Does each vehicle have different armor value in Combat Mission Black Sea?

[c3k]

I enjoy a LOT of the mods out there for CM. They change the APPEARANCE, not the engine. That's cool. To me.

I like better smoke, flames, higher resolution models, etc. (For me, that works. I can pick mods which increase the computational load on my machine and stop when they begin to bog down performance. BFC had to draw the line somewhere. (Get it? "Draw the line"? I'm on a roll...) They HAVE to have low-res models, or they risk alienating a base level of player. If each model takes takes time/effort, at some point, that time/effort detracts from other endeavors. So...they (BFC) don't have the high resolution mods which others have made. I get it...)

Now, if BFC opened up the core engine to modding, I'd be done with pbem games. I have no desire to see a Panther turret on a Jeep. Nor do I want to see any other imaginary vehicle/upgrade. Every tank/weapon designer thought they made a good system. Until it got fielded, then the flaws came out. Panther engine fires: how would that be modeled? Production quotas, etc. So, your Panther turret on jeep would ignore all sorts of things, otherwise it would've been fielded. (Substitute whatever it is you want to build for my "Panther turret on a jeep".)

Similarly with other vehicles which are "real", but have been opened to modding. How would I know that you haven't modded your .50 rifles to have the penetration of an Abrams main gun? Etc. I don't want a free-for-all mod community which can access the engine.

Right now, the editor allows ANY MAP to be made by the community. Gripe about the editor or the 16km^2 size limit, but BFC has opened up the map editor to all and sundry.

Appearance of anything in the game can be modded.

I cannot (as yet?) import units from one game into another. Abrams on the rampage near Remagen? Sure, that'd be fun. Once. TigerII on the side of the Hessians near the Delaware? Woot!

 

The heart of this game is how the details create the simulacrum of reality. Men are treated as men. Organize and equip them as the Italians were in WWII, and you have an inflexible, brittle force. Amazing. The same men with better weapons and more flexible formations give a much different performance. The sum of all these types of decsions give us a game which is amazingly "realistic", yet still a game.

If the engine were opened to outside modding, that would change.

[A Canadian Cat]

What CM offers is not really modding it is skinning.  We can skin lots of things - probably most thing but we cannot change anything that effects play.  Yes, I realize that some people have done that but I am talking about what is officially supported.

 

  Only reason accused you of being deliberately contrary is that stuff like UI tweaks, sound mods, flame mods, tank stickers, and other things already seem to exist and seem quite popular, and your opposition is based on this idea that you could somehow end up being screwed by a group of mod cheaters.  It's not exactly credible.

I see.  Clearly I was not clear.  Cheaters are a concern of mine but a vastly bigger concern is the fracturing of the community.  Not sure what is incredible about that concern.  You can see it in just the places you suggested I look for information about ARMA - I found it confusing and fractured and all over the place I had no idea where to even start. 

 

I enjoy a LOT of the mods out there for CM. They change the APPEARANCE, not the engine. That's cool. To me.

I like better smoke, flames, higher resolution models, etc. (For me, that works. I can pick mods which increase the computational load on my machine and stop when they begin to bog down performance. BFC had to draw the line somewhere. (Get it? "Draw the line"? I'm on a roll...) They HAVE to have low-res models, or they risk alienating a base level of player. If each model takes takes time/effort, at some point, that time/effort detracts from other endeavors. So...they (BFC) don't have the high resolution mods which others have made. I get it...)

Now, if BFC opened up the core engine to modding, I'd be done with pbem games. I have no desire to see a Panther turret on a Jeep. Nor do I want to see any other imaginary vehicle/upgrade. Every tank/weapon designer thought they made a good system. Until it got fielded, then the flaws came out. Panther engine fires: how would that be modeled? Production quotas, etc. So, your Panther turret on jeep would ignore all sorts of things, otherwise it would've been fielded. (Substitute whatever it is you want to build for my "Panther turret on a jeep".)

Similarly with other vehicles which are "real", but have been opened to modding. How would I know that you haven't modded your .50 rifles to have the penetration of an Abrams main gun? Etc. I don't want a free-for-all mod community which can access the engine.

Right now, the editor allows ANY MAP to be made by the community. Gripe about the editor or the 16km^2 size limit, but BFC has opened up the map editor to all and sundry.

Appearance of anything in the game can be modded.

I cannot (as yet?) import units from one game into another. Abrams on the rampage near Remagen? Sure, that'd be fun. Once. TigerII on the side of the Hessians near the Delaware? Woot!

