Casualties Wounded to dead

[WinOrLose]

Sure, but that highly depends on a soldiers experience/morale. As said, I´m not speaking of handling a bolt action rifle and individual reloading of single rounds, but rather changing mags and belts for a weapon. For a fully trained and/or experienced soldier it was SOP to take cover (crouch, prone, any other physical or just offerning less of a target), not less, no more. Can´t think of a reason, why a soldier that has just expended his rifle ammo while standing behind a window (example), can´t go down to crouch/prone to reload and not offer himself a nice target while doing.

You would think so. The British SOP is to crawl sideways a few feet after going prone so if the enemy target your last known position they are less likely to hit you.

However inspection of casualties after the Falklands showed a lot of impacts on the top of the head, shoulders and spine indicating being hit whilst prone which would suggest they were not complying with this basic drill.

[dungeontiger]

There's been some good points made about why the ratio is not as "off" as it might appear. The Yellows not counting as WIA is a legacy decision which we probably should revisit because it does skew the results. However, the artificial nature of the game is the single biggest driver:

1. If you ignore your seriously wounded, you get more KIAs than WIAs. In real war tactical combat is impacted by wounded. In real life there aren't magical litter bearers appearing next to a wounded soldier and carrying him off the...

[snip]

Steve

Excellent response. Let me again commend you on the quality of this simulation (combat mission in general). I think it is fair its the best ever made. However, as you point out, it is not without its faults.

I've often been frustrated by the gamey nature of some games - and am responsible for many of them since there are not consequences. I truly believe adding an operational layer to the game would address many of these issues. Before you say "we have no intention of doing that" hear me out. I'd propose something like this:

Combat Mission itself would stay the same. Games could be played exactly as they are now. So players who enjoy this style of play can continue to do it. Remember, adding an operational layer will make 'games' much longer and to some less interesting. So an operation would have to be an extension. Which brings me to my central point.

It would be a tremendous boast to Combat Mission and to the community if more effort was spend 'opening up' Combat Mission to a programmable interface. Many of us on this forum are seasoned software engineers chomping at the bit to extend the game and do new things. Adding an API to the game is like a force multiplier...the effort that the core development team would spend to provide an API would result in much more play ability and much more fun. It might even result in more players or revenue. Heck, I'd be totally happy to pay for an SDK licence to be able to extend the game.

Now I know this topic has been brought up before and it seems that the CM team is reluctant to add anything that might affect the integrity of the game engine. I get that. You don't want me changing the rules of the game. That's fine, I can agree with that. But if you let me 'drive' the game from an API I can do a lot and still not affect how the game works. Consider this:

If you provided an API that let me start games and set the forces for each side as well as 'see' the results from each game, my 'operational layer' could create the next game taking into account the loses and readiness of the forces from the last battle. This would give commanders an incentive to protect their units better. How many times I have I drove up German half tracks up the line to scout and harass knowing full well they will get smoked? If I do that in an operation, I will have nothing in the next battle to get my troops to the front.

This opens up huge possibilities.

I'd really like to know

a) what the community thinks of this

what Combat Mission's plans are in this regard

c) what it would take to get it done - petition of people saying they'd pay $100 for SDK? :-)

Stephen.

[poesel]

...

It would be a tremendous boast to Combat Mission and to the community if more effort was spend 'opening up' Combat Mission to a programmable interface.

...

+1 to that. IMHO it would even be more than enough if CM could read a plain text config file (which defines map & forces etc...) and output (again text file) the remaining forces after a turn/ceasefire/surrender.

A LOT could be build out of this alone.

