So is it safe to assume the Brits Module won't take 13 months?

[Piecekeeper]

2 gig ram, 2*p4, geforce 8600 GT.....what settings should i be able to use?

[Canada Guy]

I just want to be straight on what is on offer. (Please someone correct me if I am wrong)

CMSF - Main Game

M1 - Marines

M2 - Brits

M3 - Germans/Dutch/Canadians?

CM-Normandy - Main Game

M1 – Brits?

M2 – Commonwealth?

CM-OstFront - Main Game

M1 - M4 - ?

CMSF 2 - Pyongyang or Bust - Main Game (Will this still use the same engine or will it be a new engine so a completely different paradigm (Don't shoot me for using this word please))

M1 - M3 - ?

CM-Bulge? - Main game

M1-M3 - ?

----------------------

A little bit off topic but still connected, and I have asked about this before but never gotten a response. What about adopting a P500 or P2000 system to gauge interest in a particular area. Not so much in terms of the main games, but in terms of the modules. To give an example, how do you know that the Hungarians will not be warmly received as a module and at the same time make you money? Since you have the basic infrastructure in place to create a pre-order system, you could gauge interest by having people commit to the module (along with credit card information) before you even begin to work on it.

e.g. Let’s say that you want to gauge the interest in 4 new possible Modules for "CM-OstFront" just before you finish the main game. Before you even put finger to keyboard, you have your site ask people to commit their interest to each module. Gamers know that production is a possibility but know that the module will not be built (and their credit cards will not be charged) until a certain number of people commit to buying it and you commit to producing it. You put the minimum commitment number at 2000 for each and then let the marketplace do its job.

after 3 months you see that

CM: Budapest (1865)

CM: Karelian Front (2647)

CM: Rostov (392)

CM: Operation Bagration (1374)

You now know that you should work on "CM: Karelian Front" first as it has the most interest (those crazy Finns) and the most guaranteed income You can also surmise that 3 months later you might have enough interest in CM: Budapest so you can begin preliminary research. BFs work plan is then justified by committed cash inflow and your action plan is set to use your limited resources most efficiently to make money. It also takes some of the guess work out of surviving as a company.

Both GMT games and Multi-man Publishing use this system and it also saves them from having to repeatedly justify their choice of products (which, unfortunately, you seem to have to do on a regular basis).

It seems like a win-win situation for both us fans and your great staff.

[medlinke]

I would argue that a huge part of churning out a quality product is not losing interest and remaining passionate about the topic. While I assume there is a degree of capitalistic motivation we wouldn't have such a niche game if Steve & Co. didn't share a passion for the titles they've produced.

So while I can appreciate customer driven product cycles, I'd much rather have an excited development team delivering a product that comes out of left field and steals my heart.

Want a great example of this...look at HPS Simulation's Campaign Gettysburg. I thought I'd never love a Gettysburg campaign because it has been covered and recovered and covered again in gaming. Those guys made the DEFINITIVE product about Gettysburg because of a passionate persistence to complete what, at times, was an overwhelming product to complete. The thing has 300+ scenarios in it and maps covering like 500 square miles of terrain in historically accurate detail. It's just goofy the level of care and love.

I like to think that Battlefront works from the same well of passion + talent + skill to create their products. So I'd hate to see that tainted by a poll.

[Canada Guy]

MedLinke,

I agree with you and time has shown that no matter what is thrown at BF, they all seem to have a passion for making quality products with great care and devotion.

I would not characterize this as a poll but rather a dedicated commitment to buy. I know that being such a small company, they cannot afford to have very many missteps in product development.

Look at Atari, they have had a rough couple of years because of poorly received games and they have (or had) very deep pockets so could suck up a $5 million loss. I do not think that BF is in that position and so I would rather that they devote their energy and enthusiasm to things that the community wants so that they can continue to be a viable solvent company.

I have ordered things through both GMT and Multi-man and am happy to show my support by my credit card vote. That does not mean that BF could not pick the choice of modules that they would be excited to build and see what the response is. In this day and age with 1000s of game companies, anything that they can do to keep the customer happy and coming back for more is worth a little bit of crass capitalism. - and I am not referring to the grognards that inhabit this board, myself included that they should just keep happy. If I was king of the world, it would be Ost front with a choice of 27 follow-up modules and the Korean War.

