What is going on?

[sburke]

6 hours ago, FlammenwerferX said:

 As is the decision not to attempt a user-friendly, CM1 style scenario editor.

1 hour ago, FlammenwerferX said:

Did I say it was easy!? Go back to my post. I think it was Mr. sburke that said it was easy.

 

I beg to differ.  YOU said it was the CM1 user friendly scenario editor.  And with that I am bowing out.  I am more than happy to discuss the merits of the game, but not with folks who keep shifting their statements in the conversation.  Own what you say or don't bother saying it.

sburke out

Edited October 14, 2017 by sburke

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I've designed with both and I'd agree that CM1 overall was an order of magnitude easier, especially for lazy blighters like me who tweak existing maps.  On the other hand, exactly as @Combatintman says, it wasn't always a certainty that your schemes would work out as you intended with CM1, sometimes this was a good thing (your own scenario could surprise you), sometimes it was not. 

In CM2, the scenario will always work out (more or less) as you intend it, but building even a small & simple scenario is a much more involved process.  Overall I prefer CM2, the end results can be very satisfying, even if it can have you pulling your hair out getting there.

Edited October 14, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[FlammenwerferX]

11 hours ago, sburke said:

I beg to differ.  YOU said it was the CM1 user friendly scenario editor.  And with that I am bowing out.  I am more than happy to discuss the merits of the game, but not with folks who keep shifting their statements in the conversation.  Own what you say or don't bother saying it.

sburke out

Go easy, bro...it's all good. :-)

I was just being literal, not having used the word Easy in reference to making scenarios for cmx1.

My mistake, I meant User Friendly Style in reference to a scenario editor that seemed to have been purposely designed with the  end consumer in mind and not just Beta freakers. 

[Battlefront.com]

We've had this discussion many, many times before.  It really comes down to this...

In CM1 it was easier to make a playable battle than CM2.  Tedious at times, but there were far fewer things for the player to manipulate in CM1 vs. CM2 and so the bar was a lot lower for people.  Now, to make a GOOD scenario in CM1 was quite difficult for the reasons mentioned above.  CM2 gives the scenario designer a *TON* more control over variables which determine a good vs. a bad scenario.  Which gets us back to the complexity of making a playable scenario in CM2 being higher and therefore the bar being raised higher.

On top of this CM1 was more rocks-paper-scissors compared to CM2's extremely detailed simulation engine.  That in turn meant that a battle in CM1 didn't have the breadth and depth in which to fall flat like in CM2.  Or put another way, a mediocre battle in CM1 might still be enjoyable because the game system didn't offer a 1000 different ways for it to fail, therefore a mediocre battle might still be fun to play.  Whereas in CM2 the depth and detail of CM2 means that a mediocre battle probably sucks to play.

So yes, there were LOTS more battles created for CM1 than CM2 because pretty much anybody with patience, not skill, could make a battle in CM1.  Lower skill level of designer didn't necessarily result in bad scenarios.  CM2 requires both patience and skill to pull off something worth playing.

This is really not surprising to me since we deliberately designed it this way.  We knew from the start that going from CM1's more simple portrayal of battle to CM2's more complex portrayal would cut out a big chunk of players in general, but specifically scenario makers.  We decided to focus on QUALITY vs. QUANTITY.  We did with CM2's forces as well.  Fewer forces, vastly higher quality (models and simulated details).

That said, CM2 kicks CM1's butt in terms of quantity when it comes to terrain.  Higher resolution, the ability to combine terrain types, vastly more terrain types, etc.  We also put in way more game stuff like Objectives of various types instead of just capture the flag, ability to control the AI, etc.  We also improved the efficiency of making CM2 scenarios over time, so map making in CM2 is probably easier than CM1 these days.

As the maker of CM1 and CM2, I don't miss the quantity of CM1 scenarios one bit.  I'd rather play a well made CM2 scenario 10 times than to play 100 CM1 battles.  The reason?  The game experience with CM2 is vastly superior to CM1 in every way.  Which makes sense, because that was our #1 design goal when making CM2

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

50 minutes ago, FlammenwerferX said:

My mistake, I meant User Friendly Style in reference to a scenario editor that seemed to have been purposely designed with the  end consumer in mind and not just Beta freakers. 

