The start of actual news

[Sequoia]

AND we will have Fallschirmjaegers available all the way back to June right?

[kohlenklau]

Steve: "ehh, honey, I'm gonna go ahead and start the Market Garden Thread today"

Steve's significant other (SO): "TODAY!!!?? I'm making lasagna and Aunt Mildred is bringing over her eldeberry wine!"

Steve: "I understand, but baby, I promise just a few short posts and I am in the dining room right away..."

Steve's SO: "Those blood sucking ba$tards will never be satisfied with anything you say! FINE!!! Your lasagna will be by the microwave...."

:-)

[Elmar Bijlsma]

At this point I think Steve is not going to be wrongfooted by any sort of optimism. He knows this community's favourite word is "more"!

[Ithikial_AU]

Thanks for the news and glad it's not being cancelled. Heart skipped a beat.

Questions about terrain and geography. Though the focus of this module is Market Garden, time wise it brings the CMx2 series out to Sept 1944. Would it be possible to also model other areas of the western front to Sept 44, or will everything in the editor have distinct Dutch feel? Also any chance of some Industrial/Factory like modular buildings? We are approaching the Rhine after all.

[iMolestCats]

I'm disappointed to hear about gliders but will larger flavor objects on the list for features for v3.0? Also would it be possible to put the gliders under the vehicles tab, but with no crew and with crashed, destroyed, and OK choices?

I think i will die if we never get gliders...

[John Kettler]

Michael Emrys,

If you check my post #21 at link below, you'll see I explicitly raised the proper demo charge issue for bridges, which now was a waste of my time. It amazes me that what I had in Tractics (a set of TSR WW II rules for warfare with miniatures), we don't have some 40 years later in a highly sophisticated military sim!

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=109886&page=3

Erwin,

I raised the issue of gliders in that same post, with another rejection. Sigh.

Regards,

John Kettler

[para]

Boo good news then lots of bad news

[kohlenklau]

Bring all the families and modules on! packs too. thank you thank you thank you!

trusting in you and looking forward to whatever your creative juices arrange for OMG.

Wow, but I guess you gotta be careful writing a campaign that tries to show for example 101st dropping in France and then during OMG. Only folks who bought the proper combo of modules can play it? If you own all 3 modules, CMBN, CW and OMG and draw upon some combination of your combined editorial pallet to make a scenario or campaign, what is it prefixed with? Base game (no probs), CW (OK, you own CW, you can play this) CW-OMG (you own all 3, no problem) But what about just base game skipping CW but bought OMG? I guess it just doesn't load or what? This coming from the guy who has posted only one scenario to the repository thank you very much.

[McAuliffe]

Would it be possible to also model other areas of the western front to Sept 44, or will everything in the editor have distinct Dutch feel? Also any chance of some Industrial/Factory like modular buildings? We are approaching the Rhine after all.

I was wondering as well. (Actually, imho the windmill is a-typical for the MG area)

Will it cover or allow to develop scenarios about the Battle of the Scheldt, the fighting in the Alsace, the first probes at the Siegfried-line, Aachen maybe?

Will we have Buffalo's, Wasps, DUKWs? Can we have railcars as doodad or building?

...any news on follow the leader command?

[Fenris]

...snip

But what about just base game skipping CW but bought OMG? I guess it just doesn't load or what? This coming from the guy who has posted only one scenario to the repository thank you very much.

Currently if you don't have the required module(s) the scenario is greyed out in the battle selection screen and it tells you which module is missing I think.

-F

[Pak40]

Sublime is correct. Bridge demolition is not something we will likely ever support. As much as people think it's important to WW2 combat, it isn't. Not at CM's scale. We can not afford to be distracted by things like that.

Well, not so much important to combat but important for an objective that you can capture before it's purposely destroyed. The only way I can think of doing that now is to just abruptly end the battle which would signify the bridge being blown before being captured. The downside to this method is that there is still a battle for the surrounding terrain and prematurely ending it will not reflect the rest of the battle.

No support for persistent map damage anticipated in the near future as far as I can see. It's more complicated than just reusing a damaged map from a previous battle. But I'm not ruling out at least examining it for Market Garden.

Steve

Hmm, really? I kind of envisioned something like this:

Battle A ends, prompting you to save before exiting to the next battle.

Battle B loads but uses map from last save of Battle A. Battle B is designed with the exact same map as battle A did in the beginning of the battle - this will allow for accurate default deployment of troops. Issues will arise where default deployment will not be possible, i.e. 2nd floor of a destroyed building, but I suppose you can code it so that the AI will choose the next best available building or cover.

[iMolestCats]

Hmm, really? I kind of envisioned something like this:

Battle A ends, prompting you to save before exiting to the next battle.

