CMSF Marines review up at IGN

[panzermartin]

Hah..nice one Sergei

Dude, sorry, not an enlgish speaker..what do you mean by "goal posts going supersonic"? Hyperbole?? Just curious.

[Lurker765]

Ahhh...I can't let this train wreck go. It seems I must post one more time. I feel a little better about posting since you asked me a direct question or two in your last post.

Lurker765,

Did you read through the Archives like I suggested? Did you check the reviews that were poor? How about print ones that aren't online? Different languages?

Since I don't have any long dead computer game review magazines that didn't update their website archives -- no, no I didn't check the print ones that are years old and no longer around even at a library.

Since I can't read many different languages besides english and spanish -- no, no I didn't check those mainstream reviews either.

I did, however, search the archives. Mostly what I found agreed with my position that the vast majority of gamers and game reviewers did not lampoon CMx1's graphics. Surprisingly I only found a dozen or so threads talking about about CMBB reviews in the archives. But I didn't exert myself since I only have small gaps of time free during the day.

In a related note one of my first posts under my new account on this forum was in the thread:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=974313#post974312

This thread has someone else taking my side in on how there is a revisionist history of CMx1's reviews going on around here and he posts:

I keep seeing variations of the argument that CM:BO got dissed by reviewers, too when it came out.

I can't actually remember a bad review of it. From Gonegold.com (via internet archive) is this list of reviews:

Quote:

The Adrenaline Vault (4.5/5) "For the longest time, traditional wargaming has been entrenched in a solid foundation of somewhat complex hex-based gameplay, primarily as a carryover from its mid-70's roots. Big Time Software has revised and revamped this classic style of play in such a manner as to appeal not only to the historically inclined genre fanatics, but to the neophytes who may have found the multiple hexes too daunting to approach. Additionally, the updated innovations brought to the table are considerable, and have opened the door for immense tactical potential. The combination of the "wego" system, the 3D landscape, the believable AI and the careful attention to realistic detail make for a powerful experience, one that I unequivocally recommend to anyone even remotely interested in WWII, historical combat, or tactical warfare. Combat Mission is a standard-setting wargame of the highest caliber, and is probably the most enjoyable tactically-focused game that I've had the pleasure of playing. It is, without question, a true classic"

Computer Games Online (5/5) "Combat Mission won?t drive other games off hard drives. Many older systems are good and comfortable, and cover more of World War Two. Yet, any new tactical game will now have to meet Combat Mission?s standards. The designers of those games may have an insurmountable task"

Ferrago.co.uk (87%) "one of the best turn-based strategic offerings available, and one of the most attractive, too. Not only does it succeed in presenting a historically intriguing ambience, it?ll keep you hooked with it?s vast array of maps, game options, etc. For those that can stomach the slow-pace of the genre as a whole, this will be ideal."

Final Heaven (95%) "If you are interested in wargames or any strategy you should get this game. If you think that they have done a good job but you don't really like wargames but would like to see them create another high quality game, buy this game"

Games Domain (gold) "Combat Mission is the best wargame I've played for some time. It reminds me of the days I spent playing the original Squad Leader, and miniature tabletop Wargame Research Group WWII battles. It's a sandbox game that will give anyone with a remote interest in wargames hours of entertainment. Like Panzer General, it's a game that sets new standards. It's not without its share of quirks, but unlike your fat tabby cat deciding to re-arrange your Squad Leader stacks overnight, none are showstoppers. Yes, the graphics engine has a couple of "holes", there's no overview screen, there's no long-term campaigns, and, for example, the AFV pathfinding could be improved when precise waypoints aren't given. Were this a game with a Blizzard-style budget, it would certainly look and be presented a lot better, but the crux of the game is the gameplay itself, which is where it shines"

Games Domain (5/5) "If you're even remotely interested in World War II, wargaming, or superb strategy games in general, buy this game - you won't regret it. It's a stunning achievement and easily one of the best games in any genre in recent years."

GamesFirst! (5/5) "I?m a wargamer from way back, so I was pleased but not surprised to be so taken with Combat Mission. But I knew it was something special when my non-wargaming friends (including my son and his mob) first gathered around to watch me play and then wanted to play it themselves. That never happened with Rising Sun, or even with Panzer General 3D. And apparently it?s not just my friends who like the game: BTS sold out of their two-month supply of Combat Mission in less than a week"

GameSpot (9.1/10) "Combat Mission is sure to appeal to anyone interested in serious military simulations, but even those just looking for a good World War II computer game should find that the game has a lot to offer. The point-and-click interface is just about as intuitive as possible, and there's an excellent tutorial scenario accompanied by a detailed, step-by-step walk-through in the manual. Combat Mission should appeal to anyone looking for a challenging strategy game, as well as anyone that is even remotely interested in the 20th century's biggest war. If you're interested in immersive strategic gameplay with a historical focus, but you've always thought wargames to be too complicated or too dry, then Combat Mission is for you"

