Are these features in?

[Destraex1]

I am not as worried about experience, i am more worried about the camera. The camera is what has shied many of my friends away after playing the demo.

RTS camera style like in the total war games is what i want. I dont like having to guess at the edge of the screen what point goes left and what does not, its clunky and its guess work at best. Not good in a

real time firefight.

I really hope they also get rid of the menu resolution restrictions. I hate reading that tiny writing and looking at the tiny map centred on a massive screen.

Also trenches? TOW2 did that well.

[gibsonm]

Also trenches? TOW2 did that well.

Well if your idea of “doing it well” is the same as this person’s experience (from the ToW2 Vs CM:BN thread):

TOW is in some ways a great game but there are a couple of aspects that spoilt it for me. Firstly, all the defensive works (trenches etc) were fixed, if you were defending they were the only defences available. To make it worse they were often poorly located. Secondly, if you decided to move some of your defending forces to alternative locations or use a mobile defence the game could not be finished, the attacking AI would simply stop the action. So defensively its very scripted, play by numbers. After you work it out the challenge is lost and it all becomes a bit pointless.

Then yes the trenches in CM:BN are better than those in ToW2 because for starters they aren’t fixed in one location.

[Erwin]

Yes guys, we all know that it's completely Steve and BFC's decision what to put in and leave out and most of us know it's usually a LOT of work to program the "simplest" things.

So, these forums are a steam-letting process by folks who clearly love the game and honestly believe that their suggestions would improve it.

As the "loyal opposition" re a few features, we're merely illuminating issues, based on extensive experiences with other successful games, that in our opinion would make the CM series better.

There is a conflict between the "realism" school and the "design for effect" school. However, BFC does seem to be in the "realism" school for better or worse. That's fine. However, that limits the CM series to a very small niche market of military types and super hardcore wargamers. Again, totally BFC's decision.

But, even in the "realism" camp, while each scenario of a CM game is tactical in nature, in a campaign that could easily be thought of as covering weeks or months of time (between battles) - see what I mean?

Hence, I don't see any distraction from "reality" for units to be able to be promoted or gain skills between battles. One thing is sure, this is the sort of feature that has worked very successfully in other games and that would broaden the audience base and help bring in fresh blood into this niche market.

Too late for CM2, but maybe for CMSF2.

[scottie]

Hmm, i will admit the idea of units gaining experience appeals to me too but only if its done correctly (which BF tend to excel at so i trust their judgement if they ever move in this direction). Have posted on this before , simply feely it would help create an affinity between me and Y squad or X platoon ... I would keep an eye on them , keep them safe. Actually the idea of protecting troops in combat rather than throwing away units is silly actions i find appealing in a game ... works well in CMSF were troop loses actually matter to the end objective.

If experience was added between X amount of battles i would also like to see a grander CMC (combat mission campaign) style of strategic map that would allow the movement of unit objects (platoon, company, battalion, task force, even regiment?) around a large map strategic map ending in combat missions. Completely understand this is unlikely to happen but wow what a product that would be ... regimental movement down to squad micro management in tactical battles. Understandable it took 10 years to get as far as CMBN so im happy with what we are getting. The raw ability to simulate tactical battles accurately is at the core of CM products and that to me is what keeps me playing more then anything. The bigger and more elaborate this product gets the better , BF know what they are doing.

[Battlefront.com]

I'll say this again... if we tended towards the "gamey" stuff I think most of you guys would go find something else to play. Being firmly rooted in "realism" is what gives Combat Mission it's uniqueness and focus. Otherwise we could spend weeks coding medium bombers sweeping into the field of view and bombing or unloading paratroopers like so many other games do for Normandy.

There's always a gray area about what features are too gamey and which ones are too groggy. We have managed to satisfy both sides very well over the years. In fact, I'd guess that we've spent more cumulative time doing stuff that the more casual wargamers want to see compared to what the hardcore Grognard wants. Oh, like 3D for one They only "wanted it" after they got it, and some still don't want it. Same with 1:1 soldier depiction.

There are only so many hours in the day to work on stuff. Gaining experience is not a bad idea if done realistically. It's a bad idea if done unrealistically. Either way it takes time to do which we don't have set aside for it, and that's why it isn't getting done for CM:BN.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Hey Steve, I thought there were individual stats for the little guys? Can you otherwise explain how the leadership bonuses are "created" when the CO gets killed?

When a leader gets killed he is replaced by someone in the Team. The stats are created on-the-fly based on the unit he belongs to. A really crappy unit is likely to produce a crappy replacement. A really good unit, which happened to have a crappy leader to start with, might wind up with a better one.

