I can't understand nothing.

[Kalvera]

Firstly: Everybody of this forums knows CM series, everybody are supporters of these products, people wished the following things only:

1º Maintain the CM motor engine.

2º Add new orders as:-follow vehicle, camuflage vehicle, avanced to contact, retreat at position, etc.

3º New and improved scenario editor with circular buildings, train bridges, airports mode, squares, etc.

4º Improbe the poligon mode of vehicles. For example doing opaque units at all their siluette, or made hull down order more realistic, friendly fire, etc.

5º Improme the graphic aspect in general.

The people demand these improvements, no a ETR game. Is as difficult to make this?

Sorry for my poor english.

Thanks.

[track]

Took a couple of readings, but I got the point. Many are wondering the same. Like the designers had a sudden strike a dementia and forgot many tried and true things learned during the developement of earlier series.

[Scrat]

I also waited for an new CM engine with some of improvements that Kalvera have said, and others like a better IA.

I´m very dissapoint with this game and I will not buy any future expansion.

[Renaud]

Hi Kalvera. I think many CM fans have been mislead by the CM "x2" references over the past years. I might be wrong but I don't think Battlefront ever said this would be a progressive refinement of CMx1, in fact the message I got was 'get ready, this is going to be very different'. What we have here is a brand new engine, not a progressive refinement of the old one. Sure, I would buy a progressive refinement of CMx1...I don't need 1:1 representation or real time (which is what necessitated all the radical departures from behavior we have grown familiar with in CMx1). So we have to deal with a fairly different approach to play and all the other problems of a new engine. I for one am amazed that something like this game has actually seen the light of day. Every other wargame I see out there today is FPS/hitpoint based, or 2d hexes/top-down based. I love both those types, but they can't approach the fidelity of CM series. TOW is the closest...and not surprisingly it's published by BFC.

Personally, I can still feel the CM heritage in the demo, though it's going to take a LOT of fine tuning and refinement before this engine is ready for WWII. I believe they chose not to do WWII first for this very reason: give the engine time for refinement and perfection before attempting the beloved WW2 era which I know Steve and Charles have a particular affinity for. And also to try something new and which might excite interest and bring more folks into the wargaming fold.

[Kalvera]

Renaud, yes is not the same game, but see the title of the game COMBAT MISSION SHOK FORCE. The Combat Mission words are here for something, no?

CMSF is a mixture between RT and WE GO sistem, and the last sistem its a concession to CM fans, only a sweet to buy a RT game as this.

The correct title for the CMSF may be RTSF.

Thanks.

[panzermartin]

Well after the success of the CMX1 titles I wouldnt blame BFC if it was socks that was selling under the label "combat mission".

[Kalvera]

We can writte here who wish or demand for a new CM game?

1º What historic period? IIWW, Corea War, Cold War?

2º What improvements we think necesary to improve the CM series?

Perhaps BF take note and made our dreamed game.

Thanks.

[birdstrike]

Aw come on! Not another one of those "why isn't CMSF just like CMBO/BB/AK threads. I miss some things too, but why is it always like "I hate CMSF because there is no HULL DOWN command" or the likes (forgive me, I just picked this as an example for dramatization ).

There are some features missing, true - some of which will see their return in a future patch, some won't. While talking about what made the old engine better than CMSF, don't forget what CMSF already does better than the old engine:

- relative spotting (this alone is worth the buy)

- more detailed terrain

- distinction between supression and morale

- buildings with doors and windows (ask the ToW guys how much this is worth alone )

- same buildings are partially destructible

- while we're at it: 3D trenches (yay! )

- crews can finally bail out and reenter their vehicles

- new improved air/artllery support

- more detailed damage model

- individual ammunution tracking

- soldiers treating wounded buddies

- a phantastic map editor (even without round buildings it's still awesome)

well, still no horses, but at least we got the new shiny graphics and the advance to contact movement.

[Renaud]

No horses...also no hamstertruppen and I so wanted that.

Anywho...the crew bailing and re-entering is great. I did notice that a crew can only re-enter your originally assigned vehicle which is hopefully not an engine limitation. This will be great in a future WW2 version - abandoning and re-manning guns too hopefully. They will need to add the ability to pick up important weapons which have been dropped intra-squad. Right now if the guy holding the javelin sight becomes a casualty you are boned.

[ribster]

Didn't know where to put this, but I suppose it's appropriate here.

I like what I see so far, and it plays rather well. However, I'm not sure that the game is a step in the 'right' direction. Feels a bit too much like company of heroes or similar to me, rather than the CM style game that has differentiated BF from everyone else.

The bugs I can live with, as they will be fixed, but there doesn't appear to be that many unit types and only a handful of scenarios. Presumably both will be addressed by community developers and the release of patches/add ons? Would definitely like to see some british units in there - are these likely to be forthcoming?