Er, as the guy who designed both UIs for the Editors in both games... bzzzzt, wrong answer   Both were purposefully designed for end consumers who would be patient enough to use the tools.  I didn't design either to be any more or less accessible to the average Joe customer.  In fact, the amount of development effort put into the CM2 editor to make it easy to use was WAY higher than that of CM1.  So in a sense, the exact opposite of what you said is in fact the truth.

Again, the issue here is with CM1 we gave people a bunch of blocks to play with.  Pretty much anybody can build something out of blocks.  With CM2 we gave people an Erector Set (yes, I am showing my age!).  For CM1 we didn't have to provide much in the way of tools because, well, it's blocks!  With CM2 we had to provide screw drivers, wrenches, and detailed instructions.  We had to provide small pieces, like screws and nuts, those round fiddly things that you put rods into, etc.  So of course we put more time into CM2's toolbox because it was necessary to do so.

From a user interface standpoint, CM2 is way easier to work with than CM1 and yet it can do 1000 times more things.  It's just that CM2 requires more than stacking a few blocks before you can say "look mom, I made a skyscraper!"

Steve

[General Jack Ripper]

On ‎10‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 3:56 PM, Battlefront.com said:

Atomic Games (2nd iteration) - 6 years (not including hibernation period)
Atomic Games (1st iteration) - 11 years
Maxis Games - 11 years
Matrix Games - 11 years
Simulations Publications Inc (SPI) - 13 years
Strategic Simulations Inc.(SS) - 15 years
Sierra Entertainment/Sierra Online - 17 years
MicroPose - 19 years

You have an interesting way of making a young man feel VERY old...

 

On ‎10‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 1:55 AM, Aragorn2002 said:

One simple remedy to prevent this kind of discussion. A bone from time to time. Keeps us busy for months.

I've seen some developers who post regular Development Blogs, and they seem to be quite popular, even if it's little more than a few sentences of, "This is what we're doing this month."

 

On ‎10‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 11:45 AM, Battlefront.com said:

While technically we still can't produce a "universal engine" for CM2, we have at least greatly simplified things on the production side so that we can do more content with proportionally less of Charles' programming time.

Once upon a time, when you first announced the CMx2 engine, and described it's modular capabilities, I thought you had done exactly this.
I still hold out hope for the future, not only for the efficiency of production, but the vastly increased gameplay possibilities such a system would bring.
Truly opening up the sandbox could only be a good thing, no?
 

Quote

Which means he's freed up to do other things which 2-3 years ago he wouldn't have had time for.

Steve

 

Like, illumination flares?

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, SANTA CLAUS??

[Battlefront.com]

14 minutes ago, SLIM said:

Once upon a time, when you first announced the CMx2 engine, and described it's modular capabilities, I thought you had done exactly this.

To a large extent we did.  Since we created Engine 1 (2011) we released an average of one Base Game every year.  We released a total of 3 Modules and 3 Packs in the same period of time, for a total of 11 releases in 6 years.  We also released a total of 8 Upgrades, which means in grand total we've released 19 products in 6 years, which averages out to roughly 1 product for every 4 months.  For CM1 we hit a technical dead end with CMBB (remember CMAK had almost no new game features) and couldn't even come up with a 4th release out of the code we had.

What's more, all 5 Families are using the same code, which means the UI, gameplay, and what not are the same from game to game.

What we don't have is the ability to run multiple environments from the same code simultaneously without restrictions about what can be used with what.  There's still quite a lot of special cased code which says "if you are playing something in Italy do this, but if you're playing something in France do that".  This is more a side effect of the evolution of CM2's code than any technical need.  Meaning, it's this way more out of expediency rather than technical necessity.

Quote

I still hold out hope for the future, not only for the efficiency of production, but the vastly increased gameplay possibilities such a system would bring.
Truly opening up the sandbox could only be a good thing, no?