 

The heart of this game is how the details create the simulacrum of reality. Men are treated as men. Organize and equip them as the Italians were in WWII, and you have an inflexible, brittle force. Amazing. The same men with better weapons and more flexible formations give a much different performance. The sum of all these types of decsions give us a game which is amazingly "realistic", yet still a game.

If the engine were opened to outside modding, that would change.

^^^ What he said.

[Thewood1]

While I love ARMA...modding is a mess.  There are several competing overall mods with little transparency in how they alter the game itself.  If you have the time, you can figure it out.  BI seems to have given up on completing a game because they know the modders will clean it up.  They focus on engine fixes.  There is good and bad about the approach.

I like coming to Combat Mission and not worrying about what gameplay mods are mixed up and whether they are realistic or not.  The onlt negative side of it is the slowness of new content.  It has become glacial.  As a campaign or ladder game, that is OK.  If you use CM like a sandbox, it can be frustrating waiting for some unit your are keen on to come out.

 

[simon21]

I know people don't like to admit they are wrong....it shows weakness.  No one likes to be weak.  

I know that grognards can be some of the worst stick in the muds out there.

Having said that everyone going after modding is wrong.

Modding is great.

Show me one game where the community was destroyed by the modding community.  _______________

and don't just give me 'well that isn't THIS community'.  That's a cop out answer.  We're all gamers.  

This idea that it would open the game up to hackers is so silly.  If hackers wanted to have their way with CM they could.  I don't really want to start experimenting, but I'm pretty sure it is possible from what I've seen.  Look how often CS is hacked with all the care and attention put into that.  The community is just blessed with few hackers.

Vanilla games would continue regardless of there being mods.

Also Ian, if you've put the time into figuring out how to mod CM for UI tweaks, then ARMA III shouldn't be that hard.  There are a lot of great youtube videos.  

Just say the reason for a lack of mods is philosophical and not logical, and have done. It's not a defensible point.  

It really is these complex games with a dedicated fanbase that get the most from their mod communities.

Edited January 27, 2016 by simon21

[kraze]

While I love ARMA...modding is a mess.  There are several competing overall mods with little transparency in how they alter the game itself.  If you have the time, you can figure it out.  BI seems to have given up on completing a game because they know the modders will clean it up.  They focus on engine fixes.  There is good and bad about the approach.

I like coming to Combat Mission and not worrying about what gameplay mods are mixed up and whether they are realistic or not.  The onlt negative side of it is the slowness of new content.  It has become glacial.  As a campaign or ladder game, that is OK.  If you use CM like a sandbox, it can be frustrating waiting for some unit your are keen on to come out.

 

Funny thing - but when was the last patch for Black Sea released as there are apparently still some issues (BMP2, buildings with transparent walls)?

As for ArmA - it's not just "engine fixes". Some things added post-release (for free): a new campaign, a 3D editor, firing from vehicles, weapon resting and there are more to come (like revamped lighting system, again for free).

I bet it's in large part thanks to modding - helping ArmA sell so many copies allowing devs to be that "generous". ArmA is also a great example, because it started off as an obscure game back in 2001 with a dozen people on the team, being very anti-"casual", much like CM games.

There hasn't been a single example of a game being "killed" by modding, but a ton of examples where modding helped the game, with many mod features making it officially into one, only improving it.

[Battlefront.com]

What I'd like the newbies to this Forum to understand is three things:

1.  We have had this debate countless times over the past 15 years.

2.  We are not stupid, ignorant, or resistant to change.

3.  Apples are not oranges, therefore trying to compare CM to ArmA is a dangerous road to go down.

By "We" I mean Battlefront specifically and our customer base generally.

The mods work for other communities because the game engines themselves are catering to people who want to have fun with stuff, not people who want a very explicit game experience (i.e. high degree of realism).  CM's game engine will never be as pretty or slick as the games it is being compared to and therefore why would anybody interested in those other game engines have any interest in CM?  Why would a CM fanatic have any interest in one of those other game engines?  Exactly.  Two entirely different market segments.

I know very well what would happen if we opened up CM's game engine to major modification.  We'd spend a ton of time making it practical, we'd attract maybe 2 more customers that we wouldn't have got otherwise, the community WOULD DEFINITELY FRACTURE, our ability to create new content would be wiped out, and we'd go out of business.  Since we're the ones who have our livelihoods on the line, not our customers, we have far more reason to be skeptical of the theoretical upside and far more reasons to be concerned about the real downsides.

Battlefront has broken more molds and conventional wisdom than I care to spend the time listing here.  We are not afraid of change, we're cautious about making potentially reckless decisions.

