Any plans for a Combat Mission Shock Force Sequel?

[DanielP]

Hi,

While CMSF is a great game, the game engine is getting very long in the tooth and desperately needs updating. Are there any plans for a sequel with a new engine, and even a new scenario? Admittedly I'm using the Paradox version so I've not got the latest updates, but I think you've really squeezed all you can out of this engine now. Time for something fresh and new.

I am aware this can only really happen if there is a demand for the product. Development costs are expensive, I know, and it is something of a niche product. But there is a loyal community here, and I'm sure a new version of the game will bring in new customers as well as the loyal old ones.

To be frank, I only bought this game because I found it in a sale. I couldn't bring myself to pay full price for a product that looks so dated. If I feel that way, there are many more who surely have the same view. And this is a shame, because the game is excellent and deserves to be successful.

Anyone out there agree with me? Or am I just being unappreciative?

This is no criticism of the current game - I love it. But how about something fresh and new?

[Blackcat]

"... very long in the tooth ..."

The game is not quite three years old. Oh, to have the impatience of youth, again.

"... a product that looks so dated."

I am afraid you have lost me there. In what way does the game look dated?

"... the game is excellent..."

Now we are in agreement. It is an excellent game. I have my niggles with it, but what "modern" tactical level wargame can compare with its depth and sophistication?

Anyway, to answer your question. I believe that there is a plan for a new game, call it CMSF2, but it will be quite a while yet. In the meantime you might want to save up and buy the full version and enjoy all the goodies to be found in the latest updates.

Also we have WW2 coming up on the horizon with the Normandy game to be scheduled for release next year with additional modules to be released for it thereafter.

[Lanzfeld]

Well there are, as you may know, several modules still to come with this engine. NATO, WWII, ect...

I believe then there is also plans for CMSF2. This will be a new engine.....I think?

I, for one, cannot believe you think this current engine is getting long in the tooth. CM1..... yeah...maybe but just take a look in the "this game is beautiful" or screenshot posts if graphics are your thing. Long in the tooth? No way.

Now it does have a few quirks which, IMHO, need to be fixed but I am having WAyyyyyy to much fun with this game.

To each their own...

[TheVulture]

There are plenty of sequels planned - the WWII Normady game should be out in a few months, and also on the horizon (at various distances) are other WWII games, a 1980's Afghan one and another modern one in a temperate climate with top end red equipment (summary in the thread http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=89998 )

They will all have the same engine, although I'm not sure that's what you mean with your use of the word 'engine'. The game engine is the core code that updates game states and controls the movement of data between various parts of the code. In this case you can probably extend it to the modelling of the physical mechanics, the representation of vehicles and men (although those can be tweaked) and so on. I'm not sure how you could describe that as dated, since it is nigh on impossible to know what it actually is as a player of the game.

If you mean the graphics and the interface, or such things, then they are separate from the engine, and will likely be improved gradually as tweaks are made to things, but are unlikely to improve radically; this isn't a first person shooter, it is a tactical combat simulator cum wargame, and the modelling of the physics / behaviour is always going to take precedence (and is much more complex than any arcade style games) - that doesn't leave a whole lot of CPU power (and memory) who flashy graphics and particle effects (realism aside; real life isn't as flashy as Gears of War either) without greatly upping the minimum specs.

And there is only really one programmer working on the code, so the programmer time available to improve such things as well as coding the new stuff is very limited. The next title, Normandy, already includes improvements such as water, bridges, hedges (bocage), on-map mortars, AT guns, improved fortifications, command posts, improved quick battle system and probably more besides that is WWII relevant. That's plenty of improvements that enhance the playability and fidelity of the game. But the core mechanics are essentially unchanged.

[Michael Emrys]

...the game engine is getting very long in the tooth...

I look at that statement and have to wonder if you really know what you are saying. Actually, this engine is at a fairly early stage of its life. Compare it to a child who has just completed his first year of school if you will. It has been conceived to have lots of flexibility so that the family of games based on it can continue to expand over several years. Stay tuned.

