Add something new please.

[Tomiko]

Hello gamers and mainly devs.

 

Me, as a youngling to the Combat mission, I'd request developers to add something new other than skin, maps, language and guns. It needs something different! The game is 90% same across all games. If I imported all the models and skins from Combat Mission Shock Force 2 to Combat Mission cold war, the game would probably run it as nothing. And with it, it has the same issues. CQB is nightmare in reality too, but in Combat Mission, it's especially bad. If you have like 1 unit and need to perform CQB. Absolutely impossible. And the "Hunt" command is pretty useless as if they are in Hunt command, they start walking at slow pace and when see someone/something, they stop and will disable all following commands. Can't you guys make it that troops will HOLD for the amount of time they keep seeing the enemy or the enemy is neutralized? That would make CQB soooo much more easier and life would be good.

I've spoken to my friends and this is general feedback I get why they won't ever buy Combat Mission game:
 

• Literally every game is same - That is in my opinion very true. It doesn't mean it'd be bad. But the same issue Combat Mission Afghanistan has, it's also in Combat mission Cold war. 
• Graphics - Irrelavant argument for me but it's also why a lot of players turn down. Especially the edges of the map, the sky
• Only 1v1 multiplayer with ancient connection system, no coop, no more players than 1v1 scenario. - In my opinion, very good argument. Combat mission is only 1v1 and without coop regime. This needs to be changed in the future (or would be amazing if was changed right now).
• Price tag too high - Well. If we take in account that all the games are basically same. A skillful modder would probably make Shock Force 2, Cold war or Black Water out of Combat mission afghanistan. It's very high. 
• Planes/Helis are not part of the game. - We can get in argument that planes / helis fire from kilometers away and are irrelavant for the game, but I think it would certainly be healthy to add visual planes flying above, even if very far away. And when planes crash, you can see it too.
• The DLC fest. (Mostly Combat Mission Shock Force 2). - For the game where you charge 60€ for a same mechanical features as in every previous game. It's absolutely crazy to charge 20€ for a basically a nation bundle. 

 

The arguments I expect under this thread:

• The price tag is that high because of: Small audience, simulation, bluh bluh bluh....
  • That is an interesting point, but is irrelavant. The game should be worth its money, which I'm afraid most of the games don't meet.
• The game is not same because in game XY, they moved 0.3km/h slower and fired 0,8 meters further.
  • Please.... Just don't...

Don't consider this thread as a hate. It's more like objectively true. I really love the concept of Combat mission series and I'd love them to continue. But the work / content / features is very much not meet with the price tag.

Also PLEASE guys, create your own discord. Don't be like your MP lobbies stuck in 80's/90's. 


Thank you for reading to this point.

[BornGinger]

I too think that most of the games generally are exactly the same which is one of the reasons to why I only have Final Blitzkrieg. I wish I had bought Red Thunder instead as I'm more interested in the Eastern Front.

The games which occur in a more modern era are a bit different in the way that they use different weapons and other modern systems. But apart from that I feel that they are almost the same as the WW2 games.

And although the graphics don't matter much it would be great if the games could look a bit better.

Edited December 8, 2021 by BornGinger

[benpark]

8 hours ago, Tomiko said:

I'd request developers to add something new other than skin, maps, language and guns.

You are missing Scenarios, Campaigns, Master Maps,and Quick Battles from your list.

I think most of us here would like to see some additional graphic improvements.

Edited December 8, 2021 by benpark

[landser]

I won't criticize the lack of diversity through the various titles that comprise Combat Mission. I talked in another thread how the historical nature of what they are portraying ties the devs hands to a degree. And I like the Combat Mission formula from a battle perspective. It really is a delight on the battlefield. WEGO's brilliant.

But until Battlefront commits to a campaign overhaul and gives us something akin to an operational and tactical level hybrid campaign system and campaign generator I doubt I'll drop any more cash on it. Like most here I've spent a lot of money on it, and I don't complain. I'm willing to pay for stuff I think is worth it, and Combat Mission has been worth it.

But I'm at the stage now where I have a bunch of titles and they give me the base CM experience and I am no longer tempted by the newer releases. SF2 is my most recent. I have zero expectation that I'll ever see the sort of campaign system I think the wonderful tactical engine deserves, and that's fine. But that's what would bring me back to purchasing CM products I think. Never say never, but I no longer desire to see new units, maps or modules as they are. I want a new campaign system. Simple as.