GameStats (9.5/10) "Combat Mission is a stunning achievement that puts most other strategy games, wargame or otherwise, completely in the shade. With its hybrid turn system, 3D battlefields, smooth interface, historical accuracy, and vivid ambience, it's exceptionally rewarding"

GameZone (7.5/10) "For fans of the war genre, this program will provide hours of game play. The mission package, and options of playing for either side, makes it a solid performer in the strategy field. The graphical elements may not be quite as good as some games, but still provide a solid feel"

PC Gameworld (98%) "The Tiger Woods of war games. It whips the field and sets a new benchmark for the genre. A must buy"

PC Strategy Games (93%) "Brilliant concept, combining both RTS and turn-based elements to provide one of the most compelling wargames of recent years. A must have"

Player Of Games "If turn based strategy is your thing then this is a most. It leaves the competition miles behind at the moment. The game is fun so if this is going to be your first turn based strategy then you?ve made a really good decision. The graphics in the game aren?t state of the art; there is no need for them to be. It?s a game I thoroughly enjoy and so should most people."

Sharky Extreme (9/10) "The best thing I can say about Combat Mission is that it has wide appeal. The game is intuitive and the manual is accessible enough for casual players, non-wargamers, or gamers just interested in a WWII diversion. But it's also got more than enough meat for the serious wargame fanatics. It isn't dumbed down and corners don't feel cut, but it still doesn't overwhelm the neophyte needlessly. In short, Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord is probably the finest wargame I've ever played, and one I will continue to play into that noble genre's uncertain future"

SimHQ "If you like WW2 tactical level games, go out and get this. If you like real time strategy games like Close Combat, go out and get this. If you like turn based strategy games, go out and get this. Will simulation fans like this game? I think, for the most part, yes they will enjoy Combat Mission. There is a crossover effect here from wargames to simulations, something akin to what Rainbow 6 did for the simulator/first person shooter genre. The pace of the game is generally faster than in traditional turn based wargames, without the confusion that arises with some real time strategy games"

Strategy Gaming Online (9/10) "War gaming will never be the same after this game, so you might as well play the superb grandaddy of what will hopefully be the next big thing"

The Wargamer "It's a game for everybody with any interest in period ground warfare"

The lowest is 7.5/10, and that's pretty favorable in the text.

And moving on with our discussion...

It's not just the press I keep talking about but also customers. Again, there are the Archives to check out, though you can't check out the Steel Panthers and Close Combat areas that were slamming us and our graphics because those sites are long since dead.

Why would the forums of gamers that prefer a competitor's product be relevant? A consumer with a preference for another style/type of game would seem to have a bias of some sort and when hosted on a competing forum it would seem that they would, of course, be slanted against CMx1 and towards their existing favorite item. I don't know since I didn't bother searching for the forums (but I'm sure I could find them on the wayback web archive website if needed).

I'll say this again, very clearly...

At the time when CMBB came out the graphics were criticized. That is a fact and spending a couple of minutes checking over the old Archives proved that. Therefore, in 2002, Charles and I were very hesitant to make CMAK because we knew we couldn't improve the graphics. It was at that point we realized that the graphics in CMx1 had to go and we had to update them.

Once again I see no proof of this. Sure, here and there a customer might have wanted CMx1 to look like Age of Mythology or something. But that also applies to CMSF and how it does not fare well in most comparisons to RTS and FPS games at this very moment. CMSF has gotten comparatively WORSE reviews than CMx1 did for it's graphics. I can easily find reviews that say 'horrendous', etc for CMSF whereas I cannot for CMx1.

I ask you... are you saying that Charles and I based this major decision on absolutely nothing? Do you think we invented negative reviewer and customer perception of the graphics of CMBB in order to justify years of hard work correcting a problem that didn't exist? Do you think we almost nixed CMAK for make-believe reasons?

I'm sorry Lurker, there is no other conclusion to come to other than we knew in 2000 that we were on borrowed time with our graphics, 2002 confirmed that, 2004 reinforced that confirmation. Well, I guess you could also accuse me of lying or being delusional, but I suggest those aren't the real reasons.

So what's your answer? All in our heads, lying, or perhaps we were paying far more attention to the marketplace and the reception of our games than you were? I mean, it is pretty odd to think that you would spend as much time on this issue as we would, what with the decision affecting whether or not we had jobs or not while it making no difference to you what-so-ever.

What does this have to do with the quotes I have given where you said that almost all of the critics mocked the graphics of CMx1? CMx1 and CMSF are two different games.

I thought our entire argument is your statements that CMx1 graphics were roundly ridiculed by the reviewers? That has nothing whatsoever to do with what direction your company chose to take and what games they chose to develop. My entire point in this discussion is that CMx1 was NOT savaged by the vast majority of critics.

