Someone with high hopes or just a dreamer

[Anxel Torrente]

Someone on reddit has started a thread about making a game in Unreal Engine 5 that will be a competitor to the Combat Mission games. If he isn't joking about this, it could be good for Battlefront to have a bit more competition as it maybe could make them want to improve their current game engine even more or better yet want them to make an up to date and better game engine which many of the members on this forum has been requesting for a while.

It's a bit interesting why this person has a wish to compete with Combat Mission. He's most likely someone that has played at least one of these games and feels a bit disappointed with what the current game engine offers. It doesn't seem like there are loads of people buying and playing the Combat Mission games, so he doesn't seem to be looking for the big bucks from large sales.

I'm building a game that will compete with Combat Mission in UNREAL ENGINE 5

Video on Youtube

Edited August 1, 2022 by Anxel Torrente

[chuckdyke]

Wish him best of luck but I am not holding my breath. 

[womble]

WeGo or NoGo...

One of the primary USPs for me is the 1 minute turn and infinite replays of the turn results. If it doesn't have that, it's not a competitor to CM, in my lexicon.

[Vacillator]

1 minute ago, womble said:

One of the primary USPs for me is the 1 minute turn and infinite replays of the turn results.

Agreed.

[danfrodo]

A heroic, though doomed, effort, unless he gets a lot of help and financial backing.  It can definitely be done.  But there are reasons the costs are so high and the time so long.  He has better graphics, but what's going to make his AI any better?   Pathing is not simple.  Decisions are not simple -- when under fire keep running to objective?  Stop & shoot?  Hit the dirt?  run for cover?  Run away?  Shoot wildly on full auto while running full speed?

[chuckdyke]

Some people don't appreciate that nice graphics is not the dealbreaker for the members of this forum. Otherwise, we would all play Call of Duty. The oldest wargame is chess mor than a thousand years old and still going strong. I see Combat Mission in the same light, possible by modern high tech. 

[womble]

One of the most computationally-intensive streams in CM is the LOS/Spotting model. Every pair of eyes and vision block is assessed for what it can see on a dynamically frequent basis. I would imagine the Unreal Engine has methods for doing the assessment, since it has always supported "relatively" competent AIs, so their senses will be modellable. But then, historically, it limits the number of combatants to a few score. That can't be a "graphics" issue, since the LOS calcs can be done on a wireframe and entities can effectively be considered points or simple polygons.

I have wondered whether, with the advent of native ray tracing in video cards, it'd be worth handing off the spotting algorithms in CMx3 to the GPU, since they're starting to be optimised for that.

 

[benpark]

Those graphics look like 3rd party asset stuff, so there isn't much to see there that has been created from the ground-up that I can see. The Unity store has packs of assets that developers can buy (trees, bushes, etc)- I expect this engine is similar. That saves some time on art, but games end up with very similar styles, due to the abdication of that aspect of creative control. A tree is a tree is a tree, but when I open games now, I'm seeing a lot of the same ones across titles. A game should have its own look, as far as my preference goes.

This individual has more work ahead than they comprehend, I believe. They may come up with an approach to the coding to make a facsimile of CMx2, but there's far more work to be done to get any parity.

This is a massive undertaking- even with an existing engine, forget about starting from scratch. There's a vast amount to be done that isn't in that video. The overall code to make the knock-off, the pathfinding, basic UI, AI behaviors, terrain systems and interactions, ballistic calculations- all the stuff people refine in their brains every time they play the game- all of that requires a massive time and effort sink by developers. We discuss a lot of that here, so people can understand some of the insanity of fixing things that seem "minor". Everything impacts something else with any adjustments, so things can go off in weird directions when making something.

Does it allow for modding? Steve and Charles baked this into the DNA of the game. That hooks oddballs that like to dissemble things, and remake them. It gives community and an extended life to the game. Also- updates. BFC keeps all games in patch-parity. Will this game have those aspects in its DNA, as well?

Then, there's the rest of the content. A map editor is necessary for any CM-engine parity. That's like designing a game-within-a-game, again- from scratch. Using someone else's ideas as a template can only get one so far here. There's also the other stuff that BFC includes that people expect- campaigns, maps, scenarios, and quick battles. I can tell you from experience, that time sink is no joke. Years of work, if you want to make something of quality from the ground up.

The "it's easy!" attitude is somewhat perplexing, but maybe the guy has unlimited time, unlimited talent, and the resources to keep doing this for as long as it takes. I'll root for anyone taking the challenge of making historical simulations on, so maybe it transpires- but I believe this road stretches far deeper into the forest than this person realizes (to do it right, anyway).

[chuckdyke]

 

2 hours ago, womble said:

One of the most computationally-intensive streams in CM is the LOS/Spotting model.

