Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Hunter

Important Announcement

Recommended Posts

There are two versions of the CMBB exe, is the e-license version the more up to date version?

Would love to test the input/ouput files to see what is possible and if it works I'll gladly make a new interface (c++).

This thread has the most extensive evaluation of the parts of CMC so far (to my knowledge). There are some corrections to the documentation for the CMBB files in there.

http://forums.gamesquad.com/showpost.php?p=1124509&postcount=37

If you have a BFC CMBB disk you can use any but the newest CMBB binaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread has the most extensive evaluation of the parts of CMC so far (to my knowledge). There are some corrections to the documentation for the CMBB files in there.

http://forums.gamesquad.com/showpost.php?p=1124509&postcount=37

If you have a BFC CMBB disk you can use any but the newest CMBB binaries.

I have and that's what is worrying me. Unless I misunderstood the older non-elicense cmbb is having some problems with the input/output files.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have and that's what is worrying me. Unless I misunderstood the older non-elicense cmbb is having some problems with the input/output files.

Well.

It be realistic, the chance that any of them have no bugs in the control file processing left is very very close to zero. Either way, you have to see what works and what doesn't and then see how much fun can be had.

Efforts to do something about the newest binary's license problem are underway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have and that's what is worrying me. Unless I misunderstood the older non-elicense cmbb is having some problems with the input/output files.

If you are thinking about jumping in and having a go, please don't let my results or statements in that other thread deter you. There are so many possible reasons for those particular input files that I chose not working properly that it is not worth drawing any conclusions from at this point.

Personally, I won't start making more confident statements until I can start passing my own files in and I can test all the fields in that format one by one in isolation.

This is a programming adventure where not much is certain. If you're feeling adventurous, go for it regardless of what I posted in the other thread. If you need certainty, then wait for the explorers to come up with better answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if many players are like me, but I greatly prefer to play against a human rather than the computer/programmer. I would readily have bought a version of CMC that acted as a game umpire, even if it could not be an effective opponent. I wonder how many of the programming problems were related to the AI being an effective opponent. Could that part be torn out so that the program still help two players fight a campaign?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's really sad news. That being said, if anyone was smart enough to get that source code up and working I'd still very gladly fork out thirty quid (or more) to them - and I'm guessing I'm not the only one...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The will and effort to get this project up and running in the first place was commendable, considering BFC was always totally against such a project. I was totally interested in seeing the CMx1 engine integrated in to a bigger campaign battle game.

In hindsight, who knows how (if at all) BFC could have done things differently from the start by desinging the CMx1 engine in a way that lent itself better to being integrated in to a expanded gaming concept such as CMC.

Why BFC showed little interest in ever intergrating a stratgeic layer to the CMx1 concept still baffles me. I think they just undersetimated its potential and success of the CMx1 concept and its customers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think they just undersetimated its potential and success of the CMx1 concept and its customers.

Nah, it's simply focusing. You're overestimating the resources that BFC had and underestimating the amount of work required to add another 'game' to the package. Look at what happened with Close Combat series: they tried to have both tactical and strategic levels, but the results were less than spectacular on both levels. In comparison CM was a kickass tactical game. What's wrong with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nah, it's simply focusing. You're overestimating the resources that BFC had and underestimating the amount of work required to add another 'game' to the package. Look at what happened with Close Combat series: they tried to have both tactical and strategic levels, but the results were less than spectacular on both levels. In comparison CM was a kickass tactical game. What's wrong with that?

CM as it is, would've been a kickass tactical game whether or not a strategic game layer existed. It was basically "perfected" when CMBB was released.

How could integrating a CMx1 tactical game concept in to a strategic game make the tactical game any worse? Unfortunately, BFC designed CMx1 in a way that really made integrating it in to a strategic game (or intergrating a strategic game in to CMx1) basically impossible/impractical, so we never will ever really know exactly how it may have turned out or how it would have been recieved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How could integrating a CMx1 tactical game concept in to a strategic game make the tactical game any worse?

By taking resources away from making the core game. All "mini-games" like Operations, Quick Battles and an easy to use Editor have required designing, coding, testing, re-designing, more coding, additional testing, and so on, and each step takes time and time costs money. There's practical limits to the amount of extra features. CMBO's release was considerably delayed from what BFC originally had planned, and even then TCP/IP play had to be left out until several patches later. In the worst case scenario CMBO would never have made it out of the door, like CMC. Or, for a highly anticipated wargame that was in development simultaneously to CMBO and which was to have both strategic and operational levels, Road to Moscow:

roadtomoscow1_640w.jpg

Ah, now I've depressed myself by remembering that. When's Grigsby's Russian Front coming?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah Road to Moscow, another dream that vanished. I have nothing but the deepest sympathies and respect for Hunter and his efforts for CMC, it's heartening to see you have moved on.

