Combat Mission: Battle for Normandy Video AAR

[Sivodsi]

Just watched the new video. Wow, those shootouts across the river were something.

A question: what was the tiger doing in the river? Looked motionless at an angle for a long time, and then we saw it trucking on through. Was that a glitch?

[Zatoichi]

The new one is up now.

...and it's a real eye-opener! Whoever was worried about the AI not using its artillery properly, do have watch! QBs are back, baby!

Great stuff again tyrespawn - it's wonderful seeing your best laid plans get laid to waste!

As for the CoH graphics versus CMBN - I'd have to say, apples and oranges.

Also, sometimes it's hard to detect 'tone' in the written word, and misunderstandings abound - but hey, I don't want to add any more negative vibes to this thread, so I'll shut up.

Can't we all just get along?

[tyrspawn]

Just watched the new video. Wow, those shootouts across the river were something.

A question: what was the tiger doing in the river? Looked motionless at an angle for a long time, and then we saw it trucking on through. Was that a glitch?

Nope it forded the river.

For those who haven't seen the new video, comment/view here:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=95939

[Fetchez la Vache]

The delay was because the crew were putting on their goggles and making sure their towels were on the sun loungers.

There you go. Vacuous remark and stereotyping put-down in one go. Next?

[para]

The new one is up now.

ahh something righteous and postive :-)

[para]

The new one is up now.

ahh something righteous and positive :-)

[Rocky Balboa]

Wow, didn't expect such a vitriolic response. I wasn't trying to say you guys are amateurs; just that it looks that way. I allowed for the fact that graphics quality might have suffered from higher CPU usage on the simulation side; not necessarily from poor developers.

If you weren't trying to say it then why did you? Do you honestly think coming into a company's forum and using words like amateurish would not be taken as being a troll? No I suspect you wanted a response and you got one so don't act like Steve's response was so out of line.

These guys have poured there lives into making this game and if you don't like it then that's fine you can choose to buy it or not but when you use inflammatory rhetoric on this forum, don't be surprised when your called on it.

[Fetchez la Vache]

Internet forums are not a superior medium by which to appreciate the finer nuances of human discourse.

I read that somewhere. Or cut and paste it. I forget.

Chill. :-)

[Kwazydog]

but realistic mechanics aren't always enough.

For *you* you mean...I would say maybe 90% of our customer base would actually rather we spent more time on mechanics over visuals though, particularly the CMx1 fans many of whom suggested that they were actually happy with the visuals as they were. Bottom line is that we can only do what we can do as we can do it, and in general we do spend more coding time on game mechanics vs visuals...if the visuals (along with some of your other concerns looking through your posting history) do end up reducing your enjoyment of the game then its possible that this isnt quite the type of game you are after

Dan

PS : By the way I bet ya wont find more accurately modelled vehicles in any game on the market, hehe.

[Alan8325]

Wow, that second TD at 1:24:00 in the first set of videos sure got lucky taking at least 2 direct penetrating hits and kept going! One of the hits went straight through and out the other side. That might have been a rare circumstance where having light armor was a little more helpful than heavy armor.

[Battlefront.com]

I'm actually a big fan of CoH. It's not trying to be a simulation, so I'm not sure it's fair to judge it as one.

Well, you're the one that's trying to compare the two games as if they are similar. If you do that you have to compare ALL the features, as well as their respective budgets. You can't cherry pick.

Wow, didn't expect such a vitriolic response. I wasn't trying to say you guys are amateurs; just that it looks that way.

Well, I don't see the two as being separable. Even if they were, telling someone their hard, skilled work looks "amateurish" can't exactly be seen as a compliment, can it?

I'm very surprised and disappointed to read this. I thought there would be a little more professional understanding of game development from the battlefront team. So much contempt for such a clearly fantastic game?

Where did I say CoH was a bad game? I said it's a crap portrayal of realistic warfare. And it absolutely is. Airborne troops drop in tactically designated spots, perfectly timed to coordinate with rocket armed tanks engaging at point blank range on postage stamp sized maps? C'mon... they might as well have had sharks armed with frick'n laser beams on their heads. Tanks also don't have hitpoints in real life.

I know exactly what I'm talking about. There's an example of a game with 5 year old technology that looks amazing on 5 year old PCs. Then you have this game which looks like it was designed 10 years ago.

That's an opinion which I don't share. CMBO came out 10 years ago. Go compare that with CM:BN and they aren't even in the same ballpark.

What would be even more fun to do is compare CoH's portrayal of warfare to the older CMBO and it doesn't hold a candle to it. You say that's because they didn't try? Well, we didn't try to sacrifice gameplay and find several tens of millions of Dollars to compete with CoH's graphics. What it comes down to is which GAME, as a game, does one want to play. Take each for what it's worth and don't try to force one into trying to be what it isn't.