Michael

[MikeyD]

If you're playing an unpatched Paradox basegame and you haven't touched the modules then you've experienced less than half the game so far. If you crave massive infantry firepower (or T90 ubertanks) get the Marine module, if you prefer more balanced play with Syrian opponents get the British module. And installing the module gets you out from under Paradox's thumb patch-wise.

Oh, and a BFC richer color terrain pack was offered several patches ago. I assume its up at the Repository or among the downloadables. So the answer to that old song "Is that all there is?" is no, there is more out there.

[Lets_All_Fight]

I actually really like the graphics. I've watched firefights every bit as visceral as anything I've ever seen in an FPS and, especially when a good designer delivers the goods, some of the maps are fantastic just to look at let alone play.

[Lethaface]

Your not the only one who would love CMSF looking like Arma2 or World in Conflict!

However this is, unfortunately, not realistic to expect. Among it's class I think CMSF is looking quite good; sometimes the scenery can be very beautiful!

[John Kettler]

DanielP,

Welcome aboard!

That said, I'm gobsmacked by your "long in the tooth" characterization of the CMx2 game engine, seeing as how CM:SF is the first game to employ it! The Marines and Brits are just modules to the core game, so the CM:SF engine has produced exactly one game, yet is now the ancient of days? Wakarimasen! That's Japanese for "I don't understand."

CM:SF isn't Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, nor was it ever intended to be. It's a highly complex tactical simulation of modern combat, but most of the complexity's under the hood. The kind of visual chrome you seem to desire comes at a heavy cost in computer performance, and CM:SF is putting most of its computational capacity into the battle proper, with real world physics for entire formations, 3-D terrain, buildings and soldiers, on the fly LOS calculations for projectiles, damage tracking to the subsystem level for vehicles, etc. CoD: MW2 is dealing with only one primary character; CM:SF has hundreds all at once, all of which need to be monitored and their status reported to the player. Steve once did a computational requirement comparison between a top FPS and one of the CMx1 games and concluded the CMx1 game was pushing way more polygons than the FPS because of all the 3-D men and vehicles in the fight. CM:SF is pushing way more polygons per man than that, is depicting huge chunks of ground, rather than rendering near field on the fly as an FPS does, and is doing vastly more sophisticated simulation under the hood at the same time.

CM:SF may resemble the FPS you're used to, but it is something entirely different, as I hope I've explained. To get the level of visual chrome you want, together with the simulation fidelity CM:SF already has, would require a super computer, and BFC has always designed its games such that ordinary cyber gear would suffice to play its games.

Regards,

John Kettler

[souldierz]

I've been told that there's a Combat Mission Shock Force 2 in the making.There's your sequel, but it's a way's down the road and i know little about the game engine they will use.

Better graphics is always a plus and welcomed in any game, but i think BFC did a fantastic job with it's available resources.

There are some spot's that could use a little visual improvement but overall I think the maps and units and bombs going off look spectacular and fun to watch.This game has aged a little, but in my opinion it's not getting old and gray or outdated ,but it's now hitting it's peak.If it's getting long in the tooth that's because its growing fangs.Plus they still might be able to squeeze some more juice out of the game engine.

With the 1.21 patch, i find it got stronger,faster and wiser and became very enjoyable to play.Me personally, I still want to spent time and continue playing this game before moving on,plus there's still more mods to come that I am eagerly waiting to try.

For me,realism will always conquer visual appeasement but the sales market plays it differently.If the game is stunning in graphics, but unrealistic in game play,chances are ill pick up the game that's not so great graphically, but is very realistic in play.Simulation is what I aim for so I'm thrilled when i find these kind of games.

You know the saying,"different strokes for different folks".Some get tired of it and others can't get enough.It's a Win Lose situation.