Not necessarily, no.  First, there's not much more efficiency we can get out of production than we currently have with Engine 4, which is leap from Engine 3, which was a big leap from Engine 2, etc.  There's really not much more to squeeze out of it.  Same thing with gameplay possibilities.  Really, the only thing that Engine 4 doesn't allow is the "free association" of units and terrain within a single battle/map.  We don't see much need to support that, though of course it would be cool to put an Abrams against a Panther once or twice until you realized you can get the same game thrill by putting an Abrams against a CMSF Taxicab

Steve

[FlammenwerferX]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

AsEr, as the guy who designed both UIs for the Editors in both games... bzzzzt, wrong answer   Both were purposefully designed for end consumers who would be patient enough to use the tools.  I didn't design either to be any more or less accessible to the average Joe customer.  In fact, the amount of development effort put into the CM2 editor to make it easy to use was WAY higher than that of CM1.  So in a sense, the exact opposite of what you said is in fact the truth.

Design intent and results are two different things. The proof is in the pudding.  [That expression kind of annoys me, to be honest]. :-)  Where are all the 'Barkman's Corners' ?

Quantifying the amount of effort  over cm1, only shows that the new engine was more complex, as you said, and not necessarily that the editor was high priority.

I guessing you ended up spending much more time on the editor than you wanted to. 

Imho

Edited October 14, 2017 by FlammenwerferX

[General Jack Ripper]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

We don't see much need to support that, though of course it would be cool to put an Abrams against a Panther once or twice until you realized you can get the same game thrill by putting an Abrams against a CMSF Taxicab

Steve

Unless you set the 'Civilian Density' to 'High' and the UnCon Taxicab has a 2,000lb bomb in the trunk.

Of course, what I really meant was cross-compatibility between WW2 theatres and equipment.
Imagine the hypothetical USA versus USSR in 1945...
IS-2's versus Pershings...

Tastes like M&M's.

[General Jack Ripper]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

What we don't have is the ability to run multiple environments from the same code simultaneously without restrictions about what can be used with what.  There's still quite a lot of special cased code which says "if you are playing something in Italy do this, but if you're playing something in France do that".  This is more a side effect of the evolution of CM2's code than any technical need.  Meaning, it's this way more out of expediency rather than technical necessity.

I remember the different titles in CMx1 had some large variances, such as special commands available in some cases, such as sewer movement and human wave attacks, but I wasn't aware such intricacies were present in CMx2, aside from the Unconventional Warfare feature in CMSF.

[Battlefront.com]

50 minutes ago, FlammenwerferX said:

Design intent and results are two different things.

Exactly.  We designed for higher quality, more detailed, more immersive gaming experiences in CM2 than were in CM1.  We provided the tools to make that happen and the "pudding" is that a single Barkman's Corner scenario for CMBN is 1000 times better than any of the dozens of Barkman's Corner scenarios for CMBO.

We designed for quality, not for quantity.  We got exactly what we wanted, no surprises and ABSOLUTELY no regrets.

Quote

Quantifying the amount of effort  over cm1, only shows that the new engine was more complex, as you said, and not necessarily that the editor was high priority.

Sure, but your comment about the CM2 Editor being designed only for testers is wrong.  Both were designed for the same audience, it's just that inherently the portion of the audience that wants to use the Editor is different and not necessarily a result of the Editor UI.  To put it really crudely, we presented CM2 players with a suite of musical instruments and CM1 with a drum kit.  Most players of both games have neither the skills or patience to play a violin vs. smashing some bits of wood on stretched skin.  So obviously most players don't have the basic interest in using the CM2 instruments no matter what.

And so we come right back to the thing you seem to refuse to grasp... CM1 and CM2 are both internally consistent.  CM1 was designed to favor quantity over quality, CM2 was designed to favor quality over quantity.  The game systems and tools to use them are internally consistent with each.  People who somehow think CM2 could have the quality it has with the quantity of CM1 do not seem to understand that's not how life works out and are, therefore, pointlessly and incorrectly critical of CM2.  Might as well criticize a Wes Anderson film for not being as "funny" as something put out by Adam Sandler

Quote

I guessing you ended up spending much more time on the editor than you wanted to.