[Howler]

I think it's priced pretty much where BFC wants to be priced which is the only thing that matters.

As to "sameness", when did that stop being a selling feature? BFC have back ported new features to every previous title. Why is this now a 'bad' thing? 

I'm hoping an engine upgrade will break the 8x8 AS wall and provide something closer to 1x1 along with all the bells and whistles associated to a game engine designed in the last decade or better yet - designed in last few years!  

[Simcoe]

Some good points here but I had to LOL at Combat Mission playing the same between modules.

You're telling me Fortress Italy and Red Thunder play the exact same? Or Cold War plays the same as Shock Force 2?

Do you go on the Halo subreddit and make posts about Halo 1, 2 and 3 are the same? Or Counterstrike Global Offensive is the same as 1.6?

Get out of here with your clown ass.

 

 

[MikeyD]

Price tag is too high? I just looked up the price of CMBS yesterday and was shocked by how low it was. How much cheaper do you want the game? $30? $20? $10?

I assume you go onto the Mazda website and complain all their cars are the same and their prices are too high, too.

[BornGinger]

14 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

go onto the Mazda website and complain... their prices are too high, too.

All cars are too expensive, not only Mazda cars.

[dbsapp]

Agree and disagree. 

Agree that game needs more healthy criticism instead of permanent worshipping. In many aspects it feels outdated, ancient and cumbersome. 

Some things could be fixed quite easily without much time investment (at least it seems so). E.g. movements command, hunt etc. 

Disagree that modules feel the same. In my opinion they are all quite different and require different playstyle, variable strategies and approach. You can't command your Soviet troops in Red Thunder the same way you manage US troops in CMBS. That's one of the best achievements of Combat Mission: basically it's the same engine, but units properties differ substantially and it makes different game every time. 

[A Canadian Cat]

10 hours ago, Tomiko said:

• Literally every game is same - That is in my opinion very true. It doesn't mean it'd be bad. But the same issue Combat Mission Afghanistan has, it's also in Combat mission Cold war. 

This one makes me laugh.

First a little history. The CM1 series started with Beyond Overlord followed by Barbarossa to Berlin and finally Afrika Korps. Each follow on game added features to both the engine and the UI. But the older games were not updated with the new features. Which meant that Afrika Korps played better and had a better UI than the other two. People were sad that the new work was not available in the still very playable Beyond Overlord.

In the CM2 series BFC decided to not do that again and so when Fortress Italy came out Beyond Normandy got an update to add in the engine and UI improvements too.

So, what are you asking for? Did you really want Beyond Normandy to languish behind as new titles came and made improvements? I don't. You shouldn't either.

 

10 hours ago, Tomiko said:

• Graphics - Irrelavant argument for me but it's also why a lot of players turn down. Especially the edges of the map, the sky

Everyone feels that some graphics improvements would be welcome. I do have on bone to pick with the above - the sky? The sky in CM seems pretty damn good to me. I don't think I have ever heard someone complain about the sky.

 

10 hours ago, Tomiko said:

• Only 1v1 multiplayer with ancient connection system, no coop, no more players than 1v1 scenario. - In my opinion, very good argument. Combat mission is only 1v1 and without coop regime. This needs to be changed in the future (or would be amazing if was changed right now).

Indeed. This is another area that would be great to add.

So, as a point of interest if they added some of these things would you want that feature to only be in the new release and leave all the others behind? That's how adding new features and differentiating a new game from the older ones would work. Rhetorical question.

 

10 hours ago, Tomiko said:

• Price tag too high - Well. If we take in account that all the games are basically same. A skillful modder would probably make Shock Force 2, Cold war or Black Water out of Combat mission afghanistan. It's very high. 

TFB Honestly I don't want to be mean or angry but this is such a bull **** complaint. BFC will price it where they think they can make good money. Bitching about it is so boring.

 

10 hours ago, Tomiko said:

• Planes/Helis are not part of the game. - We can get in argument that planes / helis fire from kilometers away and are irrelavant for the game, but I think it would certainly be healthy to add visual planes flying above, even if very far away. And when planes crash, you can see it too.

Sure it would be cool but as you said a lot of those assets really would be out of view. Not all of them, so yeah cool. Planes actually do sometimes crash on map. There is no wreckage model though just an explosion.

So cool would be nice.

