Walls and Topographical Lines

[Rocket-Man]

I played the demo of CMBO years ago and wasn't impressed. However, I have been reading some World War II history lately and I thought it might be fun to digitally reenact some of the battles I have been reading about so I purchased CMAK a couple of weeks ago to do just that (I know CMAK has been out for quite a while).

It didn't take me long to find out that CMAK was better than CMBO, but had two fundamental flaws.

1) I can not believe that units will run away from walls when the "TacAI" takes over.

This obviously is an old problem, but come on, how long has it been around now and still no fix for it?

2) The lack of topographical lines for the maps (and I know battlefront says their engine can't handle them) makes it much harder than it needs to be to figure out the terrain you are fighting for (and I also know you can use gridded terrain to mitigate this problem).

Searching through the forums shows that these two issues have been discused for years, but obviously a fix has never been implemented by Battlefront.

With Battlefront now working on other games, these problems will probably never be fixed, which is a real shame because CMAK could have been a great (as opposed to a better than average) game.

[zmoney]

Yes there are some things that would make it an even greater game. Like in CMAK some armored vehicles are missing that are in CMBO. Yes I know why they're missing but they should put them in. The reason they don't put the vehicles in is because I think they want people to buy CMBO to play with those vehicles. Well I doubt people are buying CMBO these days so you might as well make people happy by adding them in CMAK.

There are other problems as well that I don’t want to get into because I could go on forever. The thing that kills me though is that I bet they could just give their ok to someone in the community to fix some of these problems and they would probably do it for free.

In fact I’ve been meaning to start a thread on this very topic. I know for a fact that there are some out there that know how to make changes to the game and I can’t imagine it would take them long to fix the Russian non penetration problem of some German armor in CMBB. I also can’t imagine it would take long for them to add vehicles from CMBO to CMAK.

Just a thought BFC, I could connect you with people who can fix some of the minor problems with the game if you would only allow me. I know this is your baby and don’t want people looking inside the program but the latest game has been out for what, three years now. I’m sure other game makers have already explored the wonders of the CM engine. There’s got to be someone out there that you trust.

Still though with these minor problems the CM series is the best war game there is and looks like it will be the best for a long time.

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Rocket-Man:

2) The lack of topographical lines for the maps (and I know battlefront says their engine can't handle them) makes it much harder than it needs to be to figure out the terrain you are fighting for (and I also know you can use gridded terrain to mitigate this problem).

I wholeheartedly agree with you. Actually, this was the reason why I did not buy CM:AK for a loong time. Recently, I saw it in the bargain bin for like 8 US$ and of course instantly bought it (CDV version), but those uni-colored pixel deserts turned me off so much that I did not even play once so far.

A real pity.

Best regards,

Thomm

[David I]

Ah, the old "I never played the game so I hate it" ploy!

DavidI

[Thomm]

Hi David!

Thanks for your contribution!

Best regards,

Thomm

[Rocket-Man]

I don't "hate the game" like Rollstoy, but I definitely don't enjoy it as much as I could.

The bottom line is that I have a finite amount of time to play games (3 young kids and a full time job) so I tend to play games that don't frustrate me.

[ November 06, 2006, 09:26 AM: Message edited by: Rocket-Man ]

[Rocket-Man]

Not to belabor the point, but games are supposed to be fun to play, not frustrating.

I know a lot of people are frustrated that X vehicle is not included in the game or that the armor rating of Y vehicle is not what they think it should or that the range of Z weapon is wrong, but those things are secondary to the game being fun to play and should be left to modders to fix (and why Battlefront didn't make better mod tools for this game is beyond me).

Why can't game companies follow three simple rules?

1) Make a game that is fun to play.

2) Minimize player frustration and micromanagement (don't even get me started on the poor UI's in most games).

3) Provide good mod tools for the players.

[ November 06, 2006, 09:26 AM: Message edited by: Rocket-Man ]

[MarkEzra]

Hello Rollstoy: The desert is hard to see, most certainly. Many of us have switched to ETO mods that allow us to play a much more interesting landscape. The above mentioned David I created that a while back. you might want to take a look at it.

[MarkEzra]

Hello Rocket-man:

Couldn't agree with you more. The games should be fun, not frustrating. I loved the idea of Brother in arms series but found myself screaming at my monitor (REALLY SCREAMING) Great idea but un playable. I own all the CM games and they have never been off my PC. Like you I don't always have time to move large numbers of units around the board. I have found playing small maps with 400 to 1000 pts a very good gaming experience. another point: I spend a good deal of time with the map editor. I enjoy making my own battlefields and using them for QB games.

[birdstrike]

Aww it's always hard to please the perfectionists...

In fact the mentioned issues will be fixed...