Sorry if I have mentioned anything already answered elsewhere - there are alot of threads!

Cheers, rib.

[dalem]

One of the things I am disappointed by is the apparent mismatch between the unit focus of the game and the level of visual abstraction. When BFC first announced 1:1 a few years ago I wondered if they could or would be able to manage this successfully.

"Successfully" is subjective to a point, of course.

-dale

[Roter Stern]

I honestly don’t understand where people are coming from when they say that CMSF should not even contain the words “Combat Mission” in it’s title… I truly don’t… if anyone does, I’d greatly appreciate some clarification here.

The game is still the most realistic war-simulator (I feel that to call CM a war-game is not appropriate) currently out on the market right now, no holds barred.

The whole Real Time issue – while I will admit that it is clear that the game was built from ground up to function in Real Time, I honestly don’t see how that effects the fact that it’s still the most realistic war-sim out there. Oh and don’t get me stared by calling CMSF RT a “kiddie-RTS-click-fest” ... that’s clearly coming from some one who did not even bother trying the RT and played CMx1 exclusively in PBEM for the sheer fact of taking 5 or 6 hours per turn. If you ask me, that’s far less representative of the reality of warfare than playing in Real Time. Have you ever tried playing CMx1 over TCP/IP with a 60sec order-phase limit? Now that was intense.

As for the lack of “well established” features… That is a common mistake of comparing CMSF to CMBB/CMAK … you simply can’t do that – those had years of polish to the core engine upon release. How much polish does CMSF currently have? Uhh I don’t know, how long did it take them to make the 1.01 patch? A week, perhaps two? If anything you should be comparing CFSM to CMBO, simple as that. And let me tell you, I’d much rather be playing CMSF right now than CMBO

[dalem]

Originally posted by The Louch:

I honestly don’t understand where people are coming from when they say that CMSF should not even contain the words “Combat Mission” in it’s title… I truly don’t… if anyone does, I’d greatly appreciate some clarification here.

Well, I am not one of those people - BFC can title their games however they want. However, I can sort of see the objectors' point IF I focus ONLY on the things that SF lacks as compared to CMx1. So if there were 10 core features that were part of someone's CM enjoyment, and 8 of them are not in SF, then, well then that's going to not seem like CM to them. To the next person who sees 8 out of his 10 core features carried forward or improved-upon, the first person will seem a little shrill.

The key, of course, is determining what are core features for different people, or even believing that not everyone's core features are the same to begin with.

-dale

[Kalvera]

The CMBB or CMAK not is a exactly realistic game. I'm not saying or defending it; I only say that CM is a succesfull game, with a lot of fans and supporters. These all people would like an other tipe of game, no a mixture betwen Wego an RT game as CMSF is.

CM its a intelligent game, every table wargames have a no time limit to give orders or to move units, but its not the same that to say they arent realistic. Realistic is the real war, no the Pc game. A Pc game will be enjoy, funny ,intelligent and manageable. Its CMSH manageable game, with their interface, with treir dificult mode to move units?

Everybody say: The CM series are fantastic, sensacional. Then why to made a different game?

Thanks.

[FaxisAxis]

I agree with Louch, This game though not having the same easy to control interface and missing some of the commands-some I feel are unnecessary in this game- that CMx1 had is still the same game at its core; just a newer version it feels and plays the same with a different turn base WEGO that I don't care for either but its still Combat Mission to me. How on earth can anyone compare it to games like company of heros, Come on, wake up! Have you really played that game? And how much CMx1 did you play? Building tank factories and taking fuel points on the battlefield. It has very little in the way of tactics and as for the AI which is suppose to be so wonderful, so wonderful: Once I saw enemy soldiers with RPGS attacking one of my tanks and my tank turned to defend itself against a squad of rifle men which were shooting at it near by-this is how the AI in COH is on hard (which is suppose to be more realistic I guess). These games are just spam as many units as possible, gather all the resources for the most powerful weapons, lasso a bunch of nearby units-a good garden variety- and throw them at the enemy with a simple "attack" as soon as they come out of the oven.

I've got to say that though the AI in SF quick battles can be almost non-existent, it can be just as challenging and plausibly realistic in some cases better in the scenarios than CCBB was in quick battles.

After playing enough quick battles in CMBB I got familiar and confident enough where I could pretty much win consistantly regardless of conditions, but with shock forces campaigns I'll admit I'm stuggling once again and finding it quite challenging to beat the first time off and there is going to have to be a new approach to this game with some different tactics for combat situations of which I'm going to have to think differently about, though I still find that some of the basic approaches as used in all good wargames are pertinent. For the most part this game needs as much careful deployment and realistic deliberation as did CMx1 games did though in real time :eek: . Yeah, it is easier for me to do it WEGO (WEGO as in CMx1 which I believe was much superior to SF WEGO) but hey close combat is real time and can be arguably just as tactically challenging and realistic as CM.

