Combat Mission status

Started by RyanE, May 27, 2018, 02:09:59 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RyanE

SB has some similar issues to CM in that it doesn't take complete advantage of modern PC architecture.  But they are continuously improving both the graphics engine and the game.  Every release moves the engine forward.  Just in the last few years, they added 64 bit support, improved lighting, improved textures, and significantly improved terrain.  They are planning on releasing a major terrain upgrade that should bring the terrain engine into a very modern look.  This is because they made the conscious decision to rewrite significant parts of the engine.  And that all hinges on having chosen the right technology and the willingness to invest in the labor for changing the engine.

Of course, SB has the military contracts backing it.  That is good and bad.  While it helps their funding, it also slows major improvements at times.  BFC, if they were a little more savvy, could also have gone down the DoD route a little further.  But there is limited applicability for CM's mechanics in the army and Steve just seems to not want to pursue it.

And, as much as I hate the dongle, it is no worse than the hoops I jump through for CM's licensing system.

Michael Dorosh

As devil's advocate, why would you need a map bigger than 4km by 4km for a battalion-level simulation? All you're doing is making the advance to contact longer.

Staggerwing

Quote from: RyanE on June 20, 2018, 03:31:41 PM
These look pretty good.

I have never embedded a pic before so here are a couple links to some pics...

http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/55-we-love-screenshots/?do=findComment&comment=182878

http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/55-we-love-screenshots/?do=findComment&comment=181606

http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/55-we-love-screenshots/?do=findComment&comment=175229

Before anyone says it...You can easily play SB at the same level as CM, especially after the last update.  You can play in vehicle, outside vehicle, by platoon/squad, from an elevated position (as in CM), or by map (looks more like a real map).  I play hours and never enter a vehicle.





Makes me want to insert my dongle in the nearest USB port...
Vituð ér enn - eða hvat?  -Voluspa

Nothing really rocks and nothing really rolls and nothing's ever worth the cost...

"Don't you look at me that way..." -the Abyss
 
'When searching for a meaningful embrace, sometimes my self respect took second place' -Iggy Pop, Cry for Love

... this will go down on your permanent record... -the Violent Femmes, 'Kiss Off'-

"I'm not just anyone, I'm not just anyone-
I got my time machine, got my 'electronic dream!"
-Sonic Reducer, -Dead Boys

RyanE

Let's face it...  In CM you are dropped in right in range of most of the weapons on the board.  There is almost no planning.  SB lets you do some recon, form a plan, and maneuver.  You don't have to use a 4x4 map in SB.  In fact, you can use a large map and restrict it to a smaller area.  But you have the option and the game can handle it if you want to do it.  I have seen SB scenarios where you only control one part of the entire larger blue force and the AI handles flanks.  The AI can be scripted by a designer with an immense amount of options to react to things happening around the map.

It took me a long time to change how I built scenarios from CM to SB.  I was so used to having units start in range and the firefights starting within minutes.  In SB, you have the freedom to not do that.  I can't count the number of CM scenarios I have played where either starting forces or reinforcements enter the board in battle or even in the middle of an enemy formation.

Michael Dorosh

Quote from: RyanE on June 23, 2018, 07:53:35 PM
Let's face it...  In CM you are dropped in right in range of most of the weapons on the board.  There is almost no planning.  SB lets you do some recon, form a plan, and maneuver.  You don't have to use a 4x4 map in SB.  In fact, you can use a large map and restrict it to a smaller area.  But you have the option and the game can handle it if you want to do it.  I have seen SB scenarios where you only control one part of the entire larger blue force and the AI handles flanks.  The AI can be scripted by a designer with an immense amount of options to react to things happening around the map.

It took me a long time to change how I built scenarios from CM to SB.  I was so used to having units start in range and the firefights starting within minutes.  In SB, you have the freedom to not do that.  I can't count the number of CM scenarios I have played where either starting forces or reinforcements enter the board in battle or even in the middle of an enemy formation.

