Jump to content

CM: Normandy Synopsis & Posts


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 186
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

We're taking a fresh look at non-confirmed target identification for CM: Normandy. One thing on our list is misidentification. A much loved feature we didn't have time to implement for CM:SF, though we felt it wasn't as important there since the range of possible hardware of a particular type was either limited or not very relevant.

This thing about "fresh look" made me post one idea for discussion.

Since i am not a programmer , i do not know how easy it is to do it . I leave this to the experts here.

I recall many years ago, there was a request for the upcoming CMSF related to "zones of operations". In a way it was like having a player establishing boundaries between the major formations under his command and any deviation during the execution of the mission would result in some type of penalty.

I wonder if we can link this idea together with probablities for mis-identification (i am talking about firendly fire) or something similar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I am very happy to be having this new version coming out. By reading this there is one thing I am very afraid of, that we are going to have like 900 stand alone type 'Titles'. I really liked CMBB, for instance, because you could skip from 1941 to the fall of Berlin on a whim, no problem, in one game.

Now, I read all to coding issues and completely understand the desire to get the product out without years of building a giant game, and other motivations for multiple releases ($). No problem, because I want it as soon as possible and would pay quite a bit for an improved CM1.

I read all of the text and keep seeing all of these things that seem to be many seperate titles, Normandy, Winter '44, Final days of the war, Bagration for the east, etc, plus all of the modules. It seems that the new version of CMBO alone might take three more years and cost like $200 in total at $45*3 plus X modules. If the 11+ months we spent fighting across northern France to southern/western Germany are going to be that many titles and modules how many is the east front going to be? Is there actually going to be a complete east front or just the major battles? What if I just feel like picking a random date that doesn't happen to be Kursk, Stalingrad, or the fall or Berlin - are the east front available dates going to be all inclusive even after you buy seven Titles and sixteen Modules (or however many)?

I am wondering, when these new Titles and Modules come out, will they be all accessible as one game, or if I decide to switch a scenario I'm building from a battle in August '44 to Sep'44, am I going to have to exit the editor, start an entirely new program, and begin from scratch -OR- are all of the Titles and Modules going to be accessible through a single executable (like Battlefield 1942 add on packs).

I am REALLY hoping for a single executable.

Thanks,

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am wondering, when these new Titles and Modules come out, will they be all accessible as one game, or if I decide to switch a scenario I'm building from a battle in August '44 to Sep'44, am I going to have to exit the editor, start an entirely new program, and begin from scratch -OR- are all of the Titles and Modules going to be accessible through a single executable (like Battlefield 1942 add on packs).

It is a good point. Maybe if textures and flavour objects change between similar games the maps could be converted. Dud textures/flavour objects/buildings could be replaced with a placeholder or an equivilent object. It would greatly help the scenario making process!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About mapmaking between titles. Remember, you (we) keep demanding new game features. New game features tend to kill off backward compatibility. So CM:Normandy gets water & bridges. There goes our backwards compatibility with CMSF. CM:Bulge (or whatever it'll be called) will get snow weather and snowy terrain. There goes backward compatability with CM:Normandy. CM:Space Lobsters will have an open-mouthed volcano to throw captured lobstermen into. Again, there goes backward compatibility! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I would love to be able to strip everything, including flavour objects, out of a CM:Normandy map and open it up in the CM:Bulge editor, I suspect that it will be the new terrain tiles that will prevent this from being easily doable. Obviously CM:SF maps will be completely different from CM:Normandy maps so nobody's expecting to be able to do this. But there will be SNOW in CM:Bulge and that will probably be a new terrain tile. And bare trees.

What I'm hoping for are CORE UNITS for a campaign that can span two or more titles. When you finish the CM:Normandy campaign it could create a file that could be used by the next title.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About mapmaking between titles. Remember, you (we) keep demanding new game features. New game features tend to kill off backward compatibility. So CM:Normandy gets water & bridges. There goes our backwards compatibility with CMSF. CM:Bulge (or whatever it'll be called) will get snow weather and snowy terrain. There goes backward compatability with CM:Normandy. CM:Space Lobsters will have an open-mouthed volcano to throw captured lobstermen into. Again, there goes backward compatibility! ;)

No backward compatibility, for example no water or bridges in CM:SF makes sense, but what about forward compatibility? For example, what if I get the CM:Bulge game and want to create a campaign that spans an entire year, including summer and winter conditions? I know the engine is capable of summer conditions in western Europe because of CM:Normandy already being released and now I have winter conditions with CM:Bulge so why doesn't CM:Bulge have the ability to do both? It's not like I'm trying to bring an M1A2 SEP from CM:SF into Normandy 1944 or something like that. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No backward compatibility, for example no water or bridges in CM:SF makes sense, but what about forward compatibility? For example, what if I get the CM:Bulge game and want to create a campaign that spans an entire year, including summer and winter conditions? I know the engine is capable of summer conditions in western Europe because of CM:Normandy already being released and now I have winter conditions with CM:Bulge so why doesn't CM:Bulge have the ability to do both?

I think if they actually did that, all they'd get themselves into was one helluva mess - becasue everyone would emand that this and that forward compatibility feature should be added as well (not counting all those features that have to be added, anyway). And if tehy did that, we'd have exactly the same as before, just with a new engine. It would take years over years over years until we saw something even remotely finished and still nobody would be satisfied. So don't expect them to - ever.

