C'Rogers

I think realtime might make the computer a halfway decenet opponent. Otherwise I don't plan to play it against real people. I don't think it will be like other RTS at all, but just not what I would be looking for. I do think it can increse the use of swarm tactics by the attacker. Attack multiple points at one point to effectively throw the command center (player) into disarray about how to respond.

Maybe I don't understand the way they programmed the game but from a financial perspective it sounds like they would be better off throwing the whole CMC plan in the garbage instead of going with a near total rewrite. Which is what I would think would be needed to totally change how maps would work. I imagine by the time they announced CMC it was already to late to change.

Wow I am getting this weird since of Deja Vu ... Before we go down the road of what will the game balance be, how about we read the thread "Speculation on game style, will teams become unbalanced towards the end." Link

Ummmm ... it will be more like CMx1 I guess. I don't think looking at modern games is the best place to start as CM has always been very different from them. Better to ask what changes will be made to the squad based control from CMx1.

If you have to worry about the price of potatoes then BFC really does go long time between paychecks.

Oh I certainly think it will be a great game. I just think BFC has said they have a number of wonderful ideas that they don't have the time to incorporate yet will be very important in differentiating the games. As those ideas get put into the later titles the series of games will get even better. It will be like CM:BO vs CM:BB perhaps. Overlord is a great game to play if you want to play the Western Front, but on just the in game play BB and AK are superior. I doubt it will be on the same scale but I think there will be a similair effect.

I am kind of curious on this issue whether game designers play the games after they design them (other then for testing purposes). Was CMx2 ever interrupted in design because Steve and Charles decided to take a day to just have some fun and play CM:BB?

I don't think CM:SF will have the life span of other CM games (though we are putting it up againt a ridiculus standard, it will far outlast most games). BFC has already said that there are a number of features they have in planning that will not get in CM:SF (CMx2 version 1) but will get into later titles. Regardless of setting the later CMx2 titles will just be more developed and subsequently when 2010 rolls around I doubt very few people will be thinking "wow X just came out, I wish that was in the game". Unless you are a huge fan of modern warfare. Then I guess your best hope is (as mentioned in another thread) the military really likes this game and throws money at BFC to keep it updated and modules are made forever.

Combat Missions does not say it realistically models war. It says it realistically models a very rare circumstance, a battle between two company sized elements in how it tactically plays out. Outside of the game scope there are a ton of unrealistic things obviously. As for RTS in general I actually feel like they have gone backwards overall. Back in the Warcraft and Starcraft days I could imagine that the hit points were an abstraction of a larger unit (my orc was actually a company of orcs in my mind). With a Sherman or a Panzer sitting on the field blasting away just feels dumb and can't even get any abstraction.

20 years later the word "draft" in regards to military service had disappeared from all languages of members of the coalition.

Why would the US invade Brazil? That will take some explaining. Or are you going to make a very fictionalized campaign and have Syria invade Brazil? Or will you have the story of how Brazil sends troops to support the Syrian invasion and the challenges they go through? Maybe it will be a civil war campaign? Using the blue vs. blue feature you have civil war break out , failure in the World Cup leads to mass unrest.

You missed one. The rate of blogging and how it affects the game is grossly exaggerated by some players. As evidenced by those (like myself) who have never seen a bog that didn't make logical sense and felt that there was control over. This meant people's complaints about bogging where about an incredibly minor issue.

You know what ... that sounds like a pretty interesting idea for a series of games . Why don't you trash everything else and go with that? You might never get around to the WWII game but no one really wants that anyway. Kidding of course.

This is slightly off topic but as BFC hasn't said it expressly when a tank does break down or why it is damaged I hope there are more explanations for what has exactly happen. The end result is the same, an immobolized or abandoned tank, but providing more information gives a better picture of what happened and more feeling to the game. I expect that is what will happen as they have stated the engine now tracks indiviual components, just bringing it up to be sure.

Well I read that entire thread. Paul AU I think you are saying that thread contains a strong argument for addressing the issue because, well, you are one of those making that argument. The proposed switch, a toggle option, I don't think is by any means easy. As was pointed out in that thread that may require additional AI coding and makes finding players in multiplayer more difficult. Even if this took a week to get in that is a long time to fix a minor problem that isn't even viewed as a problem by some. It also starts down the road as mentioned in that thread of "how many toggle options should there be". If they cave in on this what else will they have to put toggle option in for. As was stated by some others I have played the game many many times and can not ever remember a specific game costing incident of bogging. Also I do play very small battles, under a 1000 points generally, but very rarely do I buy vehicles critical to the overall battle. There are elements of chance in the game far more likely to throw me off besides bogging.

