy, Germany, US Desert. When you win you advance on this map and vice versa. For me again this problem that the campaigns and briefings have not the depth of CM. While CM campaigns surprise me even after countless hours and years the missions of ABs dynamic campaign tend to become very similar in short time. There are some premade campaigns but well they don´t offer much more from what it seems. Nonexistant briefings and background. Hope that this department improves. Still a great game.

Distant Guns 1.5/Jutland Pro: inactive for several years, devs presumably gone, They´re in full flight mode but servers are running. Shop, purchase, and DRM app is a mess but from my channel I know that brave ones recently managed to overcome the "Dark Souls" of online shops in order to buy the game. It is basically Combat Mission on Seas and the best modern real time 3D naval simulation available.

Scourge of War Gettysburg/Waterloo: active, US Civil War and Napoleonic Wars, very complex, some fantastic ideas like runners and AI/manual control. Not easy to get into it but there are plently of tutorials on yt. Best pre-World Wars battlefield simulation.

Close Combat Games: 2D, real time a new engine 3D WW2 title is planned for release. CM and CC not just share a similar name but both also have a long history. However while CM did improve alot, CC did less, graphically as gameplay-wise. But its okay if you love the formula which is small unit engagements consisting of up to a dozen squads and vehicles + fire support. The often recommended Ostfrot Release (Iron Cross?) comes with similar campaigns as CM where you can purchase and I think upgrade units and the newer ones come with a sort of small map/operational layer where you can move your assets around etc.. Lots of mods. I am not focused on graphics but this lagging unit sprites are really borderline painful for me. There were modern releases including "Marines", "Modern War", and "The Road to Baghdad". I am looking for the Close Combat The Road to Baghdad Iraq War release, it is NOWHERE to be found as from what i´ve heard there were licensing issues and they removed it from the market pretty quick, furthermore it wasn´t well received. Doesn´t matter I need to see it with my own eyes. Contact me if you own a copy of Close Combat: Road to Baghdad 

 

I end up often buying (war)games and spending just a couple of hours on them even when they´re decent. Not one of the mentioned here kept my attention for years and dozen of hours like CM did. Only 3 wargames did this to me: CM for tactical ground warfare, CMANO for strategic modern air/naval warfare, and Dangerous Waters for (anti-)submarine warfare with clocked hours in favor of the first. For me I see CM´s success not just in its mechanics but especially in its deep detail of immersion. Extensive Information about situation, forces, map, war effort, historical outcome  vs "MISSION 1: MEETING ENGAGEMENT DESERT. HAVE FUN! may not be important for others, for me this makes a major difference. Some mission designers even go further with campaigns like KG von Schroif, Task Force Panther, or Dragonwynn´s work by providing you with individuals with their names and own stories for you to take care of. In the CMSF Battle of Ramadi, Iraq scenario there was well-researched the historical situation explained and even links provided for an documentary which I then watched. I hope official BF designers will draw some inspiration from these custom creations. Nevertheless for me this is all next level stuff you almost can´t finde somewhere else.   

 

 

Edited August 4, 2019 by Aquila-CM

[ncc1701e]

3 hours ago, Aquila-CM said:

and Dangerous Waters for (anti-)submarine warfare

I have spent hours on this game, only good memories.

In development, there is also Steel Tigers, that is normally the sequel of Steel Panthers. But, there is not much information about it.

[DMS]

On 8/2/2019 at 5:33 AM, BletchleyGeek said:

Good summary @Thewood1 - but here I would say that they put their mind to it, but their mind goes to places ours does not. I can't read their Russian-speaking forums, I would love to hear if the feeling is similar across the language divide. Maybe  @DMS can chime in?

Developers have limited resources (they can't add multiplayer, for example), but for years of development they fixed most problems and added a lot of features. They actively use Soviet and German documents, trying to simulate battles as realistic as possible. Andrey12345 often posts documents from electronic database "pamyat-naroda" to explain people why they do something in such way. But this realism may not improve gameplay! Real battles were not so sophisticated for modern wargamer. Just line of tanks rushing forward, for example. And it works well in the game under certain conditions. No "smart maneuvers" giving waypoints to every tank or squad, but giving 1-2 general commands to AI instead. Different gameplay, not like in CM. 

[BletchleyGeek]

Thanks @DMS. It is true that armored tactics weren't that sophisticated sometimes, especially for badly led and trained formations. But not all the fighting was like slapping someone with a leg of ham in the face  

 

[RockinHarry]

On 8/2/2019 at 9:45 PM, Thewood1 said:

btw, no one is denying his right to do anything.  The lowest form of weak debating skills is saying that complaining about something is denying someone their rights.  Scott Hamilton has every right to sell anything he wants within the bounds of a legal contract.  I have every right to point out people that some how feel they need to be Scott's white knight.  There are plenty of things to take a stand on in the world, but saying we can't call out Scott Hamilton and his unfinished and 16 year in development game is just north of ridiculous.

You have every right to your opinion that we are somehow being unfair to Scott Hamilton, but my expectation is that you give BFC the same level of consideration.  You've said some pretty harsh things about BFC's commitment to fixing things.  Do you think they have the right to do it their way?  These comments are going to follow you around on the BFC forum as you try to show how unfair BFC is.  I sure would love to see the emails you must be send Scott Hamilton about all the broken things and C++ errors.

 I also think, based on your own comments, you really don't know much about POA2 and HPS's history with it.  I think you have painted yourself into a corner in your staunch and uninformed debate about POA2.  The biggest sign of that is the desperate, "I'm not going to talk about this any more."  

quite obviously you never followed my threads/postings in any detail and if yes, very likely with bits of prejudice. Not that I care though. If I´d major concerns with BFC I´d be long gone and not still around after roughly 2 decades of activity (more or less), also having shared bits of content to the community. Not that it´s worth any crap.

What i know for sure, I don´t know Mr. Hamilton well, same for BFC staff. So I spare myself and the world any "judgements", more so the very generalizing ones. Anyway, there´s always ppl around who know it all better. Facts, or alternative facts... at last I don´t really care. 

[RockinHarry]

6 hours ago, ncc1701e said:

In development, there is also Steel Tigers, that is normally the sequel of Steel Panthers. But, there is not much information about it.

oh.. that info is around for years already. But as long as Grigsby team is not really involved with it, my expectations remain rather low. But who knows... some day it might raise its head with a big KABOOM. I´d really like it.