We have had this discussion before on how many patches CMx1 had (you thought it was buggier than it actually was), how critics first treated CMx1 (you thought they trashed it) and now we are onto the graphics discussion of people's opinions on CMx1.

And in any case, this is a silly argument. I never once said that CMBB's graphics were bad. I said they were dated for their time and that they would be laughed at now. That is not a slam on CMBB, AK, or BO... it's a statement of reality. We don't have the luxury of being able to keep our heads in the sand about things like this. Game companies that don't innovate go out of business or are made irrelevant, no matter how good their previous products were.

I agree we are at the silly argument stage. I disagree that you "never once said that CMBB's graphics were bad". I have quoted you in prior posts:

If you look back at reviews of CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK almost all of them (even the oens that gave it a very high rating) made critical, even insulting, remarks about the state of the graphics.

I think the problem with Lurker765's selective quoted reviews shows this quite clearly. When CMx1 games were reviewed by guys who were into/used to wargames we generally got excellent reviews EVEN on the graphics. Same with our customers. But when the reviewers and gamers were more mainstream we got criticism that ranged from mild to score slaughtering.

I haven't found ONE score slaughtering review for CMx1 graphics. I don't particularly see what the relevance of what CMSF needed to do to survive in a competitive market place has to do with what people thought of CMx1 graphics when the game came out years ago.

I am just trying to stop the revisionistic history of CMx1. Trying to make CMSF look better by dragging down CMx1 just bothers me. I guess I can reuse my/our line:

"What I've objected to is people using a fantasy view of CMx1 to make CMx1 look worse than it is. The only way to correct this unfair and factually flawed argument is to point out where people's perception of what CMx1 was differs from reality so the REAL CMx1 can be remembered."

If I post something like a few dozen reviews with evidence and links (including the ones someone else took the effort to look up over a year ago) it seems like my perception of reality is shared by more critics than the one defunct, dutch website review you listed as a counterargument. To make your statement of "almost all of them (even the oens that gave it a very high rating) made critical, even insulting, remarks" you would have to dig up an awful lot of other mainstream websites (almost all > 80% say? and since I posted over 20 of them so you need to come up with perhaps 100 mainstream review sites dishing the graphics in a score slaughtering manner?)

OK, this time I'm really done. The defense for CMx1 graphics rests its case in the Favorable_Graphics_Reviews vs Critical_Insulting_Score_Slaughtering trial.

[Other Means]

I sometimes wonder why this obsession with the 5-6 years of WWII over the other 2 millenia of history that's out there. Steel pot helmets and bolt action rifles, does this really sound like superior gameplay to RPG rockets, body armor and M32 grenade launchers? For me CMSF is vastly more entertaining and satisfying than CMx1. admitedly CMx1 was broader (300 different tanks) but also shallower (3 figures 'represent' a full squad). The primary difference appears to be that CMx1 was WWII, and WWII has been fetishized. Battling jack-booted SS is somehow 'different' than other opponents. Its like peoples emotional rsponse to WWII has more to do with the old movie 'the Night Porter" than any historical narrative.

I don't care about jackboots or the SS. My fetishes don't feature men. I care about tactical challenges and WWII is an excellent vehicle for them. You have each combat arm fulfilling its role while interacting and influencing every other.

A current US Marine squad, fully javelined up and with arty on call, can fight every other arm with little effort apart from occasional hiding.

Not so in WWII. There you had to seek cover from tanks while pressing against MGs, scouting for your own side armour, killing enemy infantry etc.

It's the interrelation of all arms that's fun. That's why, to me, Napoleonic or ancient battles aren't as much fun - there aren't as many factors coming in to play.

So I'm looking forward to WWII. We have a lot more data on how things function so the current - ISTM - imbalance in how each side is portrayed will stop. That can only be a good thing.

[Battlefront.com]

Lurker765,

If I post something like a few dozen reviews with evidence and links (including the ones someone else took the effort to look up over a year ago) it seems like my perception of reality is shared by more critics than the one defunct, dutch website review you listed as a counterargument.

Yeah, but I haven't cared to waste my precious time looking up stuff, while you have. I can assure you that I've read more reviews of our games, have more stuffed in a box somewhere, and have certainly read more customer feedback than you ever have. We based our decisions on where to take the game on that information at the time. I don't care to spend my time digging up stuff from 4 years ago to have some sort of pointless pissing match with someone that, when it all boils down to it, actually agrees we had to update the graphics because a graphics engine written in 1997/98 graphics just won't cut it in 2007/08.

BTW, this one comment emphasizes why it is gamers are gamers and not game developers:

Why would the forums of gamers that prefer a competitor's product be relevant?

Because where do you suppose we went for our customers? Or put another way, what were you playing before you started playing CMBO or CMBB? Nothing at all?

