Russian front

[cptcurt]

i'm pretty new to the forums and just wondering. would the russian front be be a later module or a standalone like afghanastan?

[SD Smack]

Yes infact I believe Steve said that it will actually be its own game....inother words you will have to buy CMEF as it wont work in conjunction with CMBN series.

Steve-o

[astano]

A search of the forums should turn it up, but I believe it's been said that BFC plans on two Eastern Front games with 2 to 3 modules each.

[cptcurt]

it really don't matter because i' m still going to buy them. just curious. will the african theatre come along with the brits or will it be more like cm1? just cant wait to play.

[MikeyD]

CM:BN & modules covers four month following the Allied landings. Africa theatre's far outside the scope. Frankly, I think after spending five straight years in the Syrian desert the guys at BFC may not want to see another palm tree and sand dune for awhile.

[MeatEtr]

A search of the forums should turn it up, but I believe it's been said that BFC plans on two Eastern Front games with 2 to 3 modules each.

Actually I think that initial estimate has been bumped up to three families with 2-3 mods a piece. Probably a bit too early to accurately predict though.

[scottie]

3 families ?

Last i heard the following was about right:

CMBN base game

- module 1 commonwealth

- module 2 market garden

- module 3 buldge ?

- module 4 power pack odds and ends + cool stuff

CM russian front base game:

- module 1

- module 2

- module 3

Product 3 ?

Please fill in "?" where appropriate

Oh and a lot of this stuff is still just a concept i believe i.e not set in stone.

[TheVulture]

Latest iteration of the plan that was announced was

Soon to be released:

CMBN, covering normdany through to market garden (2-3 modules planned, adding extra TO&E)

Definitely planned:

CM: first east front title, covering bagration (2-3 modules to get everything in)

CM: Battle of the Bulge, which with modules added should cover up to the end of the war

CMSF2, balanced red v blue modern warfare

Things it has been said are vaguely planned:

1-2 more east front titles (plus modules)

[Pešadija]

Hah! Seeing the CM:BN previews, CMSF 2 is just gonna be the awesomest of them all.

[MeatEtr]

3 families ?

Last i heard the following was about right:

CMBN base game

- module 1 commonwealth

- module 2 market garden

- module 3 buldge ?

- module 4 power pack odds and ends + cool stuff

CM russian front base game:

- module 1

- module 2

- module 3

Product 3 ?

Please fill in "?" where appropriate

Oh and a lot of this stuff is still just a concept i believe i.e not set in stone.

No, there's gonna be 2-3 familes per front, not a single family per front. So for the Western Front, I think the 2nd family starts at Bulge. So on and so forth, I forget the details.

IIRC their gonna start the East Front family at Bagration, then have a late war family and also a early war family. I think.

There use to be a sticky with details of this stuff, maybe an update will get posted again soon. Like that 'road ahead' thread from awhile back.

[scottie]

Did Steve mention that CMSF X 2 was likely to be a new game engine or augmentation of the existing ? (would expect the later after the effort that has been put into it).

[TheVulture]

Everything now is going to use the sdame basic game engine, since it was designed to be more updateable. No doubt new features will have been added (such as the fog of war fortifications, new QB system, bridges, water and other goodies that get stuffed into the code between now and then), but it sounds like the underlying engine will remain the same; changes will be evolutionary rather than revolutionary.

[Gryphonne]

Everything now is going to use the sdame basic game engine, since it was designed to be more updateable. No doubt new features will have been added (such as the fog of war fortifications, new QB system, bridges, water and other goodies that get stuffed into the code between now and then), but it sounds like the underlying engine will remain the same; changes will be evolutionary rather than revolutionary.

Which of course means they can churn out content for us hungry crowd quicker

[Tank Hunter]

I don't mind the moduels but I would definitely like to see them combined within the same exe file. So instead of having to run one file if you want to run CMBN, one file for Bulge one file for Eastern Front and so on I'd like to see them eventually combined into one WWII package.

