Jump to content
weapon2010

Here is What I Dont Understand about BF?

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Pelican Pal said:

I'm guessing Fortress Italy '43 to '45 with the Brits, Italians, Americans, and Germans. A full year worth of weather. Its too bad the Soviets didn't make it to the Italian front.

South Africans, Polish, French, Brazilian, Indian etc............ 

My hope is that BF at some point releases an equipment TOE pack that adds Soviet forces to CMFB or CMFI (I guess CMFB might make more sense).  No extra TOE or scenarios needed.  Just add the soviet TOE.  Then scenario designers can make a 1946 Patton goes east and all kinds of early cold war area conflicts.  With the help of modders Korea etc. would be possible.................         

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

CMFI Rome to Victory force structure and TO&E became so daunting that it pretty much broke one of our 'workers in the vineyard' and very nearly broke Steve too. It will probably influence BFC's future decision making. I don't think they want to experience another R2V. (for example, don't expect a single years-spanning North Africa title from them). R2V isn't merely adding some equipment and moving up the timeframe, its a lot more.

The R2V French are given the option of colonial (North African) troops or actual French guys. Original French equipment is interspersed among the troops. They're carrying the old M1917 Enfield rifle (new to the game) and the French FM 24/29 lmg. Officers carry a French pistol too, I believe. Their armor gets their own markings. So they're not just copies of Americans with a name change,

Edited by MikeyD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, MikeyD said:

CMFI Rome to Victory force structure and TO&E became so daunting that it pretty much broke one of our 'workers in the vineyard' and very nearly broke Steve too. It will probably influence BFC's future decision making. I don't think they want to experience another R2V. (for example, don't expect a single years-spanning North Africa title from them).

While I can imagine that determining the various precise TO&E for a wide variety of units over a lengthy period would be a daunting task, I wonder how it will affect BF's decision-making?  Personally I don't understand why BF does not limit their TO&E efforts to smaller units (platoons and companies) and let scenario designers pull together the various components necessary for their scenario (based on their own research).  Just looking at the CMRT units in the editor, how many CMRT scenarios feature entire anti-tank battalions, regimental infantry gun batteries, or mortar battalions (as just three examples)--why even bother to include them?  For that matter, how many scenarios feature entire infantry battalions?  Further, how often did actual TO&E comply with these official guidelines?  Why not just provide the relevant building blocks to allow scenario designers to build the force necessary for their scenario in the editor?

If the alternative is to slice the game to cover shorter and shorter time periods and fewer and fewer units, I'll continue to lose interest in these products.  I would not care as much if the units/maps from the various games could be used in common under a  unified game engine, but having each game both narrow and stand-alone is a huge turn-off for me, especially when the relevant expansion modules turn out to be several years apart.

3 hours ago, MikeyD said:

Officers carry a French pistol too, I believe.

With all due respect to BF, I consider this kind of thing to be historically irrelevant minutia.  Maybe it's just me, but I'd much rather have a module in 6 months with a standard "sidearm" rather than wait six years to equip my digital officers with the appropriate specific sidearm.

Edited by 76mm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BFC is not a 'game', its a dedicated historical tactical sim. They'd no more let you mix-and-match forces than they'd include light sabers among the weaponry. As to the minutia, when your weapon's range and accuracy, the number of rounds loaded or it is ability to pierce walls is affected the 'minutia' can make all the difference. A PM Makarov pistol is not a Browning/is not a Webley/is not a 9mm Walther. French officers (and bailed tankers) either get the M1892 revolver or the M1935A automatic.

 

DSC00031.jpg

M1935A right.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Pelican Pal said:

I'm sure the portion of Berlin being modeled is probably eating a ton of time for the CM:RT module but I couldn't care less about it.

No, no it isn't of any impact whatsoever. It's been complete for a while now, just waiting a few finishing touches that the rest of everything gets along the way.

It's good to know you don't care about it, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, 76mm said:

With all due respect to BF, I consider this kind of thing to be historically irrelevant minutia.  Maybe it's just me, but I'd much rather have a module in 6 months with a standard "sidearm" rather than wait six years to equip my digital officers with the appropriate specific sidearm.

It has been said that modelling new weaponry is one of the easiest parts of the whole thing. So if we can have the right gun in the right hands at the right time, go for it.

Edited by Frenchy56

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I initially wasn't going to purchase RTV because I didn't think the time period was that interesting, but from the amount of work that's apparently gone into this I think ill play it anyway. A lot of that stuff probably isn't necessary, but it does show passion and care on BFC's part for units that don't get mentioned at all in history (unfortunately) and that granularity is why I bought CM in the first place. Hopefully BFC has learned some lessons from it and we can go back to a more "normal" schedule after this release!