Steve

Edited January 27, 2016 by Battlefront.com

[AttorneyAtWar]

The mods work for other communities because the game engines themselves are catering to people who want to have fun with stuff, not people who want a very explicit game experience (i.e. high degree of realism).  CM's game engine will never be as pretty or slick as the games it is being compared to and therefore why would anybody interested in those other game engines have any interest in CM?  Why would a CM fanatic have any interest in one of those other game engines?  Exactly.  Two entirely different market segments.

 

Steve

Not sure what you are trying to say here Steve, I play ARMA and Combat Mission and like both.

[Battlefront.com]

Not sure what you are trying to say here Steve, I play ARMA and Combat Mission and like both.

Sure, I am also a big fan of FPS games.  I am sure that's true for a larger amount of CM's fanbase.  But how many FPS players are interested in CM?  Probably not many more than are already playing CM.  Therefore, making CM more like ArmA isn't going to get us any more sales.

Stevs

[MikeyD]

I think what we're talking about here is less game mechanics and more psychology.
I recall back in my old hobby modeling days there would be surveys asking hobbyists what their favorite kit vehicle would be. Invariable the answer was "The one not out yet!". Model companies would then produce a kit of the 'most wanted vehicle', interest would immediately drop and hobbyists would move on the he next 'not out yet' vehicle to fantasize over.
If BFC offers Armata in a module I expect it would quickly turn into 'just another tank' in the game. The fascination would quickly fade. If BFC were to introduce the Oshkosh JLTV it would turn into 'just another truck' in the game. Adding more animations would go unnoticed, adding more terrain types would be overlooked, expanded map sizes would go unused. Because the unobtainable will always hold more fascination that what you've actually got. Remember when people were feverishly clambering for Churchill Crocodile in CMBN? Now that its in the game the response is meh. 'Unobtainable' will always be more fascinating.

[simon21]

What I'd like the newbies to this Forum to understand is three things:

1.  We have had this debate countless times over the past 15 years.

2.  We are not stupid, ignorant, or resistant to change.

3.  Apples are not oranges, therefore trying to compare CM to ArmA is a dangerous road to go down.

By "We" I mean Battlefront specifically and our customer base generally.

The mods work for other communities because the game engines themselves are catering to people who want to have fun with stuff, not people who want a very explicit game experience (i.e. high degree of realism).  CM's game engine will never be as pretty or slick as the games it is being compared to and therefore why would anybody interested in those other game engines have any interest in CM?  Why would a CM fanatic have any interest in one of those other game engines?  Exactly.  Two entirely different market segments.

I know very well what would happen if we opened up CM's game engine to major modification.  We'd spend a ton of time making it practical, we'd attract maybe 2 more customers that we wouldn't have got otherwise, the community WOULD DEFINITELY FRACTURE, our ability to create new content would be wiped out, and we'd go out of business.  Since we're the ones who have our livelihoods on the line, not our customers, we have far more reason to be skeptical of the theoretical upside and far more reasons to be concerned about the real downsides.

Battlefront has broken more molds and conventional wisdom than I care to spend the time listing here.  We are not afraid of change, we're cautious about making potentially reckless decisions.

Steve

This fracturing argument.  It doesn't have a clear parallel in other communities.  It sounds like group think, but that's your opinion, and it's good to hear you aren't concerned with insane cheating.  I disagree with this assessment.  The main armies wouldn't change.  I think most people would still play vanilla.

Bohemia and you guys have similar communities there is a significant learning curve and a lot of passionate repeat customers.  They are just more mainstream.  The groups that take ARMA seriously are just as passionate and active as CM groups. 

I like to mod man.  Even if I can't mod I like to know how the underlying systems work.  I enjoy mechanics.  I set up tanks to see what happens sometimes and i've been playing for a few years.  What little I know about the under-the-hood mechanics of CM interests me.  If I knew more I could contribute more intelligently to discussions here.  If I could test things quickly by fiddling a .ini file i'd be happy camper.  Not that I don't appreciate the product as it is.  

Edited January 27, 2016 by simon21

[kraze]

I got into CM because I wanted ArmA... that is controlled like a strategy game. So there.

Also ArmA became "pretty and slick" only with time. When the original game, Operation Flashpoint, came out - it was pretty ugly. It was also really unforgiving and realistic - and it lost none of that to date, while becoming a lot more. Just FYI

CM is niche because of many factors and it's not entirely because it's so "hardcore-gritty-realistic". It's a mix of zero advertising (first and foremost actually), steep pricing for a series with so many separate games in it that do seem like just reskins, somewhat dry presentation (after so many years it's all just text briefings to tie stuff in, especially in campaigns), making people buy their games at a -yet another- online shop (believe it or not it's an issue for many, even if they like the realistic wargame genre) etc.