Battle B loads but uses map from last save of Battle A. Battle B is designed with the exact same map as battle A did in the beginning of the battle - this will allow for accurate default deployment of troops. Issues will arise where default deployment will not be possible, i.e. 2nd floor of a destroyed building, but I suppose you can code it so that the AI will choose the next best available building or cover.

Thats exactly what i was thinking...

[kohlenklau]

Without persistent map damage, I can't think of how someone can make a decent multi-battle campaign of the Red Devils at Arnhem bridge. Campaigns now have to progress on to some new map.

Someday Stalingrad with no persistent map damage?

CM1 somehow had it, right? And also in no man's land, the destroyed vehicles would stay there. Try hard guys. Solve the complications. Please.

[Broadsword56]

Without persistent map damage, I can't think of how someone can make a decent multi-battle campaign of the Red Devils at Arnhem bridge. Campaigns now have to progress on to some new map.

Someday Stalingrad with no persistent map damage?

CM1 somehow had it, right? And also in no man's land, the destroyed vehicles would stay there. Try hard guys. Solve the complications. Please.

+1 for persistent map damage, but would this be a workaround? To wit:

After the first battle, make a copy of the campaign. Open this new one in the editor and apply said damage from Map #1 to Map #2. Save and then resume play from that point.

[Battlefront.com]

Quick answers:

1. As soon as I finish typing this I'll revise the original post to reflect the fact that Fallschirmjäger are included. Told you I forgot about some stuff

2. We've had the discussion of bridge demolition probably 100 times. It's a dead issue. There's no justification for us distracting ourselves with something that isn't tactically relevant. Simulating seizing a bridge before it is blown up is easily done with the current options. The number of times a bridge was in serious danger of being blown in a tactical battle can probably be counted on one hand. For all of WW2.

3. Persistent map damage is not necessary for Campaigns. Remember, Campaigns are NOT CMx1 Operations. 4 battles taking place on the same map? No problem. The Campaign designer makes one map and customizes the damage for the subsequent battles. All set. No, the damage is not going to be precisely the same, but that's not really important since Campaigns are not designed to simulate continuous battles in one spot at one time. To do that we'd need to have persistent map damage AND a simulation of front lines. Just like CMx1 Operations, which didn't work to anybody's satisfaction. As we've said consistently we will not go down that route again. Spending tons of time on something a minority of people want and won't be happy with is pointless.

4. Certainly you can simulate battles besides those of Market Garden. However, without Commonwealth you're going to be naturally limited in what you can/can't cover. With Commonwealth you can do pretty much everything. Except the amphibious landing stuff since we don't have those vehicles available. Yet That's the sort of thing a Pack is designed for.

5. We will not code things in the future to make Flavor Objects larger than what the current code can handle. There's a huge amount of work to do proportional to the actual use of it. It's just not worth doing.

6. There's no problem making a Campaign with a variety of different Modules. But yes, you won't be able to play it unless you have those Modules. There's nothing complicated about that. Nor with having a single battle that has units that require different Modules. Designers should specify that to make it easy on players, but even if they don't the game won't load them.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

It amazes me that what I had in Tractics (a set of TSR WW II rules for warfare with miniatures), we don't have some 40 years later in a highly sophisticated military sim!

Because it's a BS feature that belongs only in comic books (sorry... graphic novels) and over-the-top ahistorical films. It has NO place in a highly sophisticated military sim, hence why it's not in CM

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Well, not so much important to combat but important for an objective that you can capture before it's purposely destroyed. The only way I can think of doing that now is to just abruptly end the battle which would signify the bridge being blown before being captured. The downside to this method is that there is still a battle for the surrounding terrain and prematurely ending it will not reflect the rest of the battle.

First of all, the number of times this actually happened in WW2 could probably be counted on one hand. Compare that to the number of bridges that were fought over. It's really not relevant.

However, if someone really wants to simulate something like that it can be done. In such rare instances if the bridge wasn't seized before it was blown up, the rest of the battle basically ended because the attacker would hold up and regroup. Therefore, it is not at all unrealistic to have a time limit and if the attackers get the bridge then it is assumed the bridge is "taken" or "destroyed" if they don't. Taking surrounding terrain isn't relevant because in real life the mission for both sides revolves around the bridge and only the bridge.

Hmm, really? I kind of envisioned something like this:

Battle A ends, prompting you to save before exiting to the next battle.

Battle B loads but uses map from last save of Battle A. Battle B is designed with the exact same map as battle A did in the beginning of the battle - this will allow for accurate default deployment of troops. Issues will arise where default deployment will not be possible, i.e. 2nd floor of a destroyed building, but I suppose you can code it so that the AI will choose the next best available building or cover.

heh... it's always fun to see someone say "I don't see where the problems are. You just have to do x, y, and z". It apparently doesn't register that x, y, and z are the problems of which we speak

Obviously it's not impossible to have persistent map damage. It's actually quite straight forward. But it's time spent in a place that we feel doesn't have much bang for the buck with the entire customer base. A big bang for some? Absolutely. But I'm sure people would rather us devote the time to something like flamethrowers or something else. So it's not a high priority for us, though that isn't the same as no plans to do it at all (like bridge blowing).