And anyway, it is a silly argument. We are where we are now and there's no turning back. Nor do we want to.

I agree we are at the silly argument stage. I disagree that you "never once said that CMBB's graphics were bad". I have quoted you in prior posts:

No, I said *I* never said the graphics were bad. I even thought the CMBO graphics were damned good for their day, and the fact that I made almost all of them myself has nothing to do with it CMBB is a beautiful game, but I'm not pig headed enough to suggest it wasn't dated by the then current standards nor dated by today's.

As I said earlier, it's really funny to see me being criticized for being humble. In my opinion CMx1 graphics were the best for any wargame of its day, bar none when all things were considered. They were even damned good for a 3D game considering all the limitations we had to work with. But it was dated and we were very sure then, based on the evidence in hand, that we would be out of business now if we didn't stay with the times.

Steve

[Apocal]

Because where do you suppose we went for our customers? Or put another way, what were you playing before you started playing CMBO or CMBB? Nothing at all?

I was playing Close Combat in terms of wargames. Around that same time I was playing a lot more FPS. CMBO pretty much snagged me permanently into wargames because it A) was close to being real time and didn't look like a boardgame.

Addressing a seperate post:

Combined arms tactics are no longer a necessity.

I almost choked on my Coke reading this. What game are you playing?! If I play dumb as a box of rocks, there's an even money chance some VBIED or RPG-equipped mech squad is going to ruin my whole day.

On the other hand a well positioned MG42 in a ww2 scenario will always be a puzzle to solve and thats the magic of the setting.

The flipside of this is that an MG42 could basically poop over everything else on two legs in the game. Fire support? LOL, this is WW2, what fire support? Why yes, bring that Sherman into LOS and we'll install an 88mm glass-less window, free of charge. People figured out, "hey, most of my stuff is technically inferior to the Germans... I'd better play in a way that minimizes my weaknesses and maximizes my strengths."

For some reason, perhaps due to the opposing force portrayed, a large number are unable to make this same leap for CMSF.

[Battlefront.com]

Apocal,

I almost choked on my Coke reading this. What game are you playing?! If I play dumb as a box of rocks, there's an even money chance some VBIED or RPG-equipped mech squad is going to ruin my whole day.

I don't understand it either, though I've seen comments like the one you are responding to since long before CM:SF was released. Combined arms is critical in CM:SF. It's more difficult to use, in some cases, and far less forgiving of mistakes, in most cases, but it's still there and it's still critically important. A lack of combined arms is the best way to lose a tank in under a minute. Especially a Blue one

Steve

[panzermartin]

I almost choked on my Coke reading this. What game are you playing?! If I play dumb as a box of rocks, there's an even money chance some VBIED or RPG-equipped mech squad is going to ruin my whole day.

The flipside of this is that an MG42 could basically poop over everything else on two legs in the game. Fire support? LOL, this is WW2, what fire support? Why yes, bring that Sherman into LOS and we'll install an 88mm glass-less window, free of charge. People figured out, "hey, most of my stuff is technically inferior to the Germans... I'd better play in a way that minimizes my weaknesses and maximizes my strengths."

For some reason, perhaps due to the opposing force portrayed, a large number are unable to make this same leap for CMSF.

You missed the point by a mile. What game I am playing? Do you deny the fact that a Marines squad with javelins and arty support can dominate the battlefield in the game without the *real* need of anything else? You said it yourself that an MG42 can pop up on two legs in this game and this explains my point that units lose their distinctive role in a modern setting, a thing that I find boring. Its like playing chess with 32 Queens. In the Normandy title, in order to have the firepower of a modern squad I will need a) a rifle squad

b)an SMG squad c)an LMG/HMG team d)a bazooka team e)a light mortar team f)an AT gun g)an artillery FO.

I didnt say its the game's fault. These are the-for me- drawbacks of a contemporary setting.

[flamingknives]

In terms of small arms firepower, a late second world war German squad with 2 MG42 and a smattering of automatics will have more than a modern squad.

Modern LAWs are more effective than Panzerfausts, but modern tanks are more powerful too, so that kind of evens it out

Javelin is a game changer, but I get the impression that it is unrealistically effective.

Better comms and fire support is more significant too, but you've still got to co-ordinate your squads actions with the artillery effects.

40mm grenade launchers are new, but not really as capable as a light mortar, in terms of range and weight of projectile.

[C'Rogers]

Lurker,

While you and Steve have had a very exciting discussion about the perception of CM:BB I do think your long posts kind of got away from the original post. That is, did the graphics detract from from game play mechanics.

I think the answer is probably yes and not at all.

On the yes side there is the obvious. Every second spent on graphics is a second that can't be spent on implementing another feature.