And of course another issue for me personally is the need to wait for years to get more content (e.g. expack) for CMBS. Something modding helps with.

[simon21]

Also ArmA became "pretty and slick" only with time. When the original game, Operation Flashpoint, came out - it was pretty ugly. It was also really unforgiving and realistic - and it lost none of that to date, while becoming a lot more. Just FYI

CM is niche because of many factors and it's not entirely because it's so "hardcore-gritty-realistic". It's a mix of zero advertising (first and foremost actually), steep pricing for a series with so many separate games in it that do seem like just reskins, somewhat dry presentation (after so many years it's all just text briefings to tie stuff in, especially in campaigns), making people buy their games at a -yet another- online shop (believe it or not it's an issue for many, even if they like the realistic wargame genre) etc.

I was an OP Flash modder back in the day.  It was such an ugly game, but the mod-ability was just insane.  I remember when they released the first set of developer maps and I was like .. this changes everything.  You could do so much with that.  

I actually got into CM because I found this polygon story --->

http://www.polygon.com/features/2013/1/29/3916154/turn-by-turn-battlefront-combat-mission

I then watched the whole AC series by Pauling.

Most of the time when I try and sell this game to other people though I just get ... they charge for patchs and it costs that much after launch ... f*** 'em

 

Edited January 27, 2016 by simon21

[AttorneyAtWar]

Sure, I am also a big fan of FPS games.  I am sure that's true for a larger amount of CM's fanbase.  But how many FPS players are interested in CM?  Probably not many more than are already playing CM.  Therefore, making CM more like ArmA isn't going to get us any more sales.

Stevs

Gotcha.

[Battlefront.com]

This fracturing argument.  It doesn't have a clear parallel in other communities.  It sounds like group think, but that's your opinion, and it's good to hear you aren't concerned with insane cheating.  I disagree with this assessment.  The main armies wouldn't change.  I think most people would still play vanilla.

There are tons of parallels.  The large games, like ArmA, have so many customers that each part of the community is several times larger than CM's following and therefore it might not seem like it is fractured.  But it is.  And that is logical for that to happen.

Digging more into the past of wargaming, Close Combat and Steel Panthers produced fractured communities based on mods to those games.

Also, you're incorrect about our views on cheating... it's definitely something we are concerned about.  However, if we thought there was something positive to come from opening the game up we could code methods to minimize cheating.  Which means more work that we don't have time or the will to engage in.

Lastly, there is the massive tech support headaches that would come along with opening up the engine. We have no desire to go down the road of having someone say "my Panther can't hit the broad side of a barn, fix or do something!" only to find out they have some idiotic mod installed that frigg'd around with the optics in a way that produced a bad end result.  No thank you.

Bohemia and you guys have similar communities there is a significant learning curve and a lot of passionate repeat customers.  They are just more mainstream.  The groups that take ARMA seriously are just as passionate and active as CM groups. 

Sure, and Minecraft does too.  What's your point?

I like to mod man.  Even if I can't mod I like to know how the underlying systems work.  I enjoy mechanics.  I set up tanks to see what happens sometimes and i've been playing for a few years.  What little I know about the under-the-hood mechanics of CM interests me.  If I knew more I could contribute more intelligently to discussions here.  If I could test things quickly by fiddling a .ini file i'd be happy camper.  Not that I don't appreciate the product as it is.  

For sure there are others out there like you, but for sure we don't think we should put our entire company at risk just so you can enjoy tinkering with things.

The reality is that it would take a massive amount of effort (read COST and RISK) to make the game guts accessible to modding.  It would take even longer to get modders up to speed on what to do with all of that.  We'd be out of business before that could happen.

 

I got into CM because I wanted ArmA... that is controlled like a strategy game. So there.

Also ArmA became "pretty and slick" only with time. When the original game, Operation Flashpoint, came out - it was pretty ugly. It was also really unforgiving and realistic - and it lost none of that to date, while becoming a lot more. Just FYI

If we had $50,000,000 to invest in CM there would be all kinds of wonderful things we could do.

CM is niche because of many factors and it's not entirely because it's so "hardcore-gritty-realistic". It's a mix of zero advertising (first and foremost actually), steep pricing for a series with so many separate games in it that do seem like just reskins, somewhat dry presentation (after so many years it's all just text briefings to tie stuff in, especially in campaigns), making people buy their games at a -yet another- online shop (believe it or not it's an issue for many, even if they like the realistic wargame genre) etc.

