New CMC screenshots

[lparkh]

Are campaigns "dynamic" or human designed?

[Tom Norton]

The scene opens with large numbers of CMBB players coming into visual range of Combat Mission Campaigns.

Moon wispers, "Its up!"

A chorus of excited voices follow, almost all mention unbelievable!

The program crashes.

Moon, "Its down!"

Tom, to Canada Guy.

"See what those negative vibs did, Canada Guy!"

"Always with those negative vibs!"

[sonar]

Thanks for the reply Moon. So it's sink or swim for CMC. Ulp! Fingers crossed for a good result then. Cheers.

[dog of war]

if you release it as open source beta will the community be able to convert/use it with cmak

[Moon]

dog of war, that's doubtful because part of the beauty of CMC is its integration with the core engine of CMBB. This functionality does not exist in CMAK. Charles had to code a special version of CMBB to accept and then return data (battle results etc.), among a whole number of other things.

Without this, even if you had an open source version of CMC, you would still have a problem trying to do anything with CMAK.

Martin

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Moon:

dog of war, that's doubtful because part of the beauty of CMC is its integration with the core engine of CMBB. This functionality does not exist in CMAK. Charles had to code a special version of CMBB to accept and then return data (battle results etc.), among a whole number of other things.

There's the easy solution of OpenSource'ing CMBB and CMAK, too

You'd leave nice scorched earth behind you that would prevent commercial competitors from following the CM path while making any money in the initial years.

[Canada Guy]

I know, I should lose the negativity.

I am all in favour of going open source (CMBB that is) as I really think there might be some people here that would be willing to try to get this to work with DX10.

I am all enthused about CMC but it really puts a crimp in my plans to upgrade my computer.

I might have to go with one machine that only has XP and the best DX9 card there is and one that has XP and the best DX10 card I can afford. Too bad as you would not beleive the amount of time I have spent with CMBB/CMAK. My wife grants me 2 hours every Saturday with a tall cup of coffee (Tims of course) and this has been going on for 2.5 years now. My 9 year old son is just getting into it.

I guess CMSF et al will have to be the bee's knees then.

[Tom Norton]

I am just kidding you CG. Half expected you to tell me that you had nothing but positive vibs since the start....

I too balance the play of CMBB with wife and kids. Let me know how you swing two computers, in order to play CMC, I have a lot to learn!

[Hunter]

Originally posted by lparkh:

Are campaigns "dynamic" or human designed?

Campaigns are human designed. Actually, there is a lot of work in designing a campaign. No way we are anywhere near a randomly generated campaign.

Once in a campaign, obviously the AI can decide to do different things from time to time. That's not what you meant I am sure.

[Canada Guy]

No prob Tom. There was a smiley face there (even if I could not see it).

I hope this all works out as I know what you mean about balancing the wife and kids. That and a full time job does not leave one much time for other hobbies in life.

I am surprised that I have gotten so much life out of the CMx1 series. Looking above my computer I see about 20 games, 10 my sons play and the rest I might have put 5 hours into each at most. CM though has given me enjoyment for 100s of hours. I would just hate to see that go by the wayside.

CMC might give it a new lease on life but unless it gets to work with Vista and DX10, I do not see much futrue in this. I am hoping though that the CMx2 will give me as much enjoyment (just without the Finns and the Romanians and Italians etc.).

[Hulldown]

If it shows I will buy.

Hope you manage to finish it.

regards,

[Dowding2]

Thanks for the updates Moon. I've been lurking watching for updates for the last couple of years... praying that this game would be completed.

I find the attitude of some people strange - as if the dev team have been directly paid by them and are reneging on contractual obligations. Seems very stressful to be that obsessive.

"Lighten up, Francis."

[Cid250]

When will it be available for pre-order?

[Kellysheroes]

Originally posted by Pascal DI FOLCO:

If ever it get released soon, I'll say only good of BFC for one year (after cursing them for the same time due to ToW and CMSF utter disappointment for me, plus CMC seemingly vapowared).

I swear it !!

Lol me too Pascal me too. I was totally disappointed in ToW and CMSF, but, have kept my head up that the Western Front WW2 game/module they bring out of the CMX2 series will be 100x better. But, Campaigns has been on my radar ever since it was mentioned. And I highly doubt CMBB or CMAK(eto) will ever leave my hard drive either. The graphics don't bother me, it's the immersion of the complete game(s) I enjoy of both of them. The distanct sounds of battle, the tracers of the weapons, the screams, the moans everything about them is almost real. Only thing or maybe two things I will be disappointed in with CMC will be no randomness or random generated campaigns. That would have put it over the top I think.

[JaegerMeister]

well i am just very glad to hear it still may come out i had almost given up hoping it would ever arrive.

Like many people i still use CMBB & CMAK regularly as they are still the best tactical wargames about on the market played PBEM.

It was always a mystery to me why BFC never continued to proved update patches/tweaks to the series, i just hope we get this soon.