[JasonC]

JonS - to take your words out of my mouth and instead put it accurately in my own - I loved CMBB and played it incessantly. I tried CMBN and didn't like it very much, I own it but don't play it incessantly. I think the last time I actually played it was about 3 months ago. I continue to wish Battlefront well in their game designs, refinements, and quest for realism and playability. For me, the current state of CMBN just isn't for me, on the realism side of things. I am well aware I am in a minority in that respect and I have no problem with lots of people loving CMBN (or Italy), which is clearly superior in immersive atmosphere and many other things etc. If that is what they want and they get it, cheers, glad to hear it. For me, an accurate combined arms paper scissors rock set of relations among mortars, MGs, squad infantry, cover, arty, tanks etc is the reason I play games of this genre, in any medium. At the moment I am playing board wargames, in paper and on VASSAL, that match those criteria, but completely lack the immersive realism CMBN excels at. If Battlefront gets those relations right, and I hope they do, I will happily play their games. And I completely understand many players liking them the way they are, for their other virtues. I am just not one of them, right now.

All there is to it.

[dungeontiger]

+1 to that. IMHO it would even be more than enough if CM could read a plain text config file (which defines map & forces etc...) and output (again text file) the remaining forces after a turn/ceasefire/surrender.

A LOT could be build out of this alone.

+1 !

Look at the thread I have on my Epic battle. We had to use the scenario editor to create a 20,000 pt game. It was possible, but difficult.

[c3k]

Game vs. Simulation: Reading Jason Mark's "Besieged: The Epic Battle for Cholm", p. 17, he tells of a German company counterattacking a Soviet regimental assault group. The two units were in contact for 10 hours. The German company stopped the Soviet advance. Ten hours of combat resulted in 4 dead and 3 wounded German soldiers.

I think we all would beat our heads against the computer screen if we had to endure "realistic" attack tempos.

Oh, the WIA:KIA ratio? Yeah, 3:4, not 3:1. That's 4x as many KIA as the oft-cited ratio would have us believe.

Ken

[dungeontiger]

Game vs. Simulation: Reading Jason Mark's "Besieged: The Epic Battle for Cholm", p. 17, he tells of a German company counterattacking a Soviet regimental assault group. The two units were in contact for 10 hours. The German company stopped the Soviet advance. Ten hours of combat resulted in 4 dead and 3 wounded German soldiers.

I think we all would beat our heads against the computer screen if we had to endure "realistic" attack tempos.

Oh, the WIA:KIA ratio? Yeah, 3:4, not 3:1. That's 4x as many KIA as the oft-cited ratio would have us believe.

Ken

I tend to disagree. I'm a software engineer. I beat my head against the computer screen every day!

Having said that...

I don't think you can measure excitement in terms of number of dead or wounded. Its the game play that counts. If it was an exciting encounter of cat and mouse with lots of fog of war and different objectives instead of just killing people it might be fun.

Having said that...

Yes a 10 hour game would not be satisfactory. For something like that I would expect to see it split into 10 one hour 'games' or 5 two hour 'games' to have some sense of completion and moving on.

Anyway, just my opinion of course. Many people will agree and disagree of course. I just think there would be a lot of value expanding what this game is about. I see it as an awesome core simulation engine that could fit nicely into a much larger system to provide an entirely different gaming experience.

[Battlefront.com]

We tried to provide an outlet for a strategic layer. It didn't pan out. The code was even released in the hopes that people would pick up where the developer of the code left off. As far as I know that didn't happen.

I've entered this debate more times than I can count since we first announced CM. It always boils down to the same thing... CM is a tactical wargame. Our resources are focused on making that experience better with each release. Any distraction for a strategic level will, by definition, come at the expense of those goals. Creating an API set and SDK environment would be a massive effort on our part, which would mean a massive detraction from what should be, and must be, our focus. That's simply not in the cards.

