Hindsight 20/20?

[Thewood1]

4 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

You either have top notch graphics with a kindergarten game or what we have. I get on just fine with the graphics as it is. Then again, I am 70 and remember the Commodore 64 with Crazy Kong. 

But that doesn't mean reviewers can't say that the graphics is average and outdated.  That's what reviews are for.  They say the good with the bad.  As much as we all like playing CM, its not perfect.  There are people on this board who are hyper-sensitive to any form of criticism.  It hurts the credibility of this board across the gaming community.  When you have an entire thread dedicated to a discussion about a reviewer saying the graphics are outdated, it reinforces that point about hyper-sensitivity.  Its why people don't tend to believe players who frequent a company's own boards or fan sites.

If BFC doesn't want to focus on evolving the graphics, that's their decision to make.  But the reviews will mention that.  They'll also mention what deep and rewarding experience the game is.

[newplayer]

I love this game, but yeah I feel like this forum has a hyper sensitivity to criticism like some of the above posters said. No one is above criticism, and if reviewers are saying the graphics are bad then thats their opinion and they can still enjoy the game whilst critiquing that aspect of it. I still have my issues with the game, low FPS issues, graphically i agree it's not very appealing, BF are not very quick at responding to issues with the game (The steam version of CMBS still doesn't have pouches for the US army models, a month after release, hasn't been any acknowledgement of this issue yet either.) I think people need to realise that criticism usually comes from a place of love, wanting to see their favourite product grow and improve rather than stagnate. 

[chuckdyke]

Yes, there are games like Graviteam and it looks genuinely nice it comes at a cost. Their infantry acts like robots and it is just tank battles. I like the infantry in this game. The technology is just not up to it yet. I play mostly POV in Camera setting 1 and 2. Camera 3 and 4 is for Key Terrain and Airpower. 5-8 they resemble maps and are for HQ. You can customize and make optional rules. Naturally, I like super-duper graphics but not at the cost of spoiling the game as a military simulator. RTS clicking away on Camera setting 4 and do borg spotting without realizing it on YouTube. I admire the guys for their video editing not for their understanding of the game. 

[SgtHatred]

4 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

Yes, there are games like Graviteam and it looks genuinely nice it comes at a cost. Their infantry acts like robots and it is just tank battles. I like the infantry in this game. The technology is just not up to it yet. I play mostly POV in Camera setting 1 and 2. Camera 3 and 4 is for Key Terrain and Airpower. 5-8 they resemble maps and are for HQ. You can customize and make optional rules. Naturally, I like super-duper graphics but not at the cost of spoiling the game as a military simulator. RTS clicking away on Camera setting 4 and do borg spotting without realizing it on YouTube. I admire the guys for their video editing not for their understanding of the game. 

It has nothing to do with technology. There are plenty of games out there with an advanced look that also have a great deal of complexity under the hood. The difference is resources. Neither BFC or the Graviteam guys had the large resources required to make a combat simulator with AA or AAA type graphics. That requires manpower.

It's also important to note that graphics goes beyond just making the game look pretty in screenshots. Better rendering would also make the game feel better to play. 15-25fps depending on the map, especially larger maps with lots of buildings? It can be a drag. Also, the accuracy of the rendering could be improved, so that LOS makes more sense in certain situations where visually it looks like trees and bushes block an LOS but the game simulation has decided there is an opening.

Hopefully with the new resources from the partnership with Slitherine we might see some progress on this front? I'll still be buying practically any module they put out, but I would love to see an improvement in the way the game renders.

[Ryujin]

A large part of this is also that they use their own engine like many wargames, which means that they have to create and maintain any engine features themselves. While there are advantages in being able to make it however you like from the ground up and not paying royalties, I'm not sure that's worth losing out on all the tools, rendering, and performance benefits for a small team. 

Realistically I'd expect any graphics or performance upgrades are going to be super painful for them. Maybe someday we'll get a tactical wargame on built on modern tech. 

[LukeFF]

10 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

You either have top notch graphics with a kindergarten game or what we have.

No, that's just making excuses. I and others am not asking for AAA-grade graphics like in Call of Duty but something that's say, a least within 5 years of the latest trends in graphics rendering. Gamers like myself want to see the newer hardware being better utilized than it is now (seriously, there's no reason why my frame rates should be crippled when looking at some of the larger maps on, say, Final Blitzkrieg, with me running an Nvidia 3080 and a Ryzen 5600).

Put another way, you may be happy with average graphics (and from the looks of your screenshots, you are running the game at almost-minimal detail), but there are those of us who want to see and experience more, within reason.

