Centurian52

If they release BAOR this year, all else what comes next is secondary to me. If they plan on another WW2 module, eastfront 1943 would seem to be the most logical step, followed by 1943 Tunisia. Big question still is when they update all CM2 releases to engine 5 upgrade. We will learn before the year is over.

Hi all, its been a while... in fact so long that I had to create a new account for the Forums... Anywho I started revamping some of my old work so it will play better in Game Engine 4.x and also I am back to creating some new scenarios (some fictional, some semi-historical)... Also redid my Combat Mission Site (haven't touched it in 7 years)... Since I lost touch with all the people that use to playtest for me I ask if you have feedback; Good, Bad, and/or Ugly that you submit that via the Feedback button in the site's menu... I have done extensive testing on the vs. AI battles but, the Head to Heads I have not been able to test... Well I am active again, who knows for how long but I do have a lot of time on my hands and a lot of scenarios/campaigns on the production schedule...  You can check every thing out at Fredrockers Combat Mission Site ... Enjoy

GoG does a pretty good job running legacy games on a modern OS, as does Lutris. 
Maintaining a legacy OS to run legacy software is fine. But I really hope those people aren't connecting their legacy machines to the internet. They will be vulnerable to absolutely everything out there. The machine you use to connect to the internet should be running a fully up to date modern OS.

Pretty much everything I know about crew survivability and brew up rates comes from Nicholas Moran, a.k.a. The Chieftain. So this is all coming from memory of various interviews, presentations, and videos I've seen him do over the years. So there are two potential points of failure for everything I'm about to say. The first point of failure is that I may be misremembering what he said. And the second point of failure is that something he said may have been incorrect (he is probably the #1 tank expert on the internet these days, but even the experts get things wrong from time to time).
The Sherman supposedly had a crew survivability rate of 85%. Meaning that for every Sherman knocked out, an average of about 0.8 crewmen were killed. The T-34 was exactly the inverse, with a crew survivability rate of 15%.
The Sherman did burn a lot when it first saw combat in North Africa, but not more than other tanks. The "brew up" rate for nearly all of the tanks in the war (Sherman included) was about 70%. The similar brew-up rate between different types of tanks was probably because all of the tanks were brewing up for the same reason, ignition of ammunition propellent charges stored in the crew compartment. Accumulated measures taken over the course of the war to reduce fires (including but not limited to wet stowage) meant that by the end of the war only around 10% of knocked out Shermans were burning.
The Sherman's gasoline engine did catch fire at a higher rate than diesel engines. But the rate of engine fires was still insignificant compared to the rate of ammunition fires. And in any case, engine fires were less of a hazard for the crew since the engine isn't in the crew compartment.
That's about what I can pull from memory on the subject of crew survivability and fires. Most of it pertains to the Sherman, since this stuff mostly seems to come up in the context of Sherman myths. I'm not sure how to connect any of it back to the M10, M18, or M22. Except of course to say that which vehicles had diesel and which vehicles had gasoline engines probably wouldn't have been much of a concern to anyone who knew the stats. Which is not to say that it wouldn't have been a concern for the crews. Soldiers believe myths about their own equipment all the time. So whether it would have been a concern for the crews depends more on which of these myths were present during the war, and which came about after the war.