[Guest]

Having just come away from finishing Operation Flashpoint and Arma 2, I have to say I'm glad CM:SF's engine isn't more like theirs. On my gaming rig Arma chugs like crazy, is not *that* pretty, and while it can support battles with hundreds of men per side the AI is primitive and I doubt that that a tenth that many models could be on screen at once without making my machine explode.

Operation Flashpoint is gorgeous... but the game can support only sixty-four entities in-game at once. I've seen ten times that many all packed in a single CM:SF screen, all attacking at once. And CM:SF's AI, in terms of responsiveness, intelligence and reliability, runs rings around OpFlash's.

Both engines, by the way, are probably considerably "longer in the tooth" than CM:SF's, and have had millions poured into them to boot, all in search of graphical fidelity that goes away as soon as you turn off shaders and turn down texture detail (whereupon they look worse, in most cases, than CMSF). I think we should all be grateful that Charles has concentrated on the important bits.

[Dietrich]

Operation Flashpoint is gorgeous... but the game can support only sixty-four entities in-game at once.

Which precludes even a single full USMC rifle platoon versus an equivalent PLA infantry platoon.

No wonder I usually think "wait... shouldn't there be more of us?" while playing that game, even during the non-MARSOC missions. For all the touting of the game as being representative of the typical infantryman's experience in modern combat, one is pretty much always the leader of a four- or five-man heavily-armed (in one mission the player carries a SMAW and an M4A1 with 4x ACOG and an MEU M1911 and grenades and a combat knife...) fireteam tasked with missions which are relatively SOF in character, even when the player is in the role of a more or less regular Marine sergeant.

Imagine if no scenario in CMSF had more than a one platoon of troops (including infantry and vehicles) per side...

[nachinus]

I don't think that the game needs a lot better graphics. Soldiers, weapons and vehicles are pretty much awesome for the scale of the game. After so much time, I'm still amazed when I put the camera to the ground following a particular vehicle of squad.

BUT I do think that the terrain could use some improvement. I'm not worried about the textures, which are ok for me, but the actual modelling. What IMHO can make the game look dated is the square-formed terrain, where everything is made with square tiles, and 45 and 90 degrees corners. Forests are square, buildings square and mountains made of squares. That's my only *small* gripe with how the game looks. And since it's part of how the devtools create the terrain I don't think this can be changed.

Also, the lighting does not help a lot to see the terrain curves and elevation, you have to bring the camera to the floor very often to appreciate the terrain undulation. Amazingly, in Close Combat games, which are in 2D, the map artists drew the maps using light and shades to remark heights with such detail and precission that you could tell terrain elevation and curves at a glance.

[Lanzfeld]

Yes nachinus I agree the terrain could be quite a bit better with some more curves. Roads and buildings and terrain without the "squared away" look is something that one day I look forward to.

[Sequoia]

Yes nachinus I agree the terrain could be quite a bit better with some more curves. Roads and buildings and terrain without the "squared away" look is something that one day I look forward to.

I too have wondered about curved roads etc. There must be some technical point that makes them difficult, or at least difficult when you have a terrain editor.

[TheVulture]

I too have wondered about curved roads etc. There must be some technical point that makes them difficult, or at least difficult when you have a terrain editor.

They are not that difficult to create. One of my friends was working in research on sound modelling in cities, and part of that was taking square grid elevation maps and overlaying the Ordnance Survey road maps on top of them. The road is a set of lines, with curves being lots of short lines. You construct a set of polygons (not aligned with the terrain polygons) to describe the real width of the road, and then project them on to the terrain polygons, creating a whole lot more triangles where the road and terrain polygon edges are.

Nothing terribly hard about this; any number of public domain algorithms exist to do this kind of job efficiently. But you are massively increasing the number of polygons required to represent a road. In a map with more than a few angled roads and curves, you could be looking at thousands of polygons. This is more load on the graphics rendering and save file size. Obviously we can't do tests to see what the potential impact on frame rates and save sizes is in moderately large city maps which can have lots of roads, but I'm sure the brain in a jar could do some ballpark estimates of the effects of rendering loads of extra road polys.