Edited March 4, 2021 by LukeFF

[chuckdyke]

4 hours ago, LukeFF said:

No, that's just making excuses. I and others am not asking for AAA-grade graphics like in Call of Duty but something that's say, a least within 5 years of the latest trends in graphics rendering. Gamers like myself want to see the newer hardware being better utilized than it is now (seriously, there's no reason why my frame rates should be crippled when looking at some of the larger maps on, say, Final Blitzkrieg, with me running an Nvidia 3080 and a Ryzen 5600).

Put another way, you may be happy with average graphics (and from the looks of your screenshots, you are running the game at almost-minimal detail), but there are those of us who want to see and experience more, within reason.

You live in a free country, buy a different game. Battlefront Community doesn't allow us to post at full resolution. Which game provides the maximal realism combined with the graphics rendered? My philosophy is as such. I used to cook for a living. I complain in a restaurant if I could do it better myself. My complaints are the Camera Settings. If I go hull down, I like to virtually drive the AFV from the driver's position till my vision is blocked and pop to the commander position to make my final adjustment. FPS setting doesn't allow it. In other words, a POV setting the Leader. Besides my opinion shouldn't matter to you as a customer can contribute your opinions to Battlefront. I rather see an improvement in the ballistic calculations. For example, Machine Guns in the HMG mode can't deliver indirect fire.

Here is the settings I use for FB

[chuckdyke]

@SgtHatred LOS depends on a lot of factors. I go by my TacAI if a fully identified units pops up, I have LOS but necessarily not LOF. Example HMG Team the rifleman may have LOS but the MG doesn't, and he is on a tripod which may interfere with his LOF. You can't blame everything on the graphics. Let me guess you plot waypoints and try to place area fire and the TacAI says no LOS. Plotting waypoints is a guide but not a rule of how things work. Kind regards and happy gaming.

[IICptMillerII]

4 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

You live in a free country, buy a different game.

Luke is a beta tester and has put his own time into helping to make and improve CM over the years. His criticisms are legitimate and come from someone wanting to continue to improve CM. Might be useful to understand context before flapping your gums. 

[chuckdyke]

1 minute ago, IICptMillerII said:

Luke is a beta tester and has put his own time into helping to make and improve CM over the years. His criticisms are legitimate and come from someone wanting to continue to improve CM. Might be useful to understand context before flapping your gums. 

He better offer his talents to somebody else. How much is the salary CM pays? I am happy with CM you guys obviously are not. You're just a rude person. 

[SgtHatred]

5 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

@SgtHatred LOS depends on a lot of factors. I go by my TacAI if a fully identified units pops up, I have LOS but necessarily not LOF. Example HMG Team the rifleman may have LOS but the MG doesn't, and he is on a tripod which may interfere with his LOF. You can't blame everything on the graphics. Let me guess you plot waypoints and try to place area fire and the TacAI says no LOS. Plotting waypoints is a guide but not a rule of how things work. Kind regards and happy gaming.

No, I mean when one unit can see another unit through bush and trees, but if you move your camera to that position trees and bushes 100% cover the LOS, but the game simulation has decided that no, there is a gap units can see through. Would be nice if the graphics more reflected the simulated reality.

 

Remember that "graphics" means more than just pretty models and fancy textures.

1 hour ago, chuckdyke said:

He better offer his talents to somebody else. How much is the salary CM pays? I am happy with CM you guys obviously are not. You're just a rude person. 

Don't demand unwavering praise from people, and don't trust people who offer it.

[Guest Frustrated CM fan]

1 hour ago, chuckdyke said:

He better offer his talents to somebody else. How much is the salary CM pays? I am happy with CM you guys obviously are not. You're just a rude person. 

I like Combat Mission, it is a unique series of games. 

However, your embarrassing attitude in this thread is a great example of why I hate this community behind Combat Mission so very much. 

[chuckdyke]

Just now, Guest Frustrated CM fan said:

I like Combat Mission, it is a unique series of games. 

However, your embarrassing attitude in this thread is a great example of why I hate this community behind Combat Mission so very much. 

I committed the unforgivable sin of being a happy customer. They are not and to be politically correct you must knock the graphics. Understand the game and you understand why the graphics are not going to be cinematic for the near future. Happy gaming and kind regards, I just don't want to end up with a fancy looking game I don't like to play. 

[chuckdyke]

9 minutes ago, SgtHatred said:

No, I mean when one unit can see another unit through bush and trees, but if you move your camera to that position trees and bushes 100% cover the LOS, but the game simulation has decided that no, there is a gap units can see through. Would be nice if the graphics more reflected the simulated reality.

 

Remember that "graphics" means more than just pretty models and fancy textures.

Don't demand unwavering praise from people, and don't trust people who offer it.

