it's been 7 months Hunter

[sonar]

It's been seven months now since Hunter has posted any update on how things are going, c'mon Hunter surely you have something you can tell us ? Or is it going so bad that you have nothing positive to tell us ?

[ November 08, 2007, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: sonar ]

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Well, you catch more flies with honey then with vinegar. So phrasing it the way you did wouldn't really persuade Hunter to come here.

How about trying a more inviting, positive approach?

[Pike]

Elmar Bijlsma he was asking nice? Why getting upset? I wonder the same thing. Is Campagin put on ice?

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I'm just pointing out that saying:"Or is it going so bad that you have nothing positive to tell us?" might not be taken very well by someone who is undoubtedly busting his ass getting CMC together. Basic human nature at work, people don't like being criticized and will try and avoid it if they can. Hunter is (probably) a human being, so he's more likely to respond to a more positive invitation to give an update. Just saying.

[Antman]

You don't call, you don't write....your father and I are going crazy with worry....

[sonar]

Ok, sorry if I sounded short, just asking.

[Nick Schieben]

He's prolly beta-testing a future update for CMSF or the next ToW patch. Some forum members have been somewhat tetchy when they suspect you might be suggesting that something is fubar. Oh wait! I hear this will be completely revamped for the upcoming CMSF: WW2. You just don't get it!!! Neither do I for that matter...

[Vergeltungswaffe]

The hardest thing to understand is that the beta forum has almost daily activity, so CMC is being discussed. It would certainly be nice to hear anything, say, once a month, even if it's "nothing new to report".

[molotov_billy]

I do hope that CMC - whatever lessons they learned and whatever functionality they've creataed - gets folded into the new WW2 game on the CM2 engine. It seems a waste to be developing on old tech when they're already working on a new version of everything.

[Cid250]

The CM2 engine is crap, from the point of view of tactical-AI. The core of the CM2 engine will never improve the quality of the TacAI, since it's developed as a pure real time strategy game in mind. And it's like designing a race car and expecting to be used as a heavy truck. The engine is unable to perform the task... due to design concepts and physical limitations.

The future WWII product developed over the CM2 engine, will never be of the level of quality that the games based on the CM1 engine had.

They will lose a lot of time on complex 3D models, and 3D animations for any piece of equipment... resulting on a very narrow diversity of WWII weapons... We will lose the Romanians, the Finish, and of course the infantry weapons available will be reduced for every country. Don't expect to see every model of tank that you have already in CM1 to be present in any edition done with CM2.

Combat Mission Campaigns is perfect for the old series of Combat mission, since they are also designed as quality wargames from the "Core" of the engine.

[Cid250]

... sorry, double post.

[Melnibone]

Originally posted by Cid250:

The CM2 engine is crap, from the point of view of tactical-AI. The core of the CM2 engine will never improve the quality of the TacAI, since it's developed as a pure real time strategy game in mind.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

[BeauCoupDinkyDau]

From pg. 8 of the CMBB manual:

“The difference is that action in CMBB is paused to allow for player input. We choose this arrangement because we feel it is conductive to players’ development of thoughtful and realistic strategies, rather than the “click fest” that some fully “real time” games can become. It is our opinion that “continuous time” works (very well) only at a very small scale, where there are just perhaps a few soldiers under a player’s command. It does not work well at the scale of a full company or battalion, which is the level simulated by Combat Mission.”

This to me is in a nutshell what made the CM series so special. I really hope that BFC returns it's focus to what made this game so great.

[ September 12, 2007, 08:49 AM: Message edited by: BeauCoupDinkyDau ]

[Hensworth]

Well said.

[FinnN]

I've not played CM:SF much (don't have time to do much game-wise at the moment) but I don't think that it deserves to be called crap. There certainly appear to be problems but I'm sure these will be addressed to the extent that they'll be reduced to niggles rather than glaring errors (seems to have been quite a bit of progress along those lines already). Certainly they've slashed the number of units on the maps and the size of the maps, but was that what made CM games special? Personally I don't think so.

I think what made it special was the way that it bridged the gap between an impossibly detailed miniatures war game and a computer game. They built a link between stopping and thinking about each move (traditional wargame) and instant gratification (computer game). The result was something that played out exactly like a miniatures wargame with all the tedious paperwork and looking up in tables removed thanks to the WeGo setup.

Now, talking about CMx1 games, while WeGo is perfect against a human opponent I think it's much less fun against an AI and comes across as a bit artificial in a tactical level computer game as you're forced to wait 60s before reacting to anything. So is the same order system as CMx1 but pausable at any time sufficient? Personally I don't think so.

