choppinlt

Channeling my best Monty Python "I'm not dead yet". To say things are going great would be an exaggeration, BUT progress is being made...albeit very slow.

Two months ago I would have said yes, however I am happy to report that things are looking up. We are currently way behind our schedule, but my developer has recovered from his health scare. So things are looking up, but I am guarding my optimism. We hope to post something significant in a month or two.

Greetings snarre, I have no major updates to share. I can tell you that we are waaay behind our anticipated schedule due to a series of health issues from our lead developer. So stay tuned and cross your fingers so we can have a breakthrough.

Hi snarre, that has yet to be determined, but when the time comes we will make sure the word gets out!

Thanks gents! Our forum is the best place to see updates, and the status of the game. Progress is being made, and we are closer every day to a very rough/basic game play demo. As a reminder, Theater of Operations is an operational level game. As a long time CM player myself, I have always wanted a campaign layer. So a feature of the operational level game will allow players to give inputs on tactical battles that develop (being able to use it as a campaign layer). The concepts are shown in different threads on our forum for those that have not seen it. On initial release, battle data will be input manually by players. We *hope* to develop an automated feature for battle data transfer with CM, but nothing happens until we get TOO released. Love the questions and the interest. Success depends on this community's support!

Yes, we are continuing development and progress is good. Not too much else to say at this point, but come over to our forum below and join in the conversation or see more updates. In the meantime wish us luck!

Hi all, development has begun! We have only been going at this for about 4 weeks, so there isn't anything to show. Feel free to follow along on the forum below and watch how things are taking shape. Again there isn't much to talk about at the moment, but give it another month and there should be some things to see.

Hey all, I just wanted to give a quick update. We have come to tentative agreement to start full development in approximately 2 weeks! The devs are people I know and have dealt with before, and they live locally. This has several obvious advantages going forward. While nothing is guaranteed yet, I'm confident enough to make this announcement. Check out the forum link below so you can stay up to date on the project.

Thanks, I appreciate the well wishes and support. CMC got quite a ways through production, but landed just short of the finish as I recall. Anyway, we have a LONG way to go! Keep your fingers crossed.

Hello Agusto, and thanks for your reply and interest! BLUF(Bottom Line Up Front)- I have gotten very serious about attaining funding for this project. In fact as of yesterday I have a few different funding offers on the table, so I am currently evaluating them. With funding will come full time professional computer development, so at the moment things are looking good for getting this fully under way...but nothing is guaranteed yet... Please read on as I address the rest of your post. It sounds like you have a skill set that could be of great benefit to this project. If you would like to discuss further, send me a PM. My operational game's name is Theater of Operations (TOO). TOO will be a fully functioning standalone/independent operational level game. That means no other game/software is needed to play it, HOWEVER I am designing TOO in such a way that it can give an order of battle (OOB) to players that *want* to play out the battle on the tactical battlefield i.e. you don't have to play it out. Most battles will probably NOT be played out on the tactical battlefield for sheer time purposes, but TOO would automatically resolve the battles with its combat engine. Most likely the early version of TOO won't include a fully automated data transfer process between TOO and CM, BUT the goal is to have one eventually. I have talked to the guys here are BFC and this is definitely all on the table, but I need to get TOO developed first. So when a battle of interest occurs players can get the OOB and set up the battles in CM i.e. they manually set up the battles. This is all a means to an end, because I want to stress that the attainable goal will be to have an automatic data transfer process. A good example of what I am talking about exists. Some of you may be familiar with Field of Glory: Empires which came out in 2019. This is a standalone diplomatic level game, but if a player wants to fight out a battle tactically, a process was developed to let them play it out using Field of Glory 2. Despite the similarity in names, they are 2 completely different games...they share the same publisher, so this is a fair comparison. Where does TOO stand? I have developed 90% of the game mechanics and algorithms. It is ready for beta testing. I have a fully functioning combat resolution system that gives very reasonable results. Go to my forum (link is at my footer) and you can see a manual playthrough we did of a St. Lo scenario. A battle or two was played out with CM to demonstrate that concept as well. While the game mechanics are mature, I need professionals to make it in to software. The plan is to use Unity. Why am I wanting to develop a full game? Because that is where my interest lies for one. Secondly it has to do with the market. I can create a operational level game that will appeal to the operational market and the portion of the tactical market that is looking for a campaign system. There is more, but I will leave it there for now. Check out the forum, look around and feel free to join the conversation over there!

Yes, but do you know where I can find one of those? I had a local dedicated programmer for this project....and then life get's in the way! I have been doing a lot of searching lately in particular. I have gotten plenty of interest, but finding the person with the right skills, motivation and perhaps most importantly price has been elusive. But the search goes on.