[Gryphonne]

I don't think that's possible as the games themselves are "seperate", all featuring individual improvements, developments and features. Even though the engine is the same, the code may be vastly different. Naturally, one can also see this with CMBO -> BB -> AK. It would require unnecessary programming work to make them backwards compatible (even if it's just "the menu") and these resources are better used for the creation of new animations, features etc.

[HarryB]

I agree with Tank Hunter, I think it would be great if the modules were combined into one large game, instead of separate executables. The way I see it, you are just incorporating more infantry formations and vehicle types into one large database. If they would start their initial game with the understanding that future modules will be designed to be "plugged in", then I don't think the programming load would be too significant.

I would also like to see things structured around "Side A" vs. "Side B" instead of Axis vs. Allied. I would enjoy playing games where forces on both sides were identical as well as American vs. British, American vs. Russian, British vs. Russian. More variety that way.

I don't care that it isn't historical. If people don't like the non-historical matchups they can still stick with the traditional ones. If the game is designed this way, it becomes kind of a toolbox where the only limitation is the imagination of the scenario creator.

[scottie]

I agree with Tank Hunter, I think it would be great if the modules were combined into one large game.

yeah but from a development point of view that could take 3 or 4 years , i would certainly prefer smaller modules sooner. From BF point of view (a small developer with less resources than big software houses) the trickle of modules gives them small digestible chucks to code and a return on their investment sooner rather than later + people like me that have only a small interest in Russia front can only purchase the relevant module. (IMO )

[Field Marshal Blücher]

I would also like to see things structured around "Side A" vs. "Side B" instead of Axis vs. Allied. I would enjoy playing games where forces on both sides were identical as well as American vs. British, American vs. Russian, British vs. Russian. More variety that way.

You can do this in CM:SF, and you will be able to do this in CM:BN and all future products unless they BFC decides to remove that feature--although you won't be able to do US or UK vs. USSR in WWII since AFAIK there is no game planned that includes all three in one family. But US vs UK, Wehrmacht vs SS (heck, you can do Wehrmacht vs Wehrmacht if you want), etc., are all possible.

[HarryB]

You can do this in CM:SF, and you will be able to do this in CM:BN and all future products unless they BFC decides to remove that feature--although you won't be able to do US or UK vs. USSR in WWII since AFAIK there is no game planned that includes all three in one family. But US vs UK, Wehrmacht vs SS (heck, you can do Wehrmacht vs Wehrmacht if you want), etc., are all possible.

Excellent news, although it is too bad about the Russians. It would be interesting to simulate the Allies going up against the Soviets after the Germans were defeated. I guess I don't really understand the difficulty of folding the Russians into the other CM:BN games. How much beyond combining the unit lists does it go? I would think that improvements made to the game could be made to work for the Allies as well.

I played a lot of CMBO and CMBB, but never really got into CM:SF. This feature was one that I was asking for with the earlier CM games, but it never happened.

[Wodin]

It will be more than just adding new units or nations...we will be talking alot of new code allround...I expect also the tac AI reacts differently depending on the nation so you would have all that todo aswell....also as someone else stated new features are brought in with each new stand alone...

[HarryB]

It will be more than just adding new units or nations...we will be talking alot of new code allround...I expect also the tac AI reacts differently depending on the nation so you would have all that todo aswell....also as someone else stated new features are brought in with each new stand alone...

Do you really think the tac AI would react differently depending on what nation you are facing? I would expect it to react to certain parameters, rather than specific vehicles and infantry formations. If that was the case you would have to program each nation specifically for fighting against every type of vehicle, weapon and formation that you would be facing. That would be very difficult and cumbersome. It has already been stated that you can have battles within each separate game with any mix of nationalities you want that are in that game. Would battlefront really go through the trouble to program each unit in the game for how they should react against every piece of equipment etc. in the game, including equipment and formations that are on the same side? I don't think so. And if the game was designed to be modular, then updates should be able to be applied to all nations. That is why I am having a hard time understanding why it would be difficult to include the Russians in the mix.