Pretty much everything I know about crew survivability and brew up rates comes from Nicholas Moran, a.k.a. The Chieftain. So this is all coming from memory of various interviews, presentations, and videos I've seen him do over the years. So there are two potential points of failure for everything I'm about to say. The first point of failure is that I may be misremembering what he said. And the second point of failure is that something he said may have been incorrect (he is probably the #1 tank expert on the internet these days, but even the experts get things wrong from time to time).
The Sherman supposedly had a crew survivability rate of 85%. Meaning that for every Sherman knocked out, an average of about 0.8 crewmen were killed. The T-34 was exactly the inverse, with a crew survivability rate of 15%.
The Sherman did burn a lot when it first saw combat in North Africa, but not more than other tanks. The "brew up" rate for nearly all of the tanks in the war (Sherman included) was about 70%. The similar brew-up rate between different types of tanks was probably because all of the tanks were brewing up for the same reason, ignition of ammunition propellent charges stored in the crew compartment. Accumulated measures taken over the course of the war to reduce fires (including but not limited to wet stowage) meant that by the end of the war only around 10% of knocked out Shermans were burning.
The Sherman's gasoline engine did catch fire at a higher rate than diesel engines. But the rate of engine fires was still insignificant compared to the rate of ammunition fires. And in any case, engine fires were less of a hazard for the crew since the engine isn't in the crew compartment.
That's about what I can pull from memory on the subject of crew survivability and fires. Most of it pertains to the Sherman, since this stuff mostly seems to come up in the context of Sherman myths. I'm not sure how to connect any of it back to the M10, M18, or M22. Except of course to say that which vehicles had diesel and which vehicles had gasoline engines probably wouldn't have been much of a concern to anyone who knew the stats. Which is not to say that it wouldn't have been a concern for the crews. Soldiers believe myths about their own equipment all the time. So whether it would have been a concern for the crews depends more on which of these myths were present during the war, and which came about after the war.

GoG does a pretty good job running legacy games on a modern OS, as does Lutris. 
Maintaining a legacy OS to run legacy software is fine. But I really hope those people aren't connecting their legacy machines to the internet. They will be vulnerable to absolutely everything out there. The machine you use to connect to the internet should be running a fully up to date modern OS.

I am a coder and 64 bit would be the default for new development. The reason to do 32 bit work would be to support something legacy - either your own code or some specialized library or something.
Yes, more working memory would lead to the ability to support larger maps, more forces. In the modern context more memory available for a 64 big application is somewhat decoupled from graphics performance since that would be handled by the GPU. However CM has traditionally used a lot of CPU power for CM specific work so it is unclear how this would play out in a new architecture. At the time the old engine was made GPUs were not as advanced and BFC wanted to make sure the game could be played without top end GPUs. I imagine the considerations will be different now but how that actually plays out in the design I have no idea. I am not a game developer so I lack any insight in how those choices are / could be made in a modern context. 

So do we believe it?  I have an open mind but he does use Soviet data.  Just saying.
Anyway as for in-game I recall one of my first encounters with IS2s (Gog and Magog I think) - perhaps it agrees with what you're saying as the 88mm L/71s on my KTs certainly could penetrate the IS2s' fronts at some distance, unlike the above data.  Not quite the same, but more recently my opponent in Cat and mouse with 75mm L/70 Panther guns had no trouble achieving penetrations either.  My IS2s prevailed on that day however...

Yes! And it's a good middle ground if BFC is waffling between starting CM3 off with a modern title or a WW2 title. And it'll allow the modules to keep coming for CMCW after CM3. While CM3 would be exciting, I would hate if it meant abandoning CMCW.

CM3 should start with Cold War! It's the best title to start with in my humble and very selfish opintion, lots of units, long distance engagement, huge maps and lots of fun stuff to play with!
 

I have been fully won over to the hull-down command. It's fantastic if you use it right. But there is a right and wrong way to use it. DO NOT set the hull-down waypoint to the position you want to be hull-down to. Set the waypoint to the top of the crest you are trying to peek over, and then set a target command from the waypoint to the position you want to be hull-down to.

Yeah, that's pretty much a guaruntee for me too. There's nothing that it could possibly be that I wouldn't end up buying. Even if it turns out to be the most anticlimactic thing imaginable, like coffee mugs themed for each of the CM2 base games, I'd order the whole set in a heartbeat.

I tend to feel that balance has always been seriously overrated in game design. I'm perfectly capable of having fun while taking a beating from a stronger opponent (desperation and despair can be a lot of fun in a simulated environment), or ruthlessly crushing a weaker one (indulging in a power fantasy is also fun). And thinking of CM as an educational tool, it's certainly valuable to learn how to fight a set piece battle against an equal opponent. But learning how to exploit against a weaker opponent or withdraw in the face of a stronger opponent is just as important.
Withdrawal and exploitation are two skills that us wargamers get precious little practice with. There is probably a bit of sport/tournament thinking going on. People think that once victory/defeat is determined, the battle doesn't matter anymore. All that matters in a sport is who wins and who loses. There are no higher or lower gradients of victory or defeat. But in reality it mattes a great deal whether you can turn a victory into a decisive victory, or prevent a defeat from turning into a decisive defeat.

