Unit Buying Question

[Iron Paul]

The last Combat Mission game I have played was Afrika Corps and in that one the game allowed me to pick units individually all the way down to sharpshooters, mortar teams, etc. I just recently bought CMSF & CMSF: Marines and I see that all I can select is a type of unit. Armor, Infantry, combined, etc. I really preferred the Afrika Corps method of unit purchase and I have to say I have had some very bizarre starting set ups with the CMSF method. AT least one time I had 12 Marine AAV's and nothing else. No infantry, special teams, nothing. There have been a lot of other examples like this but this was the most recent one.

I have also noticed that the maps are not randomized anymore. I have seen the same maps over and over and it's very discouraging to see that the game no longer is able to randomly generate maps like in older version.

Besides using the scenario editor, is there any way around these problems if I just want to play a quick battle (which I prefer over set scenarios)?

[Field Marshal Blücher]

The last Combat Mission game I have played was Afrika Corps and in that one the game allowed me to pick units individually all the way down to sharpshooters, mortar teams, etc. I just recently bought CMSF & CMSF: Marines and I see that all I can select is a type of unit. Armor, Infantry, combined, etc. I really preferred the Afrika Corps method of unit purchase and I have to say I have had some very bizarre starting set ups with the CMSF method. AT least one time I had 12 Marine AAV's and nothing else. No infantry, special teams, nothing. There have been a lot of other examples like this but this was the most recent one.

Yeah, QBs in CMSF are pretty messed up. BFC made some well-intentioned changes that didn't exactly work out very well. QBs are vastly improved in CM:BN (and they are much more like they were in CMx1), so definitely pick that up if you're interested in a good QB experience (once it comes out of course ).

I have also noticed that the maps are not randomized anymore. I have seen the same maps over and over and it's very discouraging to see that the game no longer is able to randomly generate maps like in older version.

The game probably could be coded to randomly generate maps, but with the greater fidelity of maps in CMx2, they would look and play terribly. You pretty much have to make the maps manually in order for them to look and play decently.

Besides using the scenario editor, is there any way around these problems if I just want to play a quick battle (which I prefer over set scenarios)?

No, not really. As I said above, QBs in CMSF kind of suck. CMSF shines in the great campaigns and scens that have been released. Definitely check out scen designers like MikeyD and GeorgeMc's work. Finally, if you want to invest further in CMSF, get the NATO or UK modules. MarkEzra made a bunch of scens for those modules that are basically QBs, but better. The only problem is that you don't get to pick the forces.

[Iron Paul]

Much obliged Field Marshal. I will check out some of the scenarios and see how they play.

[Erwin]

I have the suspicion that many great features of CM1 were eliminated due to the "milpro" influence of attempting to present CM2 as an accurate "poor man's/country's" military training sim.

Many of the features that made the CM1 games such great games (as opposed to a great simulation) have disappeared. And imo CM2 is still not really suitable for training except in some very limited/defined situations with an educator supervising all the trainees' moves.

The vagueness of the manuals and the removal of the xnt CM1 penetration tables almost mandates that one has significant knowledge of the units/weapons systems included plus appropriate tactics for using them.

I have read many what I consider to be "intolerant/arrogant" posts that basically say that "players need to do their own research to find all this out."

So, no realistic attempt to make this a user-friendly game system for average gamers. It will be very interesting to see how CM:BN is received by the average gamer looking for an improvement of the gaming experience they enjoyed with CM1.

I know that I will enjoy the new system no matter what. But, that is after a decade of learning both CM1 and CMSF.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

I have the suspicion that many great features of CM1 were eliminated due to the "milpro" influence of attempting to present CM2 as an accurate "poor man's/country's" military training sim.

Which features are you talking about? :confused:

The QB system was changed to avoid cherrypicking of ridiculous forces, IIRC. The CMSF system tried to fix that by having the computer pick forces off the TO&E rather than by hand. The problem with this is that it didn't pick forces very well. So in CM:BN, the new system will let you cherrypick if you want to, although IIRC it gives you a reduced price if you buy things in realistic formations. They've also improved the computer's picking ability.