I disagree there are 5 crew in a Sherman tank (4 in a Firefly) If the driver spots the enemy, it doesn't mean the commander, or the gunner spots it as well. Page 40 of the manual spells it out. The units do relative spotting what the player does on the screen is borg spotting (Only spotting in other games). It is the reason I like the game; You see the gap the guy who buries his face in the mud because he is scared doesn't. The factors that you as the player doesn't get a LOS are too numerous to mention. I know I can be too direct, and offence was not intended. Enemy unit pops up my unit fires next turn just a contact icon. The enemy unit ducked in his foxhole. The only weapon with a LOF is the unit's mortar. Trust me if I get a game with graphics in which the unit's PDA displays virtually on my PC I buy it. Or houses with rooms and cellars. How can we ever play Stalingrad in a city with no cellars? Gaming still has a long way to go. This is the best I can see, don't take my opinion personally. 

[SgtHatred]

42 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

I disagree there are 5 crew in a Sherman tank (4 in a Firefly) If the driver spots the enemy, it doesn't mean the commander, or the gunner spots it as well. Page 40 of the manual spells it out. The units do relative spotting what the player does on the screen is borg spotting (Only spotting in other games). It is the reason I like the game; You see the gap the guy who buries his face in the mud because he is scared doesn't. The factors that you as the player doesn't get a LOS are too numerous to mention. I know I can be too direct, and offence was not intended. Enemy unit pops up my unit fires next turn just a contact icon. The enemy unit ducked in his foxhole. The only weapon with a LOF is the unit's mortar. Trust me if I get a game with graphics in which the unit's PDA displays virtually on my PC I buy it. Or houses with rooms and cellars. How can we ever play Stalingrad in a city with no cellars? Gaming still has a long way to go. This is the best I can see, don't take my opinion personally. 

You missed the point of my example. Put your camera where the driver is? Bushes. Put your camera where the commander is? Bushes. Yet, the tank sees and engages the enemy, because the visible terrain we see and the terrain of the simulation does not match. If a 25foot wall is between object A and object B, I expect that A and B cannot see each other. If they can it's because the game is not being properly rendered. It's not a huge issue, but it would be better if it never happened.

 

Acknowledging that the game could improve is not an attack against it. Pointing out issues or asking for more is not being an "unhappy customer"

Edited March 5, 2021 by SgtHatred

[chuckdyke]

It is very possible that only a member of the crew spots the enemy, but the gunner doesn't. Disregard what you see on the screen (For 90%) and the game becomes more enjoyable. Road to Nijmegen first game I got frustrated. Undeployed the MG could engage but when you deployed the MG you couldn't. The circumstances had changed the people who could engaged were armed with the M1 Carbine the MG on the Tripod couldn't. I don't know exactly how the algorithms of the game work, somehow, I trust it. The 75 mm of the Sherman was often preferred over the 76 mm Sherman. The LOF and HE was more effective in dealing with German AT guns. The game reflects this too. We look at the screen from an easy chair and a drink and some nibbles. In the game some software writer tries to include some human factors too. Like the AT gunner you may be happy to sacrifice him for a ISII tank in real virtual life the man prefers to hide away in his foxhole. A million mouse clicks won't change it.

[SgtHatred]

10 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

It is very possible that only a member of the crew spots the enemy, but the gunner doesn't.

This has nothing to do with anything I've said.

10 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

Disregard what you see on the screen (For 90%) and the game becomes more enjoyable. 

This is bad. The more decoupled the visual representation of the simulation is from the actual simulation the worse it is.

10 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

 Road to Nijmegen first game I got frustrated. Undeployed the MG could engage but when you deployed the MG you couldn't. The circumstances had changed the people who could engaged were armed with the M1 Carbine the MG on the Tripod couldn't. I don't know exactly how the algorithms of the game work, somehow, I trust it. The 75 mm of the Sherman was often preferred over the 76 mm Sherman. The LOF and HE was more effective in dealing with German AT guns. The game reflects this too. We look at the screen from an easy chair and a drink and some nibbles. In the game some software writer tries to include some human factors too. Like the AT gunner you may be happy to sacrifice him for a ISII tank in real virtual life the man prefers to hide away in his foxhole. A million mouse clicks won't change it.

The game has a lot of good points, that isn't in dispute.

[kevinkin]

The point of my original post was that CM was sort being thrown under the bus for a year or two due to less than state of art graphics and little news of any new content. Now wargamers can not have CM Fire and Rubble and Cold War fast enough. Ironic.  I have never seen such excitement over a wargame like CM Cold War in many years. I cant gauge Fire and Rubble, but Cold War might just be the biggest seller for Battlefront in their history. And I hope so. 

