Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi steve and devs. its been a while to visit this forum. I was surprised that CMSF3 forum appears. I reallly enjoying AARs of BRAND NEW CMSF game. 

But at the same time im also looking for operational map of CMSF like one of graviteam tactics. is it planned for future CM series?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd really like that, as well. Kind of a "Conquest" mode, where you move around companies like Risk pieces on an over-map. I understand it's not within their scope of ambition.

However, I would like an optional Force Organization selection for campaigns, like Theatre of War. It would really improve replayability for campaigns.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I didn't mean to set anyone up for disappointment. Check in there and watch for new opportunities. There are always many operational games going there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BFC staff is like an inflated balloon. if you squeeze it in an attempt to enlarge one end of it the other end is going to shrink proportionately. No matter how you manipulate the balloon its still the same volume of air. Creating an operational layer sounds like a great idea until you realize they'd have to take resources away from other aspects of the game to do it.

I'm a fan of Korean TV (yes, I realize I'm strange). I've seen five series where the workplace is a game design company. They're (almost) always represented as multi-floor office towers with huge staffs and boards of directors. I get the impression if BFC had gone the office tower/huge staff/giant production budget route the company would have folded nine years ago. KKKurt Schilling's "Green Monster Games" is not exactly a business role model to follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly will do Ian, got my eagle eyes out now. :blink:

I wish BF would give us a chance to help them grow. Because we all know they won't be around forever, and have already been here for twenty years. They're probably thinking about retirement! Who will succeed BF? Why should they take away our right from top-tier non-nsa sponsored games?! Damn them! Open up a donations box! I will pay for a part time extra team member... with a few bucks every now and then :D

But seriously. I fear they won't be around long enough to establish a base of games that will hold me over until I die. I don't see anyone taking the path of BF in producing a "sim"-worthy game of this caliber. We need a stable of units and maps as large as SPMBTs!!!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Artkin said:

Certainly will do Ian, got my eagle eyes out now. :blink:

I wish BF would give us a chance to help them grow. 

They have and those efforts keep failing as the work required is more than folks are quite willing to admit.  I ante'd up for that last round and even that didn't show the level of community commitment that folks keep insisting is there.  The reality hits hard when you start asking for people to commit hard dollars and they don't.  The last major effort was this.  It suffered for a lot of different reasons including a simple lack of experience in pitching it and poor communications of the project.  Despite that it has not died and you can find the link in the thread to the forum where development continues.  This is now 3 years in the making and the single biggest issue of how to take that Op layer and connect it back to CM is as far as I can tell something they haven't even begun to tackle.  BF's issue isn't letting us help them grow, it is preventing us from bankrupting the company with unrealistic expectations.  Considering how much people b***h when asked to pay $10 for an upgrade color me skeptical that this community is gonna ride to BF's rescue showering them with donations.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@sburke I don't wish to go any further than making a bunch of maps in CM, and plotting them with a singular image. 

In addition, it's really a tough thing to set right, but a donations box would sort of be a good-will from whoever donates. You can't exactly expect more productivity from BF, but perhaps one day they'll give you a free two liter with your pizza pie. I have no issues with donating no ties or questions asked. 

Then again, I do think Steve is a little too personal with the community for this to work. I'm entirely thankful we get to know the developer but I'm afraid some people might start making demands. Again, you can't ask for the two liter. It's a courtesy in return.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Artkin said:

@sburke I don't wish to go any further than making a bunch of maps in CM, and plotting them with a singular image. 

In addition, it's really a tough thing to set right, but a donations box would sort of be a good-will from whoever donates. You can't exactly expect more productivity from BF, but perhaps one day they'll give you a free two liter with your pizza pie. I have no issues with donating no ties or questions asked. 

Then again, I do think Steve is a little too personal with the community for this to work. I'm entirely thankful we get to know the developer but I'm afraid some people might start making demands. Again, you can't ask for the two liter. It's a courtesy in return.

gotcha, see response in other thread.  If all you are looking for is maps that is probably a better one to continue in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, in my experience in development, it's important to focus on critical and, yet, attainable goals. Much like how any offensive/defensive has to focus its resources and efforts at the "right" points. So it is with games.

Could CM have much-requested features like dynamic campaigns, co-op and MULTI-player? Hypothetically, sure. Yet, in development -- everything is a trade-off. When you focus on one aspect, others become weaker. This is just as true for small developers, as well as large developers. I would even argue that this chaotic changing of focus, in order to meet forecasted demand, is why the video game industry is in the state it is now.