The penetration tables for CMSF were not in there at least partly because that data is (AFAIK) classified. For the other stuff, if you really want to know, send Steve a PM or something. I'm pretty sure BFC has never attempted to make CMx2 into a training sim. Steve has said that he did talk to some guys in the military about it, but the military wanted a bunch of features like logistics modeling that BFC had no interest in doing.

Anyway, I'm not 100% sure of anything I just said, since I wasn't testing back when CMSF was originally released (and even then I'm not sure I would have been privy to that information ), but I am 99% sure BFC doesn't change features just to make it more suitable for the military. Again, if you really want to know, I again suggest you PM or email Steve.

[Erwin]

FMB: It's not really a big issue for me one way or another. I was trying to explain why some of the xnt features of CM1 were removed on the basis of "realism." It's the grognard/milpro members who seem to hark on that aspect all the time (while ignoring other aspects of the game that are very "unrealistic" - I have never understood the criteria).

I come from the population that is looking for a great game that has the "the illusion of reality" (similitude), and I find some of the features of CM1 that are missing in CM2 to negatively impact the fun gameplay. I also find some of the new features that increase "realism" to reduce the fun of the game (vs CM1).

CMSF is still a great game, and I enjoy it a lot and recommend it as the 2nd best game of its type out there. But, some of the design choices are puzzling - unless one is in step with the criteria of the grog/milpro population.

eg: "The QB system was changed to avoid cherrypicking of ridiculous forces."

If it's a game, what is the problem with cherry-picking any forces you want? I have been reading posters salivating that they will be able to pit US forces vs the Brits, or SS (when available) vs Wehrmacht. As a game that's fine, but it's also "ridiculous." I am completely puzzled at the logic behind some design choices, and it's pretty normal on these forums to see mutually contradictory arguments for and against features.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

eg: "The QB system was changed to avoid cherrypicking of ridiculous forces."

If it's a game, what is the problem with cherry-picking any forces you want? I have been reading posters salivating that they will be able to pit US forces vs the Brits, or SS (when available) vs Wehrmacht. As a game that's fine, but it's also "ridiculous." I am completely puzzled at the logic behind some design choices, and it's pretty normal on these forums to see mutually contradictory arguments for and against features.

I think it was not so much to avoid "SS vs Wehrmacht" ridiculous (after all, you can do Blue vs Blue QBs if you want as it is) so much as "nothing but bazooka teams and naval guns" ridiculous. Of course, the CMSF picker gives you things that are almost as silly, which is one of the many reasons why they're bringing cherrypicking back. Also, they do realize that some times you just want to have a crazy battle with all sorts of weird stuff in it.

[Erwin]

It's all good, FMB.

It's simply that there are and have always been (at least) two customer bases, and there is a dynamic "war" between us re what features are most valuable to each and how we like to play the game and WHY we play the game.

Personally I believe that too much "realism" leads to a boring and sometimes very technically hard game to play. And I think CM1 hit the happy medium almost perfectly.

In CM1, once one accepted the level of abstraction, nothing stood out as horribly wrong (to me).

The irony of the attempts to make the CM2 system have greater "realism" is that there are so many unrealistic aspects (artillery, snipers, recon vehicles etc.) that are now becoming increasingly "bright orange" and hard to ignore.

[rune]

Erwin,

becasue the game models c2 better now, that cherry picking had to be out, at least for CMSF. Charles pulled some of his brain in the jar magic and him and Steve devised a way to keep the c2 and let you pick forces. [steve designed and Charles coded I believe]

Also you are wrong features were removed, it is a NEW engine, they were never added. Some think that is semantics, but it isn't. New engine means some of the features of cmx1 will eventually be added in, nothing was removed from the game. How could it have been, it is a new engine. Already the kill stats are back, and other cmx1 features are on the list. The decision to add or not comes down to time vs. return. You and I may not agree with Steve/Charles, but it isn't our livelyhood on the line. Personally I will trust their judgement, it may not be always right, but when I have presented a case against them with facts, I have never had a problem with getting stuff into the games. Ask me about german Rifle Grenades someday. I did some serious research on that one.