[chuckdyke]

@SgtHatred   I see it as a High-Tech Chess game. You see all the squares and all the Chessmen. But each one has a role. Even the Queen has no LOS but the Knight has and can fork the King and the Castle. Example in the game. MG42 in a foxhole, your platoon hast the task to take him out. And applies METT-TC. The platoon can suppress the enemy but once it has been suppressed only one weapon can take it out. You see the foxhole and the game displays the Icon HMG42. You must find the sweet spot for the 60 mm mortar. The trajectory of the 60 mm is its strength and the direct firepower of the MG42 has now becomes it weakness. The 60 mm can lob grenades right in the foxhole and is reasonably safe. I see the terrain features in CM generic like the buildings the AI has the last word. Naturally, I like realistic graphics too. The games which do absolutely lack the realism of CM. Experienced Game Editors (I am not one of them) Struggle with maps of 4km x 4km in Urban Settings. Which is a challenge effective range of tanks being 5 km. I rather have the present graphics than just another computer game. Happy gaming. 

[chuckdyke]

2 hours ago, kevinkin said:

The point of my original post was that CM was sort being thrown under the bus for a year or two due to less than state of art graphics and little news of any new content. Now wargamers can not have CM Fire and Rubble and Cold War fast enough. Ironic.  I have never seen such excitement over a wargame like CM Cold War in many years. I cant gauge Fire and Rubble, but Cold War might just be the biggest seller for Battlefront in their history. And I hope so. 

Fire and Rubble has my priority. To continue CM has 2 customer bases now. People who like to play RTS on lower settings and WeGo on higher setting and huge maps which are not huge enough. There is also a communication problem with its customers. Instructions in the PDF documents are for me at last insufficient. I like more resources for the Editor. It may be easy for some but not for me. Also, Internet Play, PBEM players like at present small scenarios and agree on certain house rules in regards FOW. A small PBEM game can easy last a month. You also need a Dropbox account with some plug ins to make it work. Graphics you may have noticed are the least of my concerns. I am just another customer. Regards.  

[LukeFF]

23 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

I committed the unforgivable sin of being a happy customer. They are not and to be politically correct you must knock the graphics. Understand the game and you understand why the graphics are not going to be cinematic for the near future. Happy gaming and kind regards, I just don't want to end up with a fancy looking game I don't like to play. 

And you still don't get it. I do like the game and am a happy customer, but at the same time there are areas where I think there is room for improvement. It's quite alright to enjoy a game but to also say at the same time "I really wish they would improve this."

[chuckdyke]

58 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

And you still don't get it. I do like the game and am a happy customer, but at the same time there are areas where I think there is room for improvement. It's quite alright to enjoy a game but to also say at the same time "I really wish they would improve this."

We all do but it comes with a caveat. Don't compromise the game as a tactical simulator. I like to see rooms in buildings and have sub-terranean scenarios. As far as spotting goes it is subjective. You only have a positive LOS once you see an Identified Icon and even then, not always. The average Gaming PC 16 G RAM 1 TB SSD hard drive. It is my set up and I don't have issues. Here is a still of the Army University Site We have a long way to go yet. Army University Press - YouTube

[Ryujin]

"Don't compromise the game as a tactical simulator" is always an odd argument. Making the game look better isn't going to compromise it. Adding better performance, models, animation won't change how it works under the hood. 

The other aspect is tons of things already compromise it as a tactical simulator for user experience. You get a god perspective of everything, instant perfect information, replays, and a flawless robotic level of command and control. CM is a great strategy game with many realistic aspects, but getting too concerned with "tactical simulator" doesn't make a lot of sense when you're playing ww2 scenarios with the tactical control of the borg and doing things that would be literally impossible for a real commander. A few changes for user experience aren't going to make a big difference. 

Edited March 6, 2021 by Ryujin

[sfhand]

On 3/3/2021 at 12:40 PM, Thewood1 said:

btw, the most commonly used laptop GPU is the Intel family.  BFC has basically given up on that family all to continue a slavish devotion to developing on an Apple platform.

Personally, as one who is a gamer first and war gamer second, I have a hard time taking seriously any complaint about a game's graphics performance on a laptop that doesn't have a dedicated graphics card. There is a reason some laptops are categorized and marketed as gaming laptops. The only issue I've ever had with CM graphics on any of the gaming laptops I've owned (aside from universal framerate issues) is my not making sure the laptop was using the dedicated graphics card rather than the integrated Intel graphics solution and that oversight only happened once ;).

 

Edit: Seeing how this thread has gone I want to make sure you know I wasn't trying to be abrasive. I am jealous of Mac's making use of 64 bit architecture... I have long thought BF should modernize the Windows version to x64.

Edited March 9, 2021 by sfhand
adding clarity and hopefully civility :)

[Thewood1]

Then BFC should state explicitly that they don't support Intel family GPUs.  Its basically what they are doing now, after the fact.

Edited March 9, 2021 by Thewood1