I think the most shining, and current, example would be this Battle Royale phase that plagued this year's E3. There are plenty of developers of big game franchises that bit the dust after they lost focus of what made them popular and profitable. Great many of these failures also came from putting too much money into titles that catered to a specific audience.

BFC knows what CM does, and knows their audience intimately. They know their focus and how many resources are required. I respect that -- it's rare, these days. All I am saying is be careful what you wish for. You could get Mass Effect: Andromeda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or just give us mod tools! :P

Or hook ol' Charles up to a vhs player and maybe we can learn a thing or two and try to help out. Or does he have a digital adapter? :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too would love to see an operational level component. Who wouldn't want the battles to mean a bit more than a one-off? 

I take it Multiplayer options have not been improved upon? ie. No WEGO with replay or something besides the old standby of 1vs1? Love to see some multiple commands. Allowing for even some sort of command matrix. 

Oh well maybe another decade in the waiting :)

CMSF2 looks great so far......

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tactical Wargamer said:

I too would love to see an operational level component. Who wouldn't want the battles to mean a bit more than a one-off? 

An operational layer is actually pretty easy to simulate with any of the CM games. The trick is creating the maps used for the tactical battles. It takes a long time, more so if you aren't great with the editor (like me).

2 hours ago, Tactical Wargamer said:

I take it Multiplayer options have not been improved upon? ie. No WEGO with replay or something besides the old standby of 1vs1? Love to see some multiple commands. Allowing for even some sort of command matrix. 

CMSF2 will have the same multiplayer capabilities as all the other CM games do now. That means you will get PBEM WEGO, and you will be able to watch the replay of each turn. You will also be able to direct connect with the enforced pause every minute. CMSF2 is not introducing new features to the CM series, but bringing CMSF up to the current standard all other games (minus CM:A) currently operate at.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'operational layer' is the backstory written in the manual. Top rank in the sim doesn't even reach up to bird colonel status, I think. Which means someone else would tell you where to go and what to do and, if you're lucky, why you're doing it. You're no more able to shape the course of larger events than a first sergeant. :D

Other things that people have been lobbying for that Steve has been against: Field commissions and increases in experience levels over the course of a campaign. Steve, if I recall correctly, felt those are also outside the scope of game. An individual's career track has nothing to do with the tactical situation being presented. Besides, in war movies isn't it always the guys on the fast track to success who are the most incompetent? (referencing 'Cross of Iron' and 'Catch 22') :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I to would like to see some kind of operational-level feature or multi-branching campaigns. By multi-branching campaigns i mean campaigns that gives the player several different options at various parts of the campaign.


Currently a campaign can only branch in TWO different directions at a specific time if i understand things correctly (giving the player at best two options for the next battle). Either the player WINS the previous battle and the campaign branch in one direction or he WINS NOT (failes) and the campaigns branch in another.


It does not matter if he wins a total-, decisive- or minor victory. A win is a win no matter at what level the victory is achived. The same thing goes for a 'fail'. No matter if its a draw or a total defeat. It is a fail plain and simple.


Several campaigns previously have had small 'selection battles' inbetween the actual 'fighting battles' in wich the player usually moves a small team onto a terrain objective to achive a WIN or he may choose not to move a team to that location to score a FAIL and by doing so choosing on of two options.


Being limited to the choise of TWO options may not be enough to allow for something resembeling operational level gameplay or 'multi-branching' campaigns... but what if the campaign script would recognize the specific levels of victory or defeat. That is total victory, decisive victory, minor victory, draw, minor defeat, decisive defeat, total defeat (i think those are the different victory-options IIRC).

That would give something like 7 different options for the players to chose from in the 'selection battles'...
Having 7 differnt options of how to/where to conduct the next battle might to some degree  start to resemble something like operational-level flexibility. At the very least it would allow for 'multi-branching' campaigns. A small (not very good perhaps) example of possible selections...

1. (total victory) Attack at ones with full force.
2. (decisive victory) Wait for darkness and then attack.
3. (minor victory) Put the main attack on hold and do a preliminary recon mission first (another scenario) to try and get better info on the enemy. 
4. (draw) Attempt to siez a piece of key terrain in limited dawn raid (to allow for better set-up zones in the main battle) prior to the main, mid-day assult.
5. (minor defeat) Request regimental artillery.
6  (decisive defeat) Request armour support.