For both games, yes.  Charles' original intent for both game engines was to have scenarios built in text files and parsed because it was a lot easier.  I dissuaded him from that approach both times

It is true that compared to CM1 we put a lot more effort into CM2's Editor.  But we also put a lot more effort into CM2's game engine features than CM1.  So proportionally, I think it's more-or-less the same ratio and intent with both game systems.  And the results of each are as we intended them to be, so from a design standpoint everything worked out according to plan.

Steve

[MOS:96B2P]

6 minutes ago, SLIM said:

<Snip> Of course, what I really meant was cross-compatibility between WW2 theatres and equipment.
Imagine the hypothetical USA versus USSR in 1945...
IS-2's versus Pershings...  <Snip> 

This!!!  I think this would be very interesting because of what scenario designers and moders could create.  If the last module released for CMFB was called something like meeting on the Elbe and included the US, Commonwealth, Soviet and German forces this would be so cool.  BFC does not have to produce any hypothetical scenarios for this.  They could stick to the historical end of the war scenarios, battle of Berlin etc.  But with all those nationalities in the same game think what the moders / scenario designers could do.  Patton attacks east, Fulda Gap 1947.  Maybe Korea? Maybe Suez crisis?  It would be up to the imagination of moders and scenario designers.  And I think all the work would already be done as far as the nationalities TOE etc.  It would be a matter of putting the US, Commonwealth, Germans and Soviets in the same game.  I don't know if that is difficult to do but I hope it is easy enough that BFC would think about it.        

[Battlefront.com]

Actually, in thinking about this more... I think it's *EASIER* to make a basic, bare bones scenario in CM2 that roughly matches what one could do with CM1.  The UI for the CM2 Editor is a lot more user friendly in terms of putting stuff down on the map.  And if you stick to simple Capture The Flag, it's pretty easy to do that as well.  Where things get complicated for CM2 is the AI Plans.  Better than it used to be, but it takes a separate set of skills to get good results from it.  I think tht's what holds people back from making scenarios more than any single component of CM2's Editor.  Using combinations of Objective options probably is a distant second, because they're easy to use but not necessarily easy to balance.

The reason why CM2's Editor is perceived as much harder to use than CM1 (aside from the AI Plans) is that CM2 has a lot more options to choose from.  It's not difficult to use from a mechanics standpoint, it's simply more difficult to use from a creative/conceptual standpoint.  The options were crude enough with CM1 that pretty much everybody could get a map that looked no better/worse than another.  But in CM2?  Yeah, huge gap between someone with skills and someone without.  And the people lacking skills tend to know that so they tend to shy away.

For future development we do have it on our agenda to make setting up an AI opponent easier than the way it is now.  Much easier, in fact.

Steve

[sburke]

3 hours ago, FlammenwerferX said:

Go easy, bro...it's all good. :-)

I was just being literal, not having used the word Easy in reference to making scenarios for cmx1.

My mistake, I meant User Friendly Style in reference to a scenario editor that seemed to have been purposely designed with the  end consumer in mind and not just Beta freakers. 

Fair enough. Sorry,  my patience level is not all that high lately for reasons totally unrelated to this. 

 

[grunt_GI]

38 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

 

For future development we do have it on our agenda to make setting up an AI opponent easier than the way it is now.  Much easier, in fact.

Steve

This is very good to hear.  I am one of those "always future scenario makers" that is more than a little intimidated by the capabilities of the AI and how to make them work.

[sburke]

The overlay alone in CM2 is worth it’s weight in gold.  

[FlammenwerferX]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

We designed for quality, not for quantity.  We got exactly what we wanted, no surprises and ABSOLUTELY no regrets.

Steve,

Just curious, if CM2 had the same amount of user made content that CM1 had in its heyday, with all the accompanying buzz and interest on this forum and other fan made websites, like the scenario depot and others, that were producing high quality battles, maps...etc, would that increase sales to any significant degree?

