We Need Another "The Road Ahead" from BF.

[Sequoia]

ChrisND said they're getting close to another patch for Black Sea. I would bet once that's done they'll work on getting up a major announcement for the Bulge. Yeah I know they work on more than one thing at a time but I'm sticking to my story.

[Ardem]

A new family but why.....

 

I wished BF would stopped making families or made just an east west family, it basically cancel out all the what if scenarios. Hell I would prefer just one family myself.

 

I feel like BFC is like the government telling me I must eat my peas with a fork not a spoon. In my opinion there is no logical explanation in my mind why they keep opening up new families rather then modules.

 

What if I want to play Normandy in 1945 then 1944 because, allied command delayed the invasion due to italy invasion being a disaster eliminating a lot of the landing craft that was used in Normandy.

 

Or market-garden happened with light snow instead of September, all these things cannot be realized cause I am confined how to play.

 

I am not angry with BFC here just very much disappointed because when we went from CMx1, where we had a whole front to deal with we were told modules will fill it out so by the end we should have the same front and it was more of a financial decision, now I am finding that is not the case. I feel let down from those conversations that were discussed many years ago when people initially raised these concerns.

 

I know I am just a voice in the wilderness on this, and will continue to support BFC game because on the whole they do good work, just a shame that's all.

[womble]

A new family but why.....In my opinion there is no logical explanation in my mind why they keep opening up new families rather then modules...

It's been explained. You've been around. It's logical. You just don't accept that it's necessary. I agree with you that it's a suboptimal choice of architecture, and, like you, wish there was one "spine" of the game into which you could plug the components you want to play with, and then play against someone who brings their own components. Maybe they'll change the architecture if they ever go to Cmx3, but for now it's fixed in stone by decisions made many years ago.

 

One of the reasons I think BFC chose the compromise they have is that they simply aren't interested in hypotheticals about WW2. The conflict is interesting enough if confined to historical parameters, in their opinion, and keeping a product focused on a distinct period and region mitigates a lot of problems. For example, if you're ever going to allow early-war vs late-war fights, your algorithm for determining the points cost of the assets has to hold up over a far broader range of capabilities than if you can be sure most of the assets involved will be in a narrower range of capability; points cost arguments are another thing BFC doesn't favour.

[Frenchtouch]

If it's a financial reason, why they don't make a "super module " at the same price (+ the price of a patch) and let the user to have the choice to buy a new family game or simply expand CMBN - MG...

I'm sure people prefer to pay plus to have all the content under the same game...

[womble]

If it's a financial reason, why they don't make a "super module " at the same price (+ the price of a patch) and let the user to have the choice to buy a new family game or simply expand CMBN - MG...

I'm sure people prefer to pay plus to have all the content under the same game...

You know that, do you? You've seen their code? And analysed what is practicable? You do understand that doing things two ways involves more work and that it would mean everyone waiting longer for new stuff, don't you? Sure, there's a financial element: new work has to be paid for, but there are limits on what BFC can cram into one family, unless they're lying like cheap rugs.

[Frenchtouch]

You know that, do you? You've seen their code? And analysed what is practicable? You do understand that doing things two ways involves more work and that it would mean everyone waiting longer for new stuff, don't you? Sure, there's a financial element: new work has to be paid for, but there are limits on what BFC can cram into one family, unless they're lying like cheap rugs.

You right, things are not so simple ! I love this game and its just a wish...possible or not.

[t34577685]

I‘d rather like that BFC don't divide ostfront or westfront into such many family.

If they divide each frontline into many DLC under one family ,I aslo agree.

Many dlc will not make the player unhappy,but many family will double（triple） the same mod file ,double（triple） the QB map file,etc.

For example 1:I just made a QB MAP for CMRT,but I want to play the same map in CM:kursk(IF IT'S OUT now),I need to put it into CM:kursk folder , and then perherps the QB map can't be read in CM:kursk,I need to make the map again in CM:kursk editor.

For example 2:I just play a QB about the battle in berlin in1945.05,and then I want to play a house to house fighting in Stalingard in 1942.10 ,I need to EXIT the CMRT,and start the CM:STALINGARD .EXE.

SO I wish :the number of  FAMILY should reduce and the number of DLC can make lot.

Edited March 26, 2015 by t34577685

[BLSTK]

 

...I feel like BFC is like the government telling me I must eat my peas with a fork not a spoon. In my opinion there is no logical explanation in my mind why they keep opening up new families rather then modules.

 

 

 

Damn. And to think that all this time I've been using my bare hands.

[vincere]

we want "melee attack“！          

 

I miss those rare climaxes, that really added to a battle's 'story'.

[Sequoia]

I miss those rare climaxes, that really added to a battle's 'story'.

 

That's what she said.

[umlaut]

Damn. And to think that all this time I've been using my bare hands.