So, you are right, it comes between simulation and game. I prefer more simulation into the mix, let me see if I could hold off the German Counter attack at neuville Au Plain, dealing with keeping platoons coehsivemess, rather then gaming the system. others will want to play the opposite, and that is fine too, for as many people that play the game, we will have different styles of playing. Like you, I am just happy to have anything to play that keeps my interest... heck, I've been testing since CMBO Alpha. I have faith in the guys that they are going to continue to turn out great games that only get better... and trust me, they hear from me when I think something is going the wrong way.

Didn't mean to get so long winded, but wanted you to know there were legitimate reasons for design decisions. Some didn't work [CMSF Qbs], but most did eventually. Just hang on to your hat, its going to be a great ride.

Rune

[LJFHutch]

CMSF's quick battles aren't too bad now, it doesn't always give the best forces but I find it quite interesting. Sometimes it makes mistakes of course: I played a battle before with mirrored red forces and me and my opponent ended up with a tank heavy force and a fully mech. infantry force

I much prefer the realism over the "fun" aspects, in fact I think you could cut fun right out of the equation. In any case I prefer "engaging", Call of Duty is fun, Combat Mission is engaging Also, I don't think there's ever a point where realism goes too far, you can certainly make a game that's too complicated to be played but that has little to do with realism despite what many think. So long as it's accessible (I know that's been made the dirtiest word around in terms of game development) the level of realism is irrelevant to your enjoyment.

[Erwin]

"I much prefer the realism over the "fun" aspects, in fact I think you could cut fun right out of the equation."

Huh? You people scare me.

I used to develop realistic sims for a living. Realism = loooong periods of boring with short periods of terror.

It's of course simply horses for courses. I really liked the CM1 level of abstraction and I loved the CM Campaigns concept to create an operational/strategic layer that could be used to generate scenarios within a much larger theater of battle. It was a tragic error that the people working on that tried to create a standalone game rather than something simpler like what the Close Combat series offered.

I understand why CM1 was a dead end from development POV, but I wish that CM2 was more like an improved CM1. But, as Rune said, CM2 is a completely different game system with similarities to CM1.

It will be VERY interesting to see the reactions of the CM1 players who didn't want CMSF and who haven't played CM2 but who are drooling over CM:BN when it comes out.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

"I much prefer the realism over the "fun" aspects, in fact I think you could cut fun right out of the equation."

Huh? You people scare me.

I used to develop realistic sims for a living. Realism = loooong periods of boring with short periods of terror.

In this context I think he means a realistic firefight whether this be a small skirmish or a fair sized battle lasting anything up to around four hours. I think the results we tend to get are believable and so are realistic in that sense. We want to game just that short period of action, not the periods between battles. And I find there are times even during the game battle there are periods of lull, particularly in large battles, while both sides move up reserves or conduct artillery bombardments/airstrikes which again is what would happen in the real world.

So far as the original question us concerned I never bothered much with the QB function of the game as these seem far too contrived for my tastes. Player developed scenarios are much more interesting.

[Erwin]

I see your point. But, gosh, it is a game (NOT a realistic simulation by DoD V&V definitions), so shouldn't even the firefight be fun?

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Of course it should be fun. There are plenty of other games that are fun but don't make any honest attempt at realism. Personally I find it hard to enjoy that kind of thing.

CMSF does not have total realism and, since it is a moderns game cannot have this since we don't actually know some of the critical real world data (eg chobham armour. You would, I hope, have this in a DoD simulation. Ideally there would be provision for AA fire amd maybe a few other things as well. But that would require additional programing, raise costs and be another potential source of bugged code. Given that our battlefield is 4000 x 4000m we can abstract most of this into the game design although it would still be nice to have the ability to shoot down aircraft in game. Then there is the question of what you can do with the graphics card capabilities most people have. Dong too much could overload the card and cause the game to crash which is mot fun.

