Christmas Bone

[PaulMG]

I don't think that tactical players wish for operational layer but rather that there are operational game players that wish to see the battles played out at lower levels.

[Lt Belenko]

Any news on multiplayer features? 2 vs 2 or 2 vs AI for instance?

Also, I think introducing modes like 2v2 doesn't mean CM is gonna go operational. For realtime games it could mean a company for each player making it easier to control the troops. Question is, how much effort it is to change the engine and netcode to enable more than 2 players in a game. I do think WEGO 2v2 would be easier to create but again, it's up to you guys to decide, I believe it could be worth it though and create more interest in CM games among those looking for some coop experience.

If I have a daughter her name will be "Biffsee" - BFC.

I just read the BFC Bio's and cant come up with a good name for a son. So based on that I'll just call him "The Boy".

[Skwabie]

I don't think that tactical players wish for operational layer but rather that there are operational game players that wish to see the battles played out at lower levels.

Nan, a dynamic campaign (or the operational level referred here which is somewhat geared towards the same thing?) is anyone can dream of for sure. Problem ofc is the cost of making one, for it's all just for entertainment hence there ain't a business model for it. history shows any business entity that has tried it has all been defunct and apparently CMC is bfc's own lesson...

In another way of speaking... concept's ahead of its time.

P.S. The downside does exist, once you get into the matrix, takes some effort to get out. So one with a busy real life can argue a DC is meaningless or.. harmful.

[Placebo]

I don't think that tactical players wish for operational layer but rather that there are operational game players that wish to see the battles played out at lower levels.

I must admit from my CM1 days i always thought the game would benefit from an op layer, however the way CM2 has developed i really would not play using one now. The reason is the scale of the battles are just too big to be enjoyable (for me) from what i have seen proposed and the series of battles required to get any kind of result would take far too long.

I always thought the operations (I think that is what they were called) in CM1 would be good in CM2, and this is may now possible with the huge scale of the maps in V3. Although it would require a lot of AI script writing and timed re-enforcements.

P.S.Great news about the v3 additions.

[Childress]

Battlefront has shown high standards. If they released an grand/tactical, operational sim it would be of a quality commensurate with the Combat Mission series. They'd be satisfied with nothing less. The only war games in that genre that currently offer the same kind of fidelity, realism and attention to detail are the Command Ops series* from Panther Games. They own that niche. And the real time format renders it unsuitable as strategy level companion to CM.

*Their demos left me with a feeling of detachment.

[YankeeDog]

I always thought the operations (I think that is what they were called) in CM1 would be good in CM2, and this is may now possible with the huge scale of the maps in V3. Although it would require a lot of AI script writing and timed re-enforcements.

Indeed. A CM1-style "Operation" would simply be a long CM2 battle on a large map. With ammo dumps, cross-leveling, and 30km^2 maps, there's really no need to break engagements of this size and length into separate battles now. In fact, not having to break it up removes some of the unrealistic side effects of such arbitrary division.

But such battles would require a pretty large time commitment, both to build and to play. Definitely doable, tho...

[vincere]

The larger maps, coupled with ammo dumps and resupply creating the possibility of 'operations' has fired up my interest in this one.

Yes CM is tactical, and probably the best at that. But for me CM battles mostly run like this.

Stage 1: chore to set up and become familiar with battlefield up until just after first contact.

Stage 2. Great fun with great gaming action moments. Really immersive at times (que bring back rare but awesome hand-to-hand for more climaxes)

stage 3. Empty feeling at end of battle. Labour of set up offset by fun but no context to the outcome. No contextual consequences.

Operation style maps (or the dream of an op level) would be a huge 'force multiplier' for my gaming experience. Battles then have real meaning. I just don't get that with scripted campaigns.

[A Canadian Cat]

Steve, would it be a problem to at least increase the number of troop points allowed in QB interface? Alternatively, could we have point values shown in the editor? Both would make building larger battles (20, 30k per side etc) much easier.

Oh, yes please. +1 to both a new larger point setting for QB and a display of unit points purchased in the scenario editor.