On the no side there is a couple of arguments. First there is the issue of graphic work and game mechanic work being split between different people (which, to a degree, I think is the case). So while you still have the same issue it is not a big a time eater as it might appear.

The second point is that unlike other games the graphical user interface is not just 'pretty' but useful. Having what you see is what you get (or closer to that) is not in itself just "good graphics" but a part of the simulation itself. In most RTS the graphical interface doesn't serve much purpose. There is an underlying engine were units role to hit each other and take off hit points, the graphical interface just relates that in as pleasing a manner as possible. Graphics in CM:SF serve a more concrete purpose. How is the unit positioned against the hill, were exactly can the tank see, how steep is the terrain, etc? While these images may be graphically pleasing they are also critical parts of the simulation and strategy aspects.

The third, and most important point, they had no choice but to make as good a graphics engine as possible. They expect to get at least five years out of this and I suspect graphical improvements will be harder to do later. So they, and any other sensible company in their position, would be required to put a lot of time into graphics.

Why do we keep bringing it up? I think it is a scape goat to some people. There are features in the game that we all would want and we wonder if they just cut a little time off the graphics would it be in? As features can be added and, I imagine, the graphics not improved, I prefer this approach (but oh, how I long for good quick battles and the holy grail of multi-multi player).

There is also the fourth possibility that Steve could come in and say that no, the graphics really didn't eat up much development time.

[birdstrike]

In terms of small arms firepower, a late second world war German squad with 2 MG42 and a smattering of automatics will have more than a modern squad.

Modern LAWs are more effective than Panzerfausts, but modern tanks are more powerful too, so that kind of evens it out

Javelin is a game changer, but I get the impression that it is unrealistically effective.

Better comms and fire support is more significant too, but you've still got to co-ordinate your squads actions with the artillery effects.

40mm grenade launchers are new, but not really as capable as a light mortar, in terms of range and weight of projectile.

Exactly my thoughts.

And isn't the modern US squad based on the same idea as the German one in WWII - having the same two squad served MGs - only exchanging 7.62mm MG42 with 5.56 M249s?

I think that the power of modern weapons bring about the results quicker, and more dynamic tactics are rewarded - but all those fancy modern high-tech targeting and dual-HEAT gadgets aside, it basically always comes down to the same principles.

For example: infantry advances, HMG kills infantry, bring tank forward, ATG(M) kills tank, fire support kills ATG(M), bring forward another tank, kill HMG, rinse and repeat.

I mean, I loved CMx1, but don't see the WWII game more balanced as others seem to do.

I lost countless of tanks to German Panzerfausts and Paks, my HTs got ripped by MG42s, whole platoons devastated by 150mm howitzers, and all I got was a lousy 75mm popgun to kill a Tiger.

[Apocal]

You missed the point by a mile. What game I am playing? Do you deny the fact that a Marines squad with javelins and arty support can dominate the battlefield in the game without the *real* need of anything else?

Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. Especially since the default Marine rifle squad has no Javelins.

Once again, what game are YOU playing?

You said it yourself that an MG42 can pop up on two legs in this game and this explains my point that units lose their distinctive role in a modern setting, a thing that I find boring.

Apparently I misunderstood what you were saying, I thought you were found the lethality and flexibility of Shock Force's units a turnoff and I simply turned that on it's head by saying they are no more an overmatch than the MG42 was in CMBO. In a scenario without tanks or a limited number of them, there are very few problems that can't be solved with MG42. If it doesn't work, use more MG42.

Its like playing chess with 32 Queens. In the Normandy title, in order to have the firepower of a modern squad I will need a) a rifle squad

b)an SMG squad c)an LMG/HMG team d)a bazooka team e)a light mortar team f)an AT gun g)an artillery FO.

Errr... I'm fairly certain late-war German squads had rifles, MGs, SMGs and AT weapons present.

I didnt say its the game's fault. These are the-for me- drawbacks of a contemporary setting.

OK then, I guess we've got to agree to disagree.

[Apocal]

There is also the fourth possibility that Steve could come in and say that no, the graphics really didn't eat up much development time.

I may be stepping over the line here a bit, but I do recall Steve writing exactly that. I believe it was in the thread regarding the LAV-AT/Brad keeping their TOW launchers up.

[panzermartin]

Apocal,

For me late german squads are less fun to play, simply because of the less need of combined arms. Too much concentrated firepower. I'm not expert on the matter but I suspect they were forced to do this due to lack of other support units, tanks, artillery, etc etc.

CMSF magnitudes this by a certain factor. It is a personal thing maybe but I find it more intriguing to play a stug, a panzer IV and a Hummel combined than an Abrams that can pretty much do all the work the above three can do seperately. Its like watching football with 22s Maradona clones. Some may find it exciting but personally I find it a bit uninteresting.

