My problem with the game

[Hukka]

Hello everyone, I am a long time fan of the series and a frequent lurker at the forums. I have not been overly happy with the CM:SF after loving the CMBB so much. But I still bought the Marines module just to support the company mostly and now I bought the British module for the same reason after I read the very nice "Thank you"-post at the top.

I am not saying that CM:SF is bad. Far from it! It has many very very good features and I mostly like to play it, but sometimes the frustration is too big to continue. In my opinion gaming should be fun most of the time, even if it is a hardcore simulation like CM:SF. Now I thought it would be time for me to tell how I'd like CM to develop.

First of all, I think we need more information what is happening. It is far too easy to miss some key incidents while controlling troops on the other end of the map. Some kind of message log would be nice with color coded messages (red when something really bad happens, like when your MBT blows up).

Second, I would like to see all the time where the enemy has been spotted. I like the relative spotting system, but I don't want to memorize who saw what and where the enemy was. Here's an example: my forward troops sees an enemy mg, but my spotter won't see it. I want some accurate and fast arty fire from the spotter.

So when I click the spotter there's no marker where the enemy was. I have to go back and forth with the forward troops and the spotter to call the arty strike. So my suggestion is this: show ALL the spotted enemy troops at least in gray markers. Maybe this is kind of cheating... I don't know. The spotter isn't seeing the target after all. But they have radios and stuff, right? And if we go the "cheating" subject, how can I fly over the battlefield like God (of war) or something?

The reason I liked the wego-system so much, that I didn't miss anything and I could really enjoy the graphics and the drama. I could rewind and check if I missed something. I could watch the infantry assault on the ground level and after that the tank driving uphill to shoot the enemy far away.

I think realtime game should be able to be played in ... realtime! Well of course it is possible in CM:SF, but I think I miss a lot of the great features then and the fun. The gripe is: some of the maps are too large and the camera is too "clunky". It's hard to describe, but try games like World in Conflict or Total War series (IIRC) and the battlefield camera is more enjoyable to use. I have big problems to play maps where I have to concentrate on two flanks or something. At least in realtime.

So there's lots of cool things to see: Javelin fire is always a blast, it's nice to see air force assault and heavy artillery. But if you concentrate to watch these, you miss something on the other side of the field.

I guess what I am trying to say is: bring back the wego as the primary method of play! I think it was one of the coolest things in CMx1 and definetely one of the greatest innovations in the strategy games genre. Not to mention that it worked awesomely in online play.

Over and out.

[Starlight]

I guess what I am trying to say is: bring back the wego as the primary method of play! I think it was one of the coolest things in CMx1 and definetely one of the greatest innovations in the strategy games genre. Not to mention that it worked awesomely in online play.

Over and out.

Umm I don't understand, you do realise that WEGO is part of CMSF, in fact I only play in WEGO and have done so for CMSF, the Marine and Brits modules, so I am not sure if you just have not realised the option is available?

I don't think the game favours either form of play over the other, both have their own merits, I just prefer WEGO

[birdstrike]

Some sort of text or sound cue to inform you of what's happening has been requested a couple of times before. Also suggested were things like a minimap or OOB to keep track of the battlefield. But I don't know how far up these things are on the priority list.

As I understand it, limiting the amount of instantly available information was also a design decision to reduce 'godlike' control of the battlefield. But that doesn't mean we'll not see any improvements in that area (we already did get flashing icons). Perhaps someone in the know can tell more.

As for sighting enemy contacts: if you're having trouble with the way units are spotted or information relayed to other friendly units, you can try lower difficulty settings. I think there's what you're looking for.

Some other tricks you can use in the situation you mentioned, to deliver artillery fire, is to zoom in on the target, then switch to the spotter or to use area fire if you only have a rough idea of where the enemy is located.

And you can always pause if you need some extra time to determine the enemy positon to the meter.

Camera movement is something to adapt to, I agree. It can feel somewhat clumsy at first, but I find it rather convenient now.

That said, the best way to keep an eye on everything when playing large maps I found, is to zoom out - of course, you don't get a closer look of the action that way (which is why I mostly prefer smaller engagements myself ).

WeGo is basically the same now as it was in CMx1 since the 'blue bar' was reintroduced in on of the recent patches. If you haven't tested it since then, I highly reccommend to do so, you will feel right at home again.

(Actually, it's better than CMx1 because you can assign specific orders to individual waypoints).

[Hukka]

Ok, it seems I should definetely try WEGO again. It is just usually that the developers design a game in certain way (turn-based/wego/realtime) and then try to force the other method in and it most of the times fail, like in Blood Bowl. IIRC CM:SF was designed primarly as a realtime game.