[Sequoia]

Holy Speculation Batman!

I doubt Battlefront has made any definite plans past:

CMSF - Main Game

M1 - Marines

M2 - Brits

M3 - Germans/Dutch/Canadians?

CM-Normandy - Main Game

M1 – Brits?

A couple of years back I mentioned the P500 system that GMT (the publishers of the Down in Flames hard copy card game for those who don't know) does and Steve said they had no plans to do anything similar at that time but he wouldn't rule it out entirely.

[Battlefront.com]

Some quick follow ups!

By "larger scope" I primarily mean the setting itself. For CM:SF 2 we're probably going to have a background story like "everybody is pissed off at each other so they agreed to start another world war just to see who has the biggest private parts" However, we do expect that larger maps will be coming sooner rather than later thanks to both technology and having more time to optimize the game engine. I don't think anybody but WeGoers will want to have bigger battles. It alway amazed me how big some people wanted their average CMx1 battle to be!

We're hoping that we can get CM:SF 2 out in a timely fashion after Normandy is out, which means starting it before hand. All depends on scheduling.

As a rule, all improvements found in one game will be transported to the next one, provided they are applicable. For example, the improved QB system going into the Normandy game will be the basis of QBs for CM:SF 2 and everything else. Everything should be viewed as evolutionary, with the occasional revolutionary change. This is one reason to not exhaust people's interest in a particular setting by releasing 10 Modules. Better to do 3-4 Modules and then come back with game improvements that are a combo of brand new features and stuff that was seen in the pervious unrelated game system.

By now I would hope there aren't people out there who still don't understand why we happily put the CMx1 code base to rest

As for doing Modules that are likely to spark marginal interest, I'm not saying that we will never do such things. However, we're unlikely to because there is always something that will appeal to a wider audience that we could be doing instead. Even with the flexibility of the new game engine and expanded development capacity this is still true. I'd rather us spend our time working on Space Lobsters than making an Axis Minors Module for the Eastern Front, for example.

The problem with asking for the customer's opinion about what to develop next is that when people have no stake in the outcome they tend to be very liberal with expressing what they would buy. When it comes to actually making a purchase they might not for any number of reasons. Now, it would be totally different if we got something like 1000 people to pay up front for a Module's content, then we tailored the effort to that budget. But that's not something we personally think we'll do. It might, however, be something we can do with partners in the future. For now we're unable to expand development since we're still in the process of an expansion already! Too much, too quickly tends to kill companies and actually slow things down. Administration effort of CMx2 development should never be underestimated.

Steve

[Mord]

More cool news!

But Steve, could you jump back a page and touch on my last reply?

Mord.

[Battlefront.com]

Oh, and to clarify... this is correct:

CMSF - Main Game

M1 - Marines

M2 - Brits

M3 - Germans/Dutch/Canadians?

Note that Module 3 is still a wee bit in flux as to the specifics. For sure it will be based around the Bundeswehr and its equipment, but how many forces based on it we include is still being discussed (just exchanged some emails about this a few minutes ago, in fact!). We should have the "NATO Module" specs mostly locked down very shortly.

We have a very definite plan on paper for the next 4 Titles and roughly 15 or so Modules. However, we do not want to announce our plans in detail yet since most are a ways off and we want to maintain flexibility for changing the specifics. What I will confirm, though, is what I've been saying about the next family of games with a sprinkling of new info:

Title - Normandy, US vs Germans

Module 1 - Normandy, Commonwealth vs Germans

Module 2 - August-October timeframe

Module 3 - "Fill in the gaps"

Also keep in mind that the Germans have a HUGE array of unique units and equipment to simulate. It's not possible to cram them in at one time so they will be logically spread out over the entire series. The best single example I can give is that since the Tiger II didn't see battle against the US forces (heck, neither did the Tiger 1 in any significant numbers!) it will come into play with Module 1. Also, vehicles which were just starting to trickle into the frontlines in late July will likely be held over so we can favor including ones that were available in June.

The last Module is something we're keeping very flexible. It will be based on things not found in the previous Modules (obviously!) that we feel people really want to see. This could range from an obscure German infantry formation to a vehicle that is interesting but only produced in small numbers.

