Combat Mission: Shock Force 2 - at Steam

[Bilge_Rat]

see here:

http://community.battlefront.com/top...paign-editing/

I have not tried it, but apparently it works, it unpacks the campaign into individual scenarios, you make changes and then recompile the campaign.

[Skybird]

Thanks, I did not know of this.


Unfortunately it does not work, maybe its broken or it is a W10 thing. It "fails to load" (error message) just every .cam-file (campaign file) I direct it to, also .btt- (single scenario) and .bts- (saved games) files do not get imported.


Not your fault, thanks nevertheless.

[Skybird]

Bilge Rat,

do you know a mod that replaces the interface with a bigger one, with bigger symbols and fonts? I test-played the new game in the demo, and find the interface worse to decypher than in the first game. They really seem to try to make it as small as techncially possible, leaving big black boxes of unused spacein the left and right bottom corners, and colours have been taken out of much of their symbols, making the thing even more difficult to see due to the low contrast, steel on steel colour.

Sigh. So many game developers have good ideas and do good games - but on ergonomy many of them have no real clue. Tiny windows. Tiny. fonts. Tiny buttons. Tiny, tiny, tiny, as tiny as possible, please - as if that is a quality in every case. It isn't. Sometimes not smaller is beautiful, but bigger is beautiful.

I have read in the manual what they listed in the beginning on added details in the game. Some of that is okay - but I wonder whether it really is that big a deal. I played two missions of the five, and played them again in the first game, and honestly said I fail to see a big difference in gameplay. The squads still love to form big flocks at one window to get taken out by one salvo or grenade if you do not micromanage them and split them and distrubute them - and then after some time they rejon once again anyway. Vehicles still often refuse to travel in diagonal lines different to 45° angles, but approach their destination in strange first-vertical-then-45°-diagonal fashion like knights in chess, which often is not supporting my intentions, but puts them in harms way. They still brake too much or come almost to a standstill when their attached route calls for a slight chnage in direction, making them sitting ducks for s seocnd or two, trcks mroe so than wheeled ones. The textures on vehicles and uniforms are crispier, yes, and some more vegetation in the landscape, but at a distance the structure of land tiles looks more blurry, making it difficult to read elevations. Finally, in the Wargamers I read that they had updated - at the time of their review - only the default missions, but not those in the modules. Any word on whether that has been done meanwhile? Possible that I do not know some of the changes they claim that have done under the hood. But then, if changes under the hood do not make themselves felt in ordinary gameplay, then I am a little bit unconvinced of the need for them in the first.

I am disillusioned a bit, I must admit. For something switching its title from version 1.0 to version 2.0, roughly one ten years of time between both versions, I expected more substantial improvements, honestly said. Version one came I think in 2007. The new one in late 2018, or not?

For newcomers to the game, this is not to say its not a good sim, it is still a very good one, and I recommend to buy it if you do not have it But for those like me who already have version 1.0, I am not so sure about the need to invest money into version 2.0 It looks to me as if there is too little improvement. And the graphics engine alone does not cut it for me either.


Maybe they add a steam workshop. So that downlaoding and integrating missions becomes absolutely a breeze. That maybe could hook me on a bit.


That interface is a real problem for me, I have 5-6 diopters on both eyes, and am 53 years of age, and no matter whether I wear my usual or my reading glasses, too much of the texts and labels and symbols I cannot read, when I really need to see the right tiny microscopic detail I end up taking off glasses and moving close until my nose almost touches my 24" screen at full HD resolution. Even the mission briefings are in this 25 years old single-pixel-sized micro font lettering.
Thanks for reminding me of the demo option, I had completely overlooked it. Obviously it paid off for me to use it - just not for the result I hoped for (and that you maybe expected: but that is not your fault).


P.S. I will try to reduce screen resolution. this kind of prehistoric workarounds should not be needed anymore in the year 2020, but maybe it works to increase the interface and font size. Of course the world then becomes more pixilated, too...

[Bilge_Rat]

hi, yes UI is an issue, no mod unfortunately.

They are still updating the campaign scenarios. The updated USMC, Canadian and Dutch campaign were released last year and the British campaign should be released in a few months.

Re: changes. Yes, a lot are under the hood, improvement to artillery, AI, tweakinf weapon effect, etc. The simulation is a lot deadlier now if you do not use proper combined arms tactics.

[Skybird]

Interface size and font size can be increased by lowering general resolution, I found. But on wide screens, the ini file must be directly changed with a proper 16:9 res, if one uses one of the three default resoluaitons in game menu, one gets a slightly distored image (round wheels are mild ovals...).

They really should have improved that. They keep 15-20 year old tech standards there and sell that as a revamp?

Anyway, workaround kind of works. 1360x768 works good for me. Scratch one off the list for the time being. General image quality is a bit softer, and contrast, also of fonts, is diffused a bit, but the interface finally is recognizable again.

[Threadfin]

Originally Posted by Skybird

They keep 15-20 year old tech standards there and sell that as a revamp?

Yep. I own most Combat Mission titles, but they are stuck in the last century. I'm hoping the Slitherine partnership will in some way get Battlefront to get with the times, but I doubt that will happen.


Listen, I love the tactical part of the game, the battlefield. Combat Mission is exceptional in terms of ballistics, spotting and C2. But in almost every other way the series is very much out of date.


The series desperately needs a new model, in my view. A complete re-imagining from the ground up. Interface, graphics, AI, campaign system, editor, well the works. As long as the players have no way to easily generate campaigns and other content, and instead are tethered to the supply chain from the admirable yet unprolific authors, it will remain where it is. A great tactical battlefield brought down by all that surrounds it.