[JasonC]

" In real life you didn't have stockpiles of ammo blowing up all the time at the tactical level"

True. But then in real life the armies put their ammo stockpiles in safe places because they were very valuable and they didn't want them to fall into enemy hands. Whenever you are depicting the front line, that front line is going to move, and static things like ammo dumps are going to be on one side of it, then the other. What happens between can be a ticklish business. How close does the enemy need to get to make a dump useless? Probably close enough to cover it with fire, not close enough to touch it. Doesn't mean it has to go up in a big fireball - does mean it should be possible to interfere with the things by sending big enough bullets.

[Hister]

Weeeeeeeeee, superb news!

And now the grumpy question: Will the fire be in?

[Skwabie]

The larger maps, coupled with ammo dumps and resupply creating the possibility of 'operations' has fired up my interest in this one.

Yes CM is tactical, and probably the best at that. But for me CM battles mostly run like this.

Stage 1: chore to set up and become familiar with battlefield up until just after first contact.

Stage 2. Great fun with great gaming action moments. Really immersive at times (que bring back rare but awesome hand-to-hand for more climaxes)

stage 3. Empty feeling at end of battle. Labour of set up offset by fun but no context to the outcome. No contextual consequences.

Operation style maps (or the dream of an op level) would be a huge 'force multiplier' for my gaming experience. Battles then have real meaning. I just don't get that with scripted campaigns.

I feel exactly that way from points 1 to 3.

But atm I at least get some immersion out of fighting with the core units in campaigns, especially counting the kill stats at the campaign results screen and... yep one of the Tiger TC is named Carious and his platoon did rather good.

[tdogg]

We definitely need ai triggers at this point if we are going to see large extended map battles. What's the point at having the capabilities if no one uses them due to size overload and ai that can't respond. It would be nice to have support for these large maps, like coop play, or a friendly ai system that you could give directives to and delegate objectives.

On the operational game issue, some have stated that there are already great op games out there, keep CM focused on tactical. That is a good point, all a we need is an import - export function and a quick ai plan builder along with a quick map template builder to help this along. This way all players benefit from the feature and not just op game players. I know some will say that a quick ai or quick map feature will make generic crap, but if it is linked to the editor to touch it up, it becomes a huge time saving tool that all will benefit from.

On the topic of UI, can we get an option to use more space in the orders panel? Most of us have 1920 x 1200 or bigger resolution monitors, there is no sense having wasted black spaces on the screen. Let's extend the orders panel so we have all the orders shown on on screen and maybe a better oob / subordinate tree view.

I would rather wait on Black Sea and have more features added to the game. I feel kind of stagnate after cmfi, like it's same thing just different settings.

[poesel]

Stage 1: chore to set up and become familiar with battlefield up until just after first contact.

Stage 2. Great fun with great gaming action moments. Really immersive at times (que bring back rare but awesome hand-to-hand for more climaxes)

stage 3. Empty feeling at end of battle. Labour of set up offset by fun but no context to the outcome. No contextual consequences.

Very well put - just my feelings.

[BLSTK]

500m x 60 km: I plan on refighting the epic (but tragically forgotten) battle in Spaghetti Factory Nr. 3 (завод по спагетти № 3).

Hilarious, Andrew. Aren't you a "saucy" one?!

[BLSTK]

Stage 1: chore to set up and become familiar with battlefield up until just after first contact.

Stage 2. Great fun with great gaming action moments. Really immersive at times (que bring back rare but awesome hand-to-hand for more climaxes)

stage 3. Empty feeling at end of battle. Labour of set up offset by fun but no context to the outcome. No contextual consequences.

Vinny, you've just described my love life. Or did you mean hand-to-hand "combat"?

[vincere]

Vinny, you've just described my love life. Or did you mean hand-to-hand "combat"?

Ha, I know the feeling. Good goal average this year, but context...

Thanks chipping in supportive shared experiences fellas.

I'd play CM 10x more, if it had a fraction of tactical goodness, but the 'operational' context to give me "This battle matters" immersion.