Only someone on the development team would know for sure what the current plans are. And I expect they might be a bit hesitant to share those plans, lest they be interpreted as promises (reality has a way of interfering with plans). But earlier in this thread I suggested that they might try to alternate which direction the timeline extensions go in which each new module. The first module is extending the timeline back a bit, so it would make all the sense in the world for the next module to extend the timeline forward a bit, perhaps up to 1985.
Certainly when CMCW was first released I had a strong interest in seeing the timeline extended all the way out to 1989. Yes, that would start to look a lot like CMSF. But I think part of that is because a lot of scenarios, particularly a lot of community made scenarios, in CMSF were trying to approximate late Cold War combat in the only title at the time that had roughly the right equipment. But they didn't quite have the right assets to do it right. There are no T-80Us in CMSF, and even the M1A1 Abrams are slightly later models (generally M1A1SAs IIRC, though I'm not at my home computer where I could check at the moment) with later ammunition. By 2008 the ammunition that the Abrams is firing can defeat Kontakt-5 ERA, while I believe the ammunition it was firing in 1989 could not. So seeing proper late 80s M1A1s against T-80Us would be interesting. The Abrams will still have a huge advantage, since it has a thermal sight while the T-80U doesn't. But they both have excellent fire-control systems, and they are both unable to penetrate each other's frontal armor (except for weak points). So NATO vs the Soviet Union in 1989 should still be less one-sided than NATO vs Syria in 2008, even when you stack the Syrian side with T-90s. But that's one of the things I'd be curious to find out.
All that said, I have to admit that the biggest reason I wanted 1989 is because that's when World in Conflict is set. Basically I wanted to play World in Conflict, but realistic. But now that the game has been out for a few years, I think I've been won over to the 1979-1982 setting that they went with. It might actually be the more interesting time period overall. The modern titles, CMSF2 and CMBS*, provide plenty of opportunities for 3rd gen MBTs to shine. The earlier 1979 timeframe gives the 2nd gen MBTs a real opportunity to take the spotlight for a change. And it gives you a chance to really fear and respect the mighty beasts that T-64s and T-72s once were, before you go on to slaughter them in CMSF2. Also I'm pretty sure the 1979 Soviet economy would have been much more capable of sustaining a major war effort than the 1989 Soviet economy. So the earlier setting probably makes more narrative sense anyway.
I'm still curious to see 1989. Seeing the T-80U vs M1A1 and Leo2A4 (firing 80s ammunition) is still on the bucket list. But it's not as urgent for me as it used to be.
*While CMCW is often counted among the modern titles, I think it is rightfully categorized in its own era, distinct from either the modern or WW2 titles.

Yeah, that's pretty much a guaruntee for me too. There's nothing that it could possibly be that I wouldn't end up buying. Even if it turns out to be the most anticlimactic thing imaginable, like coffee mugs themed for each of the CM2 base games, I'd order the whole set in a heartbeat.

CMx3 as an upgrade to all CMx2 titles (engine 5 scrapped) or a new CMx3 Cold War as the first title.
Reasonable expectations

I think it's extremely likely that Steve is referring to CMx3. There is nothing else BFC could be doing -- no new module, no engine upgrade, not even a whole new title in the CMx2 series -- that would warrant that type of language.
Steve had talked about Charle's insane programming workload over the last xx months. Nothing in CMx2 would likely be taking that much programming time. Plus there is now defense contract money coming into BFC. The engine is showing its age, despite still providing most of use with many hours of fun, so it's reasonable to surmise that the wargamers on this forum are not the only ones pushing for advancements. Plus... a few things said only a week or two ago in the "Is CMBS Dead?" thread might've revealed more than some people desired or noticed?
It's fun to speculate about what the potential first CMx3 title would be.
To me, yes, Normandy (or at least France '44), makes the most sense. CMBN is the company's most popular and highest selling CMx2 title for a reason.
I am so, so ready to give BFC even more of my money!