And about spotting and difficulty levels... I like the other things in the more difficuly settings, but I'd like to see where everyone has spotted something. Maybe they should introduce "custom difficulty" where you could pick different elements of different difficulty levels.

[YankeeDog]

I dunno; I play CM:SF almost exclusively WEGO and it works just fine for me.

I agree about the "missing the action" thing, tho. Pretty much the only reason I play WEGO is so I can rewind and watch the action at different locations and from different angles. I've always really enjoyed the cinematic aspect of CM.

If they ever get around to adding a rewind function to Real Time, I'll probably switch over to playing mostly Real Time...

[MarkEzra]

...If they ever get around to adding a rewind function to Real Time, I'll probably switch over to playing mostly Real Time...

I generally say yes to this. Pauseable and rewind sounds great. But to even make it worse for BFC, I want to have a fast forward as well. And that is really having my cake and eating it too...

It must be well over a year since I test/played in RT (outside of testing something specifically in RT) I enjoy to revisit the cool moments and explore the WTF's. But RT is the preferred mode for many gamers so I'm glad the RT is available.

[Battlefront.com]

Hukka,

Welcome! I have time right now only for a quick comment:

Ok, it seems I should definetely try WEGO again. It is just usually that the developers design a game in certain way (turn-based/wego/realtime) and then try to force the other method in and it most of the times fail, like in Blood Bowl.

VERY true. Which is why we designed the current game engine to be both RealTime and WeGo before we made a single line of code Therefore, nothing was forced at all since the designs were both in our minds the whole time.

IIRC CM:SF was designed primarly as a realtime game.

Not exactly correct. We designed the game's simulation element, the core of game system itself, as RealTime. There were many technical reasons for doing this, many of which benefit WeGo as well. For example, no artillery shells falling down after a turn officially ends, the ability ability to have real ballistics modeling, etc.

The big reason, however, is that a WeGo game can be made very easily from a RealTime engine. A RealTime game is impossible if the underlying game engine is WeGo. Since there are very, very few sacrifices necessary for a RealTime engine with WeGo as an option, and RealTime is absolutely 100% impossible if the game engine is WeGo, the choice was extremely easy for us to make.

On the marketing side, the more people who are attracted to Combat Mission, the better our ability to make games. WeGo is a massive turn off for the vast majority of the total gaming audience. So by including RealTime we make the game more attractive to a wider number of people, which increases sales, which increases our ability to make newer and better games. Everybody wins

And as I've said for many years now... Combat Mission will ALWAYS have a WeGo option. There is absolutely no reason, now or ever, to remove that functionality.

Steve

[MeatEtr]

That would be super kool if there was a recordable track of like 20 or 30 seconds, up to a minute would be ideal. Kinda like in IL2 when you did great in a big dogfight and then save the whole track and watch from every angle, pause, fast forward, slowmo, and rewind.

I know this has mentioned before and I think we all agree it would be great, but probably not high up in the priority list, sadly.

[Battlefront.com]

It's fairly up there in terms of priority, but it's a technical bugaboo. Or potentially so. Which is in contrast with vast quantities of other things that people have requested. From our perspective it makes more sense to add important things we are sure we can get working, reasonably well in a reasonable timeframe, then possibly squandering a decent amount of time on something that doesn't work all that well.

Steve

[c3k]

Hukka,

Welcome! This game is VERY good. Try it in WeGo and post back here with your thoughts. WeGo alone may be the way to play which will best appeal to your preferences.

Regards,

Ken

[Vinnart]

For a RTS mode I think a simple save replay function that saves the entire game similar to how Sudden Strike 2 had it would work fine. SS2's worked like this: You could set it to save a replay file automatically, or do it manually at the end of a playing session. Later you could reload the replay file and watch the entire recorded session. It did not have the complexity of forwarding or rewinding, but did allow pause and play. The camera could be locked to follow the way you moved it during the game, or you could free it to look around. The free camera was especially cool for multiplayer games since it allowed you to watch how your teammates played. Having a forward and rewind during the actual real time sounds like it would be more complex to implement, besides that is not what realtime play is all about. It is about the here and now, with no second chances.

I do prefer the game WEGO for many of the reasons mentioned by others in the thread, and I am just so used to playing Combat Mission that way. I do think it was smart for BF to offer both modes to capture a wider audience, But I think if they improved the situational awareness to the player it would gain more appeal for RTS play. I think adding a simple RED or YELLOW bar above a unit’s icon to show its current status would be a step in the right direction. For real time I think Basic mode is the best, but it gives too much info too quickly. I feel CMx1 had it perfect as far as enemy icons went. Question marks when not sure, and enemy icons that stayed identified when positive ID made eliminating the memorization found in the current VETERAN mode and above. I would like a mode like CMX1 had it. Something between the way BASIC and VETERAN is now.