While I certainly appreciate that no battle happens in a vacuum, I also appreciate that there's no one hard line to cross over to make the vacuum go away. Warfare is always on a continuum that exceeds reasonable software design boundaries. Heck, it exceeds reasonable customer interest in playing! Which means the broader the scope of the game, the harder it is to make/support and the fewer people that will be interested in playing/paying for it. From a business standpoint this is not a good way to start out a game design

What we will do is continue to tackle issues as we can, be it directly simulated, abstractly handled, left to players to determine, or even put aside for another day. That's the best philosophy for CM and, therefore, the best philosophy for the people who play it.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

JonS - to take your words out of my mouth and instead put it accurately in my own - I loved CMBB and played it incessantly. I tried CMBN and didn't like it very much, I own it but don't play it incessantly. I think the last time I actually played it was about 3 months ago. I continue to wish Battlefront well in their game designs, refinements, and quest for realism and playability. For me, the current state of CMBN just isn't for me, on the realism side of things. I am well aware I am in a minority in that respect and I have no problem with lots of people loving CMBN (or Italy), which is clearly superior in immersive atmosphere and many other things etc. If that is what they want and they get it, cheers, glad to hear it. For me, an accurate combined arms paper scissors rock set of relations among mortars, MGs, squad infantry, cover, arty, tanks etc is the reason I play games of this genre, in any medium. At the moment I am playing board wargames, in paper and on VASSAL, that match those criteria, but completely lack the immersive realism CMBN excels at. If Battlefront gets those relations right, and I hope they do, I will happily play their games. And I completely understand many players liking them the way they are, for their other virtues. I am just not one of them, right now.

All there is to it.

Fair enough. No game is without its shortcomings and many of those shortcomings are perception vs. fact. If you feel VASSAL gives you a better, more realistic sense of combat than Combat Mission... that's for you to decide. We decided, many years ago, that SL/ASL was too flawed a system to emulate, and that's what created CM. But to each his own.

Steve

[dungeontiger]

We tried to provide an outlet for a strategic layer. It didn't pan out. The code was even released in the hopes that people would pick up where the developer of the code left off. As far as I know that didn't happen.

I've entered this debate more times than I can count since we first announced CM. It always boils down to the same thing... CM is a tactical wargame. Our resources are focused on making that experience better with each release. Any distraction for a strategic level will, by definition, come at the expense of those goals. Creating an API set and SDK environment would be a massive effort on our part, which would mean a massive detraction from what should be, and must be, our focus. That's simply not in the cards.

While I certainly appreciate that no battle happens in a vacuum, I also appreciate that there's no one hard line to cross over to make the vacuum go away. Warfare is always on a continuum that exceeds reasonable software design boundaries. Heck, it exceeds reasonable customer interest in playing! Which means the broader the scope of the game, the harder it is to make/support and the fewer people that will be interested in playing/paying for it. From a business standpoint this is not a good way to start out a game design

What we will do is continue to tackle issues as we can, be it directly simulated, abstractly handled, left to players to determine, or even put aside for another day. That's the best philosophy for CM and, therefore, the best philosophy for the people who play it.

Steve

Steve,

Thanks for taking the time to respond [again]. I understand your point of view and am not in a position to say you are wrong. If you do nothing else than continue to improve this outstanding tactical simulation I will continue to buy every release and enjoy it. So keep up the good work. Maybe some day we'll see an operational layer...

Speaking of new simulations, when are you going to release a version that simulations the balloon going up in the Fulda Gap '84? That would rock!...just like a million other situations and suggestions the community has...but this is a good problem to have. People love your product.

Thanks again.

Stephen.

(remember....F-U-L-D-A G-A-P 1984....)

[womble]

...the broader the scope of the game, the harder it is to make/support...

Well that's certainly true.

...the fewer people that will be interested in playing/paying for it...

Is this though? If CMWW2 were released, all the Desert, Pacific, OstFront and Battle of France afficionados who don't care for Italy or France '44 would be buying and playing.

Not that it changes the conclusion that CMWW2 would take so long to make that you'd be needing to find paying work, if not institutionalised before it were done.

[Battlefront.com]

Thanks for taking the time to respond [again]. I understand your point of view and am not in a position to say you are wrong. If you do nothing else than continue to improve this outstanding tactical simulation I will continue to buy every release and enjoy it. So keep up the good work. Maybe some day we'll see an operational layer...

Thanks and no problems with your want list. I just feel you guys deserve a frank, straight forward assessment of the chances of that happening.