Despite this I still enjoy CMSF. I mostly play Red on Red though, which lacks a bit atmosphere and makes me think I'm in the middle of some army drills not really caring about the bigger picture. If someone can point me some QB setups for a good H2H RedvsBlue battle I would be grateful.

[Apocal]

Apocal,

For me late german squads are less fun to play, simply because of the less need of combined arms. Too much concentrated firepower. I'm not expert on the matter but I suspect they were forced to do this due to lack of other support units, tanks, artillery, etc etc.

Actually I was wrong, German infantry squads started the war based around a GPMG, with a smattering of SMGs. They'd just caught on early to the fact that you'd rather have a Gerber clipped to your pocket rather than a toolbelt hanging off your waist. The Marines caught onto this as well, due to the distributed nature of jungle fighting.

There are still enough differences to make it interesting for me, although really I'm not that interested in clicking through a half-dozen squad types to get 'the One'. I'm more interested in how well I can use the tools at my disposal to accomplish the objective with minimal losses.

[flamingknives]

Apocal,

For me late german squads are less fun to play, simply because of the less need of combined arms. Too much concentrated firepower. I'm not expert on the matter but I suspect they were forced to do this due to lack of other support units, tanks, artillery, etc etc.

Or because it's sensible to give your infantry enough firepower to hold their own. Or are you suggesting that militaries should limit their strengths to provide a more interesting tactical problem?

CMSF magnitudes this by a certain factor. It is a personal thing maybe but I find it more intriguing to play a stug, a panzer IV and a Hummel combined than an Abrams that can pretty much do all the work the above three can do seperately. Its like watching football with 22s Maradona clones. Some may find it exciting but personally I find it a bit uninteresting.

The common unit is a feature of nearly every successful armies. The Panzer IV can do absolutely everything that a Stug can - same gun, similar armour, similar mobility - but it has a turret. The Hummel is an artillery piece. If BFC had modeled M109s, you'd have much the same thing in a modern setting.

Despite this I still enjoy CMSF. I mostly play Red on Red though, which lacks a bit atmosphere and makes me think I'm in the middle of some army drills not really caring about the bigger picture. If someone can point me some QB setups for a good H2H RedvsBlue battle I would be grateful.

You are of course permitted your opinion, but it looks to me that you are inventing problems and differences where none exist.

[Battlefront.com]

C'Rogers,

Your post about the reality of CMx2's graphics, as it relates to the underlying simulation, is something that is repeatedly forgotten about and/or dismissed by people critical of our attention to graphical detail. I thank you for paying attention and spending the time to remind others of this fact Plus, the fact is that if CM:SF's graphics are criticized by some now, and they are pretty up-to-date, how much imagination does it take to picture how badly CMx1 style graphics would fare in today's market? Certainly not better! Which brings us to this point you made...

Why do we keep bringing it up? I think it is a scape goat to some people.

Wargamers generally view graphics as the enemy. The more hardcore the wargamer, and the better the graphics, the stronger the opinion that the graphics are responsible for anything and everything they perceive as bad within the game. I've pointed out a thousand times already that we suffered this back when we announced CMBO was going to be 3D. There were HOWLS from the wargaming community (this would be 1996/97) because their thinking was 3D graphics = First Person Shooter. Then when they saw the CMBO graphics they said "hey, if this is the best you can do you should just have stuck to 2D counters and given us more game". So on and so forth.

There are features in the game that we all would want and we wonder if they just cut a little time off the graphics would it be in? As features can be added and, I imagine, the graphics not improved, I prefer this approach (but oh, how I long for good quick battles and the holy grail of multi-multi player).

This is the thing that gamers don't understand. Coding game stuff, like Quick Battles and Campaigns, is VERY easy to do compared to the underlying game engine itself. It's like building a building. Trying to change a concrete foundation to some sort of high-tech green super insulating material is far more involved and expensive than redecorating all the rooms in the house, putting in new windows, or converting the heating system from oil to natural gas. So when building a building, make damned sure you have the basics the way you want them for the life of the building.

With the CMx2 game engine this is exactly what we did. We spent our time, most of it in fact, making a solid underlying game engine. This included the graphical components as well as the fundamental sub systems of the simulation, data structures, and other things. While it might be labor intensive to put in a new QB system, for example, it can be done without major compromise or creating compounding problems that need to be solved.

The CMx1 game system (it really wasn't an "engine" in the true sense of it), on the other hand, was a disaster in terms of how easy it was to work with. It's why CMBB took us an extra year to make than it should have. The fairly modest changes we implemented required a ton of reworking of existing code. We also found it impractical to implement many things we wanted to do simply because the game engine wasn't capable of it.

We're very, very happy where things are right now. We've been able to add all kinds of things to CM:SF that would have been impossible, or at least impractical, to add into CMx1's code. We're also looking forward to a fairly straight forward, easy transition to WW2 temperate environment while at the same time continuing to make new products for the modern environment. It's exactly what we wanted and we're very happy it's turned out well from our perspective.