What BFC's doing is the right thing, believe me (having served my time in a PC game company a few years ago) and you'll be thankful for it. Which wargaming nut actually cares if he has to sepnd a few additional dollars, anyway? I bet most of us have spent thousands of dollars already on this hobby (including all the other stuff that goes with it like action dolls, books and reenactment equipment) and surely enough to make most 'normal' people weep... So what's a few more dollars to us, eh? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bet most of us have spent thousands of dollars already on this hobby (including all the other stuff that goes with it like action dolls, books and reenactment equipment) and surely enough to make most 'normal' people weep...

completely off topic but this made me laugh because I remember when I joined the school wargaming club way back when I was sixteen. One of my non-wargaming friends asked me how much money I was going to spend on buying the models etc. I innocently told him about a fiver and instantly became a laughing stock... "PT's going to spend a fiver on toy sojers!" It probably put off a certain young girl I was very fond of at that time too. But it was still a wonderful summer...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone is talking about backward and forward compatibility and seems to be completely missing my point.

If it is a single executable file for ALL of the titles, there is NO backward/forward compatibility issue. It also, a few years down the road when Bagration (etc) comes out, could allow some very interesting editor possibilities potentially allowing even US vs Soviet scenarios and more, if the editor is designed thoughfully.

My point is that instead of coming out with 19,000 different games, it should be 19,000 different mods/ mega patches to the SAME game. I know it's more programming work, but what are we going to have, a different game for each and every battle on every different theater? That seems really dumb (and very restrictive) to me! (Not to mention the 19,000 gigs that would be required on your hard disk...)

Quick question: I will need a new PC for CM2, so never got beyond the SF demos. The add-ons for SF- Brit and Marines- are they stand alone, or do you access them through a main SF game?

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A module is accessed through, and requires, the base game in its game family. A new base game is just that, a new, complete, and separate game, which will then have its own optional modules attached.

BFC is quite certain that doing it any other way will result in Charles's jar boiling over due to cooling system overload.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone is talking about backward and forward compatibility and seems to be completely missing my point.

If it is a single executable file for ALL of the titles, there is NO backward/forward compatibility issue. It also, a few years down the road when Bagration (etc) comes out, could allow some very interesting editor possibilities potentially allowing even US vs Soviet scenarios and more, if the editor is designed thoughfully.

My point is that instead of coming out with 19,000 different games, it should be 19,000 different mods/ mega patches to the SAME game. I know it's more programming work, but what are we going to have, a different game for each and every battle on every different theater? That seems really dumb (and very restrictive) to me! (Not to mention the 19,000 gigs that would be required on your hard disk...)

Quick question: I will need a new PC for CM2, so never got beyond the SF demos. The add-ons for SF- Brit and Marines- are they stand alone, or do you access them through a main SF game?

Mike

That's not quite realistic, unless it's an OpenSource game where free additional labor is provided by people who think this is important. No way anyone's gonna pay a programmer to do so if the only effect is use content that doesn't have to be payed for.

However, a game architecture targeted at this would store all this junk in XML files which can then be parsed by different exe files, the exe files ignoring fields they don't like. You would get quite a big of mileage out of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone is talking about backward and forward compatibility and seems to be completely missing my point.

If it is a single executable file for ALL of the titles, there is NO backward/forward compatibility issue. It also, a few years down the road when Bagration (etc) comes out, could allow some very interesting editor possibilities potentially allowing even US vs Soviet scenarios and more, if the editor is designed thoughfully.

My point is that instead of coming out with 19,000 different games, it should be 19,000 different mods/ mega patches to the SAME game. I know it's more programming work, but what are we going to have, a different game for each and every battle on every different theater? That seems really dumb (and very restrictive) to me! (Not to mention the 19,000 gigs that would be required on your hard disk...)

Quick question: I will need a new PC for CM2, so never got beyond the SF demos. The add-ons for SF- Brit and Marines- are they stand alone, or do you access them through a main SF game?

Mike

Unit data is hardcoded within in the executable file(s), not in an external database or DLL or something like this, AFAIK. That's at least one of the reasons why the executable are not exchangable between the different games.

Your basic idea is good, I think, since we would always have the newest gameengine even for the oldest games, but I assume BFC has their reasons for not doing this.

Unit data format may change, for example, so if the latest engine has a another data format, ALL unit data files would need to be changed for ALL already released games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The suggestions do seem to be working at cross purposes. Add this, improve that, expand that, correct the other. But make the added to/expanded/improved/corrected game engine compatible with all the previous stuff. Like having your cake and eating it too.

The simplist solution to wanting an old map in a new game is to just rebuild it. I've lost count how many times the classic "Chance Encounter" map was rebuilt. And my suggestion to those who want to build a 'Bagration' eastern front mega-map in anticipation of a title still a long long way away is... don't do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Changing tack a bit, and in anticipation of the upcoming release of CM:N, I'd like to recommend this book.

Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall: The 1st Assault Brigade Royal Engineers on D-Day

Richard C. Anderson Jr.

* Refreshingly different perspective on the momentous events of D-Day

* Nuts-and-bolts narrative of how the landings were carried out along with details on the unique British armored vehicles used in the invasion

* The controversy over the U.S. refusal to use these vehicles, which may have contributed to bloody American losses on Omaha Beach

Landing with the British and Canadians in Normandy on D-Day, June 6, 1944, was the 1st Assault Brigade Royal Engineers, a specialized armored unit tasked with removing obstacles and mines from Gold, Juno, and Sword Beaches. To support this mission, the engineers modified their tanks with ingenious innovations, such as replacing the main gun with a giant mortar or attaching a steamroller-like device to flatten a path in the sand. In the early hours of D-Day, the brigade landed under fire, and took serious casualties in some areas, but achieved many of its key objectives and cleared the way for the infantry.

978-0-8117-0589-9.jpg

Full disclosure: I have no personal investment in this book, however I have read an early draft of it. It is very, very good.

Jon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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...