Its a bit of extra work in the editor too, but line and freehand tools to do roads, and automated junction creation isn't too complex. But again, it is a fair amount of coding time to make it all work nicely.

In an ideal world I'd love to see it in. But since pretty good scenarios can be made without it, I'd personally vote it pretty low down the priority list.

[donnieitaly]

What are you nine years old?

Hi,

While CMSF is a great game, the game engine is getting very long in the tooth and desperately needs updating. Are there any plans for a sequel with a new engine, and even a new scenario? Admittedly I'm using the Paradox version so I've not got the latest updates, but I think you've really squeezed all you can out of this engine now. Time for something fresh and new.

I am aware this can only really happen if there is a demand for the product. Development costs are expensive, I know, and it is something of a niche product. But there is a loyal community here, and I'm sure a new version of the game will bring in new customers as well as the loyal old ones.

To be frank, I only bought this game because I found it in a sale. I couldn't bring myself to pay full price for a product that looks so dated. If I feel that way, there are many more who surely have the same view. And this is a shame, because the game is excellent and deserves to be successful.

Anyone out there agree with me? Or am I just being unappreciative?

This is no criticism of the current game - I love it. But how about something fresh and new?

[Pandur]

i dont really see what the point behind this engine compareing is. CMx2 engine is made for tactical games or you could do realtime strategy too, but how does one compare it to a shooter engine like flashpoints engine. thats pointless beyond imagination.

it would make more sense to compare it to CoH engine, C&C and all this stuff. these games got nothing in common with CM but neither does flashpoint and its sequels.

[flamingknives]

What are you nine years old?

Now, now. Not everyone will be familiar with BFCs way of doing things.

[SlowMotion]

I don't think that the game needs a lot better graphics. Soldiers, weapons and vehicles are pretty much awesome for the scale of the game. After so much time, I'm still amazed when I put the camera to the ground following a particular vehicle of squad.

BUT I do think that the terrain could use some improvement.

...

Also, the lighting does not help a lot to see the terrain curves and elevation, you have to bring the camera to the floor very often to appreciate the terrain undulation. Amazingly, in Close Combat games, which are in 2D, the map artists drew the maps using light and shades to remark heights with such detail and precission that you could tell terrain elevation and curves at a glance.

This last chapter shows the point that would improve the graphics most, IMO. Currently if the map maker hasn't made elevation changes more visible using those 2D tricks (using different map tiles), it can be very difficult to see where smaller hills are. If there was some way to add more shading without affecting screen refresh rates too much, maps would become so much better.

One example RL pic here, just sand desert, but how visible those elevations are:

http://www.phototravels.net/namibia/ndp2/namib-desert-air-p-34.3.jpg

[MikeyD]

it can be very difficult to see where smaller hills are.

That's the curse of desert terrain. Even in the real world, if you're standing in the middle of the Arizona desert the middle-distance looks a lot flatter and featureless than it turns out to be up close. I've gotten into the habit of building scenario set in early morning or late afternoon for the increased shadows. High noon under thick overcast skies makes it tough to read the desert terrain. Undulating hills of French wildflowers would make it rather easier to discern terrain contours, I'd imagine.

[cabal23]

What are you nine years old?

Yes we even have A-holes in our community too, despite the multitude of intelligent comments you will find here. Don't let one guy make you think your opinion doesn't count. Your comments are appreciated, because they are your opinions.

I agree with your points, but I also know the constraints they work under having been with this game from day one. The funny thing is there are still people playing the older Combat Mission games because they are of such amazing tactical quality. Normandy will turn WWII gaming on its head. It won't look like Company of Heroes, but it will be a hell of a lot more accurate. Maybe one day we will see graphics like those, but for now I am content with the quality of the code now. I play everyday and have for years now. I stopped playing when it came out because it was garbage in my eyes, but it has achieved near perfection status after a few patches. There is some serious magic to this game to keep me playing for as long as I have. No game has ever held my attention this long. Glad to have you in the community. Like the Transformers (Yes I was nine once), there is more than meets the eye to this game.