Steve

[Canada Guy]

Will the game engine need to be tweaked as you move to a WWII environment?

The game upgrades that seem to be implemented in each patch seem to be focused on modern day tactics and combat philosophy. Will things have to be changed once again when you move to Normandy (and I would then assume again when you move to Bagration)?

I am just not too sure how you would transition to a game where the German army at the tactical level relied upon personal initiative (even amongst NCOs) while the Soviets relied upon higher level commands that were carried out at the squad/platoon level..

I guess what I am asking is how the different tactical combat philosophies can be handled with a game engine that currently revolves around a further 50 years of tactical refinement.

And as for graphics, they are a step in the right direction and one that you had to make to compete in the game market today. Using the CMBB/CMAK “engine” would have gotten you very bad reviews even if you had the best tactical game engine around. Younger gamers expect “Crysis” level graphics. I think that is what sets us apart as a gaming group. We can handle the low level graphics as witnessed by the amount of people that still play CMx1, because the tactical engine was great for its day. But without something to catch the eye of this year’s potential gamer, you lose their gamer vote.

I witness this in the PBEMs that I play (and lose) with people from around the world. We are almost all in our 40s. Try getting the younger generation to play CMx1 and it is like pulling teeth. They expect tanks to have hit points with little green bars.

I guess this brings me to my next question: Can the graphics engine be refined with each new family of games? Or do you plan on keeping the current game engine stable and just add units/terrain/eras?

[Vark]

Actually, when I showed my students (12-18) CMBO there were mixed reactions. Most were thoroughly disconcerted that the enemy were hidden until spotted. "But where are they?" was the most common reaction. Ah, I'd reply sagely, "you normally spot them when they fire at you!" The next revelation was the minute play back feature where you watched helplessly as the move was played out, again the, RTS instant command, threat radar in the top corner of the screen generation, grew uneasy. Just on cue one of my M4's brewed up spectacularly (I was playing the intro scenario) those who moaned and derided the graphics now either had walked away or shut up and tried to help spot the thing that had killed my tank. This consisted of lots of finger pointing, at the screen, and random guesses about the location of the tanks nemesis, they found the replay feature quite "cool"

By this time my infantry were working through the woods, trying to flank the enemy positions, again great unease from my students that the enemy were not on the screen. This went on for some minutes (it was my lunch break) and most students were genuinely interested, one older pupil went on to buy all three games and made a presentation to his fellow army cadets, using the game. So yes, some of the younger generation might love eye candy and heroic game mechanics but an equal amount wanted to know more, even if the graphics were " a bit rubbish sir"

[Battlefront.com]

Canada Guy,

Will the game engine need to be tweaked as you move to a WWII environment?

Of course This was the primary problem with the CMx1 code... it was very inflexible. We couldn't have made a modern setting game, for example, with what we had. Hell, we had a difficult enough time just moving to the Eastern Front and then to the desert! That's a pretty small leap from a simulation standpoint since the technology and most of the units themselves are almost identical.

I'd say the bulk of the time spent on the game code since CM:SF v1.01 was released applies to everything going forward. Tweaking this or that modern weapon system to work better, generally speaking, doesn't take much time to do.

I guess what I am asking is how the different tactical combat philosophies can be handled with a game engine that currently revolves around a further 50 years of tactical refinement.

Didn't we already go through this with you a couple of weeks ago? I know we had a big discussion about this and I'm pretty sure you were at the center of it The answer is the same as before... CMx1 had everything in it that was necessary to realistically simulate the differences between the different types of forces, including differences within a nationality. There never was, and never will be, artificial "gamey" things to make one side or another along indefensible stereotyping lines.

And as for graphics, they are a step in the right direction and one that you had to make to compete in the game market today. Using the CMBB/CMAK “engine” would have gotten you very bad reviews even if you had the best tactical game engine around.

Exactly The funny thing about this discussion about graphics is the odd notion that we'd somehow be better off in the reviews if we had even worse graphics than we have now. That doesn't make any sense! Sure, we don't have graphics that can match with companies spending millions on graphics alone, but we can compete with them. In fact, our 3D models are generally superior to the ones found in most 3D RTS/FPS games. Where they beat us is overall environment because they have a smaller focus and generally have hand built "sets" for the battles. Since we must have an open ended user editor this sort of customization isn't possible for us even if we had an extra million to throw into graphics.

In short, we don't mind taking some knocks on our graphics now. We didn't mind it back in CMx1 days either. It comes with the territory. The important thing is to realize how out of step one can be and still make the sale. If we had anything less than CMx2's current graphics I think we'd be in deep doo-doo.

