Combat Mission BLACK SEA can be pre-ordered now!

[Shorker]

Combat Mission BLACK SEA can be pre-ordered now!

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?opt...Itemid=576

[Steiner14]

Modern is not my cup of tea, but disappointing to me is that the old 3.0 engine will be used.

No improvement of the user interface (clickable movment paths)?
No solution to the old bugs (anti-aliasing not working in movie mode, bunkers sinking into terrain mesh)?
No Franko "true combat"-mode?
No AI plan branches?
No 2vs2 PBEM mode?

The progress of the engine has been already extremely slow and now they even release a new family game with an old engine?

Honestly I don't understand why so many CM-players are raving about new vehicles and equipment on their forums, for example the vehicle pack idiocy.
I couldn't care less, because the interesting thing to me is tactics. If it's the tenth variant of a Sherman or StuG I couldn't care less, but that I can use smoke to drive tanks into position and the oponent's vehicle's AI is not paying any increased attention to the smoke areas, I see as important.
Or that I can see the undulations in the terrain where the oponent has placed his fortifications fromt he very beginning.
Or that there is no "true combat" mode which is the only mode that makes playing the AI challenging.

[raz_atoth]

I for one like what v3.0 brought. Sure, it's not without it's flaws, but then again, show me a game without flaws Your points about the bugs/missing features are valid, but as far as i'm concerned neither is game breaking. The AI is quite good and more than a challenge more often than not. 2vs2 PBEM would be nice to have, but realistically speaking this will benefit only a handful of people.

At the moment i believe v3.00 is quite stable and good, although, no doubt, there's room for improvement. I for one would prefer more content for the time being over more improvements, but granted, i wouldn't say no if i'd had both

[A Canadian Cat]

I for one would prefer more content for the time being over more improvements, but granted, i wouldn't say no if i'd had both

LOL indeed.

@Steiner14 your wish list would be nice to have but really you are just pointing out that your priorities did not match BFCs this time out (maybe they never will I guess we will just have to wait and see). They have said they plan to do some significant work on the UI in the future so hopefully that will satisfy some of your wish list.

[Westland]

The game will sell poorly.Just like CM Shock Force.Most CM Player not want a modern Scenarios.I want a CM Battle Of The Bulge and Western Front 1945.And finally all complete tank and tank destroyer of Western Front.
It lacks:
-M36 and M36B1 Jackson
-M26 Pershing and Super Pershing
-M4A3E2 Sherman Jumbo
-M4A3E2(76) Sherman Jumbo
-M4A3E8 Sherman
-Sherman Crocodile
-Archer
-Comet
-Hetzer and Flammhetzer 38(t)
-Jagdtiger
-Sturmtiger
-Ostwind

[Steiner14]

@Steiner14 your wish list would be nice to have but really you are just pointing out that your priorities did not match BFCs this time out (maybe they never will I guess we will just have to wait and see). They have said they plan to do some significant work on the UI in the future so hopefully that will satisfy some of your wish list.

CC,
it has been almost three quarters of a year that they did not release a patch for CMRT and they promised it for how long now?

How long has CMx2 been out? Seven YEARS?
If you have played CMx1 you can't have forgotten how awful the lost ability is, that units can't be selected by clicking their movement paths but instead must be searched and navigated.

I am amazed that you can be fooled so easily. To me their tactics is obvious: whining on the forums how difficult things are and how poor they were, while they are slowing down the improvements but speeding up content generation.

What else do you need than a vehicle pack even without scenarios and without a mode that allows to switch off historical availability to find every vehicle? IIIC they did not even include an information when each vehicle is available! Really, that's fighting for every customer...

I would not be surprised at all, if one day they would announce a new engine and leave the all the remaining wargamers behind, just like they did with the CMx1 fans.

I have the feeling anyway, with the development of CMx2 grinding almost to a halt, that they are concentrating on something else, while they are releasing as much payable content from the old engine as possible and investing the least possible amount.

[raz_atoth]

it has been almost three quarters of a year that they did not release a patch for CMRT and they promised it for how long now?

True, the CMRT patch is long overdue, but as a software developer myself i can tell you it's not always a 5 mins job to track and fix bugs.Especially when the bug is not even in your code but in the video driver. Why would BFC purposely delay the patch if the fix was easy to fix?

How long has CMx2 been out? Seven YEARS?
If you have played CMx1 you can't have forgotten how awful the lost ability is, that units can't be selected by clicking their movement paths but instead must be searched and navigated.

I have almost 500 CMx1 PBEM games under my belt and i'm playing CMx2 since CMBN was released. So far i haven't missed even once the ability to select units by clicking on the movements path. I guess after a few days i just got used to doing things differently. Now, i do agree, having it would be useful, but presenting the missing ability to select troops by clicking on movement paths as a deal breaker is far from the truth.

I am amazed that you can be fooled so easily. To me their tactics is obvious: whining on the forums how difficult things are and how poor they were, while they are slowing down the improvements but speeding up content generation.

And what's wrong with that? It must be just me, but i'd rather prefer to have a France '40 game on my hard-drive than 2vs2 pbem. And i'm not even sure that's the case. Usually, you have the coders handling the new features with the designers/testers doing the vehicle/scenarios stuff. Different people handling different things.

What else do you need than a vehicle pack even without scenarios and without a mode that allows to switch off historical availability to find every vehicle? IIIC they did not even include an information when each vehicle is available! Really, that's fighting for every customer...

And someone is forcing you to pay for the vehicle pack if you don't want to? I haven't purchased it, nor do i plan to.
As i see it, BFC is free to release whatever they believe puts food on their table at the end of the day: new games/modules/vehicle packs etc.. And i'm free to decide if what they release justifies the prices they ask for it. It's that simple.