Speaking of new simulations, when are you going to release a version that simulations the balloon going up in the Fulda Gap '84? That would rock!...just like a million other situations and suggestions the community has...but this is a good problem to have. People love your product.

It's possible. For sure there is demand for such a product. How much? Very difficult to say. I'd guess it's akin to the ratio of CMFI to CMBN interest.

Is this though? If CMWW2 were released, all the Desert, Pacific, OstFront and Battle of France afficionados who don't care for Italy or France '44 would be buying and playing.

Assuming there was no sacrifices made to the tactical element and the strategic element was extremely strong on its own, then perhaps. But this is simply never going to happen.

Look at Close Combat for a good example of what happens when developers try to make two games in one. Compromises to both halves of the game means it ultimately pleases neither group enough to keep them buying. If that weren't true then I'd guess Close Combat would still be actively published. Or at least developed way beyond what it was. And I'm talking by Atomic Games, not a third party that picked up the pieces.

Not that it changes the conclusion that CMWW2 would take so long to make that you'd be needing to find paying work, if not institutionalised before it were done.

There is that too

Steve

[Broadsword56]

Also, instead of continuing to wait and beg for op-layer pie-in-the-sky, those who really long for an operational layer can always use their favorite board/VASSAL/whatever wargames in conjunction with CM to play out all or some of the tactical setups.

Some of us do this now, and it's a blast. Not a perfect solution, and not as easy as an integrated op layer to CM might be -- but it's real and can be done right now.

OTOH, in some ways the two-game option is superior because you get to set it up exactly the way you want it, and decide how to translate the situations/setups back and forth. I guarantee that even if BFC attempted to make and integrate an op layer into CM, these boards would be filled with players' gripes about how disppointed they are and flawed/broken it is, etc.

[Apocal]

No it wasn't, No it didn't, and Yes it was (amongst Eastern Front fans, at least). Oh, I suppose you might like a better answer to the first part, so here goes

CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK did not wrest control away from the player as I just described. Not even close to it. In fact, the current CM games largely use the same concepts in how it handles surrendering and shying away from combat.

Let me be clear. Most CM players would find their games over a few minutes after first contact the way they play *if* we bent over backwards to simulate realistic degrees of control. In fact, if we were to make the game VERY realistic we wouldn't allow players to do more than create an AI Plan for his own forces and then just watch it play out. Because that's where we'd have to move towards if we wanted to ensure the variables I mentioned were taken out of the equation.

There are a few who claim that's the sort of game they want. But I don't believe that's they'd like the outcome much. I know we wouldn't!

Obviously there are concessions made to being a game, rather than a simulation. I only mind it insofar as it misses the essential flavor of things, i.e. I don't mind the skewed ratio of dead/wounded because the difference in-game is purely academic. Neither of them come back, even in campaigns. Obviously there are concessions made to being a game, rather than an all-out simulation. And like I said, I'd be totally cool with realistic morale only being on the most realistic difficulty setting.

[Macisle]

...I don't mind the skewed ratio of dead/wounded because the difference in-game is purely academic...

I don't think we can accurately assume that the game itself is really at fault here. To even make a stab at it, you'd have to run tests with objective observers watching players to see how they are using their troops. Then contrast a control group playing as close as possible to the kind of conservative style a real world commander would use. Then, contrast that with more gamey aggressive styles.

As I mentioned before, my style of play (again, against the AI here) usually puts my casualties in a pretty historically accurate context. The AI, of course, does even begin to fall into a realistic range.

But, as Steve/others have pointed out, what exactly IS a realistic ratio? Official numbers are broad-swatch, while edge of the spear combat did not fit the same picture. And CM is ALL edge of the spear combat.

All in all, I think the whole issue is largely a matter of playing style.

[A Canadian Cat]

We tried to provide an outlet for a strategic layer. It didn't pan out. The code was even released in the hopes that people would pick up where the developer of the code left off. As far as I know that didn't happen.

