The Way Forward

[Der Alte Fritz]

What do people think is the best way forward for CMAK/CMBB/CMBO? The current path seems to be for much the same sort of game only with much better graphics. This follows the trend of the rest of the industry eg Total War. This would tend to draw the game towards TOW with smaller units and smaller battlefields.

My thoughts are that BFC should buck the trend and go for larger units and battlefields. What would it take to have CMAK with a larger map and a brigade sized force rather than the battalion sized force? OK better graphics because we can. The main change would be for the Ai to be improved so that you would not have to micro manage each tank or section. The player would click on the company commander to direct the company to attack defend, etc and could move the individual units if need be but otherwise the ai would do it. Direct a company to attack a hamlet and it does.

What do people think?

[Sequoia]

CMX 2 seems to me to be more than just better graphics. I think the scenario programable AI will make a huge difference as well as non-borg spotting. I think 1 to 1 man scale at a brigade level would be a chore, not pleasurable. Once CMC comes out for CMBB I think much of the work could be adapted for CMSF and later games for those seeking larger battles.

[sross]

The module concept for both CMSF and CMAK would be the way to go. Or just for CMSF with the possibility of WWII, Korea, Six day war, etc.. modules. Either way, modules with updates to the engines as time goes on is the best way, and a money maker for Battlefront as well.

[JasonC]

I agree with going for larger scale, I disagree with making the AI do all the tactical work. One, it is much harder to program sensibly than you think, and two it removes the player from control which is not what strategy games need. When you go higher in overall scale, you should go higher, not lower, in the size of unit modeled as an atom.

I'd love to see a game with each unit a company, with step losses or subequipment loss tracking only, for lower stuff. I'd settle for platoons, though it has been done more extensively in board wargames (and would probably wind up involving stacking to get real combat teams etc). The purpose would be to show approximately division level combat while still keeping real combined arms principles and terrain and coordination effects, rather than uniform bags of mixed combat power.

This is really the scale that a CM campaign system could aim at, itself. I'd love to have a working WW II oriented CM campaign system. I'd love to have a company level WW II game. I don't know if we will get either from BTS, that is up to them.

[ThePhantom]

I hope it stays squad level. That's what made it so enjoyable for me. With the graphics like TOW where each man is displayed. You could break squads down to 1/4 squads or fire teams. Even a platoon vs platoon engagement would require serious thought. Keep the game system as is.... I hope they don't change anything. I think if the game changes to large infantry/tank formations. Where a "unit" represents a company... It would lose what made Combat Missions great.

[PFMM]

I disagree that better graphics is just eye candy. What you see is what you get is a critical part of playing Combat Mission, and a more refined graphical display can only add to the playing experience.

As to the way forward, easy; less abstraction of command effects, relative spotting, refinements of the tactical routines, more building variety, ability to include player made models (for static display), more player options, and on and on.

Plenty of work for all.

As for Combat Mission Campaigns they claim it's only a few bugs, just a few here and there and everwhere.

[CaptainBly]

I think people that rely on looks(graphics) for enjoyment are both vain and shallow. It's no different than wanting some 19 or 20 year old when you have a 40 or 50 year old spouse. Shame on those with that type of mentality.

Looks do not improve anything but cosmetics and in truth that's what a lot of looks really is; a glob of cosmetics, take all the goo off of something and then you really get to see the truth.

Therefore the CM game doesn't need to advance in cosmetics as much as it needs to advance in ease of play and quality ai. Those should be first and foremost not what lipstick to use.

[Kommissar]

"I think people that rely on looks(graphics) for enjoyment are both vain and shallow. It's no different than wanting some 19 or 20 year old when you have a 40 or 50 year old spouse. Shame on those with that type of mentality."

If you have the same kind of relationship with video games that you do with your spouse, then your statement both true and very disturbing.

It's a bloody game! Do you bitch at people who want to buy a new car that looks better than the one they have? Are they cheating on their old car?

I get your point, and I agree that graphics aren't everything, but products and games are not analagous to people that you care about.

[PeterLorre86]

Originally posted by ThePhantom:

I hope it stays squad level. That's what made it so enjoyable for me.