How about having a little more hope. Like CMx3 BEING CREATED AND IT WILL PICK UP WHERE CMx2 leaves off at. 
so continue to work back in WWII but also able to take what has been done in CMX2 and at a quicker pace convert those games into CMX3 versions.
I also wonder if what trends as the best period for sales will not change in the near future.
There is a reason as to what is the most possible period. What is the majority age of the buyers and where their interest lies.
For the younger groups that will become the majority of players in this hobby, they will determine what is the period of most interest. Not what the old guard likes, which is getting smaller all the time since age and health is taking them out.
 

Yeah, me too I suppose. I'd certainly be dismayed to start all over again at Normandy in CM3 since I'd like to see them get around to covering the whole war eventually. And starting back at the start line (Normandy) over and over again isn't a very efficient way to get to the finish line (the whole war). But I'd still buy it. And I'd still enjoy the hell out of it.

The problem with going more than a decade or so into the future is that there is no way to guess at the kind of equipment that will be in service, and the capabilities it will have, with the kind of precision needed for Combat Mission. I think there's nothing for it but to accept that another CMBS situation will always be a risk with near-future conflict settings. In large part because it's the most plausible near-future conflicts that are most worth covering. If you want to avoid that risk with a hypothetic modern warfare game the best option would seem to be to go for hypothetical scenarios in the recent past, rather than the near future. Sort of like what CMCW did.
But I think the risk of a hypothetical near-future setting becoming real is worth taking, in large part precisely because it might become real. I certainly feel that CMBS helped to give me some insight into the Russo-Ukraine war well before it broke out into the current full scale invasion. And a near-future game setting in Korea or Taiwan has the potential to provide the same sort of insight ahead of potential real conflicts in those areas as well. But if BFC feels that risk isn't worth taking, then I'll certainly be very happy with a greater focus on CMCW instead for the time being.

CM3 Barbarossa 😊

Yep, you make a very valid point, CM3 may well be a better use of time. 
And what better way to launch it than with CM3 Kursk 😉?

So what I'm hearing is that means that North Africa is in the pipeline...!!!  Yay!!   
 

So I have guessed that it probably takes them around two to three years to make a new game or module. Game development is normally measured in years, not months, so two to three years is most definitely not an inordinate amount of time. If it took them five years, that would be pretty concerning. If it took them ten+ years, then we'd be looking at Duke Nukem levels of procrastination. But two to three years is pretty bog standard.
As to the research. You know how difficult criminal investigation is. I don't. But I suspect that historical research is probably harder. I assume that you run into a lot of the same difficulties in criminal investigation that can cause so much trouble in historical research (unreliable witnesses, contradictory sources, etc...). But think about how difficult criminal investigation was for you, and now imagine that most of your witnesses have died of old age, and most of your evidence has been degraded or destroyed by the ravages of time. I'm impressed that Battlefront is able to conduct such incredibly detailed research with time to spare to finish full games and modules at what is honestly a pretty reasonable pace.

So I have guessed that it probably takes them around two to three years to make a new game or module. Game development is normally measured in years, not months, so two to three years is most definitely not an inordinate amount of time. If it took them five years, that would be pretty concerning. If it took them ten+ years, then we'd be looking at Duke Nukem levels of procrastination. But two to three years is pretty bog standard.
As to the research. You know how difficult criminal investigation is. I don't. But I suspect that historical research is probably harder. I assume that you run into a lot of the same difficulties in criminal investigation that can cause so much trouble in historical research (unreliable witnesses, contradictory sources, etc...). But think about how difficult criminal investigation was for you, and now imagine that most of your witnesses have died of old age, and most of your evidence has been degraded or destroyed by the ravages of time. I'm impressed that Battlefront is able to conduct such incredibly detailed research with time to spare to finish full games and modules at what is honestly a pretty reasonable pace.