Interesting I had no idea you put your toe in. What version of CM was that in?

I've entered this debate more times than I can count since we first announced CM. It always boils down to the same thing... CM is a tactical wargame. Our resources are focused on making that experience better with each release. Any distraction for a strategic level will, by definition, come at the expense of those goals. Creating an API set and SDK environment would be a massive effort on our part, which would mean a massive detraction from what should be, and must be, our focus. That's simply not in the cards.

And we appreciate you chiming in with valuable insight. I can appreciate that a full fledged SDK would be quite an effort and distracting. I think the developers reading this can totally understand that.

You have stated in the past that your philosophy for choosing features for a release is to add value that will appeals to various groups. The idea being to move the game forward incrementally to satisfy many constituencies. 2.0 being an excellent example: You added several map editor features for the scenario designers, several commands and other features for the game play itself. And you added a whole lost of graphics improvements that the modders are happy with (plus a taste that you will do more for them with regard to uniforms).

What several of us would like to ask is that you consider the 3rd party tools guys when you are creating your feature list. You already have @GreenAsJade with a released tool for managing turns. I have one in the final states of testing. There are several people @noob and @Broadsword who have operational rules and games on the go - they are doing it totally manually. Plus @JapPanzer creating interesting UI manipulation tools to extract information about OOB and casualties at the end of the battle. I am sure none of us want to be a drag on enhancing the game - I know I do not.

So, a big bang SDK is not in the cards. Understandable.

Here is my request: consider spending some time on direct features in the game that we can leverage to help the community. For your consideration here is a list of smaller features that would add value for those of us wanting to create a community of application development around your game:

A command line argument for launching the game so a specific PBEM turn could be started on game start.

Have the game produce a OOB with casualties and combat victories recorded in an XML, CSV or similar format.

Have the game produce a new game map (just the map) with the original map updated with the battle damage from the game that just ended.

Allow additional command line arguments that would start a new game using an OOB (same format as your report above) and a map name.

I am sure people would have other suggestions for you. And again I would reiterate we don't want you to stop everything else and create all this for us. But please consider adding one or two things every now and then to move the game forward in this additional area. Just like the way you do for other aspects of your game.

While I certainly appreciate that no battle happens in a vacuum, I also appreciate that there's no one hard line to cross over to make the vacuum go away. Warfare is always on a continuum that exceeds reasonable software design boundaries. Heck, it exceeds reasonable customer interest in playing! Which means the broader the scope of the game, the harder it is to make/support and the fewer people that will be interested in playing/paying for it. From a business standpoint this is not a good way to start out a game design

What we will do is continue to tackle issues as we can, be it directly simulated, abstractly handled, left to players to determine, or even put aside for another day. That's the best philosophy for CM and, therefore, the best philosophy for the people who play it.

And you have an excellent track record of doing just that. I am looking forward to new releases.

[dungeontiger]

Interesting I had no idea you put your toe in. What version of CM was that....

[snip]

Ian, I could not agree more.

Adding small incremental changes that open things up would help tremendously. I could imagine a set like this:

1. Ability to launch a PBEM game turn from command line

2. Ability to create a new PBEM game from command line

3. Ability to supply a text file which indicates order of battle for both sides when starting a game

4. The game output an after action report in a well described format that listed each unit and what its final state was (ammo, casualties, morale, etc...)

At the risk of being the type of customer that drives me nuts - the ones that say "It should be easy to add this small feature" - I'm going to at least say that these changes are isolated and do not impact the core engine in anyway so at least it should be a low risk change.

Also, I would imagine that you would need many of these futures for unit testing and automated testing. Do you run automated tests before you release a version?

If you give me any of these in order, I can wrap it with something else and do cool things. If, eventually, you give me all of these [simple] features, I can build a simple application in Java, JavaScript, Python or whatever and produce a polished operational layer for the game.

I'd even go so far as to say I would put it up on github as an open source project to extend its reach to everyone.