The problem is that commands that connect the real-time environment to that 'stop and think' aspect about wargames is missing. I'd like to see an order that you could queue up that stops (pauses) the game when it's reached. This would allow you to effectively have freeform we-go against the AI without zooming all over the place to check what's happening. Conditional orders are also missing. For example you could have a move order to a building, get the squad to evaluate any visible threats (possibly give them a temporary spotting boost) and then only get them to proceed to the next move command if they don't spot anything. You could also link conditions to the actions of other units via the C&C links. I don't think it would be too hard to add (especially just the simple order to pause the game) as you're not really asking the AI to do anything or adding lots of checks for the engine to do constantly but it would go a long way to making it possible to play CM:SF like a wargame without making things more complex for people that want a shallower (but equally valid) RTS experience.

Have fun

Finn

[Lt Bull]

Originally posted by FinnN:

Certainly they've slashed the number of units on the maps and the size of the maps, but was that what made CM games special? Personally I don't think so.

Many things made CMx1 games special. The ability to conduct intelligent tactical battles on large maps with battaliion sized numbers of units certainly is one of those special things, something which is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE with traditional RTS games.

It is a fact that RTS games have an intrinsic limitation on the number of individual units that can be intelligently controlled simutaneously by a player. This is what lumps CMSF in with every other RTS game made. CMx1 with it's WeGo system has no such limitations making the possibilities for battle/map scale virtually endless (well as far as human vs human play, coding an CPU opponent to handle large maps/units on the other hand is a COMPLETELY different story). So on this point, I think you are way off the mark.

Originally posted by FinnN:

I think what made it special was the way that it bridged the gap between an impossibly detailed miniatures war game and a computer game. They built a link between stopping and thinking about each move (traditional wargame) and instant gratification (computer game). The result was something that played out exactly like a miniatures wargame with all the tedious paperwork and looking up in tables removed thanks to the WeGo setup.

I generally agree that this is one of the things that made CMx1 special.

Originally posted by FinnN:

Now, talking about CMx1 games, while WeGo is perfect against a human opponent I think it's much less fun against an AI and comes across as a bit artificial in a tactical level computer game as you're forced to wait 60s before reacting to anything.

WeGo is great for a number of reasons, but I don't see how it is any less fun against a CPU opponent or how it is "a bit artificial in a tactical level computer game as you're forced to wait 60s before reacting to anything". That is half the fun, being able to predict and plan ahead then watching helplessly as the action unfolds. As I have said, CMx1 Wego just like American Football. You kind of play the part of the head coach calling the plays, but also of the collective mindset of the whole team between the plays, as you can micro-manage and plan each players move as much as you like. Once the play has been designed, you just sit back and watch your players execute and hope that their own intelligence (TacAI) helps them improvise where needed.

BeauCoupDinkyDau, thanks for posting that quote from the CMBB manual.

[BeauCoupDinkyDau]

Finn,

60 seconds is nothing. Most turns in traditional war games take place over much longer periods of time than they do in CM. Take The Operational Art of War for example. A single turn could represent something like six hours up to a full week depending on the scenario parameters. And before you say, “Yeah, but that game simulates operational level play,” think again. There were some scenarios that simulated a mere battalion with support elements, just like CMx1 can.

If I want real-time play, then I’ll go with something like Starcraft or Rise of Nations (both very good games in their genre), but that’s not why I play CM. I play it for the reasons BDC stated in the CMBB text I quote above.

WEGO is a better system for the type of war game BFC makes. If they were doing something much smaller scale where you controlled one squad (like Brothers in Arms or the original Rainbow Six) then I’d say hell yeah to real-time. But they’re not. They’re trying to simulate company and higher tactical operations, and moving a series like that to real-time is a mistake.

In the end I think they’re going to see this for themselves. I think all of our whining isn’t going to matter, because they’re going to understand what did and didn’t work with CMSF (and I’m not talking bugs, I’m talking game mechanics), and they’ll make the appropriate shift back to WEGO while advancing the series in a logical and progressive direction. I see CMSF as an experiment in the CMx2 series--an experiment that BFC is using to flesh out some new ideas. In time, I think they’ll announce that they’re leaving true real-time behind, because none of us wanted that to begin with. All we asked for in those terms was full movie playback for an entire scenario. They’ll compare the sales of CMx1 to what they have now, and I think they’ll take the best of both worlds (while abandoning what just does not serve the franchise) and fold it into the next game.

[Cid250]

Anybody posting about WEGO realities in the CMSF forum, is automatically insulted. Or at least disqualified, in the fashion that yourself can see (just 6 post above) from Melnibone. Yes, he knows, he has the knowledge, but he only doesn't want to explain us why he think that i doesn't have any idea... Mainly, because he can't?.

Those forums, are almost in a Taliban status. Some guys on the player base, take any comment about the benefits of WEGO, like a personal insult. They are cleaning up the people with different minds, only the official opinion is supported.

Soon, RealTime benefits will be the only true... and less and less people will check the CMSF forums, to discuss about WeGO. Then Battlefront will hear only a single opinion, discarding the need of any work about true WeGO... and i'm not speaking of pathfinding, or TCP/IP implementation. I'm speaking about the hight quality TacAI that you need to make true WeGO even possible, with 100% dedicated CPU calculations all the time that you need... for a good TacAI solution. Good AI algorithms, needs enough time of dedicated CPU.