Certainly production money/scale has a lot to do with it.

That and they made the game fit the hardware, instead of the hardware stressing to play the game. If your end goal is to have a realistic game, the former option is not available. You can't have realism ride in the back seat to graphics if you care about realism, just like you can't let graphics ride in the back seat to realism if you want graphics to be maximized. Obviously CoH chose differently than we did.

I'm not trying to say it's something that's in your control (I'm not a programmer), it's just disappointing, as was your response.

My response was measured to fit with the initial post.

I'll still enjoy the game I'm sure. I did enjoy CMBO and CMBB back in the day, but realistic mechanics aren't always enough. I have to be in the right mood to forgo graphical immersion and play something entirely based on mechanics. I guess I was just hoping for both.

Give us $20,000,000 and a minimum platform of a Quad Core with a 1GB video card... we could probably come close to meeting your expectations.

I like being sucked into the moment and imagining I'm there, watching a scene unfold and trying to direct troops on the battlefield. I'll withhold further judgement till i get the game however. Here's hoping it's awesome enough to suspend my disbelief

If you love CoH as much as you say you do, then you should be well practiced in the ability to suspend belief because it has no relation to real warfare other than their 3D unit representations (which are poorer quality than ours, I have to add).

Steve

[Chad Harrison]

I would say maybe 90% of our customer base would actually rather we spent more time on mechanics over visuals though, particularly the CMx1 fans many of whom suggested that they were actually happy with the visuals as they were.

Count me into that statistic.

Visuals are great and all, but *dont* make great games. Why? Because if a games appeal to you 90% based on its visuals, and 10% on game depth, then as soon as the next big, mass market game comes out with better visuals and little depth, you will dump the first and go for the second. On the other hand, when you have a game that is 90% game depth and 10% visual, you never have to worry about it getting old because the game depth is why you are there. Look at War in the Pacific. My civil engineering software at work has better graphics, but the game has such depth that its a game you can play for years.

CM:BN looks great, dont get me wrong - especially Normandy! But thats not what has me hooked into it. Its the thousand and one things beyond the visuals that makes it a winner in my book.

Oh, and PBEM.

Mmmmmmmmmmmm. PBEM. So whos up for 2000 Pt Short 75 ME? Dont forget to report the game to Rugged Defense!

Ah the memories.

Chad

[Battlefront.com]

Because if a games appeal to you 90% based on its visuals, and 10% on game depth, then as soon as the next big, mass market game comes out with better visuals and little depth, you will dump the first and go for the second.

I remember when RTS games first got their start. I was at Sierra and they were trying to pressure us into changing Civil War Generals 2 into being RT so we could ride the wave and make a ton of money. Then Christmas came around and there were (IIRC) 43 RTS games released within a few months of each other. Needless to say only one or two of them did really well, a few of them did OK, the rest did far worse than our "old fashioned" turn based wargame did.

I love a good RTS or FPS game. I just don't have time to play them any more

Steve

[SNAFU]

I remember when I thought Gato for my Commodore 64 was cool. I also remember playing the Squad Leader series and wishing they could put it on a computer. Then came the Close Combat series--"Not bad," I thought. Finally I was introduced to BF:BO...

And now it'll come with a full metal jacket! Life just keeps gettin' better!

[Macisle]

Because if a games appeal to you 90% based on its visuals, and 10% on game depth, then as soon as the next big, mass market game comes out with better visuals and little depth, you will dump the first and go for the second.

Count me in that, too. Heck, I'm not even a gamer really at this point, but Battlefront's vision and hard work have made them the one company and game I have to support. Why? Because they offer the most realistic WWII-based tactical combat video game available and I want to experience that.

For the reasons stated by Steve (budget and minimum system specs), they cannot currently include "cutting edge" graphics. However, the graphics as they stand are pleasing for most of the customer base and will I'm sure, be enhanced by community modding.

With my new high-end rig, I've recently tried a number of game demos with hi-end graphics like CoD. Do they look nice? Yes. Graphics have improved a lot since my last upgrade. Do they play well? Answer: they play exactly the same as they did before--which leaves me yawning.

I haven't played it, but I checked out some vids on CoH. Jeez... That's not even in the same universe as CM. C'mon, man. Yeah, the graphics are nice, but it looks like it would make the first Close Combat seem realistic in comparison. It's total sugar.

One last thing, using purchase points as an example to compare realism levels is apples to oranges. That's saying, a game that sets up an unrealistic ability to choose units and then presents a completely unrealistic battle experience is the same as a game that sets up an unrealistic ability to choose units and then presents a battlefield with unmatched realism, in which real-world tactics can and do work.

