The incredible richness of the CM games

[Freyberg]

I know I post pointless things like this too often, but I just can't get over the incredible wealth of fun I get out of the Combat Mission games.

I've been playing Commonwealth and minor Allies in CMFI so long - with huge enjoyment - that now I've started a few QBs with US forces they seem brand new. Meanwhile, I carved off a few slices of the gorgeous CMFR master maps, quickly threw together some QB maps and started playing them - late '44, early '45 - which are a terrific challenge and hugely enjoyable. The AI does such a good job with a good map that you can put together your own fun QB map on your own chosen terrain with relative ease, without any idea of how the battle will unfold.

And I'm still scratching the surface of CMCW, which offers a whole new unfamiliar world of units, vehicles and capabilities which are engrossing and offer a whole new historical learning curve. Plus of course I still dip into the other titles (I've still to properly explore CMBS and CMFB - and after all these years with different versions, I still love the extended versions of CMSF and CMBN).

Through all kinds of ups and downs in life, Combat Mission has been my 'happy place' for nearly 20 years!! 20 years FFS!! That's beyond unique for a computer game.

Sorry - I'm a bit drunk, but I just had to say wax rhapsodic...

[landser]

I think it's great that you still find it so rewarding, and I like your post.

I wish I could say the same.  I also got in at the start, with the CMBO demo. Combat Mission remains my favorite tactical simulation on PC. I cannot praise enough the spotting, ballistics and Command and Control. WEGO remains brilliant all these years later.

But I feel apathetic about it all. The game has failed to evolve, and in my view everything outside the actual tactical battlefield is out of date. Haven't fired it up in a year, and haven't made a purchase, aside from engine upgrades, since SF2.

I wish I felt like you do about it all, but the enthusiasm is mostly gone. I'm sure I'll play again, but if there's no major evolution in the series, especially in regards to things like the campaign system, content generation, UI, and yes, even graphics, then I can't see it ever reclaiming it's rightful place in my gaming rotation.  No big drama, these things happen, and my opinion is not that of the next man. I'm happy folks still get so much enjoyment out of the series. I check the forum regularly, enjoy the discussion. But Combat Mission, for me, has fallen behind the times and the development roadmap isn't going in my direction. I guess our paths are diverging, to put it one way.

Maybe I should follow your lead and lift a few and see if that changes anything

[Erwin]

22 minutes ago, landser said:

I also got in at the start, with the CMBO demo. Combat Mission remains my favorite tactical simulation on PC. I cannot praise enough the spotting, ballistics and Command and Control. WEGO remains brilliant all these years later.

But I feel apathetic about it all. The game has failed to evolve...

You are not the only one who feels this way.  Obviously there was evolution from CM1 to CM2, but since 2007, it's been essentially the same game with some tweaks and small improvements.  Newcomers to the game obviously love it as they haven't played anything like it before.  I rather envy them as newcomers are playing a mature game.  But, yes after 21 years, (14 years of CM2), it is rather long in the tooth.  We're all hoping that there is a CM3 well in the works by now, and that the MoD contract(s) will provide BF with the funding to make CM3 happen in a reasonable amount of time.

[Bufo]

1 hour ago, landser said:

I cannot praise enough the spotting

Oh well. IMHO it is very badly simulated, but this is just me.

[dbsapp]

30 minutes ago, Bufo said:

Oh well. IMHO it is very badly simulated, but this is just me.

LOL not just, spotting is beyond parody sometimes. 

I saw tanks virtually driving around invisible vehicles on the road that blocked the road but they couldn't see. 

[Gnaeus]

Ahhh, the internet. Here's a for you, Freyberg. And the developers, betatesters,  modders and scenario designers.

[Simcoe]

Sorry you’re getting poop’d in the comments. I think there’s a huge amount of variety in this game even from scenario to scenario.

Playing Red Thunder, playing either side feels like 2 different games. Then you hop into Battle for Normandy and the bocage changes the entire game. 
 

loving this game.

[Anson Pelmet]

I've been playing continuously since CMBO and would love a major upgrade in ways of playing (eg, live hotseat battles against humans online, auto-generated careers, replayability of battles so you can follow one unit's progress from start to finish) and in graphics (better battle damage to vehicles, more realistic soldier movements) but having said all that I still find Combat Mission miles ahead of any other tactical wargames I see online in terms of realism of play (Post Scriptum and Hell Let Loose look gorgeous but play like kids running around randomly shooting each other). It's a bit like watching a 4k video on a huge new TV versus a VHS on a small screen - if the movie's crap no amount of graphics will make it good, and a good movie will always be good despite mediocre graphics...