Edited by AttorneyAtWar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

BFC is not a 'game', its a dedicated historical tactical sim. They'd no more let you mix-and-match forces than they'd include light sabers among the weaponry.

You mean mix-and-match, like in forming kampfgruppe or task forces?  Forces were "mixed-and-matched" all the time, so I have hard time understanding what is ahistorical about that?   But if you'd prefer to "break" yourselves by fixating on the formal TO&E of units which have never, and probably will never, feature in a CM scenario, don't let me stop you, although to compare another approach to the inclusion of lightsabers is a bit rich.

54 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

As to the minutia, when your weapon's range and accuracy, the number of rounds loaded or it is ability to pierce walls is affected the 'minutia' can make all the difference.

Sorry, but in a game featuring up to battalions of digital soldiers in a digital environment built upon many thousands of assumptions and estimates of various degrees of accuracy, to suggest that the range and accuracy of officer sidearms can "make all the difference" is completely ludicrous.  For example, in a "historical tactical sim" I would expect that the TacAI would be vastly more important than minutia such as this, and yet it remains (and given the nature of the beast, will always remain) work in progress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, Frenchy56 said:

It has been said that modelling new weaponry is one of the easiest parts of the whole thing.

OK, but it sounds like modelling new weapons is not the only difficulty; rather figuring out exactly which weapon was used by whom, and when, is what takes up a lot of time.

Edited by 76mm

Share this post


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

BFC is not a 'game', its a dedicated historical tactical sim. They'd no more let you mix-and-match forces than they'd include light sabers among the weaponry.

To nitpick here that is exactly what we've been able to do for nearly a decade. You can cook up a scenario with Elite Insurgent infantry riding Bradleys into battle against a horde of conscripted German infantry manning technical if you wanted. The well done Command and Control system of CM makes it a piece of cake too. The real limit is the launcher

Regardless its good to hear that brought some new weapons with them. I was under the presumption that they were fully armed from existing U.S. and British stock.

 

2 hours ago, benpark said:

No, no it isn't of any impact whatsoever. It's been complete for a while now, just waiting a few finishing touches that the rest of everything gets along the way.

It's good to know you don't care about it, though.

My broader point was the standalone scenarios, campaigns, and master maps are of little interest to me after the base game in a series is released. At which point I would much rather just have access to new weapons and vehicles with which to make scenarios of my own  or play in multiplayer. To the point that I would purchase an "early version" with just a basic availability of new stuff and be fine waiting however many years/months it was to get a patch with the campaign/scenarios/more obscure TO&E.

Because when it comes down to it I'm going to use the baked in scenarios and campaign system relatively rarely compared to the usefulness of having Panzer IIIs in CM:RT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, 76mm said:

OK, but it sounds like modelling new weapons is not the only difficulty; rather figuring out exactly which weapon was used by whom, and when, is what takes up a lot of time.

That would be part of the TO&E nightmare BF is going through. Though I doubt this was their biggest problem.

Edited by Frenchy56

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Frenchy56 said:

That would be part of the TO&E nightmare BF is going through.

Yes, agreed, although I can't imagine it would be very easy to find accuracy data for every obscure WWII-era sidearm, or weapon in general.

Edited by 76mm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Pelican Pal said:

My broader point was the standalone scenarios, campaigns, and master maps are of little interest to me after the base game in a series is released. At which point I would much rather just have access to new weapons and vehicles with which to make scenarios of my own  or play in multiplayer. To the point that I would purchase an "early version" with just a basic availability of new stuff and be fine waiting however many years/months it was to get a patch with the campaign/scenarios/more obscure TO&E.

Because when it comes down to it I'm going to use the baked in scenarios and campaign system relatively rarely compared to the usefulness of having Panzer IIIs in CM:RT.

This is more or less my position as well, although I would add that I'd like full-year weather sooner rather than later as well, and that I'm happy paying for modules with additional content rather than a patch, as long as they are provided in something like a timely fashion.

As a similar matter, while CMRT features lots of units that I'd never consider using in a scenario, it does not include such items as assault rafts.  The Soviets conducted many, many river crossings during Bagration and its aftermath, so their presence is missed.  Yes, I understand that rafts would require oodles of new models/animations, so there is a business case against their inclusion, but I miss them nonetheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, 76mm said:

Why not just provide the relevant building blocks to allow scenario designers to build the force necessary for their scenario in the editor?