[Andrew H.]

I really love the idea of huge maps, particularly if they are *not* crammed full of troops. Like a recon battle on a 4km by 8 km map where you have maybe a company are are probing for weak spots.

(Maybe followed up by larger battles as both sides reinforce)

Battles where you have to protect your trucks and HTs because it would otherwise take an hour to move from one location to another. Battles where having reserves is important because the map is too large for you to just shift existing forces to cover. Maps where breakthroughs and strongpoints are signficant. Maps where artillery is important, but does not have the godlike power it has on smaller maps. Maps where extremely common things like dropping harassing fire on key roads/intersections is sometimes the best use of your arty. Maps where there actually *are* key roads and intersections...

[Darknight (DC)]

3. Yup, the bones described so far are very good ones. But not necessarily all the best ones. Always depends on personal preference

I think there's a nugget or two here that I'm very interested in hearing more on....

[mjkerner]

I really love the idea of huge maps, particularly if they are *not* crammed full of troops. Like a recon battle on a 4km by 8 km map where you have maybe a company are are probing for weak spots.

(Maybe followed up by larger battles as both sides reinforce)

Battles where you have to protect your trucks and HTs because it would otherwise take an hour to move from one location to another. Battles where having reserves is important because the map is too large for you to just shift existing forces to cover. Maps where breakthroughs and strongpoints are signficant. Maps where artillery is important, but does not have the godlike power it has on smaller maps. Maps where extremely common things like dropping harassing fire on key roads/intersections is sometimes the best use of your arty. Maps where there actually *are* key roads and intersections...

^^^ This! The Ost Front begs for this. Can't wait!

[Wodin]

Great bone thanks BF.

Someone mentioned hit decals.. thats a big one for me. As for some sort of Operational system I'm not really interested as others have said loads of Operational Games out there.

Graviteam kind of does it..and it's done well. However I imagine the time and effort for BF to do something like that would mean thats all that would be worked on for years. I'd rather something this big be left until we have the East front and Modern games out and all outstanding tactical issues more or less dealt with..then if we are all still around start on an operational aspect.

Sometimes I feel sorry for BF chaps..they release a bone thinking we'd be excited and all they get is huge feature requests etc etc.

[Bradley]

If we're headed for larger maps could we eventually get vehicle/tanks tracks especially in snow. Love some damage decals also.

[JonS]

But then in real life the armies put their ammo stockpiles in safe places because they were very valuable and they didn't want them to fall into enemy hands.

In real life, armies put their dumps where it is practical and convenient to do so. Safety from enemy action is one consideration, but it's far from the only one.

But that's all irrelevant anyway - this isn't the 18km x 10km complex of dumps that 21st Army Group developed around Bayeux that we're talking about. It's probably better to think of these as ammo caches, rather than ammo dumps. We're talking about a platoon or a company's worth, maybe a battalions worth, of immediate resupply, covering much less than 8x8m.

[Pak40]

But that's all irrelevant anyway - this isn't the 18km x 10km complex of dumps that 21st Army Group developed around Bayeux that we're talking about. It's probably better to think of these as ammo caches, rather than ammo dumps. We're talking about a platoon or a company's worth, maybe a battalions worth, of immediate resupply, covering much less than 8x8m.

Yes, these should be viewed as battalion resupply points. Every U.S. infantry company had a jeep that a runner could use to drive back to the battalion HQ to resupply. In fact, with the now bigger maps, scenario designers can accurately simulate the process of the company runner having to drive back to get more ammo.

[Battlefront.com]

Yup, perhaps a better term for these is "ammo cache". We are using the term "Ammo Dump" because it's something that people readily identify with. Of course some bring up a different mental image of this than what I've described. Whenever a label and a description are seemingly at odds with each other, I always recommend basing a discussion on the description and not the term. Generally works out better that way

Steve

[JasonC]

Sure sure, we know these are company or battalion supply points. But that doesn't make them indifferent to being hit by a 155mm shell, or their owner's to their being overrun, etc. Which was, I thought, the subject being considered.