I'd say blame the scenario designers rather than the game. For World War II weapons, 4km isn't battle range. I think 1km would be pushing it, certainly in western Europe. (Desert and Russian steppe are exceptions, and neither theatre has been covered yet.) You may have a point for CMSF2, but that might just speak more to the fact the engine is less suited for modern warfare than its bread and butter.

The point of CM was never to have a large recon and operations planning element - it's really the wrong scale for that, especially given the limitations of the C2 links. It's designed to let you fight a battalion. Most battalions had extremely limited recon capabilities (a British battalion in Normandy had a single platoon of scouts and snipers).

Sounds like the criticism is that CM isn't more like TacOps. I'd suggest to get that experience...you play TacOps. :-)

Michael Dorosh

Looks like Steve has discussed this at BFC:

Note about map size and engagement ranges. The notion that massive maps are a prerequisite for modern combat is false. Engagement ranges have changed very little since WW2. A King Tiger was just as capable of hitting a target at 4km as an Abrams. What's changed is the effectiveness and flexibility of engagement at longer ranges, making a 4km shot from an Abrams far more likely to hit a target at 4km than a King Tiger. But check out modern AARs from real warfare and you're going to be hard pressed to find 4km engagements and even those aren't going to be all that fun to simulate (i.e. tank sniping at long range is BORING). The desire for larger maps is fine, just don't confuse opinion with fact when it comes to their necessity.


Allied studies showed that German tank and anti-tank units in NW Europe generally opened fire at ranges of I think 500 to 700 metres. I suspect due to the terrain and LOS limitations but also AIUI to assist in accurate gunnery, and most likely to prevent Allied units from simply going to ground and calling down artillery and air on them.

Bardolph

QuoteA King Tiger was just as capable of hitting a target at 4km as an Abrams. What's changed is the effectiveness and flexibility of engagement at longer ranges, making a 4km shot from an Abrams far more likely to hit a target at 4km than a King Tiger.

Do what?

demjansk1942

Quote from: Skoop on May 28, 2018, 12:35:14 AM
Battlefront never figured out that they could put their games on steam and have occasional 50% off sales and everyone in the whole world would probably own a copy...They could never see past their own noses when it came to marketing or strategy.  What's better, 10,000 owning a copy at 50.00 or 500,000 owning a copy at 20.00 ?  The world has left battlefront behind unfortunately.  I do like the idea of the catalog available on gog though.

So true

demjansk1942

Quote from: mikeck on May 28, 2018, 12:18:52 PM
Quote from: Toonces on May 28, 2018, 09:32:53 AM
If Steam can work for Matrix and Eagle Dynamics, I can't see how a transition to Steam would be a bad thing for BFC.
B17




I seriously don't understand why a company WOULDNT go to steam. I don't bother with Battlefront games ever since the disaster I had trying to update to the new engine and a subsequent patching info. The latter never resolved by a company that didn't seem to care. Regardless, I'd buy every single one of their games if they were on steam since I don't have to worry about buying patches, DRM and activating subscription crap

I agree, I was a big supporter of all their games.  However, all the upgrades and patching problems, forget it.  I like Steam and it makes it really easy.  That's the Key word = EASY!!!  If it ain't easy, most will not bother.  Maybe Matrix could get the titles or release the code for mods.

RyanE

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on June 23, 2018, 09:54:21 PM
Quote from: RyanE on June 23, 2018, 07:53:35 PM
Let's face it...  In CM you are dropped in right in range of most of the weapons on the board.  There is almost no planning.  SB lets you do some recon, form a plan, and maneuver.  You don't have to use a 4x4 map in SB.  In fact, you can use a large map and restrict it to a smaller area.  But you have the option and the game can handle it if you want to do it.  I have seen SB scenarios where you only control one part of the entire larger blue force and the AI handles flanks.  The AI can be scripted by a designer with an immense amount of options to react to things happening around the map.

It took me a long time to change how I built scenarios from CM to SB.  I was so used to having units start in range and the firefights starting within minutes.  In SB, you have the freedom to not do that.  I can't count the number of CM scenarios I have played where either starting forces or reinforcements enter the board in battle or even in the middle of an enemy formation.