?? that is what they have done - they *have* provided the relevant building blocks and *do* allow designers to build the force they want.

21 hours ago, 76mm said:

If the alternative is to slice the game to cover shorter and shorter time periods and fewer and fewer units, I'll continue to lose interest in these products.  I would not care as much if the units/maps from the various games could be used in common under a  unified game engine, but having each game both narrow and stand-alone is a huge turn-off for me, especially when the relevant expansion modules turn out to be several years apart.

Good lord - we get it you are only interested in a narrow part of the war. If BFC had put out only eastern front modules and games since they released RT would you have been happy? It kind of sounds like you still would not.

It kinda leaves the question - why are you still here exactly? Why are you still posting about how you would like them to reduce their fidelity and put out less accurate content faster to make you happy if they clearly are not listening to you. Thank goodness they are not BTW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the feeling that some players have never built their own scenario. The scenario editor is not set up like QB. There's no points totals, no force restrictions. If you want a scenario that's just jeeps and battleship heavy artillery you can make a scenario with just jeeps and battleship heavy artillery.

Also I sincerely doubt a single unified 50 gig $700 title would be a particularly big seller,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, IanL said:

?? that is what they have done - they *have* provided the relevant building blocks and *do* allow designers to build the force they want.

Yes and no...according to MikeyD, BF apparently also incurs a lot of brain damage determining OOBs and TO&Es for formations that I doubt anyone ever uses.  I was simply suggesting that they could lighten their load by focusing on the OOBs and TO&Es for the basic building blocks (platoons and companies) rather than a lot of larger formations of limited utility to anyone.  

52 minutes ago, IanL said:

Good lord - we get it you are only interested in a narrow part of the war. If BFC had put out only eastern front modules and games since they released RT would you have been happy? It kind of sounds like you still would not.

Not sure with what my front preferences have to do with not liking it when games cover very narrow time frames and only a handful of units?  I'd feel the same way if I preferred Normandy, Battle of the Bulge, or Italy.  Three separate games covering the Western Front:  CMFB, CMFI, CMFB, and in theory, four separate games for the Eastern Front--bleh.  I have no problem with paying for additional content but want it to work together in one big sand box rather than several stand-alone silos.  For me, having an editor is not every useful if there is little to edit.  

52 minutes ago, IanL said:

It kinda leaves the question - why are you still here exactly? Why are you still posting about how you would like them to reduce their fidelity and put out less accurate content faster to make you happy if they clearly are not listening to you. Thank goodness they are not BTW.

You leave a question yourself:  why do you care that I post my opinion of the games here?  I've been playing these games and on this forum for many years, so feel free to express my opinions, and am not very concerned if they don't coincide with yours (the self-appointed "defender of the faith", I see).  Last time I checked, the purpose of discussion forums is to, well, discuss?

Finally, in my view given all of the necessary abstractions/assumptions in these (or any similar) games for vastly more important topics such as LOS, sighting, troop reactions, terrain, C&C, morale, etc etc to claim that failing to use historically accurate officers' sidearms would reduce "fidelity" or "accuracy" in any meaningful way is pedantic in the extreme , unless your aim is to create a firing range simulator.

Edited by 76mm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

Also I sincerely doubt a single unified 50 gig $700 title would be a particularly big seller,

That is why many games use DLCs or in BF-speak, modules, to add additional content to existing games.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 76mm said:

You leave a question yourself:  why do you care that I post my opinion of the games here?  I've been playing these games and on this forum for many years, so feel free to express my opinions, and am not very concerned if they don't coincide with yours

Good, differing opinions are good, great even. Honestly I am just frustrated with you attitude that if they don't change you are going to leave. Frequently threatening to take your ball and go home has become boring to the rest of us. 

1 hour ago, 76mm said:

(the self-appointed "defender of the faith", I see). 

LOL yeah someone used that in a troll post in an attempted to insult me. I think it is pretty funny. Also enlightening that you referred to it as well :)

1 hour ago, 76mm said:

Last time I checked, the purpose of discussion forums is to, well, discuss?

It is and apart from the occasional troll or whiner it is the one of the best forums on the internet. So, let's quit the whining and have more discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, 76mm said:

Yes and no...according to MikeyD, BF apparently also incurs a lot of brain damage determining OOBs and TO&Es for formations that I doubt anyone ever uses.  I was simply suggesting that they could lighten their load by focusing on the OOBs and TO&Es for the basic building blocks (platoons and companies) rather than a lot of larger formations of limited utility to anyone.  