Steve

[The Teacher]

Thank you for all the hard work everyone at BFC. Its fantastic what you guys are doing for our hobby.

Just a question for us guys that like our battles bigger and longer than most.

Will a small ammo dump ever be included in the games so we can resupply the troops and mortars ?

My happy pixeltroopers love shooting everything up and ammo is an issue in scenario's longer than about an hour and a half. I know at this time certain vehicles have got ammo but Im thinking more along the lines of a battalion HQ in the rear area of the battle with maybe a tarp pulled between 2 trucks and a pile of boxes so it stands out.

Market-Garden seems like the perfect time to have small ammo dumps because the German forces were so stretched very thin in alot of places.

The small dump would help the thin forces with ammo so the desperate defence could keep up the fight.

I've studied MG in some detail and the Germans used every method available to them to get ammo to the troops as did the Allies.

We dont have horses, wagons or hand carts so a ammo dump would fit the bill in my humble opinion.

Duck, roll and play dead.

Stephen

[sburke]

Technically speaking...if you use an 81mm mtr team as your "demo" group, you can blow a bridge..

[Fenris]

Personally I liked the "operations" in CM1. I think calling them that though was incorrect and therefore somewhat misleading. To me CM1 operations were the battles and the 30 - 120 minute scenarioes we play were the fights that made up the battle as a whole. How often do we read of multiple attacks going in over the course of a day or so, I liked how CM1 ops simulated that and I thought they did a good job of portraying that sort of thing - attack, counter attack, re-enforce and resupply, attack again etc until the day is won or lost.

But that's just me

-F

[Battlefront.com]

Certainly the CMx1 Operations have their supporters. But our conclusion, even before CMAK, was that only a small % of our customers cared to play them. That's not good, but the worse thing is the small number who were playing had tons of complaints. At the same time we had large numbers of people wanting us to abandon Operations in favor of one or another broader Campaign style system.

In the end we concluded we were putting too much time into the wrong system and that further development was not likely to yield good results. Plus, for CMx2 we would have to write all fresh code with all new problems to deal with. Because we couldn't (and still can't) afford to have two different systems, we chose to go with the system more people asked for. And that system was the opposite of fighting on the same map.

As I've said many times before, I was the one that came up with the Operations design because that was the type of battle I wanted to fight as a gamer. I also thought Operations were OK, but certainly plagued with some serious flaws. Fans of Operations could not have a stronger supporter for Operations in CMx2 than me, yet I decided before CMAK was done that Operations had to be abandoned. As as a designer I have to listen to what people want, choose from the competing desires, and be realistic about what we can achieve.

Since CMSF we have probably heard far fewer complaints about Campaigns than Operations, yet our sense is that a MUCH larger percentage of our customers play Campaigns than played Operations. More people playing + less complaints = we made the right choice back in 2003/2004 to abandon Operations.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Ammo dumps have been on my wish list since before CMBN. I don't know when we might get them into the game, but I'm hoping for v3. We took a half step with v2 (deep within the data structures) so it is probably within reach.

One thing you can do is add trucks to scenarios. They have all kinds of ammo present, including things like Bazookas, Panzerfausts, and other fun things, depending on what formation the truck is attached to. This is sorta like ammo dumps. In fact, for the US and Commonwealth forces trucks are pretty much what they actually used as ammo dumps at the tactical level. The largely foot based Germans, however, didn't have such luxuries in real life. But nothing's perfect

Steve

[sburke]

we just need to be able to acquire grenades, lots of grenades.

[JonS]

[LukeFF]

Ammo dumps have been on my wish list since before CMBN. I don't know when we might get them into the game, but I'm hoping for v3. We took a half step with v2 (deep within the data structures) so it is probably within reach.

One thing you can do is add trucks to scenarios. They have all kinds of ammo present, including things like Bazookas, Panzerfausts, and other fun things, depending on what formation the truck is attached to. This is sorta like ammo dumps. In fact, for the US and Commonwealth forces trucks are pretty much what they actually used as ammo dumps at the tactical level. The largely foot based Germans, however, didn't have such luxuries in real life. But nothing's perfect

Steve, regarding ammo supply: right now American vehicles carry paltry amounts of .45 cal ammo, while on the German side, 9mm ammo is in abundance. This makes it hard to keep troops armed with .45 cal weapons properly supplied. Secondly, the only unit from which the player can replenish ammo for the MP44 right now is a bunker. As the game is now moving into late 1944 (when the MP44 became more common), will we finally see German vehicles carrying 7.92 Kurz ammo?