So, when can we expect formal announcement of the next DLC?

[HalfLifeExpert]

A while ago, as part of the Matrix Games Home of Wargamers event, the next Command DLC was announced, with some basic details given on this new "Tides of War" campaign.

But that was over a month ago, and I'm surprised that we've not yet seen the FORMAL announcement, with a product page, screenshots, detailed summary etc.

Any ideas on when we can expect this to drop? I'm not asking for a release date, but rather just more information.

[Kushan04]

At an undetermined time in the future.

[Figeac]

I would just like to see the tons of bugs (go check "tech support") fixed before any additions.

[Mgellis]

The newest update supposedly includes an expansion of ground combat (Hannibal), and other new features, so I suspect it may be a while. Any big change like this has the potential for bugs, so I'm sure the developers trying to get it as bug-free as possible.

A while ago, as part of the Matrix Games Home of Wargamers event, the next Command DLC was announced, with some basic details given on this new "Tides of War" campaign.

But that was over a month ago, and I'm surprised that we've not yet seen the FORMAL announcement, with a product page, screenshots, detailed summary etc.

Any ideas on when we can expect this to drop? I'm not asking for a release date, but rather just more information.

[Kushan04]

The newest update supposedly includes an expansion of ground combat (Hannibal), and other new features, so I suspect it may be a while. Any big change like this has the potential for bugs, so I'm sure the developers trying to get it as bug-free as possible.

Just to clear things up - No, Hannibal is not coming in the next update. Hannibal is being tested internally but it's not a focus for the next update. It'll be awhile before it sees the light of day.

I can't give an exact time frame when the next update is coming.

[Mgellis]

Thanks for the clarification. Sorry to hear it will be a while before we get the new ground combat features, but I'm looking forward to next update. Thanks again to the developers for all their hard work.

The newest update supposedly includes an expansion of ground combat (Hannibal), and other new features, so I suspect it may be a while. Any big change like this has the potential for bugs, so I'm sure the developers trying to get it as bug-free as possible.

Just to clear things up - No, Hannibal is not coming in the next update. Hannibal is being tested internally but it's not a focus for the next update. It'll be awhile before it sees the light of day.

I can't give an exact time frame when the next update is coming.

[fitzpatv]

Hannibal seems an appropriate name for such a change. While improving the ground combat gameplay would be a good thing in many ways, it is primarily a naval and air warfare simulation and we should be wary of going too far down that route. CMO is already a massive game with performance issues in big scenarios and, like an overfed elephant, it is in danger of collapsing under its own weight.

[thewood1]

You don't have play scenarios with it. You can always stick to smaller more focused scenarios. Thats how a lot of people play it already.

[Dimitris]

Hannibal seems an appropriate name for such a change. While improving the ground combat gameplay would be a good thing in many ways, it is primarily a naval and air warfare simulation and we should be wary of going too far down that route. CMO is already a massive game with performance issues in big scenarios and, like an overfed elephant, it is in danger of collapsing under its own weight.

Which reasonable-sized scenario does Command have a performance issue with?

[SunlitZelkova]

I think a bigger limitation on the size of ground scenarios would be the way gunfire slows down the game.

But in any case, in my opinion, unless the individual units are "sized up" (i.e., using the generic company unit with 12x T-72 mount, instead of 3x platoons that have 4x T-72 mount) the largest a ground scenario can be without being overwhelming and somewhat cumbersome is with one regiment-sized formation vs. another. Anything bigger feels a bit like building a scenario with 1,000 aircraft, at least to me.

I think what Hannibal will probably end up offering is a better way to coordinate ground operations and units, rather than necessarily inviting players to build the entire Seven Days to the River Rhine. Setting up their behavior without extensive Lua is currently limited to anti-surface warfare (ground patrols), which leaves a lot to be desired in getting a side to properly leverage its capabilities (arty, ATGMs, infantry, tanks, etc. etc.). Ground units (not facilities) don't even have WRA options at the moment. CMO doesn't need to become Armored Brigade, but I think improvements to what we have would be welcome.

[Kushan04]

I think a bigger limitation on the size of ground scenarios would be the way gunfire slows down the game.

But in any case, in my opinion, unless the individual units are "sized up" (i.e., using the generic company unit with 12x T-72 mount, instead of 3x platoons that have 4x T-72 mount) the largest a ground scenario can be without being overwhelming and somewhat cumbersome is with one regiment-sized formation vs. another. Anything bigger feels a bit like building a scenario with 1,000 aircraft, at least to me.

I think what Hannibal will probably end up offering is a better way to coordinate ground operations and units, rather than necessarily inviting players to build the entire Seven Days to the River Rhine. Setting up their behavior without extensive Lua is currently limited to anti-surface warfare (ground patrols), which leaves a lot to be desired in getting a side to properly leverage its capabilities (arty, ATGMs, infantry, tanks, etc. etc.). Ground units (not facilities) don't even have WRA options at the moment. CMO doesn't need to become Armored Brigade, but I think improvements to what we have would be welcome.

Hannibal will not be entity level engagements - no single tanks or infantry platoons running around. It'll be using aggregated units, ideally battalion levels or above although you can make them any size. When they engage one another they'll do it at that entity level. There are some exceptions, mostly for Fires.

If you've ever played boardgames (above ASL's scale), this will be familiar

[fitzpatv]

Regarding scenarios with performance problems, try any large Fury series offering e.g. Persian Pounce (Indian 1), Caught Flat Footed (Pacific 3). You only have to look at the huge amount of memory the game takes-up (via Task Manager) to know that you're going to have problems unless you have a leading-edge machine.