[sburke]

One item to throw into the mix and I honestly don't know what this reflects - available time, changes in audience, a newer generation of players that has so many more things that press on their time with social media etc but CMSF has a crapload of material and it is all CM2.

[Badger73]

5 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

<snipped>

For future development we do have it on our agenda to make setting up an AI opponent easier than the way it is now.  Much easier, in fact.

Steve

 

4 hours ago, grunt_GI said:

This is very good to hear.  I am one of those "always future scenario makers" that is more than a little intimidated by the capabilities of the AI and how to make them work.

@grunt_GI expresses my sentiments too.  I struggle understanding the AI well enough to confidently embrace designing scenarios.

[rocketman]

@grunt_GI 

@Badger73

Why not give a H2H scenario a go? That's what I do when just thinking about AI plans make my head hurt. Other than AI plans (good to hear Steve about intended improvement of setting up) the editor is not that intimidating once you get into it. 

[grunt_GI]

1 hour ago, rocketman said:

@grunt_GI 

@Badger73

Why not give a H2H scenario a go? That's what I do when just thinking about AI plans make my head hurt. Other than AI plans (good to hear Steve about intended improvement of setting up) the editor is not that intimidating once you get into it. 

HMMM, never thought about that...I have probably played 3 or 4 H2H by PBEM in my almost 20 years of CM...

Maybe I could give that a go.

[ASL Veteran]

I've made close to 100 scenarios for CM1 and I've made about 34 scenarios for CM2.  None of those made for CM1 were included as part of any releases.  I just say this so that we all know that I have 'extensive' experience with both editors.  Without question creating a scenario in CM1 was easier to do than it is for CM2 and for very obvious reasons.  This has nothing to do with the intended audience for the editor or any UI or design focus.  I think the first thing that anyone who has made scenarios for both games will notice is the scale difference between the two games.  A 2000 meter square map in CM2 is orders of magnitude 'bigger' looking than an identically sized map in CM1 when you go into the 3D view and look around.  The obvious result of this difference in scale is that map making in CM2 takes, I would say probably roughly twice as long to do for a similar sized map as it would in CM1.  Because of this scale difference there is a lot more 'stuff' that you need to add to the map in order to make it look 'full'.  Not only do you have to add more 'stuff' to the map in general terms because of the scale difference you have to add even more 'stuff' to the map in order to make the map look like a real place since the player sees individual soldiers instead of just Mo Larry and Curly.  This means fencing, flavor objects, walls, individual trees, mixed forests, different types of grass, and creeks.  I didn't have to worry about any of that in CM1.  I'm sure that anyone who has made an effort to translate a map from CM1 to CM2 would notice this.  Map making is the first basic step of scenario creation and map making in CM2 is much more difficult to do simply because the terrain needs to be much more detailed than it had to be in CM1 and an equivalent map area between the two games is not similar in 3D view.

Once you have conquered the new map in CM2 you now have to create an AI plan.  In CM1 you didn't have to create an AI plan so that wasn't even a factor.  Sure, you had to put the objective flags out there in such a way that the AI could follow the bread crumbs and in some cases a scenario was impossible to make that was playable against the AI, but the fact is that the AI plan creation step in CM2 didn't even exist in CM1 so that is just one more factor that adds to the difficulty level of making a scenario in CM2 vs making one in CM1.  Once again, this has nothing to do with UI decisions or any conscious attempt to make the editor more difficult to use in CM2.  It is just a side effect of how the new game works.  Victory conditions can be more complicated than in CM1 if the designer wants them to be since the designer has many more options to choose from.  Once again this adds to the complexity of scenario creation in CM2 vs CM1 and is just a side effect of how the game 'is'.

Finally even the briefings are more difficult to create than in CM1.  I don't remember having to make all these briefing maps for CM1 as we did for CM2.  I think we only had to come up with a picture and a briefing text for CM1.  I think with some work most aspiring designers can get proficient enough at map making to create a scenario map.  However, AI plans, Briefing creation, and victory conditions can combine to dampen the enthusiasm of many who created content for CM1.

