Losing Focus

[Eagle2]

It's been awhile since i've been back in the community, and i'm shocked how much things have changed. Apparantly there are THREE?!? CM games/ modules currently being developed. I've been playing CM since it first came out almost 14 years ago and i have never seen more than one full game being developed at a time. Granted, I know they were working on CM:BN when the NATO module came out for shock force, hell they were working on it before that, but NATO wasn't a stand-alone game like the speculative "Eastern Front" game, plus "Shock Force 2" plus modules for Normandy and Italy. I am thrilled to see that the company has grown so much that they can work on all of these titles at the same time, I just really hope they don't spread themselves too thin. Any thoughts?

[MikeyD]

There's an old saying: 'the proof is in the pudding'. If there was evidence that things were starting to fall apart there would be reason for concern. But really, CMFI Gustav Line hit it out of the park if I say so myself. CM:Touch is introducing vast hoards of people to the CM series, if a mere fraction come to investigate the full titles that's still an advertising coup for them. At this point the greatest threat to the franchise appears to be one of those big Maine mooses roaming Steve's back yard unannounced.

[John Kettler]

MikeyD,

Now, that's funny! I thought he lived in New Hampshire? BTW, my nephew plays/played (not sure which) CM Touch and liked/likes it. Said it was cool and was glad I'd let him know about it. Plays on his Android. If you can believe it, neither he, nor his brother, has a computer. Now console games and a big HiDef TV...

Regards,

John Kettler

[Holman]

Kickstarter for moose-proof jar!

[General Lee Irked]

I am very happy with the CMBN/CW and CMFI/GL so IMO the product is great.

Battlefront can diversify and yet not dilute.

That I am ignored as prime game beta testing material is another matter...

[Battlefront.com]

In the last two years we worked on:

1. CMBN Commonwealth Forces

2. CMFI Base Game

3. Normandy Upgrade 2.0

4. CMFI Gustav Line

5. CMBN Arnhem

6. CM?? Eastern Front 1

Of these 6 line items we released 4 already and the other 2 will be out this year, as well as (I hope!) CMSF 2. I didn't list the latter in the above list because we haven't done much with it yet. That will change in a couple of days as I'm slated to get the TO&E started.

We've also worked on our first mobile game, CM:Touch, though most of the development work was done out of house.

The track record is pretty good in terms of what we've already done. And the reason we were able to do that, and will be doing more in the months to come, is that we've planned things out many years ago. Battlefront is full of forward looking, long term thinkers. Thankfully

We would be committing development suicide if we tried to work on more than one game at a time if we had the same headcount we did 10 years ago. Heck, even 3 years ago. We have expanded our development resources specifically so we can tackle more stuff at once.

We'd also be in crazyland if the core of the game engine wasn't so stable. It's really not possible to give each theater the attention it needs if we're still trying to make the basic elements of the game function correctly. Fortunately we're all set there as well. Not that we aren't doing work to the core game engine, just that the work we're doing is either more-or-less optional or is necessary for making the new content. For example, Gustav Line introduces you all to winter warfare. When we move to the Eastern Front and Bulge we won't have to do much more than some artwork. This is the key element of our engine evolution strategy.

I'd also say that if we hadn't spent much of the last 4 years identifying and eliminating development bottlenecks we'd be in big trouble trying to take on more than one thing at a time. For example, the TO&E database I developed tracks something like 300,000+ unique data values used for Normandy and Italy. Shock Force isn't integrated yet and I made the count before I did Arnhem's TO&E and started work on Eastern Front. In a few months I expect the data count to be at about 800,000+ bits of data. The thought of managing that amount of stuff without a custom built system would be enough to make me quit and take up a career of washing people's windows at intersections

Lastly, we have different sub-audiences within our broader wargaming audience. Some really love the Med theater, others are East Front guys, and large number that want modern warfare again. And of course there's a ton of folks who want to see the Western Front be our focus. There is absolutely a lot of overlap between these groups, but there's plenty of evidence to suggest that we'd all be happier with more and not less content. Which means we're comfortable that our output isn't too much, too fast as far as the marketplace is concerned.

So far the increased amount of content has been handled pretty well. And we're just beginning to hit our stride with everything I just mentioned. Which is why we're not worried

Steve

[James Crowley]

Steve, no mention here of 'packs'

Is there still an intention to have these as part of the overall plan?

I would love to see additional 'professionally' made campaigns and scenarios, for instance.

[Pak40]

Steve, no mention here of 'packs'

Is there still an intention to have these as part of the overall plan?

I would love to see additional 'professionally' made campaigns and scenarios, for instance.

With all due respect, in many cases the only difference between the amateur and 'professionally' made material is that one was paid for. The modding community has already output better graphics, sound, UI graphic mods than the game has originally came with. I have only downloaded a small number of user created scenarios and campaigns but the few that I've downloaded are worthy of shelling out some $$. Maybe they're not on the scale of 'Road to Montberg' or 'Scottish Corridor' but they're definetley high quality - their creators put a lot of love into them.