I can remember a game of cricket we played. A red ball flew in the direction of John, and everybody saw where it was going except for John. The ball dropped about ten feet from John, a bright red object partly concealed among the green grass. Talking about relative spotting, I find the game models it very well. The manual should say the LOS tool gives you an estimate but nothing to rely on. 

[Commanderski]

With all the "behind the scenes" programming that BF has put into these games I don't think they have anything to worry about.

At best it will be another game similar to Graviteam more than BF.

[Bubba883XL]

17 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

Some people don't appreciate that nice graphics is not the dealbreaker for the members of this forum. Otherwise, we would all play Call of Duty. The oldest wargame is chess mor than a thousand years old and still going strong. I see Combat Mission in the same light, possible by modern high tech. 

I second that!

[Codreanu]

Doesn't even look half-baked, more like quarter-baked with terrible framerate, seemingly non-functional UI, no gameplay, and according to the video description is coming out in December? More competition in the marketspace is always good for the consumer but with this game I'm just not seeing it. Hope he can somehow defy the odds and pull it off though.

[BornGinger]

42 minutes ago, Codreanu said:

...according to the video description is coming out in December?... Hope he can somehow defy the odds and pull it off though.

I think he said that he hoped that an alfa version would be out in December and not the full version of the game.

It will be interesting to go to that redit thread in November to find out how things are going.

Edited August 3, 2022 by BornGinger

[Monty's Mighty Moustache]

Only just saw this. I applaud his ambition but having been through the Reddit thread and watched the video I would be stunned if anything half-way decent is released by the end of next year. I work in software and the biggest pain for us is always integrating third party software, he seems to think that plugging software in to handle LOS and such is going to make his job easy, oh boy is he about to get a shock.

Also with only one yaar of development under his belt, and not even low level programming at that, I don't think he'll have the chops to pull it off.

Shame, as it's a great idea but as others have pointed out with large companies like Graviteam and CA taking years to implement this stuff I do think he's bitten off more than he can chew. Hope he proves me wrong.

MMM

[WimO]

CM is still a decent game. Despite the fact that I (we) have a list of gripes and wishes, it's still a decent game, way better than any of the miniature wargames I have been playing for 50 years, or any board wargame, or any other WWII computer wargame. Just about any other game 'looks' better without the cubic terrain constraints but what other game gives us a scenario editor in which we can create maps and scenarios or allows us to mod all the graphics? I love 'making' stuff and have spent way more hours in the editor creating maps than playing scenarios. As for the minor stuff I don't like, like tiny trees blocking A/Tk shots, I just say to myself, "Well, its the same for my opponent and it's just a 'game' after all." Any time I feel a bit blue about CM I just compare it to the miniature games we play once a month with all the dice rolling, table look-ups, so-so terrain, rules 'discussions', and then I'm happy again.

[holoween]

I wish him the best of luck but id recon there is a better chance that hell freezes over than him producing a better game than CM.

Lets hope he pulls if off somehow.

[A Canadian Cat]

6 hours ago, Monty's Mighty Moustache said:

he seems to think that plugging software in to handle LOS and such is going to make his job easy

Indeed plus, we have to remember that LOS is just step one for spotting. Despite all our complaints here about spotting in CM, it actually does model the complexity of spotting and frankly it is an important key to how the game plays and how it simulates RL. To me it sounds like he thinks that once you have LOS figured out you are done. That will not be a fun game at all. Well not a fun tactical simulation game at least.

[Grey_Fox]

18 hours ago, Codreanu said:

Doesn't even look half-baked, more like quarter-baked with terrible framerate, seemingly non-functional UI, no gameplay, and according to the video description is coming out in December? More competition in the marketspace is always good for the consumer but with this game I'm just not seeing it. Hope he can somehow defy the odds and pull it off though.

Yes, it is entirely reasonable to expect a WIP game with no release date should be fully functional today.

Edited August 3, 2022 by Grey_Fox

[chuckdyke]

LOS: Combat Mission scenarios have never had the objective to bring all your unit's home. Attrition is part and parcel of every game and no fancy manipulation of the LOS tool and move tool is going to change it. Use them by all means like I do but they are just a guide.

Edited August 3, 2022 by chuckdyke

[Butschi]

On 8/2/2022 at 1:07 AM, danfrodo said:

A heroic, though doomed, effort, unless he gets a lot of help and financial backing.  It can definitely be done.  But there are reasons the costs are so high and the time so long.  He has better graphics, but what's going to make his AI any better?   Pathing is not simple.  Decisions are not simple -- when under fire keep running to objective?  Stop & shoot?  Hit the dirt?  run for cover?  Run away?  Shoot wildly on full auto while running full speed?