Edited October 15, 2017 by ASL Veteran

[Aragorn2002]

6 hours ago, ASL Veteran said:

I've made close to 100 scenarios for CM1 and I've made about 34 scenarios for CM2.  None of those made for CM1 were included as part of any releases.  I just say this so that we all know that I have 'extensive' experience with both editors.  Without question creating a scenario in CM1 was easier to do than it is for CM2 and for very obvious reasons.  This has nothing to do with the intended audience for the editor or any UI or design focus.  I think the first thing that anyone who has made scenarios for both games will notice is the scale difference between the two games.  A 2000 meter square map in CM2 is orders of magnitude 'bigger' looking than an identically sized map in CM1 when you go into the 3D view and look around.  The obvious result of this difference in scale is that map making in CM2 takes, I would say probably roughly twice as long to do for a similar sized map as it would in CM1.  Because of this scale difference there is a lot more 'stuff' that you need to add to the map in order to make it look 'full'.  Not only do you have to add more 'stuff' to the map in general terms because of the scale difference you have to add even more 'stuff' to the map in order to make the map look like a real place since the player sees individual soldiers instead of just Mo Larry and Curly.  This means fencing, flavor objects, walls, individual trees, mixed forests, different types of grass, and creeks.  I didn't have to worry about any of that in CM1.  I'm sure that anyone who has made an effort to translate a map from CM1 to CM2 would notice this.  Map making is the first basic step of scenario creation and map making in CM2 is much more difficult to do simply because the terrain needs to be much more detailed than it had to be in CM1 and an equivalent map area between the two games is not similar in 3D view.

Once you have conquered the new map in CM2 you now have to create an AI plan.  In CM1 you didn't have to create an AI plan so that wasn't even a factor.  Sure, you had to put the objective flags out there in such a way that the AI could follow the bread crumbs and in some cases a scenario was impossible to make that was playable against the AI, but the fact is that the AI plan creation step in CM2 didn't even exist in CM1 so that is just one more factor that adds to the difficulty level of making a scenario in CM2 vs making one in CM1.  Once again, this has nothing to do with UI decisions or any conscious attempt to make the editor more difficult to use in CM2.  It is just a side effect of how the new game works.  Victory conditions can be more complicated than in CM1 if the designer wants them to be since the designer has many more options to choose from.  Once again this adds to the complexity of scenario creation in CM2 vs CM1 and is just a side effect of how the game 'is'.

Finally even the briefings are more difficult to create than in CM1.  I don't remember having to make all these briefing maps for CM1 as we did for CM2.  I think we only had to come up with a picture and a briefing text for CM1.  I think with some work most aspiring designers can get proficient enough at map making to create a scenario map.  However, AI plans, Briefing creation, and victory conditions can combine to dampen the enthusiasm of many who created content for CM1.

I think you hit the nail on the head. My personal experience is that with the help of my comrade Kohlenklau I've created a superb map of Jokubavas/Lithuania, but made the classic error to make it too large (against the good advice of others). That decision cost me so much energy in 'filling' the map, that it indeed dampened my enthusiasm and drained my energy. I'm a sucker for perfection, so I went on far too long on the details. Then the setup followed, which was rather fun to do, but since I didn't have thought much about the AI plan, or the objectives, it wasn't much more than putting tanks and platoons on my gorgeous map. It looked great, but that was about it. Then, finally, I began to think about an AI plan and the objectives (and more important, why these objectives), to notice that my enthusiasm and energy was gone. I also began to doubt the quality of my scenario, which didn't help, although my comrades Kohlenklau and Earl of Grey assured me the scenario was worth finishing. So, I did ask for advice by the Master of all scenarios, George MC, who was kind enough to send me good advice and quite some documentation on AI plans and such. I've read it all, realized how little I knew and began to give more attention to my wife, garden and all other things I could think of that could keep me away from the editor. I still REALLY want to finish this scenario, because I really think it has potential, but simply don't know where to take up again.