What I'd really like to see improved are the CMBN quick battle maps. The original ones left a lot to be desired, no offense to the original creator. I'm Not sure if this has been addressed in CMFI since I didn't buy it. In any case, it'd be worth $5 for a pack of improved quick battle maps.

[Michael Emrys]

What I'd really like to see improved are the CMBN quick battle maps. The original ones left a lot to be desired, no offense to the original creator. I'm Not sure if this has been addressed in CMFI since I didn't buy it. In any case, it'd be worth $5 for a pack of improved quick battle maps.

I noticed a couple of weeks ago that a bunch of new QB maps had appeared in my BN map folder. I suspect but don't know that they came with the v2.00 upgrade. In any event, they are of higher quality I would say.

And the maps in both FI and GL (that I have looked at so far) strike me as of a high quality.

And BTW, in the case of upgraded BN and FI/GL there are a lot of maps to choose from.

Michael

[A Canadian Cat]

I'd also say that if we hadn't spent much of the last 4 years identifying and eliminating development bottlenecks we'd be in big trouble trying to take on more than one thing at a time. For example, the TO&E database I developed tracks something like 300,000+ unique data values used for Normandy and Italy. Shock Force isn't integrated yet and I made the count before I did Arnhem's TO&E and started work on Eastern Front. In a few months I expect the data count to be at about 800,000+ bits of data.

Wow that is quite a project all by itself. Supporting infrastructure is worth investing in for stuff like this. Very interesting to hear. I have a totally OT question: do you track your sources? You must do a lot of research to put together these organizations. Do you also keep track of what documents you used to create your data entries? Do you keep them in the database?

The thought of managing that amount of stuff without a custom built system would be enough to make me quit and take up a career of washing people's windows at intersections

LOL

[sburke]

With all due respect, in many cases the only difference between the amateur and 'professionally' made material is that one was paid for. The modding community has already output better graphics, sound, UI graphic mods than the game has originally came with. I have only downloaded a small number of user created scenarios and campaigns but the few that I've downloaded are worthy of shelling out some $$. Maybe they're not on the scale of 'Road to Montberg' or 'Scottish Corridor' but they're definetley high quality - their creators put a lot of love into them.

What I'd really like to see improved are the CMBN quick battle maps. The original ones left a lot to be desired, no offense to the original creator. I'm Not sure if this has been addressed in CMFI since I didn't buy it. In any case, it'd be worth $5 for a pack of improved quick battle maps.

I beg to differ, there is more than just one is paid for. I know cause without a lot of help from other testers and BF folks I would not have been able to design a scenario that was included in GL. Exactly BECAUSE you pay for it, they hold themselves to a higher standard. I don't think I can go into the specifics, but it is a challenge and I have learned to have a very high level of regard for the sweat and effort these guys put in. As to the mods and UI, that is all personal preference. I have found myself adding a lot fewer mods these days. On top of that with the options BF is including now the amount of work to keep up for a modder is climbing almost exponentially. I bet Aris is thrilled about the tags and at the same time staring into the abyss at the potential amount of modding effort. The BF guys on the other hand have to make all those designs in order to release the game.

I do find it amusing to hear folks criticize the original QB maps. I don't disagree, I wasn't thrilled by a lot of them either. However the continual cries for a CMx1 map generator which would create countless numbers of maps of more than likely lesser quality kind of runs head on into the complaints about human generated maps that whatever their issues are still better. And yes the maps are getting better, many of the GL QB maps are absolutely stunning. I think that is largely just an issue of learning curve. When CMBN was released it was new to everyone. I think folks had to learn all over again how to create good battle maps that were no longer long range desert encounters from CMSF.

[A Canadian Cat]

I noticed a couple of weeks ago that a bunch of new QB maps had appeared in my BN map folder. I suspect but don't know that they came with the v2.00 upgrade. In any event, they are of higher quality I would say.

The CM module added a bunch of 2xx numbered maps and they very good. I do not want to do QB's in CM with the 1xx numbered maps any more. Sounds like the 2.00 upgrade also added the 2xx numbered QB maps. Good call.

And the maps in both FI and GL (that I have looked at so far) strike me as of a high quality.

And BTW, in the case of upgraded BN and FI/GL there are a lot of maps to choose from.

Agreed. So far the only reason I have been unhappy with a FI map is because my tanks got caught in a maze of rocky terrain My own damn fault.

[Pak40]

I beg to differ, there is more than just one is paid for. I know cause without a lot of help from other testers and BF folks I would not have been able to design a scenario that was included in GL. Exactly BECAUSE you pay for it, they hold themselves to a higher standard. I don't think I can go into the specifics, but it is a challenge and I have learned to have a very high level of regard for the sweat and effort these guys put in.

No doubt the guys at BF put themselves to a high standard. That evidence is in their campaigns and battles. But I think there's evidence that a lot of amateur scenario designers have very high standards also.

As to the mods and UI, that is all personal preference. I have found myself adding a lot fewer mods these days. On top of that with the options BF is including now the amount of work to keep up for a modder is climbing almost exponentially. I bet Aris is thrilled about the tags and at the same time staring into the abyss at the potential amount of modding effort. The BF guys on the other hand have to make all those designs in order to release the game.