As I said, when we're done with the first WW2 family (NW Europe, June - October) the amount of stuff in it will likely equal, or perhaps exceed, what CMBO had for the same timeframe. The depth of play, of course, will be far greater. Instead of having to wait 2-3 years to get everything all at once you'll get a steady stream of things over an even shorter period of time. It's a win-win for everybody.

Steve

[Mord]

Yeah BABY!!

Woo hoo!!!

So the August -October time frame will still remain in France I am taking it? Only asking because I am looking forward to a way to represent Market Garden.

Also, when we do get those German units in Module 1 would we be able to pit them against the US if we wanted?

Mord.

P.S. You are dropping some awesome bombs here, man!

[Mord]

Oops...double...double...double...post!

[Battlefront.com]

The Red Rage,

I play CM:SF on a MacBook Pro, first a 2.2 GHz with ATI and now a 2.4 GHz with nVidia (gotta love factory refurbs at bargain prices!). I tend to use the top two best settings for both Model and Texture Quality. My framerate is generally very good, even with my slower laptop. However, the specifics of the scenario being played do have a impact on that, of course.

Good news is that Version 1.10 has a bunch of speed improvements. We're also experimenting with some more fundamental code improvements for the Normandy release. We are as concerned about the speed impact of having 50,000 trees and crazy rolling hills in one scenario as much as you guys are

Steve

[Sequoia]

Yeah BABY!!

Also, when we do get those German units in Module 1 would we be able to pit them against the US if we wanted?

Not only will I bet you can, but you'll be able to pit the U.S. against the Brits just as you can do Red vs Red in CMSF.

[Battlefront.com]

Mord,

As with CM:SF and its Modules, when you have something available to you it's free to use as you see fit. If you want to have a mixed force of US, Brits, and Germans fighting a force of mixed Germans, Brits, and US... knock yourself out

Yes, the timeframe is limited to NW Europe only. Since Arnhem is within the timeframe and geographical area, you will certainly be able to simulate it along with the battles on both ends of it.

BTW, October is not a hard cutoff point for us at the moment. It just seems like the most logical one to focus on for now compared to September or November. When we actually get towards Module 2 we'll know where that had break will be for sure.

Steve

[Sequoia]

Some quick follow ups!

Now, it would be totally different if we got something like 1000 people to pay up front for a Module's content, then we tailored the effort to that budget. But that's not something we personally think we'll do. It might, however, be something we can do with partners in the future. For now we're unable to expand development since we're still in the process of an expansion already! Too much, too quickly tends to kill companies and actually slow things down. Administration effort of CMx2 development should never be underestimated.

Steve

Multi-Man publishing has had my credit card number for the last 18 months for the board game Panzerblitz: Hill of Death. It is a business model that has been succesful for them and GMT.

Your right about too much growth too quickly being a killer. It almost killed the company I work for.

[Mord]

LOL very cool. I am not much into super fantasy battles but was just wondering for the occasional surprise vehicle. I like that freedom even if I wouldn't use it a lot.

Ahh, I wasn't sure if you guys were going to simulate specific battle parameters or not as far as terrain and the like...Normandy I figure would be France specific (BUT you know I'd be VERY open to an Op Market Garden Title!) So, I am hoping to see some windmills in there Steve!

Any idea how you guys will deal with Building placements, heights and the like in WWII?

Mord.

[Hannibal]

I know it;s not going to happen but the ability to join the WW2 games would be great .Russian vs USA or British

[Battlefront.com]

There's a difference between taking a credit card number and holding it and actually getting the money from it. I remember when we took preorders for CMBO months and months before we actually shipped. The number of cards that were no longer valid was no fun to deal with I forget the % that couldn't be processed, but IIRC it was significant.

Anyway, taking reservations for a product that isn't developed is a method of covering risk. Direct risk of covering expenses only exists if one has to develop something that has a significant chance of costing more to produce than sales can compensate for. Taking credit cards ahead of time is a decent way to minimize that risk. However, it is not necessary if there is "sure bet" product to develop instead. We have lots of "sure bets" lined up so this suggested model of doing business is unnecessary.

Yes, we anticipate that some Modules will require some changes to the terrain in order to support slight shifts in environment. Large shifts, such as major new climates/weather/cultures are not planned for Modules.