Why have campaigns at all? Narrative is important also, but perhaps more for some players than others. But that doesn't mean we turn CM into an RPG...

We've had probably 10000 posts on this topic, so there's obviously a big discussion to have here. The basic answer is:

We could develop three entirely unique campaign systems, devote 1 year to each, and still have a large number of people saying they all suck. So yes, on the one hand even we ask ourselves "why bother?" since there is no way to make more than a minority of our customer base reasonably happy. But no campaign at all would make most of our customer base actively unhappy. The current campaign system is decent and can be improved upon over time. Including adding a realistic treatment of experience gain between battles. But it takes time to develop and we had bigger fish to fry with the Normandy setting itself, QuickBattles, etc.

I think if we sent out a little survey card with each game we sold, asking people to specify if they played the Campaigns we ship I think the overwhelming majority would say "yes". And that's with the "as is" system we have.

Steve

[vincere]

Hmm, i will admit the idea of units gaining experience appeals to me too but only if its done correctly (which BF tend to excel at so i trust their judgement if they ever move in this direction). Have posted on this before , simply feely it would help create an affinity between me and Y squad or X platoon ... I would keep an eye on them , keep them safe. Actually the idea of protecting troops in combat rather than throwing away units is silly actions i find appealing in a game ... works well in CMSF were troop loses actually matter to the end objective.

If experience was added between X amount of battles i would also like to see a grander CMC (combat mission campaign) style of strategic map that would allow the movement of unit objects (platoon, company, battalion, task force, even regiment?) around a large map strategic map ending in combat missions. Completely understand this is unlikely to happen but wow what a product that would be ... regimental movement down to squad micro management in tactical battles. Understandable it took 10 years to get as far as CMBN so im happy with what we are getting. The raw ability to simulate tactical battles accurately is at the core of CM products and that to me is what keeps me playing more then anything. The bigger and more elaborate this product gets the better , BF know what they are doing.

Is it my perception or has Steve mellowed on this. I recall very clear "no's" to looking at adding experience and more recently for looking at campaigns again.

If you've mellowed, is it because having the new engine allowing more games will eventually make it possible for more exotic stuff?

scottie's post mirrors my thoughts on some of this. After some years of coming back to CM really clicked, but always has the limit that the battles mean nothing after the map review and leaves an empty, sometimes repetative feeling. At some point, having the battles take place in a wider user campaign perspective could be the thing that has the single largest 'realism' impact on how tactical battles are played.

[British Tommy]

Is is my imagination, or do some beta testers insist on making unhelpful snarky posts on every thread. Over defensive beta testers will not make this a great place to be. They were very culpable in destroying the early CMSF forums IMHO. Reading a few threads today I can see the same shaping up here. Nice job.

Good to see other people have noticed this. Hopefully more people can post here without being jumped on.

[scottie]

Is it my perception or has Steve mellowed on this. I recall very clear "no's" to looking at adding experience and more recently for looking at campaigns again.

I think you are right, i thought this too , its encouraging

[Battlefront.com]

I have "mellowed" on the concept of Experience gain between battles. In CMx1 it was absolutely unrealistic to have them in the Operations type campaign system we developed. And any CMx2 Campaign that covers a very short period of time is also probably not a realistic platform for Experience gain. Thankfully the CMx2 engine does have some basic element which should help us solve those problems and realistically increase Experience over the course of a Campaign.

Having said that, I'm still 100% against adding Experience gain to units that simply don't deserve it. This is as much about realism as it is about playability. What do I mean by that?

When I played a Steel Panthers campaign, about mid way through the bulk of my core units were all the highest level of experience possible. And that meant I was going into battle with a force that seriously overmatched the enemy's. This then started to get into what we call a "feedback loop" within the system. The better my experience and equipment, the less likely I would take casualties. This in turn meant that the enemy units became easier and easier to destroy, which in turn meant I took fewer casualties, which meant my forces got better still, which meant I took even less casualties, which... I think you get the picture!

I never completed the campaign because I was falling asleep during battles and still winning with little difficulty. It just wasn't interesting any more.

So it is very, very important that Experience not increase more than it should or the Campaign's balance will be thrown off in a way that isn't easy to correct for.

Steve

[Barkhorn1x]

When I played a Steel Panthers...The better my experience and equipment, the less likely I would take casualties. This in turn meant that the enemy units became easier and easier to destroy, which in turn meant I took fewer casualties...

Steve

I hope you were playing as the Germans - they are Uber as everyone knows.