AI programming is by no means simple, agreed. However while TacAI does a really good job, let's be honest here, AI plans are no real replacement for a higher level AI. Or let's put it different. The "AI planner" needs to be improved: options for more reactive plans, for instance. And, I think, there needs to be an intermediate level between AI plan and TacAI. Something that does a better job of executing those plans. The Russian campaign in the CMBS Battle Pack comes to mind. I liked how the Ukrainians kept me on my toes with regular counterattacks but they were often so poorly executed (e g. tanks w/o infantry support, not stopping when the attack has obviously failed, etc.) that they actually made my job easier than if a had to dig out each of those tanks.

These are things that are possible to do and not rocket science (neither is pathfinding btw). Now, people here often say that I should play multiplayer instead. But then, why have campaigns in the first place. Also, nowadays you can do a lot with machine learning (saying this, before someone tells me that AI will never ever be on par with a human opponent).

Anyway, nothing with which Unreal Engine will help (mind you, decent graphics may not be priority but they help with immersion!).

[Vinnart]

I wish him the best of luck in his ambitious pursuit, and look forward to checking his game out should he manage to make it. He's trying to do something with his life, and as a creative I think it's admirable. At least he is putting the best of the genre, CM, as his mark to strive for in his inspiration.

[chuckdyke]

12 hours ago, Butschi said:

decent graphics

The problem is people want to see better graphics than what is available in real life. Especially WW2 a platoon leader had nothing but a sketch as an aid to give orders. From Camera position 1 the graphics are adequate. TBH as a suggestion Camera, 8-9 should be replaced by a street map and a topographic map to aid in pathfinding for formations company and above. 

[Butschi]

2 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

The problem is people want to see better graphics than what is available in real life. Especially WW2 a platoon leader had nothing but a sketch as an aid to give orders. From Camera position 1 the graphics are adequate. TBH as a suggestion Camera, 8-9 should be replaced by a street map and a topographic map to aid in pathfinding for formations company and above. 

I get what you are saying. But I think your point is less about graphics and more about POV and available information. CM just isn't a platoon leader simulator, though. It is a game - one where you are that god like being that can steer everything down to the team level. No command delay, no command limit (no. of commands you can give per minute), command delay or chance that your command doesn't get through, no increased chance of arty raining down own you because the enemy could triangulate your radio signals, etc. You can roleplay some of that but the point is, it is a game anway and so it wouldn't hurt to have better graphics. Far as I am concerned, I'd settle with roads and buildings not being restricted to 45 degrees rotation. And speaking of topographic maps, a possibility to annotate said map (a thing that a platoon leader most definitely can do) would be awesome.

Oh well, I better shut up now, lest this thread devolves into one more of those wishlist + pet peeves threads.

[landser]

I hope this succeeds, as Combat Mission's in a rut, and competition drives innovation. The 'heroic, yet doomed' vibe is strong here, even though Combat Mission is also programmed by one man. Charles may be exceptional, but also an example of why small dev teams aren't automatically doomed to fail (see Seven Years War and Grand Tactician). There's not much game there yet, but in what little we are shown I reckon this new game already has better graphics and camera controls than Combat Mission, addressing two of the most glaring weaknesses in the series. That's not going to dethrone the aging Combat Mission from the top of the sparsely populated tactical wargame genre on it's own, but it's a fair start, isn't it?

Oftentimes in this forum I see comments along the lines of 'we don't want to forfeit gameplay in the name of graphics' as if the two things cannot exist together. It's a slippery position to take, and I reckon done so in defense of Combat Mission, which looks old. I think you can have both. And while I also am one that prefers gameplay over graphics -- I play Combat Mission as proof -- there's no escaping the fact that CM looks twenty years old.

But even if we ignore graphics, Combat Mission has changed little in all that time. The AI isn't really AI, the editor is curmudgeonly, the camera and controls are clunky, the campaign system is too basic, the update and transaction processes are archaic and the way content is generated too trying. I don't want Combat Mission surpassed necessarily, after all I've been playing since the CMBO demo, I want it to kick in to gear, address the weakness, innovate and modernize.

A successful competitor is not automatically going to affect the course of Combat Mission. Steve and Charles have their vision, which they've done well with. They may want to stay the course. CM is a great game. I'm a fan. An increasingly disillusioned fan, but one nonetheless. There are things CM handles better than other games (spotting, ballistics, command and control). What I hope is that those core strengths can be married to modern conventions and conveniences and if an upstart competitor is the catalyst for this change that's a win for all of us.

[Monty's Mighty Moustache]

3 hours ago, landser said:

The 'heroic, yet doomed' vibe is strong here, even though Combat Mission is also programmed by one man. Charles may be exceptional, but also an example of why small dev teams aren't automatically doomed to fail (see Seven Years War and Grand Tactician).

I think he could absolutely get there with enough time and effort, my reservations were around his very aggressive timescales.

MMM