The scenario itself is about the actions of the Grossdeutschland-division in the Memel-area in October 1944 and is roughly based upon Mad Russian's superb scenario for CM 1, called HSG KC Lt Neumeyer and I took a lot of details and inspiration out of Axel Urbanke's superb book on the Panthers of I./Pz. Rgt. 26 (which was detached to the GD in that period). If anybody is interested I could post some screenshots in a seperate thread. That way I could also see what kind of reactions I get and whether it is worth releasing. I will finish the scenario for sure, but will only release it if I think it is good enough to share with the community.

To return to topic: a simpler scenario editor would be very welcome, but I also think that the present editor is not as complicated as some people might think. With some time and dedication (and keeping it simple at first) this editor is an excellent tool.

Edited October 15, 2017 by Aragorn2002

[Kevin2k]

23 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

What's more, all 5 Families are using the same code, which means the UI, gameplay, and what not are the same from game to game.

What we don't have is the ability to run multiple environments from the same code simultaneously without restrictions about what can be used with what.  There's still quite a lot of special cased code which says "if you are playing something in Italy do this, but if you're playing something in France do that".  This is more a side effect of the evolution of CM2's code than any technical need.  Meaning, it's this way more out of expediency rather than technical necessity.

Pretty much all the design and marketing decisions of the CM2 games make sense to me, even before you explained them again the past days. Yet this family specific behaviour of the 5 CM2 games leaves me wondering why. Some examples:

• The terrain and building features of each game are not identified unique. Meaning that if you put such gamedata from another game it will mostly overwrite the appearance of terrain, yet not enterily; some things are unique. As if Battlefront copied the whole CMBN game over to CMFI, then started to paint over the existing bitmaps and such.  I imagine this as the fastest way to get results, but this way ensures that that game cannot be unified. At least not without redefining all the terrain textures.
• In Final Blitzkrieg there are quite few new terrain objects, like fences,  but they are not present in CMBN v4. I imagine in a unified workflow this would automatically get ported over, but seemingly  not in CM2.
• The UI graphics in CMFB are a little different from CMBN. One cannot copy over a UI graphics mod from one to the other. 
• Tank riders are supported in only some Engine 4 games.

Then I guess terrain specific logic, like bocage properties, could also be in the same codebase with if/switch-case statements. Or different code defines for includes. But I have no way to percieve that in the end product.

Another thing, and this is unavoidable: there is the legacy that intitial release of CMBN has all the gigs of data installed, and a developer may want to reorganize that, rename things, relocate things; but then all customers have to reinstall. Though I have seen smart patches from other companies do such a reorganisation: not one datafile looked like the same after. I am talking about the Strike Fighters 2 game/sim from Third Wire, which is also very nice example of how to make 5 games seperate yet mergable. 

The above is just me wondering, maybe a lack of understanding.

 

While I am putting effort to write this I might as well  put this here too: 1) Why no support for PNG, TGA or DDS instead of uncompressable BMP images? BMP is an obsolete image format, and alpha channel BMP cannot be used in Photoshop (In my old version 6.0) So I have to copy-paste over from a program called Pixelformer for that reason. 2) As I said earlier, Please make the quick battle 'mix' force a force with mixed infantry and armor, at all times. Or add another option to give just that, in case you feel there is a misunderstanding about the meaning of a 'mix' force.  It is annoying to fight a 'mix' force only to find it could not stand a chance with what the game came up with, afterwards. Quite a few times there is not one infantry unit in such a force, and I actually have to dismount some AFV crew to have at least some people to occupy a building. It gets tedious.  And I think part of the essence of the Quick Battle is to be able to provide a game that is less tedious and time consuming. Sorry for that complaint, but I want to state it as clearly as I can.

 

 

[Badger73]

9 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:

<snipped>

So, I did ask for advice by the Master of all scenarios, George MC, who was kind enough to send me good advice and quite some documentation on AI plans and such. I've read it all, realized how little I knew

<snipped

@Aragorn2002 / @George MC

Would either of you be so kind as to make said documentation available to those who might ask via PM?  Thank you.