SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post - Combat Mission: Shock Force 2

Threadfin · 08-13-20, 08:20 AM

There is an editor, yes, but it is cumbersome. Even just making a map is a chore.

The main issue with the AI as I see it, is that it's not really an AI at all. Combat Mission uses scripting and triggers. The AI behaves how the scenario designer set it up to behave. There is no ability to react, exploit, tactically withdraw. It cannot think on the fly to reinforce success or seal off penetrations. This is just one area where Combat Mission needs a reworking. Any sort of campaign generator would require a functioning AI, not that Battlefront have any plans for such a thing.

The TacAI works pretty well, but the AI in general is basic, which in turn affects the replayability of any given scenario. AI Plans were introduced to address this, but in practice they have little real effect. The AT gun may have moved if you replay the scenario, but everything else is the same -- the terrain, the forces, the objectives.

I agree with what you wrote earlier Skybird, about how you were disillusioned with SF2. I'm mainly a WW2 player, but I bought SF2 (I did not own SF1). And while I enjoy it, the tactical gameplay, I was disappointed with how little was improved, and how little new content had been produced. Players praise things like Engine 4, but the improvements are minor. I like being able to see my indirect fire kill stats. But then again, for most titles, they charge $10 for this.

Engine 4 changes:

-- Added hulldown command
-- Improved infantry spacing
-- Added ability to peek around corners (which really wasn't needed and introduced other problems, particularly with pathing)
-- F/O kill stats now displayed
-- Added screen edge pan toggle
-- AI Area Fire Orders (The AI can now be scripted to use area fire)
-- Added AI facing order
-- Added AI withdrawal order.

So really, the extent of the 'big upgrade' was making troops spread out more and adding a couple of new orders in the UI. Battlefront can do as they please, but in my view charging players for such a small improvement is a bad move.

I have a thousand comments to make, but I will spare you. I am a long-time player, since the CMBO demo, and I have dropped a lot of money on it. I think Combat Mission is the finest tactical battlefield simulator on PC. But it is well and truly stuck, whether by choice or limitation is hard to say. I want the series to evolve, to the point where the player experience is given as much weight as the amazing detail given to formations and uniform details. But in a very general sense, Battlefront gives us the hammer and nails, and expects us to do the building. For me, the best thing that could happen would be the creation of a campaign generator, which would allow the player to easily produce endless content tailored to his preferences. Of course this would require a real AI and number of other things that do not exist in Combat Mission, so I have no reason to think it will happen, not least are Steve's comments through the years essentially dismissing the idea.

I no longer feel compelled to purchase new products, what I already have is more than enough, and especially so as there is little new, little innovation or new features. The move to Steam is a good one, but there is nothing I want to buy now. I skipped CMFB, and I am even skipping the new CMRT module, and that's one of my favorite titles (I recently played through the excellent Blunting the Spear campaign). For me, the late-war is far less interesting than the early war, but Battlefront clearly disagree. So until there is a major shift in direction I will keep my money in my pocket or spend it on other things. I want them to do well and keep this series going, but it needs to get with the times for me.

08-13-20, 08:20 AM	#23
Threadfin Ace of the Deep Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 1,076 Downloads: 38 Uploads: 0	There is an editor, yes, but it is cumbersome. Even just making a map is a chore. The main issue with the AI as I see it, is that it's not really an AI at all. Combat Mission uses scripting and triggers. The AI behaves how the scenario designer set it up to behave. There is no ability to react, exploit, tactically withdraw. It cannot think on the fly to reinforce success or seal off penetrations. This is just one area where Combat Mission needs a reworking. Any sort of campaign generator would require a functioning AI, not that Battlefront have any plans for such a thing. The TacAI works pretty well, but the AI in general is basic, which in turn affects the replayability of any given scenario. AI Plans were introduced to address this, but in practice they have little real effect. The AT gun may have moved if you replay the scenario, but everything else is the same -- the terrain, the forces, the objectives. I agree with what you wrote earlier Skybird, about how you were disillusioned with SF2. I'm mainly a WW2 player, but I bought SF2 (I did not own SF1). And while I enjoy it, the tactical gameplay, I was disappointed with how little was improved, and how little new content had been produced. Players praise things like Engine 4, but the improvements are minor. I like being able to see my indirect fire kill stats. But then again, for most titles, they charge $10 for this. Engine 4 changes: -- Added hulldown command -- Improved infantry spacing -- Added ability to peek around corners (which really wasn't needed and introduced other problems, particularly with pathing) -- F/O kill stats now displayed -- Added screen edge pan toggle -- AI Area Fire Orders (The AI can now be scripted to use area fire) -- Added AI facing order -- Added AI withdrawal order. So really, the extent of the 'big upgrade' was making troops spread out more and adding a couple of new orders in the UI. Battlefront can do as they please, but in my view charging players for such a small improvement is a bad move. I have a thousand comments to make, but I will spare you. I am a long-time player, since the CMBO demo, and I have dropped a lot of money on it. I think Combat Mission is the finest tactical battlefield simulator on PC. But it is well and truly stuck, whether by choice or limitation is hard to say. I want the series to evolve, to the point where the player experience is given as much weight as the amazing detail given to formations and uniform details. But in a very general sense, Battlefront gives us the hammer and nails, and expects us to do the building. For me, the best thing that could happen would be the creation of a campaign generator, which would allow the player to easily produce endless content tailored to his preferences. Of course this would require a real AI and number of other things that do not exist in Combat Mission, so I have no reason to think it will happen, not least are Steve's comments through the years essentially dismissing the idea. I no longer feel compelled to purchase new products, what I already have is more than enough, and especially so as there is little new, little innovation or new features. The move to Steam is a good one, but there is nothing I want to buy now. I skipped CMFB, and I am even skipping the new CMRT module, and that's one of my favorite titles (I recently played through the excellent Blunting the Spear campaign). For me, the late-war is far less interesting than the early war, but Battlefront clearly disagree. So until there is a major shift in direction I will keep my money in my pocket or spend it on other things. I want them to do well and keep this series going, but it needs to get with the times for me. __________________ What? Behind the rabbit?