[Other Means]

I use a gridded terrain mod that helps terrain to be seen better. It's in the repository.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

In the current Middle Eastern version it would be nice to do a near future Nisske East large scale conflict independent of any European war scenario that you might be doing.. You would need a different back story for this. After the US withdrawl from Iraq there is a series of Islamic revolutions in the Middle East which result in extremist anti western/anti Isreali governments come to power in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq. These governments form an "Islamic Alliance" with Iran (a situation somewhat like Total War 2006by Simon Pearson only without the WMD use in his book which I rather felt spoiled what was shaping up to be an interesting conventional war sscenario). Meanwhile Nato forces continue to fight an extended guerilla war in AfganistanThe conflict comes to a head with another Arab Isreali crisis and the Iranian closure of the Straits of Hormuz. The Gulf states, threatened by their neighours request US reinforcements but are invaded before being sufficiently reinforced. Meanwhile the Arab ISreali conflict finally erupts into all out war on Isreal;s southern, eastern and western borders. SOme US troops are sent to reinforce Isreal but most NATO troops start deployment to Turkey or to the Gulf region to defend the Gulf Arabs and to prepare for the eventual invasions of Iraq, Jordan, Syria and Iran that, it is hoped, will eventually win the war.

This conflict would allow the use of a fascinating array of forces and weaponry, many of which already exist ithin the CMSF game. Additional forces and vehicles such as the Israeli Merkava, Egyptian/Iraqi M1A1s or the Iranian Zulfiqar would result in many fascinating armoured warfare scenario possibilities inm addition to existing options. You probably would not need to change the graphics much, if at all for such a conflict simulation.

Luke

[Battlefront.com]

Obviously I think CMx2's terrain holds up pretty well to anything similar to it. Which is nothing, so it's an easy comparison

The biggest area where CMx2 fails in comparison to is the chaotic look of urban (especially Middle Eastern) areas. Litter, debris, unique building features on each building, etc. There are four reasons for this:

1. We lack a $10,000,000 art budget (which is probably less than what Arma2 spent).

2. Computers can only push so many polygons so well. It doesn't matter if the developer is EA or Battlefront, it's still the same. Besides expensive and time consuming programming tricks, which we also don't have the budget for, the only other way to get more detail into the games without killing framerate is to sacrifice something else. In Operation Flashpoint it is a sever restriction on unit counts. Hazed horizons is another. Requiring only high-high end systems is yet another. Sacrificing terrain quality in other places is yet another. So on and so forth. For a variety of reasons, these options are viable for FPS games but not wargames or true sims.

3. CM has a terrain editor where the average player is invited to build his own maps, including full cities if he wishes. This means the terrain pieces have to be somewhat generic so that they bridge the gap between a player's imagination and the system's ability to handle it. In FPS games the maps are created by customizing the actual models to fit the design, not the design to adapt to the models themselves. In most games there is no editor at all. In others you need to have access to expensive programs and years of technical training to even modify maps. That's just not possible to reconcile with CM's game type and end user aims.

4. Terrain simplicity. Because Arma2 and OP Flashpoint are much more simplistic, controlled games form a simulation standpoint, they can take tons of processing shortcuts with the terrain. There's no point in having super detailed terrain modeling underneath the hood if ballistics is just rolling dice, for example. Spotting, LOS, LOF, etc. are all much more easy to deal with in a more dumbed down setting, thereby freeing up processor cycles, RAM, and other hardware bits for graphics.

This is not to say we can't make any more improvements to CM's graphical environment, because we already have (behind the scenes). I'm just saying it will never, ever, in our lifetimes as developers come close to being as photo realistic as some portions of some games have managed to achieve. The important thing is that CM's simulation of that terrain is already FAR superior. Since that's what really matters, things can make steady progress visually and all will be just fine

Steve