[MeatEtr]

I know it's probably way too early to announce what major feature changes/additions will be in the Bulge family or East Front. But that won't stop me from asking, so what changes are planned for the next family? Or more precisely, when can we expect more features/tweaks/additions to campaigns?

[Lanzfeld]

...and if you are in the answering mood Steve perhaps you could clear something up that is bothering me?

You said that "close combat has been improved for CM:BN" when we were in the context of discussing hand to hand combat. Just to get this straight: If two squads are close to each other with no ammo they will still kill each other (no animations) correct?

[dan/california]

The thing about experience is it only improves things to certain point then goes the other way. Too much time under fire eventually causes shell shock/PTSD in almost everybody. This had to be a huge problem for the Germans especially with the endless engagements on two fronts. Their was an excellent British study on this I can't seem to pull down out of the ether at this moment.

[vincere]

The thing about experience is it only improves things to certain point then goes the other way. Too much time under fire eventually causes shell shock/PTSD in almost everybody. This had to be a huge problem for the Germans especially with the endless engagements on two fronts. Their was an excellent British study on this I can't seem to pull down out of the ether at this moment.

Was that the study resulting from the perception that veteran Desert Rat divisions where a bit slow in reaching objectives compared to green divisions?

If it is, I recall that they were task slow, but took less casualties. Somebody ("somebody" is poor I know) compared this to SS formations and made a case that yes they took objectives but with heavy casualties.

[Michael Emrys]

I know it's probably way too early to announce what major feature changes/additions will be in the Bulge family or East Front. But that won't stop me from asking, so what changes are planned for the next family? Or more precisely, when can we expect more features/tweaks/additions to campaigns?

Couldn't significant if small changes be made also as modules are added within a family? Seems like that occurred with SF (I haven't played that so I am going on what I have read here).

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

Combat exhaustion is something very real for all sides. Very well studied and documented, especially from WW2 on.

At some point combat veterans' stress coping mechanisms fail. PTSD is a symptom of failure, but not collapse. Collapse is what the "1000 yard stare" is. Anybody who has read/seen All's Quiet On the Western Front will remember the ending.

The US conducted a big study during WW2 and they found about 1 month exposed to the chance of combat (i.e. "take this village" and finding nobody counts) was when the soldier started to lose his edge. Not all, of course, but one can only talk in generalities when hundreds of thousands of men are in the sample group.

The solution was to pull them back out of the frontline, but not out of the combat area. They found that taking a soldier right out of the front and shipping him off to Paris to get laid screwed with the soldier's head too much. But being behind the front, knowing that he didn't have to worry about snipers and mortar rounds, was enough to recharge the stress batteries.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Features added to CM:SF fit into two categories:

1. Core game fixes - the game was brand new so there were no previous opportunities to make such fixes and it made sense to put them in as soon as we had them instead of waiting until Normandy.

2. Module needs - various feature needs came up because the new content being added required some changes. For example, the British 50mm mortar required new indirect fire behavior not previously needed.

CM:BN will see #2 as often as necessary, but won't see much of #1 because the game system is stable and full featured. Notice I said "full featured", not "feature complete". CMx2 will never, ever be "feature complete" in our customers' eyes. We could work on it for another 10 years and someone would still complain that a so-called critical feature needs to be added or they won't be happy. We are, if nothing else, realists

Steve

[Erwin]

Thanks for taking another look at the "gaining experience" feature.

Given that it's quite possible to have scenarios in a CM2 campaign take place days, weeks, months apart, I really hope you can make it work. I liked the feature in Silent Service, altho' you are correct they make it too easy and getting it to feel "right/realistic" in CM2 or CMSF2 is the challenge.

[sawomi]

Anyone remebers RobO's Quick Campaign Rules for CMBB? With new Quick Battle Generator I see coming something like this out of the comunity for CMBN.

[Praetori]

The issue for me with CM has never been the lack of "experience points".

But as many have mentioned the game does little more for continuity than portray single tactical engagements loosely connected with very little player insight. Don't get me wrong the CMx2 campaign system is a HUGE improvement over CMx1 but I'm a little grieved that we lost "Operations" instead (those two combined would have been awesome).

What I've always missed in CM however are the tactical considerations you're forced to when you're short a few tanks in a mission because you spent too much fuel or ammo taking an objective in the former (or took a risk going through a bog and got stuck). ie thinking more than one mission ahead.

Even if the timeframe allows for little realistic experience gain there is still the issue with equipment and men (I'd love to be able to move a Platoon commander with a broken tank and put his crew in a working subordinate vehicle instead).