[Redwolf]

I can't emphasize this enough:

There would be a lot of people who didn't like ToW and/or CMSF who would really appreciate even a tiny bit of polishing on any CMx1 product.

Since it's getting touched anyway there's a perfect opportunity to keep some fans in line here.

[Tom Norton]

Redwolf/JaegerMeister, hit upon a point I struggle with. BFC is in the business to make money. Thus, economics of making that money should be the key to making the decision to update/continue any game. Generally, the competition to continue CMBB, would be opportunty cost and the operation of diminishing returns.

Diminishing return/resources invested, plays a large role, if not key role, in decision making of any product, not just for BFC. Look at Bethesda's decision to not make another sequel to the money maker, Oblivion. After they announced that Knights of the Nine was it, look at their message boards to see the aghast! Why stop, when Bethesda had hit a gold mine? The answer is in the same catagory that BFC makes.

They believe there is more money to made for the amount of resources invested someplace else.

Bethesda, is going with Fallout 3, and BFC went with CMSF.

I believe we were told CMBB made less then CMBO, and that CMAK made less then CMBB. Diminishing returns. At some point, product termination has to kick in due to the economics.

The consumer dictate the market, and that in many ways determines the winners and losers in the computer games industry.

The bleak truth is there are fewer computer stratagy gamers then the growing numbers ofconsole/computer RPG players. BFC knows this as well as you do. They like money, or a least their wives do, just like you and yours. Thus, these market forces drive decisions away from expanding the game I love to play most. It hurts more, I guess, when the product a company expands too, does not measure up to what the consumer wanted. Bethesda, in looking at that in the next Fallout game, look at the pre release interviews. BFC, had the same concerns when it went to CMSF. Many of the old guard did not like the change, and that hurts expectations, which in turn, hurts profits.

The observation that the CMx1 is already done so it shouldnt cost much to tweek it, does not take into considation opportunity cost. For every hour of time BFC invests into tweeking CMBB, it takes away from another, more profitable project.

So, while I struggle with with the points and concerns made by many, in light of the market reality, I will be damn happy to have Campaigns, while my son blasts mutants to his hearts content.

[Kellysheroes]

Agreed Redwolf and the other sadness is every one of these companies and developers always move on to the ultimate #2 or #3 version of the same ole same ole without ever touching the "Pacific War" side of things. Steel Panthers series is the only one that gave us everything. I just wished the CM series had of done this as well.

[Pascal DI FOLCO]

@Kellyheroes, you forgot Talonsoft Campaign Series- total coverage of the war at platoon level.

@Tom Norton (and BFC !)

Money-wise I really wonder if there's not much more money to make by upgrading/expanding on CMx1 than developing for 4yrs+ an entire new, complex engine with a target audience that I can't yet define.

I don't buy the "developers have to make new things to attract customers" rant : look at what HPS does since 10 years, and now Matrix is just porting old wargames to XP/hi-res. I don't buy HPS anymore (fed up with it since some times, but I bought 20 or so before), but I did buy the "new" CC:CoI, Campaign Series, and TOAW3. So the lamentations about "there's no customers" has its limits - ie there's still a rather "rich" core wargamer niche ready to spend money on wargames. But those guys want historicity, "simulated" realism, gameplay, not especially fancy graphics, and tracking of every 7.62mm bullet to see if it hits an arm, a leg, or a tree branch (play OFP/ArmA if you want that). OTOH wanting to attract the "twitch crowd", gamers from 13 to 20, with anything wargame-like is just illusionary - like trying to sell Kant books to them !

I did buy ToW but would like to resell it, and won't buy CM:SF, nor its expansions. Don't like SC2 neither, and not even sure I'd buy the future Normandy game, the setting (1 month 1/2 on stg like 5000 km²) is too limited when you're used to CMx1...

Overall I mostly evolved from a rabid BFC fan to a despised ex-BFC customer, more and more dependent on Matrix releases to get a new wargaming fix (currently playing PzC:Kharkov, but after playing it 1 hour I go back to CMBB for 4! ). Now I just hope CMC will at least be released, even if it's old and ugly.

You can say that my personal views, but most of my fellow gamer-friends just think the same - we still pbem CMx1, don't play ToW nor CMSF. And I'm not at all ignorant in PC games-wargames economy, I happen to be partner in a well-known such indie company I won't name (it's French, starts with A and ends with D , guess it! )

So BFC choice was not money-driven, they just wanted to move on, didn't listen to their fans, and searched a phantom customer base instead. We'll see what develop, but I have my (bleak) idea.

[julien673]

dam i can t wait for this game

waiting for its....

P.S. its is somethink like SC ?

[Redwolf]

Tom, you make the points I normally hammer into the CMx1 fans. CMx1 was commercially dead and even continuing to maintain it would have been useless. Some people don't want to realize it but it's the obvious truth.

All I am saying is now that the base overhead of touching CMBB code is committed anyway, including all the QA, beta-testing and whatnot, it makes sense to pick off low-hanging fruit coding-wise. Much of what people want was already fixed in CMAK, so it can't be that hard to backport, and it isn't too dangerous either.