...in the next CM-engine

Until then, I'd recommend using walls only if there is no other cover available and always tell your men to keep their heads down.

And if you absolutely cannot get used to the 'flat' look of the game, there are also some 'high contrast'-mods besides the gridded terrain mods, if you don't like these.

Hopefully that will give you back some of your enjoyment in playing the game.

[Rocket-Man]

Originally posted by birdstrike:

Aww it's always hard to please the perfectionists...

I know no game is perfect, but I believe in the saying "don't let perfection be the enemy of the good."

Originally posted by birdstrike:

In fact the mentioned issues will be fixed...

...in the next CM-engine

These issues have been around a long time. While I hope they fix these issues in future games, the question remains - why did they leave them in this game for so long?

Originally posted by birdstrike:

Until then, I'd recommend using walls only if there is no other cover available and always tell your men to keep their heads down.

It is not only walls, it is the fact that the TacAI doesn't take into account elevations either.

For example, I had a unit on on the back side of a hill. When it was fired upon, instead of retreating a few feet back down the hill (or just laying prone where it was), it crawled over open terrain on the top of the hill to reach some rough terrain on the front side of the hill facing the enemy.

Now I know I can take the stupid TacAI into account when planning my turns, but it is extremely frustrating for me to think in the manner the stupid TacAI does.

Which brings us back to the purpose of my original post - How the game engine makes the game more frustrating than it needs to be.

[birdstrike]

why did they leave them in this game for so long?

From what I know, the main reason for this was that rewriting the TacAI behavior would have involved a huge effort, basically rewriting the whole d*** thing, and given that CM only has one programmer and because the new engine was already in the works, tackling those issues was considered of minor importance.

As for tactics,

When using walls or crests as cover, you should mainly use it as LOS blocker. Sneaking or using "hide" helps you avoid being shot at early and therefore keeps your men from panicking or doing anything stupid. Never use it as cover for prolonged firefights.

However, troops should take cover behind walls and crests themselves when being shot at, and thereby break LOF with the enemy as long as they are not shot from the sides.

[Rocket-Man]

Originally posted by birdstrike:

From what I know, the main reason for this was that rewriting the TacAI behavior would have involved a huge effort, basically rewriting the whole d*** thing, and given that CM only has one programmer and because the new engine was already in the works, tackling those issues was considered of minor importance.

I didn’t know a single programmer wrote all the code for the Combat Mission games. That’s quite a bit of work for one person.

My question “why did they leave them in this game for so long?” was really more rhetorical than anything. They obviously didn’t fix them because they choose not to.

I don’t write software for a living (I just design rockets) nor do I own a profitable software company that sells games, but Battlefront does. They obviously make money on the Combat Mission series of games or they wouldn’t have made three iterations of the series.

They have also been in business for a while, so obviously they make a profit selling computer games (at least I hope they do, I would hate to see them go under).

With those two points in mind, it is hard to question their business decision to not fix the problems I have pointed out. Could they have made even more money if they had fixed them? Who knows.

However as I said before, it is a shame that these problems were never fixed (and probably never will be) because the game fails to live up to its potential.

[Rocket-Man]

Originally posted by birdstrike:

rewriting the TacAI behavior would have involved a huge effort, basically rewriting the whole d*** thing

It seems to me that the functionality for determing line of sight blockages is already present in the game engine in the Line of Sight feature, but again I am not a programmer.

[ November 06, 2006, 07:42 PM: Message edited by: Rocket-Man ]

[GJK]

Originally posted by Rocket-Man:

I don't "hate the game" like Rollstoy, but I definitely don't enjoy it as much as I could.

The bottom line is that I have a finite amount of time to play games (3 young kids and a full time job) so I tend to play games that don't frustrate me.

You should switch to ASL then.

[Thomm]

Actually, I played that tiny Italy village scenario yesterday and I must say that the dust trail from the German tank column rocked, as did playing cat and mouse with the Tiger tanks in the city ! (Potentially practice for T72 vs. Abrams duels?!)

Best regards,

Thomm

PS: I want my gridded terrain mod! Any news on CMMODS?

[Rocket-Man]

Originally posted by GJK:

You should switch to ASL then.

I played ASL years ago, but I haven't pushed around cardboard counters in quite some time now.

And my prospects of doing that again anytime soon are nil. My three kids would absolutely love messing up any game I actually had to keep set up for more than three minutes.

[GJK]

Originally posted by Rocket-Man:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GJK:

You should switch to ASL then.

I played ASL years ago, but I haven't pushed around cardboard counters in quite some time now.

And my prospects of doing that again anytime soon are nil. My three kids would absolutely love messing up any game I actually had to keep set up for more than three minutes. </font>