Jump to content

Is CM dying?


Recommended Posts

JonS 's guide was good, but showed me I don't have the patience or application to do a scenario.

The CM club is becoming more exclusive which is better if you are in but the barrier to entry discourages others.

It's about 10.30 pm UK time, I've just come back from my squash/racketball club where a few weeks ago I tried to encourage a few people I knew from bar conversations had an interest in history/war to actually try a wargame for adults - CM or AGEOD or Paradox by giving them copies I had bought. Sadly they all loaded them, saw the size of the manual and gave up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 271
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

We believe that quality is more important than quantity. Usually at this point in such a thread someone has already pointed out that the mass of scenarios for CMx1 were crap. That's to be expected when the barrier to uploading a scenario is set so low. You get really unskilled, sloppy work uploaded right alongside the best of the best of the best. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have 10 expertly crafted scenarios to download than 100 where only 10 are worth playing.

As I said already, the number of scenarios is not an indication of gamer interest. That means people are interested in CM even with the lower number of scenarios available. Which clearly indicates to me that large numbers of scenarios uploaded for CMx1 games weren't either necessary or wanted by players.

I tend to agree, to some extent. Nonetheless, is also true that everyone will at least have one sloppy scenario under their belts as everyone has to learn some new skills. I do also think that some people apply the same ruler to measure the quality of official scenarios and that of third-party scenarios, which I think is also a very unfair and unhelpful attitude.

And tools can always be refined so to be more friendly and to allow to reuse more work (like OOB's, although I discovered recently that the Import Campaign OOB feature can be used to great effect for that). I'm pretty sure that JonS, Paper Tiger and the rest of your crew have already generated a substantially long list of feature requests for the Scenario Editor. I can also understand that having the editor being part of the game - and using in-game UI capabilities to a great extent is a big limiting factor in what you guys can do.

Having the scenario editor carved out of the game, and deployed a stand-alone application that integrated with the desktop environment (opening the possibility of copying & pasting, for instance) and spawning in a window having the pre-view and deployment, would be a very good thing. But probably you've already thought about this as well :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CMSF didn't get anything in proportion to the previous CM games. While there is a lot of good stuff out there for CMSF it failed to reach anything like previous efforts.

IMO there were some excellent CMSF scenarios. Both in those that were included with the game, but also user made. Had there been better QB system I might still play it. Some very interesting weapons that made playing fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We will continue to make improvements to the Editor as we go along. There's already been a number of rather substantial improvements since Shock Force. Upgrade v3.0 will have some pretty darned nice ones specifically designed to make things easier and yet more powerful at the same time.

CM's Editor is, IMHO, very easy to use. What trips newbies up is the number of things the Editor does and the massive numbers of ways these things can be used in combination. As for that thought, you guys have done TONS of things with the Editor that we never even thought of when we designed it. Hats off :D

In the end, CMx1's Editor was far more simplistic because the game itself was simplistic. Game features, terrain variability, terrain scale, terrain combinations, etc. CMx2's Editor is more detailed because the game itself is more detailed in every way compared to CMx1. The Editor must match the detail of the game if it is to succeed.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been slowly (very slowly) putting together a Hill 112 scenario, which ultimately I hope to make into a campaign featuring 5/DCLI's assault on Hill 112 and two or three German counterattacks. It does take time particularly as this is my first effort but I find, like others here, that there it is very enjoyable and satisfying. The scenarios are unlikely to be easy on the eye - there wasn't much cover around Hill 112 and both sides used plenty of artillery. However I did very much want to cover it and while I can see now that it won't be the most engaging CMBN scenario, I have to finish it now that I have put so much time into it.

I hope to make more once I get practised at it and I really hope that people enjoy the end product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish I knew where people get the time to play all these extra player made scenarios. It takes me about a year to just get through the stock scenarios/campaigns the game comes with. IMO the game gives a lot of bang for the buck out of the box.

As far as CM dying, I don’t see it ever happening unless something much better than it was to ever come out. It is kind of like saying chess will die someday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking to the original point, if you want to see what dying titles look like check out the Drop Team chat board. :)CM:Afghanistan had a good run and the people who bought it loved it, but that board has been growing increasingly quiet too. That was one of those "You don't know what you're missing" titles that CM fans should consider picking up on a lark - Low expectations combined with high entertainment value. Sure, the game engine's out of date and you won't still playing 2 years from now, but fun is still fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The death of CM has been greatly exaggerated.

If anything, this community is spoiled for choice. When it comes to gaming options from both private and "corporate" scenario creators, there's something for everyone.

And, while I'll take quality over quantity any day, thanks to BFC we have both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was totally out on CM earlier this year. Not sure why but I just got frustrated with the bugs and lots of little things that have since been tweaked (urban combat stuff especially). Now that I can play the game on my nice little laptop with all the cool new features and everything I think I'm back in all the way.

I would still argue that CMSF is the best bang for your buck in the history of gaming. I have a massive stack of scenarios and campaigns I'm yet to complete. If CMSF had that much content over time, I can only imagine how much will eventually be available for the WW2 CMx2 games. Especially with the continuing rollout of nifty new features that keep the older titles fresh. There really isn't anything else out there that scratches the same itch.

The one big thing I wish was different is that all the content launched from one platform and units/maps could be interchanged, patched all at the same time, that sort of stuff. It seems like that would just be easier all the way around, and make so much sense for the "packs" but I guess not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I can have a bob each way, I love the 'professional' scenarios, and try and play them against human opponents, so as not to waste them, but I also like playing quick battles against the AI. It would be super if people didn't mind making little 'quicky' scenarios - semi-historical, small to medium, nice forces. No need for a complex AI plan, just setup the defender's forces in an intelligent way (which the AI often struggles to do).