The basic engine for WW2 is the same as CM:SF, therefore building placement and heights are not likely to change. They are the way they are in CM:SF because that's the best way to do them from a game mechanics standpoint. The shape of buildings, on the other hand, will change dramatically along with the textures and simulated characteristics.

There are indeed no plans to be able to have different Families' stuff playable against each other. The primary reason is that the game data used for a particular Family is likely to be different than that of another Family due to the evolution of the game engine. TO&E, vehicle data, model coding, etc. are all likely to change to some degree each time. Things might look nearly identical to you, the player, but on the back end I'm sure it will look quite different. Each individual change might not be a big deal to retrofit, but in total it probably will be. Then it has to be tested, tweaked, and what not. It's a distraction for us that we likely won't get into.

Steve

[LongLeftFlank]

Some quick follow ups!

For CM:SF 2 we're probably going to have a background story like "everybody is pissed off at each other so they agreed to start another world war just to see who has the biggest private parts"

Steve

At which point the living private parts will envy the dead ones? Interesting twist (ow!) on Freud

(I miss that that tongue-sticking out smiley)

[Mord]

Yes, we anticipate that some Modules will require some changes to the terrain in order to support slight shifts in environment.

That's very cool, little nuances to keep the immersion.

Large shifts, such as major new climates/weather/cultures are not planned for Modules.

Fine by me...I like it like that actually...that way each new title will be specific to what it's representing instead broad brushed to try and simulate everything.

The basic engine for WW2 is the same as CM:SF, therefore building placement and heights are not likely to change. They are the way they are in CM:SF because that's the best way to do them from a game mechanics standpoint. The shape of buildings, on the other hand, will change dramatically along with the textures and simulated characteristics.

Cool...my main concern is that we would lose the ability to raise the heights and stuff, gonna need that to simulate any kind of major cities...and I am all pumped up about seeing some peaked roofs again. If the editor is half as good as the Syrian one, we'll really be able to simulate the French countryside, villages, farms, and all that, in a much more visually appealing way than we ever could with the old games.

I can't wait to see how you guys are gonna tackle the bocage this time around.

Mord.

[Mord]

The ironic thing about Steve's quote, LLF, is that there were a bunch of people all pissed off because CMSF wasn't an 1980's Fulda Gap setting...LOL now they'll get a 2000's type Gap with even cooler equipment.

Mord.

[Sequoia]

Red Forces are basically at a logical dead end for now. CM:SF's setting is purposefully limited to the Syrian setting and we've already stretch reality enough for the Syrian stuff already in the game as of the Marines Module.

Steve

I am by no means an expert on the current Syrian inventory, but wouldn't the T-80 be a logical choice of something that can be added along with the British Module?

[Canada Guy]

Thanks for the insight Steve,

I can understand your reluctance with a P2000 system if you had to deal with expired credit cards. I have just always had an affinity to customer driven requests and liked the Multiman system as it allowed them to continue producing a good game to a limited audience.

Great to hear that the new QB system will be included in CM: Normandy. I am looking forward to that but what about the meta-tile change? Has there been any judgment into its feasibility? I would welcome it as I know I do not have the time (or creative skill) to create the gorgeous landscapes that some have done even with the limited tools of CMx1.

[flamingknives]

I've a better idea, Sequoia.

Any available vehicle slots in the British module will be filled with more British vehicles.

There are lots, and they're interesting.

[Battlefront.com]

By "logical dead end" for the Syrian forces I mean that we've already included most of the significant things they have available and have even added a few things which they currently do not have. The T-80 is something they would likely never, ever have because the T-90 is what the Russians are pushing these days. Likewise, there are all sorts of goodies that the Russians won't sell to anybody and even more things that are not on the top of Syria's shopping list. All of that stuff will form the basis of the CM:SF 2 Red Force.

Meta-tiles (semi-random maps for QBs) have not been tested yet because Charles hasn't started coding any of the QB stuff yet. We are confident that we can get meta-tiles won't present any significant problems for us.

Steve

[flammenwerfer]

Regarding the scale of the game..Will the WWII Normandy title be an infantry, pltn size type game or more like CM1, a company, combined arms game?