Let's be honest here: the operational layer? Who knows. The development was rocky and now it's kicked out the parent's door before the child reaches retirement age in mama's basement. It might suck. Doesn't have to, but, well, it might.

So why not form up some package so that a wider base of wargaming fans finds something in the package released?

So let's say the operational layer turns out not to people's liking, then what? Three bad strikes in a row in the eyes of a good percentage of the BFC fanbase. Not good. Let's say it's bad but CMBB was brushed up just a little bit - then people have something in their hands, blow each other up in ROW IIa and good time is had by everybody.

And let's be honest here, some CMBB bugs such as the fortification bug are so severe that releasing with them still in (and it was fixed in CMAK) will have the opposite effect of soothing the fanbase. If it turns out the operational layer isn't fun and that obvious well-known issues were left in CMBB, too, then what? Would be better not to release anything.

[insert another annoying call to OpenSource CMBB here, kills competitors, frees up Charles for a couple dinnertimes]

[Tom Norton]

There is a very fine line that needs to be followed in your point, Redwolf. The fact that we see Moon, even now making posts in this forum, in and of itself, suggests more then mere boredom.

It is this kind of activity that springs hope to all who wish upon wish, that Campaigns, is coming on line this summer. Your idea should not be ignored. Back when CMBB was patched to what we really have now, I had a serious exchange of emails with BFC about attempting to license the code to other developers. My hope was that this would spawn a Campaign type game two years ago.

And, it did appear BFC had been approached about a license (though I do not know for sure) as they had in fact looked at it. Sadly, there just was not enough return on the investment for them to follow that path. Now, we have this creation, by a 3rd party, which appears to need to be rescued by BFC, which supports their prior concerns about how much more they would need to invest if they did license the game code. Have to hate it when they are shown to be right, from the start. To us, this is almost like a gift. Lets face it, BFC could have let this project die. Close the board, in effect tell the hardcore fans of CMBB, WE TOLD YOU. Walk away. But, instead, it appears they have enough pride in their design, that they were willing to give it the CPR needed to help it get out the door. But, you are unfornately, right. CPR, only works 12% of the time and Campaigns could flop, and not work as hoped (shades of the CMx2 for some). The silver lining could be the tweeks in CMAK code merged in CMBB. Or to use legendary Battlefront speak, a bone to the CMBB community.

To go back to my resource allowcation post, does it make CMBB more valuable to be dressed up, to BFC? I doubt it does. However, they have already shown by keeping Campaigns alive in the first place (kind of PDIF's point) that they still have concern over the image of CMBB. Does that breath life into some bug killing, code modification for CMBB? I/we hope so. But, I think this hope moves in two directions. Great for those would would want an update to CMBB (yes, I am one of those too), however against an open source code proposal, because that is how much BFC still cares about this game! If there were better economic inducement, your call would not be annoying (ha). It is possible the alternative was this Campaigns expedtion! Had it been produced as advertised, on time, on target, what then? There would have been your economic inducement to license. But, as we painfully know, it has not been. So, the open source code would be seen as what would amount to abandoment by BFC of this code. Your points are all true, the work (investment) is done, as is the real income recovery, let it now go into the hands of those who would pursue developement as a labor of love and not economic gain. However, I cannot see how BFC would follow that path for something they clearly still care about and have pride in (for obvious reasons).

So, we buy the Campaign when it comes out, and when we meet again, ah that will be a meeting well met!

[Redwolf]

Well, good points, but I don't see an indication that BFC cares about CMBB as such. They care about following through with CMC. It seems obvious to me that CMC is the point here, not CMBB.

I can hear Charles curse over making the minimum required CMBB changes for a CMC release from a couple hundred miles away

Licensing this code for commercial purposes seems out of the question at this point.

[acrashb]

Operations tied to tactics is a long-time dream. I've done it with board/miniatures games (many 'moons' ago), but the record keeping etc. is nasty.

Looking forward to CMC - finally - especially after the flop-that-was-CMSF.

The screenshots look great, and auto-resolve is an interesting feature.

[Pascal DI FOLCO]

Originally posted by Redwolf:

Well, good points, but I don't see an indication that BFC cares about CMBB as such. They care about following through with CMC. It seems obvious to me that CMC is the point here, not CMBB.

I can hear Charles curse over making the minimum required CMBB changes for a CMC release from a couple hundred miles away

Licensing this code for commercial purposes seems out of the question at this point.

Why that ? Licensing a couple guys to kill bugs, make some additions, review some graphics, and -let's be dreamers!- create a new theatre (W Europe 39-40 won't be very hard) maybe won't give much cash to BFC, but NOT doing it (at all) nets them 0.00 certainly. It won't even compete for the upcoming CMx2 WW2 - at least not much more than Close Combat can compete with CoH, and even then competition will be all to BFC advantage !

SSI did licence commercially/selectively the SP engine nearly 10 years ago, we still play with it...