 

10 hours ago, Tomiko said:

• The DLC fest. (Mostly Combat Mission Shock Force 2). - For the game where you charge 60€ for a same mechanical features as in every previous game. It's absolutely crazy to charge 20€ for a basically a nation bundle. 

LOL see two points above. If you don't like the price no one is pulling money out of your pocket. Vote with your dollars.

 

10 hours ago, Tomiko said:

The arguments I expect under this thread:

• The price tag is that high because of: Small audience, simulation, bluh bluh bluh....
  • That is an interesting point, but is irrelavant. The game should be worth its money, which I'm afraid most of the games don't meet.

In your opinion. Enough people disagree and think the games are worth the money. That's kind of the end of the discussion.

The argument I expect to hear: but if you lower the price you will sell so much more. Facts not in evidence (BFC know their audience and what price differences do and how many copies they think they will sell. There is no way that you know better than them).

 

[womble]

CM is a unique animal. It is not a "computer game". It is a tabletop historical wargame translated to exploit the things that computers are good at. If you have ever sat at a 6 x 3 table and pushed miniatures around, it is the best iteration of that hobby yet. Its graphics more than suffice to represent the elements required to a still-startling degree of fidelity to "real life". It retains gamist features in places, but does not rely on them like many tabletop wargame rulesets these days do. The skybox is way better a background for the game than any wargame club hall I've ever been in, and the ruleset is more intricate a simulation than any hand-calculated set of rules could come close to matching.

But if you expect the total perspective immersion of modern computer games out of it, you're going to be disappointed, cos it ain't that.

As to "all the games are the same", that's true on a very broad and superficial sense, but if you actually play 'em the "progression" between the titles is noticeable. There are common principles, but they are consequences of the fidelity of the simulation: the principles of warfare don't change much. The available tools do, however.

[LukeFF]

11 minutes ago, womble said:

Its graphics more than suffice to represent the elements required to a still-startling degree of fidelity to "real life".

No, just no. If you're talking about graphics from the year 2000, then sure, but too many things that were acceptable back then just don't cut it any more:

1. The shadows look awful

2. Long-distance rendering of objects is really bad - hilltops covered with trees become as bald as a billiard table beyond about a thousand meters

3. Performance with the latest and greatest hardware is unacceptable, especially as map sizes increase (anything over about 30 FPS is almost never seen). 

4. Fog and flame effects look awful.

5. On a lesser note,but still there, the vehicle models are starting to show their age - seriously, is this the last computer game (and yes, these are all computer games, whether you like it or not) where the main gun barrels and wheels are 8-sided objects?

Don't get me wrong - CM does a lot of things right, but a lot of other things are vastly outdated. 

[Erwin]

19 minutes ago, womble said:

CM is a unique animal. It is not a "computer game". It is a tabletop historical wargame translated to exploit the things that computers are good at.

Yes, this is the most important advantage of CM.  However, CM1 was released in (IIRC) 1999, and superseded after 8 years by CM2 in 2007.  CM2 has been grinding along now for almost 15 years(!)  That's a very successful run considering how little of the fundamentals has changed.  However, CM2 has been showing its age for some time, and many of us old-timers are just hanging in there in the hope that a CM3 will soon be released (in our lifetime).

[Aragorn2002]

35 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Yes, this is the most important advantage of CM.  However, CM1 was released in (IIRC) 1999, and superseded after 8 years by CM2 in 2007.  CM2 has been grinding along now for almost 15 years(!)  That's a very successful run considering how little of the fundamentals has changed.  However, CM2 has been showing its age for some time, and many of us old-timers are just hanging in there in the hope that a CM3 will soon be released (in our lifetime).

Well, that's precisely what BF is working on. Untill then CM2 will do nicely. Still haven't seen a game that comes even close to CM.

P.s. NOT looking forward to the agony of waiting for new base games and modules again.

 

[Thomm]

Still in awe that a single programmer could pull off something like CMx2.

Best regards
Thomm

[Glubokii Boy]

The rumors of CM3 actually being  a thing has been floating around this forum for many years now...It has never been confirmed by BFC as far as i know that such a game is indeed in development. The closest thing to a  confirmation that i can recall was some postings made  by one of the BFC guys a while back sort of confirming this but those postings got deleted hastely...Never to be seen again ...