As far as the CAMERA on the game I can’t say enough how great it is! I must admit it took a bit getting used to, as it is different than many other RTS games have it. It doesn’t take long to get used to though. The camera in this game offers every possible angle a player could want. The zoom is mega cool creating very good 3D effects. NO other game has ever offered this. Many times I will not get a game based on it’s limited camera since this will make or break it IMO. Once BF put the old preset views with th1.11 patch I was sold.

CONTROL TIP: If you like to game get a mouse with as many programmable buttons. I highly recommend the Logitech MX Revolution. It has 9 programmable buttons. I have mine set to; select next/previous unit, Center camera on selected unit, and the rest are preset camera views I use most 1-4, and six. With this set up I move around the battlefield with total ease and speed.

[Hukka]

Ok, so I gave wego another chance and you are right, it was much more enjoyable. I could sip coffee, think all my plans through and watch the action flow. Wait! Something blew up out of the screen. No problem. Rewind and see what happened. I still have some problems with the camera, but in wego mode it's not so big deal.

But I am not done through griping yet.

I am now through the third mission in British campaign and I have to wonder, why do the mission designers make maps that are full of desert. It might be realistic, but the setting alone is quite dull, no need to make it worse by making full desert maps.

I would also like to see more challenge by adding more points to the Syrians when they destroy valuable targets like tanks. I took total victory in the 3rd mission and they bounded one of my tanks so the crew abandoned it. The poor Syrians got only like 20 points of that. The end score was something like 1000 - 21. I think one tank should cost me at least 100 points.

One another thing I'd like to see. I would like to see points reduction when you destroy too much buildings. You know, it's bad press to destroy the whole city when hunting the poor reds. It would make nice new strategic element: should I really use that much force to smoke out those evil-doers from that building. It would be very cool. As it stands now, you usually wipe out the reds eventually, but they should add a question "at which price?"

[Frankster65]

The game does have an excellent mission editor to make missions to your preference. Why not try it?

[SlowMotion]

I would also like to see more challenge by adding more points to the Syrians when they destroy valuable targets like tanks. I took total victory in the 3rd mission and they bounded one of my tanks so the crew abandoned it. The poor Syrians got only like 20 points of that. The end score was something like 1000 - 21. I think one tank should cost me at least 100 points.

One another thing I'd like to see. I would like to see points reduction when you destroy too much buildings. You know, it's bad press to destroy the whole city when hunting the poor reds. It would make nice new strategic element: should I really use that much force to smoke out those evil-doers from that building. It would be very cool. As it stands now, you usually wipe out the reds eventually, but they should add a question "at which price?"

Both those mission goals can be done with current scenario editor.

If you want more challenge, select one of the scenarios where scenario author writes the scenario can be played from either side. Select the Syrian side. Especially something where the blue team has tanks.

[Combatintman]

Ok, so I gave wego another chance and you are right, it was much more enjoyable. I could sip coffee, think all my plans through and watch the action flow. Wait! Something blew up out of the screen. No problem. Rewind and see what happened. I still have some problems with the camera, but in wego mode it's not so big deal.

But I am not done through griping yet.

I am now through the third mission in British campaign and I have to wonder, why do the mission designers make maps that are full of desert. It might be realistic, but the setting alone is quite dull, no need to make it worse by making full desert maps.

I would also like to see more challenge by adding more points to the Syrians when they destroy valuable targets like tanks. I took total victory in the 3rd mission and they bounded one of my tanks so the crew abandoned it. The poor Syrians got only like 20 points of that. The end score was something like 1000 - 21. I think one tank should cost me at least 100 points.

One another thing I'd like to see. I would like to see points reduction when you destroy too much buildings. You know, it's bad press to destroy the whole city when hunting the poor reds. It would make nice new strategic element: should I really use that much force to smoke out those evil-doers from that building. It would be very cool. As it stands now, you usually wipe out the reds eventually, but they should add a question "at which price?"

Ok - that was my map - thankyou for saying it was realistic - if you look at the actual ground I had to crop it by a few kms to make it fit so it wasn't totally realistic. As to your point about the desert being dull and realism - well you answered the question yourself - the game is set in Syria and the campaign is anchored around real life locations. The fact is that a lot of Syria is desert and therefore at some point there is going to be some sort of battle in a desert area. Variety is the spice of life and all that and again this was part of the campaign design - there are some people who rail about the predominance of FIBUA/MOUT battles in CMSF - a school of thought I agree with in a lot of ways mainly because of how difficult it is in real life but also because of the way scenario designers put their missions together - I've lost count of the number of times I've looked at an urban map and seen the objectives and looked at how I'm going to reach them and then known that I'm going to get utterly wasted taking that path. Horses for courses as they say.

