Jump to content

ETA on version 3.0?


Recommended Posts

I'm just wondering if I've missed any discussion of version 3 for CMBN and CMFI. The original talk was of a release a couple of months after CMRT, and we're getting there pretty soon.

Has there been any confirmation that the update is coming sooner than later? Are we looking at days, weeks, or months?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm just wondering if I've missed any discussion of version 3 for CMBN and CMFI. The original talk was of a release a couple of months after CMRT, and we're getting there pretty soon.

Has there been any confirmation that the update is coming sooner than later? Are we looking at days, weeks, or months?

I've been assuming we'd first see the "launch bug fix" patch, then the demo for RT, and only once it's at that level, the upgrades for BN and FI. So I think we're a little way off yet. But that's just my guess. Maybe they'll launch BNv3 and FIv2, and then any necessary patches in the same order, once they've seen the new versions "in the wild", but it would be somewhat perverse to release the upgrades before patching them to the best current version of the code.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking forward to v3 of CMBN and CMFI.

It's an instant upgrade for me :)

Still very busy with CMRT though, and a few other games like Elite: Dangerous (Alpha 4), EverQuest II, Diablo 3, The Walking Dead Season 2, Diablo 3, Skyrim and soon™ Wasteland 2. Want to buy more hours/day :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What changes are expected to arrive for CMBN with version 3? Apart from hit decals. Is there a changelog somewhere ?

Whatever engine changes are in CMRT will be brought to CMBN and CMFI. Off the top of my head, this includes the hit decals, limitations on spotters running simultaneous artillery missions, ammo dumps, WeGo online play, AI triggers in the scenario editor, tank riders, and AA units discouraging air support. (Flame throwers are a unit, but I wonder if they might not come with the package too.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure about this, but there might be no FO (i.e., player) control over where an airstrike will go in.

Michael

I believe a BFC insider has said that this feature is toggleable (in the source, not by the player) by army in theatre, and that air strikes will remain directable in BN v3. Of course, being an easy switch-throw, that could change by release-day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe a BFC insider has said that this feature is toggleable (in the source, not by the player) by army in theatre, and that air strikes will remain directable in BN v3. Of course, being an easy switch-throw, that could change by release-day.

The British/Americans should definitely have contact with their air support (albeit with appropriate levels of inaccuracy) when a dedicated air FO is present. Otherwise that great stockpile of purple smoke will go to waste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The British/Americans should definitely have contact with their air support (albeit with appropriate levels of inaccuracy) when a dedicated air FO is present.

That would, however, require the creation of an "FAC" unit, since there aren't any dedicated air FOs in the game at the moment. I reckon they'll just leave it as-is. Though maybe if you bought air and no FO (cos it has to be a specialist, if not dedicated FO to direct air - an HQ just won't do), perhaps the JABOs could show up in undirected mode as they do for the OstFront.

Otherwise that great stockpile of purple smoke will go to waste.

Pretty smoke!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(I've never done any work in the scenario editor, so I don't know how this works.) Some artillery assets are denied to some HQ's. Is it possible to deny air assets to all but a certain FO (who is thus the FAC) in the same way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(I've never done any work in the scenario editor, so I don't know how this works.) Some artillery assets are denied to some HQ's. Is it possible to deny air assets to all but a certain FO (who is thus the FAC) in the same way?

Nope. Not currently at least. The behaviour is the same in the scenario editor as it is in QBs. The "Denied" arty assets are ones which, in the unit selection screens say "FO required". They are denied to all HQs and can only be called upon by "Forward Observer" units. All air assets are "FO required" by default (can't remember whether it says so explicitly in the unit selection pane).

How much of a chore it would be for BFC to create a "FAC" unit, and require one of those present in order to designate particular targets for the on-cabrank JABOs, I couldn't say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with air support gameplay wise for CMBN and CMFI is that there are pre-existing scenarios that require air support to complete, and would become immensely difficult for the player if they lost a level of control over these assets. The Irish Guard scenarios in the Road to Nijmegan campaign spring to mind.

Though the upgrade system BF have in place has my support, this is one of the lingering problems/risks I see. Scenario designers build a scenario/campaign under one set of rules and a later change can undo their work and greatly affect balance. A few months ago I tried to play the 'Blue and the Grey' campaign which I think was built under the CMBN v1 - pre-MG buffs that were introduced. I couldn't move my troops as soon as they came under MG fire in the first turn or so. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though the upgrade system BF have in place has my support, this is one of the lingering problems/risks I see. Scenario designers build a scenario/campaign under one set of rules and a later change can undo their work and greatly affect balance.

True, but we may have to accept that as part of "the cost of doing business". It seems to me that if a scenario or campaign is enthusiastically embraced by enough players, upgrading it under the new game system would be worth the effort, which in fact might not be all that hard.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Denying the player control over air support would be a bad idea in my opinion. A few days ago I finished reading "By Tank Into Normandy" written by a British tank commander, Stuart Hills. There was an interesting passage in there about their advance during Operation Bluecoat. Their standard procedure upon encountering enemy tanks was to fire smoke shells at them and call in air support. They didn't even need RAF observers to do it either, although they certainly made things easier if they were there. If observers weren't around, the tankers would contact Brigade HQ themselves and get them to bring in a spotter plane followed by Typhoons.

During one morning, the British column had been stopped at a T-junction in a road, which was mined along with the fields around it. They were calling up sappers to deal with it when a Tiger appeared on a distant hill and fired from 2,000 yards away, hitting one of the Shermans further back in the column. The British tanks responded by firing volleys of smoke shells downrange. They fired some red smoke at the Tiger as well while their air controller brought in four Typhoons. The second Typhoon got a direct hit with its rockets and, when the smoke cleared, they could see the Tiger lying on its side, minus the turret.

I think it should work in the game like it does with regular artillery. It should just take longer if they don't have a dedicated observer. I wish the game had colored smoke shells, though.

Anyway, I can't wait for Normandy 3.0. I've been getting that annoying bug in Red Thunder with troops unable to enter buildings, so I haven't played it much. I switched back to Normandy for the time being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My best guess would be that the 3.0 update will include everything we've seen in CMRT except for flame and flame units, the 3.0 upgrade will however be needed to buy the first pack for CMBN and first pack/second module for CMFI that will include flame units for all sides (along with other things, such as the Grille and R-35 for BN).

Think Steves first estimate for 3.0 was june/july so we will see. Very much looking forward to it :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Denying the player control over air support would be a bad idea in my opinion.

Depends on the theater and time. In the late stages of the Normandy fighting, the Allies began to get on-call close support working somewhat efficiently. But don't think that it was anywhere close to what can be done routinely today.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the Western Allies, I like the way it works now: control, but with significant delays and a significant chance of hitting the wrong target, including friendly troops.

For Germany and the Soviets, uncontrolled air is more appropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...