Ditto

[womble]

Yeah, there's a whole load of advantages to having a unified system. But BFC know that, and it's not going to happen under the current architecture. Not until CMx3 or x4* at least. Possibly never. Though games rules with "supplements" to deal with specific periods and locations are a traditional publishing system that seems to be working okay for realworld analogues like Flames of War; you could think of the FoW-branded figures as "DLC", along with all the various army supplements.

 

* For the unfamiliar: CMx1 was CM: Beyond Overlord, CM: BB and CM: AK. CMSF, CMBN, CMFI, CMRT and CMBS are CMx2 (currently at v-for-version 3). CMx3 and CMx4 are speculative future products, with as much relation to CMx2 as CMx2 has to CMx1(i.e. mostly the rough scale and the subject matter).

[delliejonut]

* For the unfamiliar: CMx1 was CM: Beyond Overlord, CM: BB and CM: AK. CMSF, CMBN, CMFI, CMRT and CMBS are CMx2 (currently at v-for-version 3). CMx3 and CMx4 are speculative future products, with as much relation to CMx2 as CMx2 has to CMx1(i.e. mostly the rough scale and the subject matter).

 

Care to point me to some of this speculation? I'd like to drool over it

[womble]

Care to point me to some of this speculation? I'd like to drool over it

No way, man! Sorry! I'm not having you drool all over my head...

 

I'm sure others have hypothesised about putative successors to CMx2; go drool on them!

 

Seriously, though, I'm not sure there's anything concrete. The only "horse's mouth" blue sky ideas have been that BFC (think it was Steve) have said they [may | will probably] be moving away from OpenGL "at some point".[endfacts][speculation=pickupwhereyouleftoff] Perhaps that would signal a next gen. set of code worthy of the "CMxn+1" tag, perhaps it wouldn't. [speculationmode=hopeful]Perhaps it would be accompanied by product architecture changes along with the graphical environment revamp, perhaps it won't. Maybe, sometime down the line, BFC will unify the core engine and adjust the product architecture so that what are now Families and Modules would just all be Expansions or Battle Boxes (or whatever), and be freely integratable.[/speculationmode][/speculation]

[vincere]

That's what she said.

Close action is all the more satisfying when in the woods. And to think back in the day is was just some shovel type slap sounds. I'd settle for abstracted animation and those sounds back

[Parker Schnabel]

The only "horse's mouth" blue sky ideas have been that BFC (think it was Steve) have said they [may | will probably] be moving away from OpenGL "at some point".

If it was done already it seems to me to be the worst possible point in time, since Vulkan and SPIR-V are about to lift off. First demos from Intel show incredible performance (+50% framerates @50% less driveroverhead). The days of buggy and overall complex OGL and DX drivers forcing developers to implement specific workarounds finally seem to come to an end with this low level multiplatform solution.

[JRMC1879]

A new family but why.....

I wished BF would stopped making families or made just an east west family, it basically cancel out all the what if scenarios. Hell I would prefer just one family myself.

I feel like BFC is like the government telling me I must eat my peas with a fork not a spoon. In my opinion there is no logical explanation in my mind why they keep opening up new families rather then modules.

What if I want to play Normandy in 1945 then 1944 because, allied command delayed the invasion due to italy invasion being a disaster eliminating a lot of the landing craft that was used in Normandy.

Or market-garden happened with light snow instead of September, all these things cannot be realized cause I am confined how to play.

I am not angry with BFC here just very much disappointed because when we went from CMx1, where we had a whole front to deal with we were told modules will fill it out so by the end we should have the same front and it was more of a financial decision, now I am finding that is not the case. I feel let down from those conversations that were discussed many years ago when people initially raised these concerns.

I know I am just a voice in the wilderness on this, and will continue to support BFC game because on the whole they do good work, just a shame that's all.

Jesus. Not again. They have given us the greatest game ever, things I dreamed of as a young gamer and all it seems some want to do is bitch and moan about it.

This model keeps them in business , harking back to cmx1 days is just futile and dumb. Play the games and if you don't like it keep it to yourself.

Edited March 26, 2015 by JRMC1879

[womble]

If it was done already it seems to me to be the worst possible point in time, since Vulkan and SPIR-V are about to lift off. First demos from Intel show incredible performance (+50% framerates @50% less driveroverhead). The days of buggy and overall complex OGL and DX drivers forcing developers to implement specific workarounds finally seem to come to an end with this low level multiplatform solution.

What is it about "may" or "will probably" that suggests it's "done already"? BFC might've changed their minds since the last time they spoke on the matter. Or there might still be better environments for what they want to do going forward.

 

And do these new flavours of OpenGL actually address the restrictions that BFC are already experiencing in the environment? I don't know whether things like the FoW/terrain mesh thing is just a feature of how BFC have gone about things, or whether it's something set in stone by the graphics environment. It'd be great if the new OpenGL incarnation was a "magic bullet" that solved that kind of thing, though of course there would be work to do to exploit the new opportunities (unless it really is "magic" ). Whatever the case for the pixel-stirring part of the game, a new graphics engine wouldn't offer much help in changing the product format: it might have an effect on the overhead of dealing with multiplicities of terrain types (though I'd've thought those sorts of issues would be dealt with before the tactical environment loaded), but not much beyond that.