I'd say blame the scenario designers rather than the game. For World War II weapons, 4km isn't battle range. I think 1km would be pushing it, certainly in western Europe. (Desert and Russian steppe are exceptions, and neither theatre has been covered yet.) You may have a point for CMSF2, but that might just speak more to the fact the engine is less suited for modern warfare than its bread and butter.

The point of CM was never to have a large recon and operations planning element - it's really the wrong scale for that, especially given the limitations of the C2 links. It's designed to let you fight a battalion. Most battalions had extremely limited recon capabilities (a British battalion in Normandy had a single platoon of scouts and snipers).

Sounds like the criticism is that CM isn't more like TacOps. I'd suggest to get that experience...you play TacOps. :-)

No, you play Steel Beasts.  The main issue is that in large scenarios you have several issues in CM...

1) Large maps are dogs in modern computers
2) Even in some of the larger maps in CM, those units start right on top of each other
3) it might be theoretically the designers fault, but they aren't given the tools needed to do anything else

I love playing CM.  It is a great game.  But it has and mostly always will be a computer version of table top miniatures.  Steel Beats is more like a tactical combat simulator.  It can be hard and mundane at times.  But if you want to see some realistic (I think) combined arms combat, its pretty much the only game in town.

Destraex

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on June 23, 2018, 09:54:21 PM
Quote from: RyanE on June 23, 2018, 07:53:35 PM
Let's face it...  In CM you are dropped in right in range of most of the weapons on the board.  There is almost no planning.  SB lets you do some recon, form a plan, and maneuver.  You don't have to use a 4x4 map in SB.  In fact, you can use a large map and restrict it to a smaller area.  But you have the option and the game can handle it if you want to do it.  I have seen SB scenarios where you only control one part of the entire larger blue force and the AI handles flanks.  The AI can be scripted by a designer with an immense amount of options to react to things happening around the map.

It took me a long time to change how I built scenarios from CM to SB.  I was so used to having units start in range and the firefights starting within minutes.  In SB, you have the freedom to not do that.  I can't count the number of CM scenarios I have played where either starting forces or reinforcements enter the board in battle or even in the middle of an enemy formation.

I'd say blame the scenario designers rather than the game. For World War II weapons, 4km isn't battle range. I think 1km would be pushing it, certainly in western Europe. (Desert and Russian steppe are exceptions, and neither theatre has been covered yet.) You may have a point for CMSF2, but that might just speak more to the fact the engine is less suited for modern warfare than its bread and butter.

The point of CM was never to have a large recon and operations planning element - it's really the wrong scale for that, especially given the limitations of the C2 links. It's designed to let you fight a battalion. Most battalions had extremely limited recon capabilities (a British battalion in Normandy had a single platoon of scouts and snipers).

Sounds like the criticism is that CM isn't more like TacOps. I'd suggest to get that experience...you play TacOps. :-)

I thought that a lot of the time effective tank engagement ranges in ww2 were measured in hundreds of meters not kilometres.
"They only asked the Light Brigade to do it once"

Michael Dorosh

Quote from: Destraex on June 24, 2018, 08:15:23 AM
I thought that a lot of the time effective tank engagement ranges in ww2 were measured in hundreds of meters not kilometres.

Yes, I mention that in the post right after the one you quoted. As I understand it, your understanding is correct.

The ammunition table for the 8.8cm PaK 43 shows a possibility of hitting out to 4,000 meters. Not the same weapon as on the Tiger II, but just as useful for purposes of the discussion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.8_cm_Pak_43

But according to the studies I've seen of Allied tank losses, the actual engagement ranges were much lower than the theoretical maximum range for the reasons mentioned above.

Zulu1966

#117
Quote from: demjansk1942 on June 24, 2018, 04:36:13 AM
Quote from: Skoop on May 28, 2018, 12:35:14 AM
Battlefront never figured out that they could put their games on steam and have occasional 50% off sales and everyone in the whole world would probably own a copy...They could never see past their own noses when it came to marketing or strategy.  What's better, 10,000 owning a copy at 50.00 or 500,000 owning a copy at 20.00 ?  The world has left battlefront behind unfortunately.  I do like the idea of the catalog available on gog though.