I don't think BFC has ever been much for the compromise option.

Steve Ok maybe I am missing a term here and maybe we are all looking at the wrong issue. How will the play of the campaign differ between if you went with a strong backstory or if you have none at all? Would the ongoing story of the campaign be just as good regardless of the above? Would there be any major changes to how a campaign would play out and the enjoyablity of one given the different theories on backstory? If there is a weak backstory will the players still have a strong in game campaign story to follow throughout the campaign? Personally I think the campaign would play well if you said either " ... and then US troops appeared in Syria" or "... and then Arabistan was invaded by the US" as long as from that point the players feels an interesting ongoing story for the campaign.

I feel strange that I lack a clear strong opinion on such am important issue. I think there are fair arguments for either. However whether you go with fictional or real Syria I think you need a strong story. Personally I don't care, I would of been fine with CM:SF without the campaign. But you put the campaign in for a reason right? Massive requests from fans that the one thing they felt lacking was a strong campaign. Part of that is having a detailed backstory to play along with. My opinion is that if the campaign isn't going to have a strong story you probably would have been better off not touching the issue at all. Fictional story - Personally I don't care for the use of tons of tanks in my games so whether a T-80 is in or not is not really an issue to me. It does create the benefit that more modules could be made with countries that would not get involved in Syria but might get involved in Country X. Real Syria - I don't find the idea of an invasion of Syria nearly as impossible as you make it sound. While it might be done under far less than ideal conditions I am sure there are scenarios where the US might be willing to destablize Iraq to dispose of Syria. Obviously it would be very difficult, but that is what would make it an exciting game isn't it? For example in your scenario of Syria harboring terrorists who have used a nuclear or biological weapon on a major Western city and plans to do so again, what alternative is there to invasion? Even if that meant moving troops out of major Iraqi cities and losing more control, and Europe sending what availble troops they do have, isn't that what would be done? Also as the operation might not be taking over the entire country of Syria it is more realisticly possible. It may be more of an Iraq War 1 scenario, go in accomplish mission X, leave. If they have one particular target in mind it really lowers the number of required troops and the time they are needed. As a final note I think the concept of using "the near future" makes a lot of sense. In addition to the already mentioned benefits it could help with modules. If something that really changes the landscape of a conflict in that region comes out, mass improvements in areil drones, a much cheaper version of the kornet increase its numbers, you can allow a module to plug in the change. Anyway my vote is from strong story definetly, real Syria preferable.

But people will still argue over the modelling of a bren tripod.

I take it you weren't referring to the following part of your post.

There is another game up for that title?

Pretty much from the start BFC has said there are circumstances that would nix the background for the game. One of those I think would be if there was actually an ongoing war as they didn't want to model an actual occuring conflict (at least that is what my memory tells me). One way or the other it will be US troops vs. Syrians I think, though the Syrians may be labeled something fictional, as BFC said they will remarkebly similair to Syria. I remember a certain country firing missiles and rockets into the Sea of Japan that would beg to differ in unpredicatablity. Also, while neither war would be easy, I think a combined UN force would have an easier time dealing with North Korea than Syria in the long run. Barring the possible nukes of course, but in game stuff. I do wish they would model the Korean conflict but I don't think it will happen (by don't think I mean BFC has said it won't, but I hold out some hope).

I think one of the problem is that you really only hear from people that have something to complain about. For example realtime. Just to use hypothetical figures if 80% of the people who love CM were happy with just WeGo, while 20% really want real time, you will just hear from the latter. The other problem as you mentioned is that those of us on the forum have no concept of time and cost/benefit anaylsis for the game. In the above example the people who would be happy with just WeGo probably say 'Hey, real time option, that is fine'. I am sure if they were told the time it would take to encode certain options then little extras would suddenly be shunned upon. Well, for about a week anyway until we all forgot about BFCs logical explanations and complained again. Honestly I am suprised, plesantly, that BFC still takes the efforts to deal with these threads. But I guess we all have our indiviual preferences. I still think BFC should drop everything and get multiplayer for more then 2 people in as soon as possible.

On the other hand it might make the game more appealing for all the players who thought Syria would be trounced by a combined UN invasion. A generalized Middle East force might actually be more believable to them.

Knowing what a unit in game can do and knowing how to use it are very different things. I play CM regularly and still have never really bothered to learn the different variations of certain tanks. Heh, I opened the peng thread my first time here and have never touched it since.