Again let me say that this is like a force multipler...Adding these features to the game would allow the community to bring a lot more fun to the game and likely a lot of new players.

Anyway, Steve/CM Engineers, like I said, I don't want to sound like my customers. Adding features is always more complicated than you would expect at first. I just want to make sure you understand the scope of what we are talking about, that is, how limited, and how even with this limited scope we, the community, could do awesome things.

Stephen.

[womble]

Have the game produce a OOB with casualties and combat victories recorded in an XML, CSV or similar format.

Including combat victories for artillery/spotters, and eliminated and subsequently buddy-aided elements... Pretty please? It's reeal easy to lose a whole AT team even if they killed a Tiger with each zook round, reloaded and did it again...

[agusto]

What i really find great in CMBN and what similar games (like the TOW series, for example) lack, is that your infantry in general doenst behave like mindless borg drones who dont care for their lives. This kinda adds to immersion a lot, i find. However, i regularly see the AI ordering bailed out tank crews to charge what ever superior enemy formation there is deployed on the map, solely armed with their .45 calibre pistols, just to get mowed down one after the other. I dont find this neither to be wise nor likely behavior for a vehicle crew who just got shot out of their AFV, loosing their commander and 2 of their buddys.

[Battlefront.com]

Interesting I had no idea you put your toe in. What version of CM was that in?

Originally CMBO, but due to developer delays it was supposed to be for CMBB/AK. Unfortunately, as much as we tried, the developer fell into the unfortunate trap that awaits most creative, passionate 1st time game developers... not knowing when to say when. Or in developer speak, "feature creep". And there's part of the problem.

The product was developed by a third party. We had neither the time nor the resources to aid the developer with more than periodic advice. That's because we entered the agreement with the same mindset that we have now. And that is we can NOT get distracted by a strategic layer. Madness that way lies It's like "feature creep" on steroids. Not the helpful medical kind, but the type that make your pee-pee shrivel up and cause you to throw furniture out the window because your girlfriend asked you how you were feeling sort of steroids. Like this guy:

Kids, just say no to drugs! (but eventually say yes to Belgian Beer!)

You have stated in the past that your philosophy for choosing features for a release is to add value that will appeals to various groups. The idea being to move the game forward incrementally to satisfy many constituencies.

Yup, though know that the list of things people have requested for their tactical experience is probably 10 years long. Which means, as I've said already, any effort that is directed away from tactical comes at the expense of tactical.

What several of us would like to ask is that you consider the 3rd party tools guys when you are creating your feature list. You already have @GreenAsJade with a released tool for managing turns. I have one in the final states of testing. There are several people @noob and @Broadsword who have operational rules and games on the go - they are doing it totally manually. Plus @JapPanzer creating interesting UI manipulation tools to extract information about OOB and casualties at the end of the battle. I am sure none of us want to be a drag on enhancing the game - I know I do not.

Having a command line to allow the game to load something it already know show to load is one thing. Publishing a format for OOBs means having to maintain it. It also means having to deal with bugs that may or may not be of our making.

Now, if there were one thing we needed to provide to make a viable strategic layer tool... hey, we probably would do it. Not that big of a deal. However, that's not the case. And I can promise you that any list drawn up of "this is all we need" wouldn't survive first contact with programming. The list would grow and then we'd either have to keep diverting attention or then seem like a bad guy for cutting the cord after things already got started.

I am sure people would have other suggestions for you.

Understatement

And you have an excellent track record of doing just that. I am looking forward to new releases.

Thanks!

Note that in theory we don't oppose the idea of someone else trying to do what we know would be terrible for us to attempt. The problem is our involvement is not minimal and therefore it's not on the radar for us.

Steve

[dungeontiger]

Yes to Belgian Beer!!!

Note that in theory we don't oppose the idea of someone else trying to do what we know would be terrible for us to attempt. The problem is our involvement is not minimal and therefore it's not on the radar for us.

Steve

Then I have a question for you...this is a little more extreme, but let me ask anyway.