Using 6 terrain objectives in the 'selection battle' set at different scoring values would allow the player to choose the level of victory and thereby wich option he prefers for the next battle. Allowing the campaign script to recognize the different levels of victory seems to me to be the easiest way to improve the flexebility of the campaigns.

I actually thought this was already the case but after reading some posts on these forums a while back i belive that it is not so. We currently only have TWO options according to those posts.

 

However...

Even if we did get this improved level of flexibility. How often would it be used i wounder ?

Given the current complexity (time having to be spent) with scenario design. Making a campaign is a very time consuming process. Even with no branching or the limited branching we have today. Making a 'multi-branching' campaign that covers a decent time period (operation) would require making many, many more scenarios to cover all eventuallities...or atleast variations of other scenarios.

...and playtest them all !! OOOUUCH !!! 😱

This will take a long, long, looooong time i fear.  Making such projects less likely of ever being undertaken. Or atleast very rarely.

I would most certanly want more flexibility/options in the campaigns...but who would design the bloody things ? 😎

H2H games might not be all that big a deal (comparely 😉) when it comes to  operational level fighting but testing/tweaking AI plans in Vs AI gameplay in such a Campaign will be quite something.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, RepsolCBR said:

It does not matter if he wins a total-, decisive- or minor victory. A win is a win no matter at what level the victory is achived. The same thing goes for a 'fail'. No matter if its a draw or a total defeat. It is a fail plain and simple

This isn't true. When you compile a campaign with its campaign script, you assign what victory condition is required for the campaign to continue. For example, you could set it so that you have to get a minimum of a "Minor Defeat" in battle 1 in order to advance to battle 2. You could even set it to "Total Defeat" if you wanted to make the campaign continue regardless of winning the battle or not. 

As far as giving the player choice, there is a way to do this. The Marines campaign in Shock Force does this. One of the missions requires you to recon a route and choose which one you want to take. If you take objective A, then the campaign branches to be about battles fought over open terrain. If you take objective B then the campaign branches to be about battles fought up in the mountains. The mission briefing details the two choices. Theoretically you could add more than 2 choices, but that becomes a lot of work for a campaign designer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

This isn't true. When you compile a campaign with its campaign script, you assign what victory condition is required for the campaign to continue. For example, you could set it so that you have to get a minimum of a "Minor Defeat" in battle 1 in order to advance to battle 2. You could even set it to "Total Defeat" if you wanted to make the campaign continue regardless of winning the battle or not. 

 

Yes...but can you branch the camapign in more then two directions for each individual battle ?

You may set a specific victorylevel (total, minor etc..) to achive a WIN...and have the Campaign move forward because of this WIN...or move in a different direction if you fail to achive this WIN (level of victory required) . That would be a FAIL...WIN or FAIL...that is two options...

Can the campaign currently branch in more then two directions dependant on the ACUAL level of victory acived in previous battle...A total victory moves to battle 2.1, a minor victory moves to battle 2.2 and a draw moves to battle 2.3 for example...as opposed to a WIN (according to the set victory level) leading to battle 2.1 and a NO WIN leads to battle 2.2 and not having an option for battle 2.3...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

 

As far as giving the player choice, there is a way to do this. The Marines campaign in Shock Force does this. One of the missions requires you to recon a route and choose which one you want to take. If you take objective A, then the campaign branches to be about battles fought over open terrain. If you take objective B then the campaign branches to be about battles fought up in the mountains. The mission briefing details the two choices. Theoretically you could add more than 2 choices, but that becomes a lot of work for a campaign designer. 

As in your example here...There is only two options to choose from. The designer could have added more options if he had wanted to you mean....He was not limited to only these two ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

 Theoretically you could add more than 2 choices, but that becomes a lot of work for a campaign designer. 


I agree fully...And this is not a small Point 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RepsolCBR said:

You may set a specific victorylevel (total, minor etc..) to achive a WIN...and have the Campaign move forward because of this WIN...or move in a different direction if you fail to achive this WIN (level of victory required) . That would be a FAIL...WIN or FAIL...that is two options...

Well yes, generally speaking you are either successful or you are not in any endeavor. 

1 hour ago, RepsolCBR said:

As in your example here...There is only two options to choose from. The designer could have added more options if he had wanted to you mean....He was not limited to only these two ?

It's theoretically possible to make a campaign with more than 2 branches. That would essentially require making 3 or more campaigns for one full campaign, to account for all the possibilities. Like I said, that's a lot of work for a campaign designer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×