The points allocation thing was all decided as part of the campaign design - this was supposed to be an 'easy' mission and therefore the points allocation reflects this. You quite clearly disagree with this and I understand your point totally but taking the campaign as a whole, if all missions were hard, then nobody would finish it.

[Battlefront.com]

Vinnart,

For a RTS mode I think a simple save replay function that saves the entire game similar to how Sudden Strike 2 had it would work fine.

Heh... except we don't think we'll ever be able to support that unless the user has a second computer saving the information out via TCP/IP. The amount of data that needs to be logged for even 30 seconds is pretty huge and probably a major hit to framerate (thanks to I/O lag), so the thought of storing a 4 hour battle all at once... ouch.

Hukka,

I am now through the third mission in British campaign and I have to wonder, why do the mission designers make maps that are full of desert. It might be realistic, but the setting alone is quite dull, no need to make it worse by making full desert maps.

Well, this is a game set in an Arid environment, which makes it pretty logical for the game to actually have battles that aren't trying to pretend to be NW Europe There's plenty of MOUT combat in the campaign, however it's balanced with open warfare too since quite a bit of combat would happen there for one or more reasons.

So sorry if I think this is a bit of a silly gripe. I mean, are you going to gripe about the Normandy campaign because it accurately portrays the Norman countryside instead of the jungles of Brazil?

I would also like to see more challenge by adding more points to the Syrians when they destroy valuable targets like tanks. I took total victory in the 3rd mission and they bounded one of my tanks so the crew abandoned it. The poor Syrians got only like 20 points of that. The end score was something like 1000 - 21. I think one tank should cost me at least 100 points.

That's the way the scenario designer wanted it, therefore that's the way he set it up. There's reasons for it being this way (as I see was just explained by the author himself ).

One another thing I'd like to see. I would like to see points reduction when you destroy too much buildings. You know, it's bad press to destroy the whole city when hunting the poor reds. It would make nice new strategic element: should I really use that much force to smoke out those evil-doers from that building. It would be very cool. As it stands now, you usually wipe out the reds eventually, but they should add a question "at which price?"

It's in the game to the extent the scenario designer wishes it to be. Sometimes it's not a bad thing to flatten a neighborhood from the friendly sides' perspective. Therefore, penalties shouldn't be automatic and should instead be left up to the scenario designer.

Bottom line here is that one person's concept of a "perfect battle" is likely completely different in detail from someone else's. Therefore, it is both counter productive and unrealistic to presume/expect/want each battle you play to be EXACTLY how you would have done it down to the last detail. If you're that particular then I suspect the best thing for you to do is make your own scenarios and campaigns. That's really the best way to ensure that the little details are just the way you want them since the fact is they can be if they are setup that way.

Steve

[MikeyD]

About points designations. The British Campaign overseer ran a commendably tight ship in that department. 1000 points total for each side to be divided up however the designer chose. But the total had to be as close as possible to 1000. That means adding an extra 200 point for a brewed-up Challenger 2 would have meant 200 fewer points for preserving the scenario objective. It was a firm rule, 1000 point was all we got, and we got a ruler accross the knuckles if we strayed too far.

[Hukka]

It seems I made it sound more harsh than I meant. I guess my problem is the game's setting more than anything else. I am really much waiting for the Normandy ((and the jungles of Brazil) could you please please make a Finnish module?). And I think BF and the design team has made as good work as they've could possibly make from the subject (modern warfare). And I really appreciate the work of the scenario designers.

I actually really like the asymmetrical aspect of the warfare. This was a bit suprise for me. So I really would like to see more use of it. Like when I have this very much superior force I had to think more about preserving my own troops and the buildings (or something) than just wiping the enemy out. But here I am just repeating myself. Sorry.

Yeah, I know there's scenario editor, but I really don't have the time to make my own scenarios and I really like the suprise element of other's work.

So Combatintman, thanks for the third mission. Let's see what we have next. And thanks to Battlefront for making these very unsexy (from market point) and daring games for us. I keep buying the modules as they pop up. Nato module sounds actually pretty cool.

[Battlefront.com]

We don't see a Modern Finnish version happening in the near future. However, if your MoD would send us a check we'd be more than happy to change that

Steve

[Hukka]

I was talking about WWII Finnish module.

[Combatintman]

No danger of any deserts there I think!

[Sequoia]

I was talking about WWII Finnish module.

Well since the first East Front game will cover Bagation then a Finish module would have to cover the Battle of Tali-Ihantala. However since, as I understand it, the East Front game will be put together by a Russian team you'll have to live with a game made from a Russian point of view.

[Hukka]

No danger of any deserts there I think!

True! Actually realistic Finnish module map would be all forest. So full that your troops could see enemies only from 10 meters away. How cool that would be!

Maybe one of the most diverse maps would have a lake and propably a road going through the map. In the forest.