An  official confirmation of CM3 would be a rather nice christmas present indeed 

 

[Redwolf]

54 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

No, just no. If you're talking about graphics from the year 2000, then sure, but too many things that were acceptable back then just don't cut it any more:

1. The shadows look awful

2. Long-distance rendering of objects is really bad - hilltops covered with trees become as bald as a billiard table beyond about a thousand meters

3. Performance with the latest and greatest hardware is unacceptable, especially as map sizes increase (anything over about 30 FPS is almost never seen). 

4. Fog and flame effects look awful.

5. On a lesser note,but still there, the vehicle models are starting to show their age - seriously, is this the last computer game (and yes, these are all computer games, whether you like it or not) where the main gun barrels and wheels are 8-sided objects?

Don't get me wrong - CM does a lot of things right, but a lot of other things are vastly outdated. 

Quite a few of these don't require a new CMx3 game and might be cleaned up with the v5 engine. Probably not the performance one (3).

[Glubokii Boy]

But an annoncement of CM2 CMBB 2 would be even better ! 

CM2 is still holding up fairly well imo....but we need more of it....

 

[Pelican Pal]

I suspect a lot of this is due to Battlefront being stuck with a... weird deployment strategy that ends up confusing people with more standard expecations. Battlefront is effectively operating on a core game + DLC system but the core game is obfuscated behind the base games. If you remove that obfuscation it would look like this:

Core game engine  -> base game content ( purchase) - > DLC content ( purchase) This is the Combat Mission layout: https://store.steampowered.com/app/521800/Command_Ops_2_Core_Game/ except the core game is hidden and there is in fact a separate store page for each "DLC".

What that means is that when a new game releases its not clear that its actually a DLC package on the core engine unless you've been following along. You can see that in the way that people on the forums will use CMx2 to collective group all the CM games since 2007 since they are fundamentally the same. A user who casually follows the game (someone who bought CMBN in 2011, for example) returns to the series after a 7 or 8 year hiatus to check out the "brand new game" and its actually just DLC on the core game.
 

1 hour ago, Simcoe said:

Get out of here with your clown ass.

Maybe don't call a new user a "clown ass"

[The Steppenwulf]

5 minutes ago, Redwolf said:

Quite a few of these don't require a new CMx3 game and might be cleaned up with the v5 engine. Probably not the performance one (3).

But they probably will require updating the engine to 64 bit to gain ANY better optimisation. That's been the elephant in the room all the time and should have been undertaken years ago. 

Edited December 8, 2021 by The Steppenwulf

[Artkin]

7 minutes ago, Redwolf said:

Quite a few of these don't require a new CMx3 game and might be cleaned up with the v5 engine. Probably not the performance one (3).

Engine V5 is specifically for performance improvements 

[BFCElvis]

11 hours ago, Tomiko said:

Also PLEASE guys, create your own discord. Don't be like your MP lobbies stuck in 80's/90's. 


Thank you for reading to this point.

There is an official Discord:
https://discord.com/channels/740556521724706876/740556523134255218
 

And an unofficial one:
 

https://discord.com/channels/750359959237034206/799303603029278760

 

I'm only going to touch on one of the things you mentioned:

Price: We've been around for 22 years. That's a long time in the gaming business. One of the reasons is because we know what we need to do to survive. We are able to anticipate with the number of sales for what we release. And we know how much revenue we need to keep the doors open, feed our families and live "normal" lives. From there it's a matter of maths. "We're gonna sell about X number of units and we need to make Y total dollars. So, Y divided by X will be the selling price."

That said, now that we have a few of the games on Steam the X number is different and the maths change. For instance, we do have sales from time to time now. Such as CMSF2 and Black Sea which are both currently on sale.

[Commanderski]

All games age over time and no game is perfect. Considering the size of the Battlefront team they are doing a great job in what they have done so far and I'm sure we will see improvements in the future.

And after all this time yet here we all are with people still creating new scenarios, maps, campaigns and mods. So BF must still be doing something right and people are still enjoying the game.

[BFCElvis]

2 hours ago, Simcoe said:

Get out of here with your clown ass.

  

13 minutes ago, Pelican Pal said:

Maybe don't call a new user a "clown ass"

Perfectly said, Pelican Pal. I hope that @Simcoe takes this advise. 

[Redwolf]

36 minutes ago, The Steppenwulf said:

But they probably will require updating the engine to 64 bit to gain ANY better optimisation. That's been the elephant in the room all the time and should have been undertaken years ago. 

The Macintosh build already is 64 bits.