Not sure with what my front preferences have to do with not liking it when games cover very narrow time frames and only a handful of units?  I'd feel the same way if I preferred Normandy, Battle of the Bulge, or Italy.  Three separate games covering the Western Front:  CMFB, CMFI, CMFB, and in theory, four separate games for the Eastern Front--bleh.  I have no problem with paying for additional content but want it to work together in one big sand box rather than several stand-alone silos.  For me, having an editor is not every useful if there is little to edit.  

You leave a question yourself:  why do you care that I post my opinion of the games here?  I've been playing these games and on this forum for many years, so feel free to express my opinions, and am not very concerned if they don't coincide with yours (the self-appointed "defender of the faith", I see).  Last time I checked, the purpose of discussion forums is to, well, discuss?

Finally, in my view given all of the necessary abstractions/assumptions in these (or any similar) games for vastly more important topics such as LOS, sighting, troop reactions, terrain, C&C, morale, etc etc to claim that failing to use historically accurate officers' sidearms would reduce "fidelity" or "accuracy" in any meaningful way is pedantic in the extreme , unless your aim is to create a firing range simulator.

I am curious what titles you own?

The comments about not many units, formations being of no use to anyone, and very little to edit seem to me to be a very harsh description of the games. 

I am also curious to know how often you use the editor to try and create scenarios of your own?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Complaining that a historical sim is too historical is a non-starter, its like complaining that the chicken sandwich you bought contains chicken.
An often-repeated joke of mine is someday BFC will give all this up and move to where the real money is - making My Little Pony roleplay iphone games for Japanese schoolgirls. Historical tactical sims is BFC's passion. If their games aren't that why would they be doing this at all?

I think its a bit ironic that first there's the suggestion to compile a single mega game, and at the same time wondering why the TO&E is so complex. A 50 gig $700 title spanning 3/4 of a century wouldn't require a complex TO&E?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

RE: Scenario design overall

What building your own scenarios does, at least for me, is point out the limitation more than just sticking with QBs and premade scenarios. Once you start opening the system up and you realize that there is  a lot you can';t do with the limited amount provided. Sure you can do jeeps and artillery if you want, but that isn't particularly interesting. Take 37mm's Heaven and Earth... That is a dramatic change that is only possible because CM:SF has a relatively broad stable of units. CM:SF, in fact, can do a decent job of representing various conflicts outside of its actual ~3 month time period thanks to the existence of so much Cold War Soviet kit. Some of my favorite CM scenarios were African and Middle-East civil war scenarios. These are scenarios which are well outside of the scope of the game as made, but there is sufficent breadth to make possible.

And really what you are doing is using basic building blocks (infantry with Warsaw Pact weaponry, T-55s, BMP-1s, etc...) to create interesting engagements that only broadly resemble the TO&E of any actual Nation that would be fighting with these weapons. In fact you can do a modern battle with "Kurdish" forces using American equipment fighting "Isis" troops with stolen American equipment and various Soviet era vehicles even though there isn't anything close to a well researched layout of these forces in the game.

 

15 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

I think its a bit ironic that first there's the suggestion to compile a single mega game, and at the same time wondering why the TO&E is so complex. A 50 gig $700 title spanning 3/4 of a century wouldn't require a complex TO&E?


You are ignoring the obvious solution here and imagining that you'd have to release some absurd "uber game". DCS, for example, has a Core Launcher and numerous modules which in the end create a single mega game. The layout of CM, as it stands, would be adaptable to that selfsame system.

Rather than having ~6 families each with separate launchers and separate modules. You would have:

CORE LAUNCHER
Which hosted each family

Family Module
Which would be the base game for each time period.

Child Module
Which would be individual modules that are financially attached to a family module.

This layout is far from ironic and would actual be a pretty rational system if BFC wasn't as far into the separation system that they currently have. Since with a single "parent" you wouldn't have ~6 different engine upgrades and patches but instead just a single. While you could still have CM:BN, CM:FB, CM:FI as they exist.

 

1 hour ago, Heirloom_Tomato said:

The comments about not many units, formations being of no use to anyone, and very little to edit seem to me to be a very harsh description of the games. 


I get the feeling that 76mm is talking more about some of the complete formations. Within the editor there are quite a few formations that you can pick which essentially aren't ever used as a whole within CM, but are instead already being broken up by the scenario designer/QB player.

 

 

Edited by Pelican Pal
splling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

Complaining that a historical sim is too historical is a non-starter, its like complaining that the chicken sandwich you bought contains chicken...........

I think Mikey D has a point!

Share this post


Link to post
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
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...