Okay, lurker throws potato-masher and disappears back into forest...

Macisle

[Jaws]

Count me in that, too. Heck, I'm not even a gamer really at this point, but Battlefront's vision and hard work have made them the one company and game I have to support. Why? Because they offer the most realistic WWII-based tactical combat video game available and I want to experience that.

For the reasons stated by Steve (budget and minimum system specs), they cannot currently include "cutting edge" graphics. However, the graphics as they stand are pleasing for most of the customer base and will I'm sure, be enhanced by community modding.

With my new high-end rig, I've recently tried a number of game demos with hi-end graphics like CoD. Do they look nice? Yes. Graphics have improved a lot since my last upgrade. Do they play well? Answer: they play exactly the same as they did before--which leaves me yawning.

I haven't played it, but I checked out some vids on CoH. Jeez... That's not even in the same universe as CM. C'mon, man. Yeah, the graphics are nice, but it looks like it would make the first Close Combat seem realistic in comparison. It's total sugar.

One last thing, using purchase points as an example to compare realism levels is apples to oranges. That's saying, a game that sets up an unrealistic ability to choose units and then presents a completely unrealistic battle experience is the same as a game that sets up an unrealistic ability to choose units and then presents a battlefield with unmatched realism, in which real-world tactics can and do work.

Okay, lurker throws potato-masher and disappears back into forest...

Macisle

OMG 8 post in 11 years Your voice counts twice!!

[Fetchez la Vache]

Mmmmm. Men of War visuals with CM mechanics. Mmmmm.

Company of Heroes is a game, like chess. Abstracted but pretty.

Combat Mission is more a simulation. Less pretty but less abstracted.

Horses for courses. No point arguing about in my opinion. :-)

[Volodnikov]

I like my wargames with "amateurish" graphics for the same reasons I prefer World At War over Patton 360. World War II to me is not shiny and new. Games like Combat Mission, West Front, Close Combat, Sudden Strike, Hidden and Dangerous, Steel Panthers, and others have always made me feel like I'm discovering World War II all over again. Company of Heroes feels like any other modern RTS in terms of atmosphere and immersion.

Playing Sudden Strike II today, I spent four hours trying to capture this hill and at least another hour positioning all of my troops, vehicles, and captured equipment in preparation for a Soviet counter-attack. Are the graphics on par with Crysis? Nope, but I'm still loving it in 2011.

[RogCBrand]

I like my wargames with "amateurish" graphics for the same reasons I prefer World At War over Patton 360. World War II to me is not shiny and new. Games like Combat Mission, West Front, Close Combat, Sudden Strike, Hidden and Dangerous, Steel Panthers, and others have always made me feel like I'm discovering World War II all over again. Company of Heroes feels like any other modern RTS in terms of atmosphere and immersion.

Playing Sudden Strike II today, I spent four hours trying to capture this hill and at least another hour positioning all of my troops, vehicles, and captured equipment in preparation for a Soviet counter-attack. Are the graphics on par with Crysis? Nope, but I'm still loving it in 2011.

I still love CMBB and CMAK and even on rare occasions go back and play the old Steel Panthers! If something is really, really good, it never dies! Hopefully CMBN joins those games in the Game Hall of Fame!

[Barkhorn1x]

CoH?

Just take a look at this vid:

I could not stop laughing.

[AslakH]

After I got CMBO some ten years ago, I couldn't just go back to Command & Conquer.

I have many friends that think good graphics equals realism.

CoH is just one of those micro-manager games, following the same recipe as starcraft and the likes.

What is there to discuss? Let the children have their CoH fling, while us adults continue our long-lasting CM relationship (and, probably, marriage after CMBN).

[para]

After I got CMBO some ten years ago, I couldn't just go back to Command & Conquer.

I have many friends that think good graphics equals realism.

CoH is just one of those micro-manager games, following the same recipe as starcraft and the likes.

What is there to discuss? Let the children have their CoH fling, while us adults continue our long-lasting CM relationship (and, probably, marriage after CMBN).

Pretty much what i was going to say COH is a fun childs game. Yes i do have it :-)

[Boche]

CM seires relates to a certain type of gamer, COH to another, both are great games and do well at what they were designed to do. /debate!

[AslakH]

I don't say that CoH is for "retards lol", but as boche said, they relate to different types of gamers. And I never use "lol".

CM is more like ArmA2, and CoH is more like CoD. Somewhat.

I just want CMBN now. I feel like a child asking "are we there yet?" every twenty seconds. I tried playing APK1943 to hold me over in January, but it's so lacking in many key aspects. Did anyone try the same?

[Magpie_Oz]

I tried playing APK1943 to hold me over in January, but it's so lacking in many key aspects. Did anyone try the same?

No I have been talking to my wife again.