[stikkypixie]

Do you really think the tac AI would react differently depending on what nation you are facing? I would expect it to react to certain parameters, rather than specific vehicles and infantry formations. If that was the case you would have to program each nation specifically for fighting against every type of vehicle, weapon and formation that you would be facing. That would be very difficult and cumbersome. It has already been stated that you can have battles within each separate game with any mix of nationalities you want that are in that game. Would battlefront really go through the trouble to program each unit in the game for how they should react against every piece of equipment etc. in the game, including equipment and formations that are on the same side? I don't think so. And if the game was designed to be modular, then updates should be able to be applied to all nations. That is why I am having a hard time understanding why it would be difficult to include the Russians in the mix.

The main reason is that the way the OOB of nations is structured under hood can get changed to accommodate for new features, for example if the command and control system is refined, e.g. who gets to talk to who. This has to be reflected in the way the nations in the game are set up. This is just an example of course. Another example is there was no water in CMSF and so nothing in the game was set up to handle it; now there will be rivers, bridges and fords but units in CMSF do not have an attribute which determines whether they can cross them or not. So porting units from say CMSF to CMBN will require adding this attribute to all units.

Small changes in the code can trickle through the whole game so it is by no means trivial to make all the "families" of CM compatible. The changes from CMBB to CMAK were really minor but they were troublesome enough so that the two games were not compatible. Unfortunately it can become very unpractical.

That is not to say that is wouldn't be nice though if it could be done

[Greup]

The main reason is that the way the OOB of nations is structured under hood can get changed to accommodate for new features, for example if the command and control system is refined, e.g. who gets to talk to who. This has to be reflected in the way the nations in the game are set up.

It's hard to tell without knowing how the code is structured and what road BF saw ahed of them when they started out the CM2 track but in an "ideal" CM world I'd have a CM base system for everything common for handling the game (interface, terrain, path finding, visuals and sound etc) designed to accommodate specific plugins for each combatant organization/nationality (including a database of arms, vehicles, uniforms + animations, procedures for handling organization-specific things like chain-of-command/communication/OOB/doctrine/AI) and maps (including textures, ambient sounds, topologic data, movement "modifiers" etc)

As a customer you would buy the base system + any available "army" and map plugins you'd like. As long as those plugins conform to the base system's requirements you could mix and match and pit any army against the other. Having a efficient and robust base system, expansions would be faster in development.

When buying CM:BN you'd get the CM base module v.1, the Normandy map module, German '44 Army module + the US '44 module.

BF could then develop a plugin module of German FJ, a module for the SS, a module for Commonwealth, a Caen map module and so on. Package these into the CM:Commonwealth release. Modularity is the key.

If some new game feature (i.e. rafts, boats, bridging?) was needed for, let's say, some of the Market Garden scenarios, some parts of the base system might need to get an update but not necessarily the organization modules. Fine, those who'd want to play Market Garden scenarios buy the new base system + map module but could reuse (some of) their old unit plugins.

At some point you'd probably need to upgrade the organization modules as well but the general idea is to separate armies from the game+environment system. Done right you might even (though I doubt it would be practical for several reasons) pit modern armies again WWII ones.

You'd have a continuously developing system instead of a string of increasingly incompatible releases.

As an example: If BF decides it's time to take notice of the claim, recently made popular by the developers of Red Orchestra 2, that the German WWII doctrine stated that soldiers should carry their weapon in one hand while advancing - "just" update the German animations of the German module + possibly some code local to that module. No need to rewrite the base system to handle national specific behavior.

Want to substitute US paras at Sainte-Mère-Église for Soviet paras from the Dnepr/Kanev Operation released in 2017 while replacing the Germans with 1940 French troops? No problem.