So true

Well actually - in relation to steam that is complete and utter bullshit. This dumbass idea that all you have to do is merely put a game on steam and you automatically have tens of thousands of sales only gets stated by those who have a complete ignorance of how it works in reality.
"you are the rule maker, the dictator, the mini- Stalin, Mao, Hitler, the emperor, generalissimo, the MAN. You may talk the talk and appear to be quite easy going to foster popularity, but to the MAN I say F*CK YOU." And Steve G is F******g rude ? Just another day on the BF forum ... one demented idiots reaction to BF disagreeing about the thickness of the armour on a Tiger II turret mantlet.

Zulu1966

Quote from: Michael Dorosh on June 23, 2018, 06:38:38 PM
As devil's advocate, why would you need a map bigger than 4km by 4km for a battalion-level simulation? All you're doing is making the advance to contact longer.

Well actually - CM is much more a company level game - which only begs the question more.
"you are the rule maker, the dictator, the mini- Stalin, Mao, Hitler, the emperor, generalissimo, the MAN. You may talk the talk and appear to be quite easy going to foster popularity, but to the MAN I say F*CK YOU." And Steve G is F******g rude ? Just another day on the BF forum ... one demented idiots reaction to BF disagreeing about the thickness of the armour on a Tiger II turret mantlet.

Zulu1966

Quote from: RyanE on June 24, 2018, 06:17:07 AM
Quote from: Michael Dorosh on June 23, 2018, 09:54:21 PM
Quote from: RyanE on June 23, 2018, 07:53:35 PM
Let's face it...  In CM you are dropped in right in range of most of the weapons on the board.  There is almost no planning.  SB lets you do some recon, form a plan, and maneuver.  You don't have to use a 4x4 map in SB.  In fact, you can use a large map and restrict it to a smaller area.  But you have the option and the game can handle it if you want to do it.  I have seen SB scenarios where you only control one part of the entire larger blue force and the AI handles flanks.  The AI can be scripted by a designer with an immense amount of options to react to things happening around the map.

It took me a long time to change how I built scenarios from CM to SB.  I was so used to having units start in range and the firefights starting within minutes.  In SB, you have the freedom to not do that.  I can't count the number of CM scenarios I have played where either starting forces or reinforcements enter the board in battle or even in the middle of an enemy formation.




I'd say blame the scenario designers rather than the game. For World War II weapons, 4km isn't battle range. I think 1km would be pushing it, certainly in western Europe. (Desert and Russian steppe are exceptions, and neither theatre has been covered yet.) You may have a point for CMSF2, but that might just speak more to the fact the engine is less suited for modern warfare than its bread and butter.

The point of CM was never to have a large recon and operations planning element - it's really the wrong scale for that, especially given the limitations of the C2 links. It's designed to let you fight a battalion. Most battalions had extremely limited recon capabilities (a British battalion in Normandy had a single platoon of scouts and snipers).

Sounds like the criticism is that CM isn't more like TacOps. I'd suggest to get that experience...you play TacOps. :-)

No, you play Steel Beasts.  The main issue is that in large scenarios you have several issues in CM...

1) Large maps are dogs in modern computers
2) Even in some of the larger maps in CM, those units start right on top of each other
3) it might be theoretically the designers fault, but they aren't given the tools needed to do anything else

I love playing CM.  It is a great game.  But it has and mostly always will be a computer version of table top miniatures.  Steel Beats is more like a tactical combat simulator.  It can be hard and mundane at times.  But if you want to see some realistic (I think) combined arms combat, its pretty much the only game in town.

I really dont see why you keep comparing the two games - they are completely different - and in the realms of what CM does the map sizes are more than adequate for what it is trying to portray.
"you are the rule maker, the dictator, the mini- Stalin, Mao, Hitler, the emperor, generalissimo, the MAN. You may talk the talk and appear to be quite easy going to foster popularity, but to the MAN I say F*CK YOU." And Steve G is F******g rude ? Just another day on the BF forum ... one demented idiots reaction to BF disagreeing about the thickness of the armour on a Tiger II turret mantlet.