Customizing the battlegroup before/between battles (merging low strength platoons, attaching a sniper from Fox to Able, move most ammo from Dog to Bravo company as you intend to use them for fire support and so forth) would do A LOT for the immersion and IMO make campaigns even more fun.

The ability to decorate a soldier who's blown up 5 panzers with a medal would add a lot to the immersion (gamey morale boost modeled or not).

Tracking soldiers and vehicles shouldn't be a purpose in itself (at least not for a game like CM) but the possibility to do so, even if it was just through simple API's available for extract at the end of a mission would spawn a lot of possibilities (Meta Campaigns comes to mind).

Sure it's all about risk vs reward in a game development sense but I have a hard time imagining that it would net less players compared to time spent on other features.

Just my two cents

[scottie]

The issue for me with CM has never been the lack of "experience points".

But as many have mentioned the game does little more for continuity than portray single tactical engagements loosely connected with very little player insight. Don't get me wrong the CMx2 campaign system is a HUGE improvement over CMx1 but I'm a little grieved that we lost "Operations" instead (those two combined would have been awesome).

What I've always missed in CM however are the tactical considerations you're forced to when you're short a few tanks in a mission because you spent too much fuel or ammo taking an objective in the former (or took a risk going through a bog and got stuck). ie thinking more than one mission ahead.

Even if the timeframe allows for little realistic experience gain there is still the issue with equipment and men (I'd love to be able to move a Platoon commander with a broken tank and put his crew in a working subordinate vehicle instead).

Customizing the battlegroup before/between battles (merging low strength platoons, attaching a sniper from Fox to Able, move most ammo from Dog to Bravo company as you intend to use them for fire support and so forth) would do A LOT for the immersion and IMO make campaigns even more fun.

The ability to decorate a soldier who's blown up 5 panzers with a medal would add a lot to the immersion (gamey morale boost modeled or not).

Tracking soldiers and vehicles shouldn't be a purpose in itself (at least not for a game like CM) but the possibility to do so, even if it was just through simple API's available for extract at the end of a mission would spawn a lot of possibilities (Meta Campaigns comes to mind).

Sure it's all about risk vs reward in a game development sense but I have a hard time imagining that it would net less players compared to time spent on other features.

Just my two cents

Wow some cracking suggestions there, especially amending a battle group, attaching units and moving ammo etc. Outside the scope of a single combat mission but very much a tactical consideration in-between missions and im sure any commander spends more time on this sort of admin than engaging the enemy. There is no doubt CMBN (CMSF) is the best at what it does but it would (IMO) really benefit from some higher strategic layers to wrap it up into the ultimate.

[Rocky Balboa]

There is no doubt CMBN (CMSF) is the best at what it does but it would (IMO) really benefit from some higher strategic layers to wrap it up into the ultimate.

Agreed, I would really like to see some kind of deeper strategic layer tying the campaign missions together. If this could be done as a module, I'd pay extra for it. Of course how much I would pay would depend on how detailed it was.

I'd pay full boat for a complete BN, Regt, Div size strategic game with coop support and random Cmx2 battle generator. I know this ground has been plowed before but not with CMx2 to my knowledge. In any case it doesn't hurt to till it again .....

[Battlefront.com]

There's a couple hundred threads about Campaign stuff over the years, and a bunch over in the CM:SF area specifically.

The short of it is some people REALLY want this, some people don't. Of those who do there is no real consensus as to the exact approach. Some want us to focus on making more detailed shorter Operations (as we had in CMx1), others want us to go way beyond what Close Combat Had. And endless variety within.

Because Combat Mission is a tactical game and that is where we MUST spend our limited time and resources, I can tell you that we will never have a "Strategic Layer" to the game such as Close Combat had. Never. It would be just about the worst possible thing we could ever do for our collective customer base. The "Strategic Layer" is basically a game on its own. It would require a year just to make an acceptable one, and probably another couple of release cycles to get it so most people that asked for it would stop telling us how much it sucks. And throughout this time the tactical aspects of Combat Mission would be neglected. Just like what happened with Close Combat.

Therefore, a Strategic Layer is not on the table as a possibility. And no amount of lobbying for it will change that because we already know what we're up against and it's not going to change simply because someone asked us about it for the 10000th time.

Instead we will continue to refine the existing Campaign system as CMx2 is enhanced, but it will never grow into something that detracts from the tactical combat which is why Combat Mission exists.

Steve

[para]

Good to see other people have noticed this. Hopefully more people can post here without being jumped on.

amen brother