[Skybird]

The title has an editor, just saying. Whether it handles easily or not I cannot judge, I just used it to increase time limits in single missions. The tricky part in such editors usually is any kind of scritping needed to make AI units move around without just reacting to tatcicaql movement by the player. And I have not tried this, so cannot comment.

I do not expect the latest gfx fireworks in games like this, and I think CM does a very lot of thigns very right. Even the interface is not all badly thought out - its just graphically outdated and difficult to read.

What could be needed as well is improvements for the AI, the AI infanry especially can be quite suicidal, and here again in urban fighting.

The WWII titles int nhe series I do not know, I only know Shock Force and modules. I saw videos, Shock Force and probbaly here again ShockForce 2 are much more lethal. "What gets seen is almost as good as dead", is often the motto. Modern weapons and sensors get depicted as incredibly lethal technology. Well, I know that kind of lethality from Steel Beasts Pro, so I am not surprised by that.


I would still prefer Shock Force to for example Armored Brigade, which has the same focus, but simplifie smroe and is in many detials more unrealistic. B ut players who feel overwhelemed by Shock force, may want to give it a try, its simplier and maybe more attractive for some people. Played from abstract map view, however, and visually not as enhanced as SF.

[Threadfin]

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.

[Bilge_Rat]

well, I will agree the CM series is not perfect, no game is, but if you are into simulations, the market is very limited. CM offers the best 3d tactical land simulation IMHO, which is why I keep coming back to it.

Yes, the AI is limited, but you could say that about any sims. Note there is a large multi-player crowd since there is of course, no substitute to playing against a real human. One the thing I like about CM is that you can play by email, sort of like old time playing Chess by mail.

[Threadfin]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

the CM series is not perfect, no game is, but if you are into simulations, the market is very limited. CM offers the best 3d tactical land simulation IMHO, which is why I keep coming back to it.

I agree in principle, but there is not enough new from one title to the next to compel their purchase. I am a campaign player and if campaigns were given some sort of priority I might have bought CMFB. But what did it ship with, was it two campaigns? If you search the usual suspects for downloadable campaigns you might find two or three more. Combat Mission is not really made for me despite it's suitability. CMBN and CMSF2 are the best in this regard, they have the most content. But the other titles suffer from this lack of content. And will continue to as long the same laborious process is required to make it and is left to the player base to produce it.


I may be cherry-picking an extreme example, but one of the best (and certainly longest) campaigns in CM is Paper Tiger's Road to Montebourg for CMBN. I read one of his posts and he stated it took him 800 hours! to make that campaign. It is very long, so that is part of it, but until that can be trimmed to 20 minutes (set up a generated campaign) the series will suffer from a lack of campaign content.


Single scenarios and even the QMB leave me cold. It's funny, but in CMx1 games I had a lot of fun with the QMB. But they inexplicably took away the Combined Arms setting, meaning AI force composition is all out of whack. And while I could pick the enemy forces that's no good as I would already know what they have, removing any sense of the unknown, which is vital for a game like this.


PBEM is fun, but unless you have a friend to play with I find that opponents' enthusiasm is directly proportional to their success. Rare is the battle that reaches the end before the turns simply stop coming.


There are only a few titles I do not own, so like I said I have enough to keep me playing when I feel the urge for some CM. What I think is needed in a general sense is a core engine where every module plugs in to it, allowing cross-play between them with a way to easily generate campaigns to ensure endless replayability. Remove the tether to the anemic supply chain and let me produce content custom-tailored to my taste.

[Skybird]

Well, I am neither impressed by the campaigns because to me they are in principle non-dynamic single missions (whose time limtis cannot be edited out) , nor do i own the other titles of theirs, WWII is not so much my thing. I saw some videos about them, and thought "Wat für'n Kuddelmuddel..." Combat Mission for me pretty much starts and ends with Shock Force.

[Bilge_Rat]

The advantage of campaigns is that you have to manage your force and minimise casualties by planning for future battles, so it puts you more in role of the actual commander. The disadvantage is that campaigns take a long time to do, so the number is always limited. They also have limited replayability value.

In CMSF2, if you ever buy it, the best campaigns IMHO are the Dutch and the Canadian one, both of which have been reworked from SF1. BTW, the Canadian Campaign was made by Paper Tiger.

[Threadfin]

As I mentioned I have SF2. I've played Task Force Thunder and the two campaigns you mentioned plus a few more that were either included with the game or that I downloaded from the usual sites.


I've talked a lot about it on other sites, but Battlefront were headed in the right direction with the Operations which came out with CMBB. They were flawed, but the concept was more in line with what I have in mind. Then that was scrapped entirely after CMAK and we are left with what I call the episodic system we have been playing for 15 years now.


I think Combat Mission:Campaigns was intended to fill this gap, but that failed and nothing filled the void. I don't hate the current system, but I do think it's far less than it could be, or even should be, given the fantastic battlefield, and excellent spotting, ballistics and C2 that Combat Mission offers.

[Threadfin]

Speaking of campaigns, I started a thread at SimHQ to give my impressions of a number of campaigns. Mostly it's for WW2 titles, with some SF2 at the end. It got no traction over there due to the dispassionate member base, so it's rather incomplete, and totally subjective. But if anyone is looking for campaign impressions, it may be worth a read.


Combat Mission campaign reviews

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Threadfin

As I mentioned I have SF2. I've played Task Force Thunder and the two campaigns you mentioned plus a few more that were either included with the game or that I downloaded from the usual sites.

I did mention what campaigns exactly...? For the most I play single missions, these can be loaded in the edtior to "switch off" time limits, if there are any. I just hate playing under time limits. Chess, Combat Mission, anything, it doe snot matter. Campaiogn missions are "baked", cannot be opened up for doing that. That tool that Bilde Rat linkied earlier, did not work for me, is apparently broken. It refuses to recognise and load any campaign files.