I agree completely. Larger engagements should be handled in a different manner, the way CMC proposes(god willing, that will eventually be finished). It would be great to integrate the two in a next generation CM, but i think that being able to command squad sized groups and individual vehicals is the best way to simulate realistic tactical engagements and still have them be enjoyable and exciting.

I think a system that combines both CMC style for manuvere and CMBB style battle resolution whould be the best case scenario.

[Rastakyle]

Originally posted by CaptainBly:

I think people that rely on looks(graphics) for enjoyment are both vain and shallow. It's no different than wanting some 19 or 20 year old when you have a 40 or 50 year old spouse. Shame on those with that type of mentality.

Looks do not improve anything but cosmetics and in truth that's what a lot of looks really is; a glob of cosmetics, take all the goo off of something and then you really get to see the truth.

Therefore the CM game doesn't need to advance in cosmetics as much as it needs to advance in ease of play and quality ai. Those should be first and foremost not what lipstick to use.

I agree, I rue the day they changed from simple ascii chars on a screen to any sort of graphics.

Maybe they can have an option for you and I where they can flip it to a bunch of x's on the map and all that eye candy can be displayed for the "shallow" people, then we can all be happy....

:confused:

[ChrisND]

I guess I'm shallow and vain. I shall redeem myself by foregoing all games on my computer but VASL!!! hehe remember that game?

[Robert Goldsmith]

I'd like to see a series of higher level games available, addressing operations and campaigns. This may not be Combat Mission at all. A key ingredient is having the orders of both sides processed simultaneously. We have computers: let's use their capabilities, rather than having "turn based" games.

I could not care less about fancy graphics. Just give me the info I need in an easy to understand format, and allow me to make the decisions a commander would make in the real situation.

[Micheal Wittman]

I couldn't guess at what would be better, ideas are

hard to come by for anybody and "CMBO" was revolutionary in it's own way. With the following 2

offspring, CMBB, CMAK, making some tweaked improvements, which were good.

I just looked at some screen shots of the upcoming,

hold on I have to go check the name I'll be back, CMSF,

as you can tell not to interested in that one in the

sense of theater and time. But I hope the engine is

another revolution for us war gamers. But in all honesty that is a lot to ask from one source, in the sense of how many awesome ideas can one group

of people put out. NOT SAYING IT CAN'T BE DONE THOUGH! Blizzard takes their time to make a game and when they release them they are solid and

very good > although their games are not my thing.

clears throat: ok lets see If I can put some elements together taking the best things from different sources.

Apperently Theater Of War has good damage effect on the models

which could be placed into a better engine, possibly "CMSF" but I do not know anything about that

engine either.

I would take the concealment indicator from "CC"

as I always found "CM" it was hard to determine

how concealed my troops were, aside from imagining

real word conditions. But almost everything about

"CM" is tight, barring the "AI" which was never really worth playing My friend that has been

playing "CM" with me since it's demo was first released likes smaller engagements, as he finds that he cares more about what happens to the various troops. Strategic Command has been very well made, but for me the only thing that stops me from

continuing to play it and this might sound strange. Is waiting for the "AI" to go through it's turn phase, so how does a developer make something that ROCKS so to say, or make us/me hungry birds happy.

I've seen many times people on these forms contributing their ideas towards what they would like to see in an upcoming product and it's good

for all of us. There are "some" smart people with good ideas to contribute. The reason why this

topic is interesting for me is I had worked on designing games from way back and eventually ended up making games for a number of years, none of which I liked haha. That's why I just sit back and

wait to see what comes out from our friends at BFC. I think I read sometime ago that "they" wanted to do the "theater and time" for their upcoming "CMSF" which I understand. In the way that I had worked on sooooo many dang games none

of which I liked, as I had mentioned.

But I hear that they well jump back to the "war to

end all wars" with the creative pool and resources

at some point, yay for me and I assume a few other

Sorry to ramble I'll end it hear, but we all love

war games in their various incantations and have

probably been playing them for years and well continue to,,, so keep the ideas coming because we

all benefit from it.

ok I'll shut up now.