I am not sure about Grigsby's Russian Front, I am sure many will love it but I am not too enthused. To be honest, I would like to see something akin to Panther's Highway to the Reich/Conquest of the Aegean expanded strategically and then we may just have a real 'Road to Moscow'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too bad to hear that, Hunter. Hats off for trying!

I'd be interested, where the problems were? Too view specifications, to huge scale, too many features, no documentation in the code?

And what i don't understand, why wasn't the game developed like an onion from the core of import/export to CMx1 (Incremental development) ? The community primarily asked for import/export to CMBB. So a first version with import from CMBB, export to an Excel-sheet and vice versa, would have been enough already to get it rolling. Why wasn't this route taken?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By taking resources away from making the core game. All "mini-games" like Operations, Quick Battles and an easy to use Editor have required designing, coding, testing, re-designing, more coding, additional testing, and so on, and each step takes time and time costs money. There's practical limits to the amount of extra features. CMBO's release was considerably delayed from what BFC originally had planned, and even then TCP/IP play had to be left out until several patches later. In the worst case scenario CMBO would never have made it out of the door, like CMC. Or, for a highly anticipated wargame that was in development simultaneously to CMBO and which was to have both strategic and operational levels, Road to Moscow:

I don't think you are even answering the question I had addressed. Once CMBB was made, the CMx1 engine, the core game, was basically "perfected", finished, done. Resources were no longer needed to develop CMx1 any more. All that CMAK brought were new units/theatre but it basically was still the same CMx1 that was in CMBB (maybe a few very minor tweaks).

It is concievable that had things been planned differently (more ambitiously) from the very begining, or if BFC had at least left themsleves open to possibility, it was at this point that perhaps BFC could have attempted to develop an operational/strategic game to marry to the CMx1 tactical game (instead of say releasing CMAK). It could have been as simple as expanding on the "operations" concept that was already in CMx1, but certainly something which allowed the player to fight individual tactical battles as part of a much bigger operational/strategic battle.

CMBO, CMBB and CMAK are of course all stand alone games, but that does not mean that they become LESS of a game if they were actually integrated in to a larger more ambitious game which had a campiagn/operational layer to it.

I too was aware of Road to Moscow at the time but it is a poor example for what we are discussing. Unlike CMx1 /CMC, Road to Moscow was always an "all or nothing" game. I was ultra ambitious and wasn't based on anything already proven, unlike CMC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This double posting is really $#%!ing me off. I originally log in ("Remember me" is unchecked). I write my reply in the edit window. I press "Submit Reply". It takes me back to the log in screen, so I log in again. It takes me back to the edit screen. I press "Submit Reply" again. It now takes me to the thread where I see my reply posted twice. WTF?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Hunter,

I am very sorry to hear these news.

I thank you and recommend you for your efforts - thanks for trying

- I mean it.

Although I have gotten a bit disconnected with the whole BTS/CM affair, I have still kept an occasional eye on CMC, for it would -maybe- have been a classic augmentation to that classic game, CM. It seemed a very attractive idea to me. Both, together, would have stood the test of time as classics, for me. Thats why the delay did not matter that much to me, and occasionally, sporadically, I would check by this forum to see if there's any news or progress report re. CMC.

Maybe the "mistake" was that the approach and concept were too ambitious. Maybe it would have been feasible if it really had been constrained to the most basic functions to connect several tactical CM battles. But then it would have lost a lot of its appeal; and - the ambitious approach would not have been a mistake had it succeeded. And I can totally understand Hunter's approach and "mistake", I would have acted similar in approaching the project, and indeed I faced a similar situation not too long ago, different topic but of similar weight and importance, and I know how terrible it must feel to eventually have to accept the fact that you simply have to let it go.

Thanks Hunter and all the best to you,

sincerely,

M. Hofbauer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now I shall go learn Python. :)

Python is a great language, especially for prototyping! You will definitely benefit from learning it!

I have to admit, though, that I do not think it is suitable for such a large and complicated project.

Best regards,

Thomm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to Matrixgames and KOIOS PANZER COMMAND:SERIES then for me. Though their infantry system sucks at least it has a campaign mode and even a random campaign mode and at least rotate the map randomly feature. Nice try Battlefront you kept us waiting and waiting and waiting for a long time before you dropped the bomb on us. Guess there is still hope when you finally get away from this Modern Era CMX2 junk. I'll be back then to buy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nice try Battlefront you kept us waiting and waiting and waiting for a long time before you dropped the bomb on us. Guess there is still hope when you finally get away from this Modern Era CMX2 junk. I'll be back then to buy.

to be frank I was a bit disappointed that there was no mention of CMCs demise in the newsletter (or did I miss it?).

if CMC's death isnt news, then what is?

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...