All true, but my point is that no matter the quality of the original designers, there can and usually will be amateurs out there that can produce better mods. The same could be said of campaign and battle designers. There are truly some talented individuals out there and they seem very dedicated.

I do find it amusing to hear folks criticize the original QB maps. I don't disagree, I wasn't thrilled by a lot of them either. However the continual cries for a CMx1 map generator which would create countless numbers of maps of more than likely lesser quality kind of runs head on into the complaints about human generated maps that whatever their issues are still better. And yes the maps are getting better, many of the GL QB maps are absolutely stunning. I think that is largely just an issue of learning curve. When CMBN was released it was new to everyone. I think folks had to learn all over again how to create good battle maps that were no longer long range desert encounters from CMSF.

good to hear that the QB maps are getting better. I'll have to check out the new 2.0 QB maps to see what they're like.

[Paper Tiger]

All true, but my point is that no matter the quality of the original designers, there can and usually will be amateurs out there that can produce better mods.

ONLY because they have all the time in the world to make it just right whereas the designers have to craft the skins for all the new models within a limited time frame, say two or three months. Models can't ship without skins. Just how good do you think some of these amateur mods would look if they had to work to the same schedule? I use most of Aris' mods, I love them, but he probably spends 2-3 weeks+ working on just one vehicle skin. The designers don't have the luxury of time like that so this should be borne in mind when making any comparisons.

The same could be said of campaign and battle designers. There are truly some talented individuals out there and they seem very dedicated.

And that's how some of the current testers made it onto the team. FMB and Normal Dude were both once 'some talented individuals' who were invited to join the team because of their efforts. Good work gets noticed

[ASL Veteran]

If by professional we mean 'gets paid to make scenarios' then there currently aren't any professional scenario designers. Even the ones on the CD are made by amateurs. That used to be the case with the campaigns as well, but that's changed a bit because someone who has an actual BFC job is making them now. However, I think that's only one part of his responsibilities - and probably only a minor part.

The only difference between what's on the CD and what's not on the CD is perception and effort. Perception by the player as to what is good and what they like and whatever standards the one making the scenario holds himself to. Someone making a scenario on their own can make it however they want and when they are done they can say 'there, I'm done'. That designer never has to leave his comfort zone and if they don't get any honest feedback they'll never know if something is good or not. If something is on the CD the designer might get entire forum threads thrashing their incompetence and how much their scenario sucks. It's also helpful if a designer can make a lot of good scenarios ... just making one and then resting on their laurels won't fill up a CD .

I think most designers can make a decent looking map. A smaller percentage can create an AI plan. An even smaller percentage can make something reasonably historically accurate. After you've done all that, you then have to make something that's fun to play with decent briefings and victory conditions that make sense. Once you've got all that tackled, then you have to be able to make a lot of them. You then must be prepared to face the potential wrath of the forum as they question your decision to do this or that, or why is that here and this there? This scenario is so unbalanced. Why does that side not move? Where are the bunkers that are supposed to be at the battle?

So all scenario designers are amateurs. The ones on the CD are just put under a bigger magnifying glass.

[MikeyD]

Forget about the game, Steve forgot to mention these!

[sburke]

Curved roads??!!! Is that a screenshot of CM 3.0?!

[LukeFF]

ONLY because they have all the time in the world to make it just right whereas the designers have to craft the skins for all the new models within a limited time frame, say two or three months. Models can't ship without skins. Just how good do you think some of these amateur mods would look if they had to work to the same schedule? I use most of Aris' mods, I love them, but he probably spends 2-3 weeks+ working on just one vehicle skin. The designers don't have the luxury of time like that so this should be borne in mind when making any comparisons.

Personally, I think the Gustav Line module showcases some marked improvements in the graphics. The Fallschirmjaeger models and textures look really good, and the vehicle models with all their built-in weathering options also look sharp. Of course, there are still some noticeable foibles (like the missing buttplate on the Bren gun texture and the bayonet lug on the M1 Carbine), but all in all I think both WWII games, out of the box, have looked very good from the day they were released and are only getting better.

[Michael Emrys]

The first thing I noticed the first time I opened a map in GL was how much better the graphics looked. Due to the necessity of playing on a sub-optimal graphics card, all my graphic options are set to middle of the range in order to get a reasonable frame rate. So, the improvements were much appreciated. They are subtle; there isn't anything particular that I can point to and say there is a huge improvement, it is more like a lot of little things that have a cumulative effect.

Michael

[DasMorbo]

And the reason we were able to do that, and will be doing more in the months to come, is that we've planned things out many years ago. Battlefront is full of forward looking, long term thinkers. Thankfully

Something not very often seen these modern days...

+1 for that one.

We would be committing development suicide if we tried to work on more than one game at a time if we had the same headcount we did 10 years ago. Heck, even 3 years ago. We have expanded our development resources specifically so we can tackle more stuff at once.

Something I would really like to know:

How many guys are working at BFC in paid jobs?

And how many associates/volunteers do you have?

Hope someone at BFC has time to answer this specific question or does somebody else know?

Best regards

Olf