 

 

[Erwin]

49 minutes ago, Anson Pelmet said:

I still find Combat Mission miles ahead of any other tactical wargames I see online in terms of realism

+1

[Bozowans]

11 hours ago, dbsapp said:

LOL not just, spotting is beyond parody sometimes. 

I saw tanks virtually driving around invisible vehicles on the road that blocked the road but they couldn't see. 

My favorite was when I had AT infantry run up to an enemy T-34 in the middle of the dark. They failed to spot the tank for several minutes even though they were literally right next to it. They were so close that they could reach out and touch it. They even had to run around the invisible tank in order to find a spot to lay down. The buttoned-up T-34 spotted my infantry first and machine-gunned them all. 

Even despite silly things like that, there is still nothing else out there like the CM series and I still get a lot of enjoyment out of them. I agree with the OP honestly. 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

One could argue that your pixeltruppen knew there was a tank there, but in the darkness did not realise it was hostile.....Plenty of real accounts of that happening.

[domfluff]

I'm glad we clamped down on that rampant positivity so harshly. Wouldn't want to think one could enjoy playing Combat Mission.

[Sgt Joch]

Agree with a lot of the comments. Been playing CM on and off since CMBB in 2002. I have often gone off for several months several times playing other games, other genres, other periods looking for the ultimate realistic wargame, but I always come back to CM which despite its fault is still the best overall simulation of tactical company/battalion level warfare.

Edited September 25, 2021 by Sgt Joch

[chuckdyke]

Different people have a different learning curve. Veteran up to Iron is the sandbox stage. Then change the name of the map and save it in the QB folder if it is not already there and play it again against a human player. In which you can have completely different units. Then look at the maps and first change the time of the year and you have a different looking map. Then add some houses and you are on a different aspect. First steps in editing. CM is incredible value for money. 

Edited September 25, 2021 by chuckdyke

[Heirloom_Tomato]

For me it is moments like this that keep me playing after 21 years. 

https://imgur.com/gallery/PQWI4LO

Edited September 25, 2021 by Heirloom_Tomato

[Redwolf]

Everybody in this thread is right so far

[danfrodo]

It's like a "what is the best tank" thread.  Some folks will see the weakness, some will see the strengths, and both will be right, like RedWolf said above

for me, what else am I gonna do for military sim that doesn't require twitch over brains?  Better graphics would be fantastic, but there's lots of military games out there w amazing graphics that I have zero interest in playing but are super popular.

[Aragorn2002]

It's more than a game to me too. A happy place? Yes, I think that's not exaggerated. 

[MikeyD]

CM is like a kid getting the keys to the candy store. This is what my younger self wished someone would invent someday. Its my ideal game. If there's a problem its that we've got too much of a good thing. We've become jaded from overexposure. We're like 'Ho hum, there's a Sturmtiger on the map now.' 

One of my pastimes is going on Youtube and watching younger folks react to classic pop songs or classic movies. Its heartwarming, it reminds me of the rush of experiencing something great 'for the first time'. We older CM players can't go back to experience discovering the game for the first time but we can enjoy what we've got 

[Erwin]

4 hours ago, MikeyD said:

We older CM players can't go back to experience discovering the game for the first time but we can enjoy what we've got 

That's the sad part...   A reason to hope for CM3.

[Aragorn2002]

8 hours ago, Erwin said:

That's the sad part...   A reason to hope for CM3.

I'm not sure, Erwin. If I could chose between more CM2 or a more sophisticated CM3, I would probably go for CM2. But not many people will agree with that. Which I also understand.

[Freyberg]

14 hours ago, MikeyD said:

We older CM players can't go back to experience discovering the game for the first time but we can enjoy what we've got 

I first found CMBO when I experiencing my first 'mid-life crisis' - and I started searching the internet for a computer equivalent to the tabletop wargames I loved when I was a kid. CMBO and CMBB were exactly what I was looking for and the games just keep getting better.

I have never felt CM really lacks anything. Hi res shoot-em-ups completely bore me - the gameplay is infantile. The occasional fudge factors in CM don't bother me - they're like dice rolls. You can't have a wargame without them. They make it more realistic, not less - the realism is in the risk and the randomness. If everything always happened as it 'should' the game wouldn't be realistic at all. 

[dbsapp]

1 hour ago, Freyberg said:

If everything always happened as it 'should' the game wouldn't be realistic at all. 

I agree with you, every good game should have some randomness and illogical component that make it less mechanistic and finite. 

...But there is difference between "not always happen as it should" and "happen too often as it shouldn't"

[Redwolf]

Random randomness is not helpful, in other words

[Bufo]

4 hours ago, Freyberg said:

If everything always happened as it 'should' the game wouldn't be realistic at all. 

Maybe a 7.62mm rifle round penetrating and destroying a King Tiger frontally every now and then? I mean, it shouldn't, but you wanted it