Whenever the time comes when every new iPad is fitted with holographic graphics cards or people mostly use 3D-monitors you'd just upgrade the video output part of the base system and we'd be able to enjoy CM in "real" 3D with our old-school 2011-style CM:BN-animations.

Oh well, these are the things I day-dream about while waiting for the current release so hurry up getting it out, please!

[stikkypixie]

It's hard to tell without knowing how the code is structured and what road BF saw ahed of them when they started out the CM2 track but in an "ideal" CM world I'd have a CM base system for everything common for handling the game (interface, terrain, path finding, visuals and sound etc) designed to accommodate specific plugins for each combatant organization/nationality (including a database of arms, vehicles, uniforms + animations, procedures for handling organization-specific things like chain-of-command/communication/OOB/doctrine/AI) and maps (including textures, ambient sounds, topologic data, movement "modifiers" etc)

As a customer you would buy the base system + any available "army" and map plugins you'd like. As long as those plugins conform to the base system's requirements you could mix and match and pit any army against the other. Having a efficient and robust base system, expansions would be faster in development.

When buying CM:BN you'd get the CM base module v.1, the Normandy map module, German '44 Army module + the US '44 module.

BF could then develop a plugin module of German FJ, a module for the SS, a module for Commonwealth, a Caen map module and so on. Package these into the CM:Commonwealth release. Modularity is the key.

If some new game feature (i.e. rafts, boats, bridging?) was needed for, let's say, some of the Market Garden scenarios, some parts of the base system might need to get an update but not necessarily the organization modules. Fine, those who'd want to play Market Garden scenarios buy the new base system + map module but could reuse (some of) their old unit plugins.

At some point you'd probably need to upgrade the organization modules as well but the general idea is to separate armies from the game+environment system. Done right you might even (though I doubt it would be practical for several reasons) pit modern armies again WWII ones.

You'd have a continuously developing system instead of a string of increasingly incompatible releases.

As an example: If BF decides it's time to take notice of the claim, recently made popular by the developers of Red Orchestra 2, that the German WWII doctrine stated that soldiers should carry their weapon in one hand while advancing - "just" update the German animations of the German module + possibly some code local to that module. No need to rewrite the base system to handle national specific behavior.

Want to substitute US paras at Sainte-Mère-Église for Soviet paras from the Dnepr/Kanev Operation released in 2017 while replacing the Germans with 1940 French troops? No problem.

Whenever the time comes when every new iPad is fitted with holographic graphics cards or people mostly use 3D-monitors you'd just upgrade the video output part of the base system and we'd be able to enjoy CM in "real" 3D with our old-school 2011-style CM:BN-animations.

Oh well, these are the things I day-dream about while waiting for the current release so hurry up getting it out, please!

I guess the two main objections to this would be that 1) you'd get a very fragmented customer base and 2) it's impossible to predict what new features require, i.e. it might not be possible to separate the two in to independent parts. The OOBs in the game are probably not mere listings of companies and platoons but include many more attributes that have to interact with the base game; and all these interactions have to be accounted for

Also remember that having to keep everything compatible is very cumbersome to include new features and sometimes easier/less time consuming to start from "scratch" so to speak.

Even if it is possible, you have to remember that updating "Armies" is not free (time and money wise) and probably does not make economic sense either. They lose money and we have to wait longer to go back to Russia.

[Lt Belenko]

It will be more than just adding new units or nations...we will be talking alot of new code allround...I expect also the tac AI reacts differently depending on the nation so you would have all that todo aswell....also as someone else stated new features are brought in with each new stand alone...

From the movie Enemy at the Gates:

"The man without the rifle follows the man with the rifle. When the man with the rifle gets shot, the man without the rifle should pick it up and begin shooting. The man without the rifle must follow the man with the rifle..."

I think the TAC AI for these guys would behave a little different from a GI paratrooper dropping with 120 pounds of equipment on D-Day.