Would it violate your terms of service if the community cracked your file format?

If we understood the binary file format of your game files, it would be possible to do more or less what we were suggesting since we could write code to create the binary file. This would require a lot of reverse engineering on our part. That is of course a lot more risky and difficult, but would not involve you guys at all.

Not saying I'm going to try that...its a bit beyond what I want to try, but I'm curious if doing this would upset you guys.

Stephen.

[Battlefront.com]

The file format is a safeguard against cheating and protecting the integrity of the game experience. Which is to say we will never publish the save format and we will always counteract any significant crack capability. This has been our philosophy since the beginning and so far we've seen no good reason to change it. And believe me, I've heard enough "reasons" to sink a small boat They just aren't "good" ones in our opinion.

Steve

[dungeontiger]

The file format is a safeguard against cheating and protecting the integrity of the game experience. Which is to say we will never publish the save format and we will always counteract any significant crack capability. This has been our philosophy since the beginning and so far we've seen no good reason to change it. And believe me, I've heard enough "reasons" to sink a small boat They just aren't "good" ones in our opinion.

Steve

I figured that. That's why I asked. OK. So the story so far is:

- we are screwed in terms of getting an operational layer

- we are screwed in terms of getting any sort of API / SDK

- you do listen and respond to the community

- you will continue to make awesome tactical simulations

- you will release a 1984 NATO / Soviet simulation before next Christmas (just kidding!)

On the balance this is great. Out of what you have said you are working on, I am most looking forward to the Eastern Front related games.

Thanks. Take care and have a great holiday!

Stephen.

[Battlefront.com]

I figured that. That's why I asked. OK. So the story so far is:

- we are screwed in terms of getting an operational layer

- we are screwed in terms of getting any sort of API / SDK

I'll never say never, since theoretically we we're not opposed to it in theory, but given all the other things we want to achieve in the near future... effectively it's not likely to happen.

- you do listen and respond to the community

- you will continue to make awesome tactical simulations

- you will release a 1984 NATO / Soviet simulation before next Christmas (just kidding!)

On the balance this is great. Out of what you have said you are working on, I am most looking forward to the Eastern Front related games.

Thanks. Take care and have a great holiday!

You too and thanks!

Steve

[BigDog944]

We tried to provide an outlet for a strategic layer. It didn't pan out. The code was even released in the hopes that people would pick up where the developer of the code left off. As far as I know that didn't happen.

I've entered this debate more times than I can count since we first announced CM. It always boils down to the same thing... CM is a tactical wargame. Our resources are focused on making that experience better with each release. Any distraction for a strategic level will, by definition, come at the expense of those goals. Creating an API set and SDK environment would be a massive effort on our part, which would mean a massive detraction from what should be, and must be, our focus. That's simply not in the cards.

While I certainly appreciate that no battle happens in a vacuum, I also appreciate that there's no one hard line to cross over to make the vacuum go away. Warfare is always on a continuum that exceeds reasonable software design boundaries. Heck, it exceeds reasonable customer interest in playing! Which means the broader the scope of the game, the harder it is to make/support and the fewer people that will be interested in playing/paying for it. From a business standpoint this is not a good way to start out a game design

What we will do is continue to tackle issues as we can, be it directly simulated, abstractly handled, left to players to determine, or even put aside for another day. That's the best philosophy for CM and, therefore, the best philosophy for the people who play it.

Steve

EDIT: Others have gone down this path in previous posts... But anyway.

This is actually much easier to accomplish than you state here, Steve. Here is what is required:

1. An unencrypted (text? XML?) battle file format that can be loaded (more slowly than your current binary format) as the current .btt file is.

2. The ability to save a game in the same unencrypted format, only after the battle is over so as to keep people from cheating while a battle is on-going. Someone cheating at the operational level by reading an end battle save file is not Battlefront's problem.

As stated previously, with these two features the community could create the operational layer and Battlefront would only be on the hook for supporting this particular text file format.

Easy as pie, right? :-)