Vark,

Great stuff! We're always very interested to hear about how our games fare when used in a military classroom situation. At the very least it's entertaining

Steve

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[c3k]

Er, unless the graphics are such that the game is compared to, and reviewed as, an FPS. In that case, it could abet the misrepresentation of the game experience and result in an unduly poor review.

Of course, 2-D pieces on a hex grid would ensure EVERYONE knew this was a wargame.

Regards,

Ken

[Canada Guy]

I do not remember being in any meaningful discussion (especially one that I was the centre of) in the last few weeks but then it has gotten up to +7C with no snow here in late November and my mind cannot cope with this anomaly.

I definitely do not want “gaminess” entered into this to make people feel better or have their pre-conceived notions pandered to. So no inherent German tactical bonus just to make it feel more WWII-ey. I think I just want to make sure that all the adjustments that are going into CMx2 do not make the game unrealistic. The 50 years+ since WWII has brought new innovations to squad make-up, inherent squad weapons, etc and it gives he game a different feel (and as a result different tactics). You seem to be optimizing the game to take this into account. Can the engine then take into account the lack of these 50 years of innovation?

It seems to me that this can be done. Just to extrapolate a little, the Germans would feel more like the US forces in CMSF and the Russians would feel more like the Syrians (Lets say from 1941-1944). Or in Normandy, you would see more resources (ammo etc.) available to the Americans but sort of green, more élan to the Commonwealth and more leadership ability to the Germans. Is this doable in CMx2? I think so. Can you program in the affects this would have on the units in Normandy? I believe so with supply, fitness and morale and leadership ratings respectively. But what about tactical doctrine? That is a little harder to program in and not get gamey.

[Battlefront.com]

Adam,

Graphics aren't the enemy. Goofy game systems that take away fundamentals of tactical reality for gains in visuals are.

Which is why CMx2 is such a powerful simulation... the graphics have increased the fundamentals of tactical reality, not detracted from it. Unless you consider one negative tradeoff for a dozen improvements to be a bad deal. Which, based on your commentary over the past year, is exactly where you peg CM:SF. That's fine with us, but I'm still puzzled why you bother to play something you have such low regard for for so long.

c3k,

Er, unless the graphics are such that the game is compared to, and reviewed as, an FPS. In that case, it could abet the misrepresentation of the game experience and result in an unduly poor review.

Yeah, this has always been a problem for CM since the beginning. It's not surprising, either, since CM is basically neither a traditional wargame nor a FPS game nor a RTS game. Whenever something doesn't fit neatly into a well defined category there are attempts to push it into one or the other. Making CMx2 RealTime has only added fuel to that fire.

Of course, 2-D pieces on a hex grid would ensure EVERYONE knew this was a wargame.

Heh... very true. But then again, proving this and then getting into the unemployment line right after would kinda take the fun out of it

Canada Guy,

I do not remember being in any meaningful discussion (especially one that I was the centre of) in the last few weeks but then it has gotten up to +7C with no snow here in late November and my mind cannot cope with this anomaly.

Well, I remembered wrong. But in my defense temps here are 0 to -5c these days I found the discussion that I was thinking of and you weren't in it. It was also not as detailed as I remembered it being:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=84156&highlight=leadership%2C+german&page=19

Maybe I was thinking of something else, but if so this is the one I found. Might help out some.

I definitely do not want “gaminess” entered into this to make people feel better or have their pre-conceived notions pandered to. So no inherent German tactical bonus just to make it feel more WWII-ey. I think I just want to make sure that all the adjustments that are going into CMx2 do not make the game unrealistic. The 50 years+ since WWII has brought new innovations to squad make-up, inherent squad weapons, etc and it gives he game a different feel (and as a result different tactics). You seem to be optimizing the game to take this into account. Can the engine then take into account the lack of these 50 years of innovation?

The reason we did modern first is that from a development standpoint it is always easier to "dumb down" the simulation's sub components than it is to make them more advanced.

As stated in the thread linked to above, just look back at CMx1 for your answers. There was nothing inherently special about any force at all. Everything used the same stats, the same evaluation systems, the same interaction with terrain, etc. The difference came from the specific differences in the units themselves modified by the same pallet of options. If the user played with realistic options for specific units, then things came out generally realistic. Tactics came from these differences plus the way a particular force was organized/equipped.

In short, we never concerned ourselves with national differences when making CMBO, CMBB, CMAK, or CM:SF. The differences instead came out naturally from a well designed and implemented simulation. We will continue on with this approach forever more.

Steve

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Battlefront.com]

Well, I'm not interested in your slights either, but I still have to read 'em I just wish you would figure out, once and for all, if you like CMx2 and get over this back and forth thing you do so frequently. I don't understand how someone who is apparently so unhappy with a game can still be here. Apparently you haven't figured it out either or you'd either keep your criticism in perspective or you'd put the game system behind you and move onto something else. Your prolonged love/hate back and forth with the game system is not healthy.

Steve