Some would argue that for it to playable in RT it must have to be dumb down or simplified, that the AI has to be not as intelligent and more quantitative and frantic.

Well I don't know about that but after playing some of the campaign it feels pretty realistic and if I try using the same strategies I used to win some of the missions of COH, I loose all my men quite quickly and wastefully.

[ August 05, 2007, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: FaxisAxis ]

[Redwolf]

There is no money in games of the style of CMx1. The abstraction level requires that you "mess up" the representation of infantry (not only a graphical problem) and of the terrain and then the commercial (aka not hardcore) market goes KABOOM.

Also, the very wide theater options in CMx1, also partly caused by high abstraction, low detail, levels, lead to problems selling people the same thing again. Steve or Martin recently posted that CMBB sold better than CMAK, and that is with CMAK being cheaper, better, and thanks to American troop presence better suited for the main market. Why? Because it doesn't bring much new compared to CMBO. Of course to use hardcore CMAK brought everything new compared to CMBO, but we do not have the critical mass to support this effort commercially.

Also, if you look at Matrix' Panzer Command, it had similar problems. Nice one, fixed some CMx1 annoyances, brought some new ones and was at the same abstraction level. Did it sell well? No.

Commercially, you have to do more detail. You have to do that both because 1) you can't abstract graphics. You have to draw everything and 2) so that you have a lot of small topics to pick from for games.

[Kalvera]

Yes its true. I dont play too time at CMSF, but I'm playing CM since 2002 ( I think).

Sincerously, I think, that the people wish other game. A CM with Panzer general or TOW graphics for example. CMBB and CMAK was the same product, with out any modification, however, the CMAK have a good sales. Do you think that the new CM about Poland 1939 with graphic improvements as TOW and some news orders and tactics options dont have a better sales?

See this forum and read the opinions and you can see that the majority people wait for other tipe of game.

BF never hear the comunity opinion, and this is the price how they have to pay for it.

Thanks.

[monkeezgob]

Personally, I'd have preferred a furthur refinement of the existing WEGO to what we have. I'd always considered war and strategy games to be a a tactical and cerebral challenge and this was why the original series appealed to me. The more I play it, the more this feels too much like Combat Missions: Company of Heroes! A wargame shouldn't be decided by who has the best mouse skills and ability to remember hotkeys. Just my opinion though.

[jep]

Originally posted by Renaud:

I believe they chose not to do WWII first for this very reason: give the engine time for refinement and perfection before attempting the beloved WW2 era which I know Steve and Charles have a particular affinity for.

Since you mentioned WW2 i have a guestion. If i have both CMx2: Shock Force and CMx2: East Front installed, is it possible to mix content from those games. I need some uber-tigers to deal with those Abrams! Ability to play WW2 with Syrian maps would also be nice. Also, I am already looking forward to some hard figths beetween space lobsters and US marines.

[ribster]

Don't go judging what people have played and what they haven't I've got all 3 CM games, and had each of them on release date and been playing ever since. I've also played COH it does have similarities, although I don't deny for one minute that CMSF is a far superior. I have played all of the scenarios though and in some of them the ai (particularly the syrians) just sit there at their entry point barely moving to engage. The BMPs hardly ever fire, and have an ATGM slammed into them before they get chance to do anything. I know it's early days, and the problems will be fixed. I have been around the BF community ever since and have been playing for 6 years (I also served in the military for 13), but lets keep things in perspective and not have some kind of BF love in.

[Becket]

Originally posted by Kalvera:

CMBB and CMAK was the same product, with out any modification

This is not accurate. Last time I checked, my T-34s weren't sending up dust clouds on the summer steppes.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Kalvera:

Do you think that the new CM about Poland 1939 with graphic improvements as TOW and some news orders and tactics options dont have a better sales?

No.

All the best

Andreas

[Sequoia]

Originally posted by jep:

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

I believe they chose not to do WWII first for this very reason: give the engine time for refinement and perfection before attempting the beloved WW2 era which I know Steve and Charles have a particular affinity for.

Since you mentioned WW2 i have a guestion. If i have both CMx2: Shock Force and CMx2: East Front installed, is it possible to mix content from those games. I need some uber-tigers to deal with those Abrams! Ability to play WW2 with Syrian maps would also be nice. Also, I am already looking forward to some hard figths beetween space lobsters and US marines. </font>

[Dirtweasle]

Not Poland alone Andreas, but the "War in the East"... maybe?

[Becket]

Originally posted by jep:

If i have both CMx2: Shock Force and CMx2: East Front installed, is it possible to mix content from those games. I need some uber-tigers to deal with those Abrams! Ability to play WW2 with Syrian maps would also be nice.

My copies of these two games allowed it, but the Tigers couldn't even get the attention of the Abrams. The ampulomets were very effective against IEDs, though!