Thanks, i hope we find someone too! I will clarify that I have found several developers willing to do this. But the key is to find the right developer, at the right price, at the right time. So it is that combination that has been difficult thus far. Feel free to check in at any time, as you can see I do monitor this thread.

I tried a Kickstarter in 2015 and it failed. Perhaps my biggest takeaway was that people needed to see the game in action before they would consider funding it....but a lack of initial funding prevents development of a tangible prototype. Though I am having various conversations on contracting for a prototype, so I may revisit crowdsourcing before this is all over. I will add that while this project has been in limbo, it feels like I am only a step or two away from development. I have met and talked to a lot of names in the war gaming business who have been quite helpful, to include the guys here at BFC. So all of this will be helpful once the dam breaks on getting a developer.

Hello snarre! Is the project dead? No... I am actively trying to get the programming help I need to make it happen. We had a programmer and on the eve of full development a couple years ago he had to back out for personal reasons. So I have been trying to find a developer, but funding is the primary limiting factor. So while this project is not dead, I must add that we haven't gone far with development in the last few years. The game mechanics are ready, we just need a programmer (or a war chest to hire one) to make this happen.

Hi Bulletpoint! If you are referring to the attached list in terms of scope creep, then no I don't believe that is the case. Most things on that list is a unit characteristic that impacts game algorithms in different ways. While game mechanics have evolved, the core scope of the game has been the same since I made this announcement. Much of what is seen on the forum are deep explanations on many of the different game concepts and characteristics. You ask if I have considered a simple version to push units around? No that is not under consideration for a variety of different reasons. I am using Vassal to create the mock-up images for the test scenario, but I have not set it up to have any deeper functionality than to generate pictures. Vassal may be of some use to you, and do some or all of what you are talking about. BFC has long told me that their market analysis tells them that the demand for a campaign layer to their CM games is not high enough to justify the risk and the cost of producing one. My recent experience backs up what they were telling me, so it is best to create something that can reach a wider market in hopes of making something close to sustainable. That is why my goal has been to create a standalone operational level game that has features built in to allow flexibility for playing out tactical battles. In other words if I can appeal to multiple niche markets then we have a chance.

@Artkin and @socalgiven, thanks for the messages. Keep in mind that Theater of Operations (ToO) will be designed as a standalone operational level game. It will NOT simply be a campaign layer for CM like CMC was, but that really is a good thing for a number of reasons. It just so happens that I am designing ToO with CM in mind. I also agree that ToO can totally transform the CM experience, hence my motivation for doing this. It will remove the all or nothing feel of CM battles. While that is certainly A LOT of fun, having a bigger picture will transform the battlefield calculus. @socalgiven, help is always appreciated! The help this project needs most is getting a lead programmer! We lost our lead programmer a few months ago right when we were looking to make some real progress. We can use a number of different types of game development disciplines for those that may be interested. Thanks, Matt

It’s been awhile since I have updated this forum, and a lot has happened. We have formed a company called BBG with 3 programmers (2 part time and 1 full time lead programmer) along with various other volunteers, and we have been working on a small project for a publisher to cut our teeth before fully getting in to Theater of Operations. Indie projects are a house of cards, and this is no different. Our lead programmer left due to other obligations and we are basically in a holding pattern until we find a new lead programmer(s). If you or someone you know would be interested in helping out then please send me a message through this forum or email me at choppinlt@gmail.com Experience with Unity is a big plus. Quick refresher on what this project is about: Theater of Operations (ToO) will be an operational level game designed to allow players to play out battles using Combat Mission. Call it a battle generator, operational layer, a campaign system, or whatever you like. Come over to our forum to learn lots more about this project: http://dogsofwarvu.com/forum/index.php/board,36.0.html Matt

Most battles are resolved using the combat resolution system for ToO, therefore most battles are NOT fought out at the tactical level. For any engagement that people want to play out using a tactical system (like CM), players may do so. In fact you can use any tactical system you want. For instance in the latest round of combat in the operational scenario I am doing, one person is using Advanced Squad Leader to resolve a tactical battle. Another person wants to fight a tactical battle using CM and is looking for an opponent. IanL and Mad Mike resolved the battle in this AAR thread. Then I can take the results and plug them in to the operational layer (ToO). Does this make sense? Again, feel free to check out the dogsofwarvu.com forum in my footer.

Hi @Erwin, IanL is correct. We renamed the game to Theater of Operations some time after the Kickstarter. There is tons of information on our forum regarding the project. Recently a gaming blog ran 2 articles on ToO and the link is on my forum. The plan is for 2 independent games, but the eventual goal is an automated link between the games. However lots of things need to happen first before that could ever become a reality. Nothing is stopping a manual link between the games (hence this AAR), but players just have to do some grunt work. So check out the thread that IanL linked here on this forum, and check out our main forum (linked below).