Gunnery is, indeed, a major source of trouble. Much of the difficulty with Persian Pounce is down to lots of Iranian Toraghs firing light weapons at merchant ships in the Straits of Hormuz ad nauseam and the game calculating the results of every shot.

True, I could stick to smaller-scale scenarios, where the problems are usually absent but, if I did so, I wouldn't be able to write the AARs which so many of you seem to enjoy.

It would be a good idea to look at performance by priority over new modules and things like Hannibal, perhaps addressing gunnery and identifying other bottlenecks which can then be mitigated. It would improve the game experience for a lot of people and make the game more accessible to new players.

[Knightpawn]

I do have a close to leading edge laptop (at least it was like so 12moths ago when bought it), I am very new to CMO (about a year) and like to play (almost exclusively) large scenarios that require careful planning and then avoid micromanagement . For sure gunnery has improved tremendously in recent builts. I have not tried Persian Pounce (Ind Fury 1) in 1728.2 but I confirm that in previous builts it is one scenario that slowed my system to such an extend that I decided to leave it alone.

[thewood1]

You can only put so much into a bag before the bag breaks. CMO can handle very large scenarios, but some people seem intent on trying to break the game and then complaining about performance. I have an MSI Titan as probably one of the most powerful off-the-shelf commercial laptops you can get. And even my machine struggles with some of the scenarios people build with 10,000 AUs. At some point players need to assess what they are really trying to accomplish.

[Kushan04]

Regarding scenarios with performance problems, try any large Fury series offering e.g. Persian Pounce (Indian 1), Caught Flat Footed (Pacific 3). You only have to look at the huge amount of memory the game takes-up (via Task Manager) to know that you're going to have problems unless you have a leading-edge machine.

Gunnery is, indeed, a major source of trouble. Much of the difficulty with Persian Pounce is down to lots of Iranian Toraghs firing light weapons at merchant ships in the Straits of Hormuz ad nauseam and the game calculating the results of every shot.

True, I could stick to smaller-scale scenarios, where the problems are usually absent but, if I did so, I wouldn't be able to write the AARs which so many of you seem to enjoy.

It would be a good idea to look at performance by priority over new modules and things like Hannibal, perhaps addressing gunnery and identifying other bottlenecks which can then be mitigated. It would improve the game experience for a lot of people and make the game more accessible to new players.

After searching through your post history, you seem to love to complain about performance but there's not one post (that I can find) in Tech Support actually reporting performance issues. How exactly do you expect it to be fixed if you don't report anything?

[BDukes]

Hannibal will not be entity level engagements - no single tanks or infantry platoons running around. It'll be using aggregated units, ideally battalion levels or above although you can make them any size. When they engage one another they'll do it at that entity level. There are some exceptions, mostly for Fires.

If you've ever played boardgames (above ASL's scale), this will be familiar

Wow this is good news!

Mike

[Dimitris]

Gunnery is, indeed, a major source of trouble. Much of the difficulty with Persian Pounce is down to lots of Iranian Toraghs firing light weapons at merchant ships in the Straits of Hormuz ad nauseam and the game calculating the results of every shot.

Hi fitzpatv,

I remember personally looking into this a few months back. The issue turned out to be not the gunnery calcs themselves, but the very rapid messages on shell round impacts ("76mm shell impacted 27m from the target" etc.). There was a flaw in the way that the message log was updating in reaction to these very frequent messages and caused a stutter in the UI refresh. We fixed this, so now the message log and the overall UI can update smoothly even with very rapid messages.

When easy, can you try that specific case with the current official release and see what happens? If you are still facing stutter/slowdown, please open a new thread on the tech Support subforum with a suitable save file, so that we can investigate it.

Thanks!

[SunlitZelkova]

Hannibal will not be entity level engagements - no single tanks or infantry platoons running around. It'll be using aggregated units, ideally battalion levels or above although you can make them any size. When they engage one another they'll do it at that entity level. There are some exceptions, mostly for Fires.

If you've ever played boardgames (above ASL's scale), this will be familiar

Does this mean that ground units are being passed over for development for the time being? In terms of unit design, Hannibal sounds, essentially, a bit like the old facility-system.

In any case, the behavior/planning/gameplay improvements sound very exciting!

[Dimitris]

Does this mean that ground units are being passed over for development for the time being? In terms of unit design, Hannibal sounds, essentially, a bit like the old facility-system.

In any case, the behavior/planning/gameplay improvements sound very exciting!

No, ground units (and facilities) are still essential; they form the "building blocks" of AGUs.

Are you familiar with TOAW? If yes, remember how you built e.g. a battalion unit by putting together troops, tanks, supply trucks and all other individual units for that battalion's TO&E ? And how that composition automatically gave you all the battalion's properties like its offensive & defensive strengths, mobility rating, supply requirements etc.?

Very similar thing here.

[Knightpawn]

After searching through your post history, you seem to love to complain about performance but there's not one post (that I can find) in Tech Support actually reporting performance issues. How exactly do you expect it to be fixed if you don't report anything?

I feel this post was slightly harsh. After all value comes from scarcity. There are many of us that bombard the tech support forum with reports of true or (sometimes) imaginary issues, but only very few that take the time to post AARs and share not only a narrative of what happened but, most of all, their planning and thought process behind this. @Fitzpatv is such a guy and I confess that his posts have helped me a lot to better understand the intricacies of the game. And I thank him for that. Lets celebrate the division of (forum) labor, let @Fitzpatv post more and more AARs and we grumpies will keep reporting tech issues.