 

 

This model keeps them in business , harking back to cmx1 days is just futile and dumb. Play the games and if you don't like it keep it to yourself.

It's not the only one that does, and as the number of Families proliferates, the work involved in tinkering with each one's engine is only going to grow. It's conceivable that there will come a point where it's easier to have it as a trunk-plus-addons than several little trees. It certainly will be for the user.

[BLSTK]

 

Seriously, though, I'm not sure there's anything concrete. The only "horse's mouth" blue sky ideas have been that BFC (think it was Steve) have said they [may | will probably] be moving away from OpenGL "at some point".[endfacts][speculation=pickupwhereyouleftoff] Perhaps that would signal a next gen. set of code worthy of the "CMxn+1" tag, perhaps it wouldn't. [speculationmode=hopeful]Perhaps it would be accompanied by product architecture changes along with the graphical environment revamp, perhaps it won't. Maybe, sometime down the line, BFC will unify the core engine and adjust the product architecture so that what are now Families and Modules would just all be Expansions or Battle Boxes (or whatever), and be freely integratable.[/speculationmode][/speculation]

 

Speak English, man!

[Battlefront.com]

Just to confirm what has already been said, CMx2 was not written with the idea of a single engine. We had planned on each Family having a definitive lifespan, just like CMx1 games had. The Upgrade concept evolved because you guys made it know, pretty clearly, that you didn't want your favorite subject matter to go unimproved over time. Nor did you want to repurchase the same content you already had just to get some new features which, eventually, would also eventually get behind the times. The time spent making separate Upgrades and patches for each of the existing 4 Families is significant.

In theory it could be forced to work that way, but we do not feel it is a wise use of our limited resources. One could argue that the Upgrades aren't worth it either, and cumulatively over a long period of time that's true. The difference is we can do the Upgrades a little here and a little there, but converting to a single engine would mean massive work all up front. So we don't foresee a change in strategy for CMx2.

Oh, and anybody thinking that a single engine concept would be like CMx1 is just being silly We will never, ever, ever, ever, ever give away so much content for so little money ever again. The production costs are simply too high to contemplate such foolishness. Which means any single engine concept would be almost identical to what we're doing for CMx2, but with only one central application to be upgraded and patched.

Steve

[womble]

So, Steve, knowing what you know now, and given the chance to start over (yeah, yeah, more speculation ) would you go for the "spine plus content packs" approach (in a revenue-neutral pricing structure)?

[Battlefront.com]

Yup. The "one core to rule them all" concept is very appealing to us from a development standpoint. When we designed CMx1 we had no provisions for expansion or longevity. CMx2 was designed for both, but more for the engine and not for any one particular Family. We extended the original concept with Upgrades, but that's about all we can do without major code monkeying. As I said, we don't believe it's a good idea for us to pursue with CMx2. From scratch, though, absolutely.

Steve

[A Canadian Cat]

Ooo, "one core to rule them all" my precision.

[General Jack Ripper]

Yup. The "one core to rule them all" concept is very appealing to us from a development standpoint.

 

Oddly enough, I do recall the explanation of the "modular structure" of CMx2 from the pre Shock Force days, with the one "Base Game" and ability to plug in "Modules" containing additional content, like hanging ornaments on a Christmas tree. It seemed to me at the time, that the "One Core" idea was brilliant, and I had always assumed CMx2 had those capabilities.

But you are saying, for want of an analogy, that there's no way to upgrade the tree stand without buying a whole new tree first?

If that's true, you guys got 90% of the way towards "Future Proofing" Combat Mission, without even realizing it at the time. Just goes to show how good these games are.

[Ardem]

Ignoring the white knights (white knights have always confused me, especially when I took the time make sure my post was not offensive to BFC or Steve who has always been pleasant to my posts even if they are critical),

 

This was my understanding pre-shock day and actually cause I do not dwell in the forum up until this post. It was even explained this way after I raised it way back then, obvious that's a long time ago and thought processes change.

 

I could understand Italy and I could understand CMRT being separate families, so to me it was like the 3 families in the old games CMBO, CMAK, CMBB. I was happily going along until I saw a few days ago Bulge as a new product not as a until module, like Commonwealth and Market Garden. As I said just disappointed as I was expecting it to be apart of the CMN family. Nor am I saying I would not pay the same price as a family or a module I happily pay the same if not more for unit packs, because it fill out my CM families with detail.

 

I have an understanding about software development  (professional) and games development (hobby) so I am no unfamiliar when a branch cannot support the weight or was not designed to do so. But I would of personally rather seen unit packs for earlier modules then engine updates. However I am sure I am probably alone with this. Oh well c'est la vie!

 

CMRT means if there is new families that much of the battles on the eastern front could not be played a lot of equipment was used thought the war till then end.

Edited March 28, 2015 by Ardem