The kind of thing that could do for a QB between human opponents to overcome the cherry-picking thing that happens in H2H QBs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JonS 's guide was good, but showed me I don't have the patience or application to do a scenario.

Very good point. But you don't have to try to craft such a massively groggy beast on your first outing with the editor. I have to do a lot of research to craft the campaigns but I craft my own stand-alones as well and the amount of research that goes in to creating them is almost zero. I let the date of the scenario and the unit editor tell me what's 'historically' pickable and have fun doing the rest. I also enjoy creating my own fictional maps which have their own unique challenges.

The CM club is becoming more exclusive which is better if you are in but the barrier to entry discourages others.

It really isn't as much work as that 'guide to scenario creation' makes it out to be. Making a map with the editor really isn't hard work at all as long as you're not trying to make a photorealistic recreation of a WW2 battlefield. Set your aim a lot lower. FWIW, my first few CMBN maps were all of Suffolk where I used to live. This was a lot of fun to do. Of course, there were no battles fought in Suffolk during WW2 but who really gives a damn. These maps were the core of my QB maps until I finished Montebourg and I've made a few cracking stand-alones out of them as well.

Once you've got something that looks like a map, buy some units and start playing around. If scenario creation is your thing, you'll enjoy the process and get better at it by doing. If it's not your thing, well, all the guides and help given won't change that so give it up and just play the game instead. Assuming it is your thing, create a few for yourself first and then get something up for testing. Then you're in the club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About making maps and building scenarios, the most fun ones for me have been quick 'test scenarios' I've thrown together in no time. Really, people do tend to overthink scenario design. The maps doesn't really have to be an exact recreation of a specific map coordinate. It can be a hill with a tree on top. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PaperTiger has a good point. JonS' guide was written for a more advanced type of scenario maker. One that wishes to create a very detailed historically correct scenario. I personally have always preferred making fictional ones. I like the creativity and flexibility that comes with that. When making a fictional battle you have no standards to be judged by except "fun". And "fun" is a lot easier to achieve than "historically accurate".

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really, the same map with a plowed field painted in instead of wheat, with the location of a couple houses shifted and a couple extra bumps added to the terrain , your brain is going to read it as an entirely different location. In CMFI Gustav Line you can blanket it all in heavy snow too. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally have always preferred making fictional ones. I like the creativity and flexibility that comes with that. When making a fictional battle you have no standards to be judged by except "fun". And "fun" is a lot easier to achieve than "historically accurate".

Steve

Amen to that.

I have been making scenarios for CM for maybe seven years now, but haven't made a historically accurate one yet (I think?), though it is defintely my ambition to do so sometime.

Nevertheless, if you have to choose between creating a scenario that is historically accurate or one that is fun to play, I think you should always choose fun - while striving to achieve the highest possible accuracy.

Luckily, we are not always forced to choose. This community has great designers that are able to combine the two masterfully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i rarely play scenarios thesedays

i do however appreciate the maps contained therein

as i can easily mod them for use in QBs,my prefered method of play

i spend a bit of time in the editor to create QB maps,as i quickly run out of new ones to battle my opponents on

i really miss the old map generator but understand the explanations of why it wont work in CM2

still would be a handy tool even if you have to manually tweak the oddities it throws up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me nothings is a s good as a scenario that keeps true with history. That being said.. fictional or semi fictional scenarios can be very fun as well. Starting out as a scenario maker, starting with a small battle that is fictional is definately the way to go. You learn with time..

And a big thanks to all how make scenarios and post for us to enjoy. I think many of us are intimidated by the new challanges with the CMx2 engine compared with the CMx1. But I have over the last year started to work with the editor, creating maps. Its a lot of fun.. might just release a scenario when I have more time over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

Just noticed this..

Historical or fictional is fine... but with me I do like the terrain to be real. It makes a huge difference.

A lot of the nature of the fighting, the tactics.. come from the terrain. It is also very difficult to “fake...” terrain. So I always take the elevations, waterways, roads from the real world.

That is why the Mastermaps are such a great idea. Real terrain you just cut to size. And then if you wish fight a fictional battle over.

All good stuff,

All the best,

Kip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree about terrain being real.

I like best those scenarios where the map looks as if people live/use the village etc, not that it has been designed to make some battle details possible, like defending easier. Especially bocage: is it like artificial labyrinth or defense fortress - or is it like the fields were used for farming? Google Maps Street View is a great tool for checking how things really look like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a big reason that people get less feedback on scenarios is that the Repository is pretty much a mess. I never know where to get new scenarios, and even if I find one you never know if you should comment there or go on the forum.

I think a key to keeping the community alive would be the following:

1. Restructure the Repsitory to make it easier for people to find mods and scenarios

2. The BF team includes new scenarios developed by the community in its patches. In addition, these patched should be a little easier for the community to find. Many of us know to look for patches, but there has to be a way for BF to notify all of the players that there is an updated version of their game available.

3. Figure out a way to browse scenarios directly from the game

I think 1 and 2 are the best options. The patches are already fairly sizable and adding in 10 community made scenarios could really expand the scope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a big reason that people get less feedback on scenarios is that the Repository is pretty much a mess. I never know where to get new scenarios, and even if I find one you never know if you should comment there or go on the forum.

I agree that the Repository isn´t very userfriendly and as such isn´t very helpful in providing feedback.

I usually make a thread in the Maps and Mods section for players to comment in when I upload a scenario, map or mod. Unfortunately, there is no link between file in the repository and the comment thread. If these could somehow become more intregrated I think we would have come a long way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...