I have the feeling anyway, with the development of CMx2 grinding almost to a halt, that they are concentrating on something else, while they are releasing as much payable content from the old engine as possible and investing the least possible amount.

CM:BS is in the preorders phase. How's that "the development of CMx2 grinding almost to a halt"? From what i can see there are significant changes, although, granted, not all are applicable to WW2 games.

[Steiner14]

True, the CMRT patch is long overdue, but as a software developer myself i can tell you it's not always a 5 mins job to track and fix bugs.Especially when the bug is not even in your code but in the video driver. Why would BFC purposely delay the patch if the fix was easy to fix?

Raz atoth,
I also know one or two things about software development.
Purposely delaying sounds too strong, as if they had solved it and do not release it. I don't mean that. I mean that it has a low priority.

I have almost 500 CMx1 PBEM games under my belt and i'm playing CMx2 since CMBN was released. So far i haven't missed even once the ability to select units by clicking on the movements path. I guess after a few days i just got used to doing things differently. Now, i do agree, having it would be useful, but presenting the missing ability to select troops by clicking on movement paths as a deal breaker is far from the truth.

Maybe because you have switched the option "show all movement paths" off?
I also adapted to it, but every time I want to adjust movement paths, especially on big maps, I begin to hate it more and more that I
1) need to turn camera around
2) guess which unit belongs to the path (in the case of more paths, especially at bridges) and then select a unit
3) turn the camera around again and look if it is the correct path
4) if it is not the correct path, start at 1) until the correct unit is found

Pure ergonomic horror.
It is impossible that you have forgotten how much better it was, that the paths could be adjusted one after the other without even touching the camera controls!

And what's wrong with that? It must be just me, but i'd rather prefer to have a France '40 game on my hard-drive than 2vs2 pbem.

2vs2 was only one example. You could take many others.
The half baked realtime mode for example. Wego TCPIP is another. Or the new mouse modes. Or units that can be assigned to buttons but these assignments are not saved. The fortification that are sunk into the terrain mesh. Movie lighting killing anti aliasing.

What made CMx1 great, was that what they did back then, was a whole. It made sense.
You used the features and you recognized someone understood what he designed and implemented.
What they do now, is implement things only half.

And someone is forcing you to pay for the vehicle pack if you don't want to? I haven't purchased it, nor do i plan to.
As i see it, BFC is free to release whatever they believe puts food on their table at the end of the day: new games/modules/vehicle packs etc.. And i'm free to decide if what they release justifies the prices they ask for it. It's that simple.

Sure. But with that argument every discussion would be moot, because they are also free to decide what to implement and how to implement it, too.
And since nobody is forced to buy not only vehicle packs but also not modules and base games, any criticism was unnecessary.

CM:BS is in the preorders phase. How's that "the development of CMx2 grinding almost to a halt"? From what i can see there are significant changes, although, granted, not all are applicable to WW2 games.

They state they will use the 3.0 engine. That's breaking their own rules of releasing a new engine with every family!

I hope you don't see different vehicles as significant changes?
A significant change in my eyes would be full battle replay to name a fancy one.
Or a terrain grid overlay to name something to support the player.
Or "new" orders like move to contact or a search hulldown position order.

Until now they at least released a new engine with minor improvements with each new family game.
Now you get an old engine and only new vehicles with new terrain textures.

I would understand it, if they would show that the solving of old problems has high priority. Then it's less of a problem, if a few things are delayed. But now with every release problems are adding up instead of being solved.
Buying RT and after nine months StuGs are still committing suicide by opening up and the heads of soldiers in Sdkfzs are still exposed. Just to mention two recently discussed problems in their forum, they ignore, so that the argument with compiler bug for the building entry problem can't be raised as excuse.

[Toblakai]

Most of all I miss the possibility of an ambush. Units are spotted too easy if they are not hidden. And if they hidden they won't act. Same with PAKs/ATGs. In my experience they are nearly useless, especially the 88. Maybe the issue is me, myself and I But in all my h2h battles I didn’t saw a useful usage of them.

And please no graphic effects that will break FOW!

I understand the way of business practices and only BFC knows the sales volume of their products. I personally would like to see more quality instead of more content. That doesn’t mean CM has a low quality!

[A Canadian Cat]

I am amazed that you can be fooled so easily. To me their tactics is obvious: whining on the forums how difficult things are and how poor they were, while they are slowing down the improvements but speeding up content generation.

Well that was harsh and uncalled for. The public will likely never know the full story behind the reason for the delay, all I can do is assure everyone that the delay had nothing to do with nefarious motives, low prioritization or any number of ridiculous conspiracy theories that have been put forward.

---

Most of all I miss the possibility of an ambush. Units are spotted too easy if they are not hidden. And if they hidden they won't act.

Yeah, I would like to see something better here for sure. Setting up and ambush now takes a lot of work and only works when you can find just the right terrain.

Same with PAKs/ATGs. In my experience they are nearly useless, especially the 88. Maybe the issue is me, myself and I But in all my h2h battles I didn’t saw a useful usage of them.

The big 88 guns do get seen pretty quick some times but not so much if the distance is long. And I find that to be an issue with all AT guns - we often do not get to put them to use from long ranges. I would say that the newer releases have made seeing AT guns much more difficult for tanks. So, I think they have made improvements there.

And please no graphic effects that will break FOW!

Agreed. The bug with water splashing being visible to all was really annoying. As much as I would love to see tracks in the snow I would only be happy if it were added fully supporting FOW. That would be pretty tricky and I suspect they would prioritize it below many other features.