Hey I just wanted to let you guys know that another round of battles have started. I have a guy looking for a CM opponent to resolve a battle, If you are interested in resolving a battle come over to the forum at http://dogsofwarvu.com/forum/index.php/board,36.0.html -Matt

@IanL and @Mad Mike great battle to the both of you, and thank you so much for volunteering! And a special thanks to IanL for this brilliant AAR! So we have some options to discuss, but let's keep the most of the campaign level discussion on the other forum. I encourage anyone that wants to follow along or join the discussion you may do so at http://dogsofwarvu.com/forum/index.php/board,36.0.html . I will add that a new 'combat day' is getting ready to kick off and anyone wanting to participate to play out battles may do so by going to the forum and volunteering when the message is sent out.

@snare for clarification, the game is called Theater of Operations. You can read more about it on a post in this forum. http://community.battlefront.com/topic/109632-operational-level-game-announcement/ This CM scenario is part of an early manual beta test of TOO. So we are far along in terms of game design, mechanics, and algorithms. HOWEVER in terms of computer development (i.e. coding) we are NOT very far along. In short we need to develop interest and gain exposure because we need to find a funding source to create this game. We have the technical expertise, but this is a large complex project that requires a massive amount of time. So we need funding to dedicate our programmers full-time, otherwise development probably will never be completed. We are attempting to gain in exposure in a number of ways, that I won't talk about now. We have lots of information and updates on our forum located at http://dogsofwarvu.com/forum/index.php/board,36.0.html, and we are always looking for feedback and volunteers with the proper skill sets! @IanL this is great my friend! I am looking forward to seeing more!

@IanL it's fun to watch the battle unfold. I appreciate the effort of putting all these pictures up. The screenshots are great, but I love the map view visuals! As stated earlier, it does make me feel I am right there. Oh, and I hope @Mad Mike is taking good notes on what is going on with his forces so he can had some of the German perspective at the end of the battle! AGREED!! I don't know if there is anything that frustrates me quicker! @Christian Knudsen you talked earlier about the prongs vs the hedgerow cutters. That is a subtle detail that I never really caught, but it is quite significant! You are correct that in my reference material they make explicit mention of the prongs in great detail during 2/116's attack on 11Jul. The amount of detail leaves little doubt about the accuracy of the report. Interestingly, I seem to recall some reference material for a different unit, and they mentioned using cutters on the same day. Makes me curious if some units used them on 11Jul OR the other unit just didn't put much effort for accuracy in their reporting. I have to go back and find the material... Oh and thanks for the LtCol Mildren report, you are correct that is a great resource I had not come across!

Hi all, this has been a lot of fun and interesting to accomplish transitioning from operational to setting up a battle. I would first like to thank @Christian Knudsen for being the first volunteer to set up a battle. He threw me a curve ball when he wanted to do it using ASL! But hey, it was a great learning experience for us both and he went on to do A LOT of work regarding setting up battle using ASL. This will have great benefits later. Next I would like to thank @IanL and @Mad Mike for volunteering to set a battle up using CM. This was the first real attempt to convert an ongoing, dynamic campaign engagement in Theater of Operations to a CM battle. There were some areas of improvement identified, which is to be expected, but overall I thought it went well. Regarding CMPzC, it will be interesting to hear your comparisons and thoughts. I have a very basic understanding of how CMPzC works. Keep in mind that I had transitioning to CM part of my design with Theater of Operations (TO). I freely admit that battle transitioning is a bit cumbersome at the moment, because we are doing most things manually. Some people won't mind this, but many will (which is no different than CMPzC). When TO is ready it will include an option for each engagement for players to receive all transitioning information in a CM format to make transitioning to CM battles a simple process. There will still be manual scenario editing...until BFC works with us on an automated system (check out the "Operational Level Game Announcement" thread for more information on this aspect). And finally, my design assumption is that many/most engagements will not be played out manually. The amount of time and effort to do this would be immense...however nothing is stopping players from doing it. With this in mind, TO has a very robust battle resolution system to resolve battles quickly and easily. In this way players can resolve less interesting battles (or time won't allow manual resolution) and still go on with the campaign. In fact TO is a complete standalone game, and you don't have to resolve any battles manually if you don't want to. Regarding the CM map discussion, that would be AWESOME to have auto generated maps...just like in CMx1, but I seem to recall discussion from BFC stating it was far too much effort to accomplish vs the cost involved. Hopefully something will change, but short of that then we will have to use generic maps OR map makers will have to help. We can make great use of large maps. Map makers can create the large maps and players can 'cut out' and use only the parcels of land that they need to fight their engagement.

Tactical, Good point. I have already engaged their community in a number of ways, but I havn't done it recently. I can explicitly offer them a chance to play test a conversion. Thanks for the suggestion.