What a pity to be out of reality... i wish that they can read all the stuff posted in the most important fan forums of any language or nationality about WeGO, outside here...

They will never heard about it on this forum, with the intensity that those many players think about wargaming and the quality of a wargame, outside here... on the wargamer's fan websites.

[ September 12, 2007, 06:44 AM: Message edited by: Cid250 ]

[BeauCoupDinkyDau]

Cid,

Those fanatical attacks are pretty typical for any fan base these days. Try going on a Star Wars site and attempt to debate why the new movies sucked. Try going onto a Republican site and argue Democratic values (or vice versa). The Combat Mission fan base in no different.

That’s not to say that there aren’t some members in here that can’t hold a good and insightful debate, but trying to debate with the majority all at once will get you nothing but flamed. It’s been like this in here since Beyond Overlord, and I am shamed to say that I have jumped in on more than one insult fest against anyone that spoke out about my beloved CM.

As far as BFC goes, they are pretty pig-headed about what they want their games to be. We as a community of gamers have influenced them on a number of issues though (despite their “this is how it’s going to be and you’ll like it” outward stance) so don’t get too frustrated over the whole thing. Like I said, I don’t think it matters how much we discuss what we hate about CMSF. I think their bottom line is going to reflect how we feel about the game, because I just don’t see this product selling anywhere near as successfully as the CMx1 games did.

If they don’t embrace what originally made the games such gems, then oh well—time for the rest of us to move on. They’ll have their smaller following and smaller sales, and all of us will have had the excellent experience that the CMx1 games gave us. The only thing I can agree on with BFC on this cycle is their new marketing strategy. They would have made a KILLING if all the CMx1 games had just been a single core game with dozens of modules to give us the “ultimate and complete WWII experience!”

[Robert Goldsmith]

I wouldn't be surprised if CMSF sales have fallen on their face. The game doesn't appeal to hard core wargamers, who prefer turn based, or, better yet, WEGO, and who don't have a lot of interest in assymetrical warfare. Also, its not being marketed adequately to the much larger but crowded real time, twitch market. Marketing is the art of finding out what people want and letting them know you have it, and CMSF isn't it.

[Ted]

Steve said CMSF sold more so far than CMBO did when it first came out.

[kevinkins]

Robert

Please let the gang in on your wargaming experience. CMSF is very hard core. Have you ever played CM before? I would not be concerned about sales and marketing. That's outside our circle of influence. Play the game and post on how to improve it. Almost every review of CMSF starts out with "CM1 was a revolution". A lot of the wargaming community is being immature thinking this would be repeated with CMSF. I bet CMSF and the add on modules (WW2 etc.) will provide plenty of income for BFC and years of serious gaming for the public.

Kevin

[Robert Goldsmith]

To answer your question, I've been playing war games for 40 years (an indication of my age) and Combat Mission for about five years. CMBO was not heavily marketed, and I only found out about it by accident.

I have very limited time for gaming, which I now mostly spend on CMBB and CMAK (OK, and Civ 4, but that's another story). I don't really want to spend my gaming time or gaming dollars on assymtrical warfare, and "real time" holds no interest for me. I'm not against hypothetical scenarios. I used to play a lot of NATO versus Warsaw Pact, which was not assymetrical when done right, but Syria doesn't grab me.

[kevinkins]

Likewise about 30 years for me starting with PanzerBlitz. I am a WW2 kinda guy but CMSF simulates today's warfare and try's to provide users an understanding of today's tactics. For me I am very interested in this while of course waiting for the new add-on modules. There is a pretty large learning curve to the editor for designers. Perhaps another reason to play CMSF now even if Middle East 2007 is not a person's cup of tea is to master the editor for upcoming add-ons. In retrospect, starting with Middle East 2007 was wise. The product will only be better once it returns to WW2. I think the product maybe being penalized for being a revolution in 2000 with CMBO. By definition the product was marketed via the internet. The vast majority of wargamers with internet access became aware of CM pretty fast from what I remember. That said, I also remember the forum traffic to be a lot heavier in those days. There is a lot of demand for people's entertainment attention - more than in 2000 even.

Kevin

[Baron von Beergut]

I pretty much agree with Robert. While CMSF is new, the Syria thing just doesnt interest me. I tried the demo and it does have some potential, but since it is not either Wego or turn based I dont think I will be buying it either. As for game experience, I did board wargames from the 1960's through 80's and computer wargames since Apple days of 1981 to present. PBEM for 10yrs. Retired army...

But back to CMC, what the heck is the status? No updates, minimal activity at their closed board. Guess it would have been better to have never announced it and get us drooling over something that seems like it will never happen. Hope I am wrong, but after this many years with limited apparent headway, my guess is that it is dying but not yet buried. BvB