The game does what I want it to do most of the time with only the occasional CTD (must get new drivers for my graphics card) and appears to give results that are believable when compared to reality. What more can you ask for than that?

[roadiemullet]

Hey guys don't mind me while I just wade in, but IMO the biggest gripe with cmsf compared to cmx1 is that the multplayer side of it was transformed completely into a shell of what it was before, sacrificed on the combat mission altar for a much improved single player mode. Don't get me wrong I do like the single player side, after all, there is simply no comparison between old cm and new cm single player. But after a while when you've finished the campaigns you're stuck with the scens and what you can create in the editor there isn't much else. Ok, there are plenty of scenarios to get through and download, but playing against the computer has its limits.

There are only so many scenarios and even replaying the campaigns over and over can be a bit samey. Now some people are very content to only play the single player part - which is great, because it rocks - but you cannot match playing against a real person. Once you've tried a real opponent playing against the computer just isnt the same. The AI just cannot evolve and keep up with your quick stunning mastermind tactics like a real life person can. Getting the AI to waltz straight into a big obvious trap is pretty easy to do. On 'hammerzeit' my last t-72 destroyed all four Leopards simply because the AI couldn't adapt to my dastardly plan of letting them drive around the corner of a building and shooting them from the side. All four made the exact same mistake in the exact same spot.

Also, all the multiplayer goodness of choosing your forces with your tight budget in the hopes of destroying what you think your enemy is picking is gone completely - my favourite part!

Saying that removing it was for the better because it 'stops people picking ridiculous items' is rubbish. No offence but IMO I think that's really lame... Obviously I cannot comment on your personal gaming history but I have never played a match where my opponent has done that to me. Actually, I dont think picking only 'uber' units would be beneficial, as everything has a weakness. I've observed most people pick an ad hoc style mix of units. Besides, thats what the unit cost and budgeting was for in cmx1. Sorry for coming across as really sharp, I don't want to make an internet enemy or anything lol and its really nothing personal as I've heard that argument from others in this forum as well.

Another thing they took away from the series was the ability to tcp/ip wego. I know the file sizes are massive now and take a while to send, but all it has made players who want to play this way do is send it via pbem, which takes even more time as it involves hopping in and out of different programs. I was truly dismayed when I read that this style of gameplay was considered 'niche' and that nobody except a few weird people played like this. I always thought that this was the very defining thing about combat mission. Playing real time while fun and keeps you on your toes is frankly useless for large engagements. When you play big fights I tend to find that micro battles develop in different parts of the map and each one requires your close scrutiny. In wego you can do multiple replays so you can see your suprise 1 in a million rpg-7 hit from different angles and then switch to another part of the map and see why your BTR is in flames. In real time your too busy making sure your scimitar crosses that open gap to notice your precious last javeline team has been replaced with a small smoking crater and where the fire came from.

IMO cmsf should have blown cmx1 out of the water, and yet I still actively play it and so do thousands of others, and thats not just because of the ww2 setting. Its because the game itself is mint and has aspects to it that are missing from cmsf.

A shame its taken a whole new title for some of this stuff to return to the series. I actually really like the modern setting, so I guess I will have to wait until cmx3 before these features come back in for me to be able to 'buy' my Challenger 2. I think that when CMBN comes out a lot (myself included) will leave cmsf multiplayer and move on to the new easier-to-use multiplayer. No more picking your forces in the editor then sending the file with the promise that your opponent won't peak at what you got.

Sorry to moan like an old fart and sorry if I offended anybody, after all this is truly a great game series that has stolen so many hours of my life. I'm thankful that games like this are made in the first place, and even more thankful the developers put up a forum for me to type up my whinging when I should be doing my coursework!

[Mitra76]

I add also my request: after many and many QB with Cmx1 thee QB of CMx2 leave me very sad. THe game is great, very great, but the QB system not. ANy possibilities the system used for CMBN will applied to CMSF? From what I read is not very different, only switched the choice from the AI to Human. Perhaps with a external tool which don't touch the main game exe.