Argued to death dozens and dozens of times... but it still doesn't make it true.  Wargaming has always been and will always be a niche.  All the things you mentioned could, of course, increase our audience to a minor degree.  But all of the things you mentioned could also put us out of business or at least make us less able to reinvest in the game instead of chasing down a few extra customers.

And of course another issue for me personally is the need to wait for years to get more content (e.g. expack) for CMBS. Something modding helps with.

This is something we don't like either, but there is no viable alternative.  There simply isn't enough money in this niche to afford to go in many directions at one time.  Handing it off to third parties could help, but that's easier said than done (we know from experience).  Handing it off to modders is suicidal for all the reasons I list every single time this topic comes up.

Nobody has more incentive to increase sales than I do.  Nobody has more incentive to stay in business than I do.  Yet every time this topic is debated I haven't been swayed one iota by anything said that it's time to change strategies.  Why not?  Because I've yet to see a new argument or been convinced that something in an old argument has changed in favor of the idea of opening up the engine.  Until one or the other condition comes about, there will be no changes made to our business strategy.  Which is good for you because a less-than-perfect Battlefront that is still making games is better than a Battlefront that is out of business.

Steve

Edited January 28, 2016 by Battlefront.com

[A Canadian Cat]

I know people don't like to admit they are wrong....

Yep.

it shows weakness.  No one likes to be weak.  

No actually, admitting that you are wrong shows strength.  

[simon21]

There are tons of parallels.  The large games, like ArmA, have so many customers that each part of the community is several times larger than CM's following and therefore it might not seem like it is fractured.  But it is.  And that is logical for that to happen.

Digging more into the past of wargaming, Close Combat and Steel Panthers produced fractured communities based on mods to those games.

 

I would paraphrase that what are you suggesting here roughly as that people who were involved in the mod community of both these games, CC & SB, were playing less of the base game and more of the mods because of the availability of mods.  That seems a bit illogical.  I would suggest people were playing the mods because that was giving them the experience they desired and otherwise they'd be playing something else or nothing at all.  I know it was long war and Open XCOM that brought me back to both those games.  I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here.  Your statement could also be paraphrased as - you are protecting the community from itself.  Again, we'll agree to disagree on the necessity of that.

ARMA does have a kind of a fractured community, but it's a much bigger community.  There are multiple commitment levels.  I don't know if I would characterize that as broken-fractured.  It's more just more fractured by interest levels.  I think multiple commitment levels are inherent to both CM & ARMA communities.  When you look at something like ShackTac vs. twelve year olds playing DayZ it's light and dark.  Both still paid for the base game though.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 28, 2016 by simon21

[Battlefront.com]

I would paraphrase that what are you suggesting here roughly as that people who were involved in the mod community of both these games, CC & SB, were playing less of the base game and more of the mods because of the availability of mods.  That seems a bit illogical.  I would suggest people were playing the mods because that was giving them the experience they desired and otherwise they'd be playing something else or nothing at all.  I know it was long war and Open XCOM that brought me back to both those games.  I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here.  

You're missing the point and you're rewriting history.  That doesn't do much to advance your position.

The point you are missing is that when a Mod can inherently change the nature of the game there is no longer one game.  By definition this means any group playing a Mod is a fracturing.  When there's multiple Mods then it becomes splintering.  As with any religious, political, cultural, etc. splintering there is hostility and a lack of cooperation.  "Oh, you play that Mod?  You must have a tiny wee-wee because real men play this Mod!".  It's a natural way for Humans to behave and therefore it is to be expected.  To not expect it, or to deny it would happen, is completely naive.  It is also contrary to the facts.  I know because it was the experience of the SP and CC audiences that solidified our desire to not go down that road.  The makers of Close Combat even actively tried to circumvent the Mods, but they failed.

Your statement could also be paraphrased as - you are protecting the community from itself.  Again, we'll agree to disagree on the necessity of that.

You are free to disagree, however since it is our business and therefore our community, you are not in a very good position to assess "necessity".  Especially since you want something very specific and therefore have little incentive to view things from the other perspective.  We, on the other hand, would open up the game's guts tomorrow if we thought it would be a net benefit to our bottomline, even if it ran the risk of causing some distress within the community.  It's the same logic that we use to not open up the game engine (i.e. causing more harm than good).

ARMA does have a kind of a fractured community, but it's a much bigger community.  There are multiple commitment levels.  I don't know if I would characterize that as broken-fractured.  It's more just more fractured by interest levels.  I think multiple commitment levels are inherent to both CM & ARMA communities.  When you look at something like ShackTac vs. twelve year olds playing DayZ it's light and dark. 

And Catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc. are all the same "base religion".  No problems have ever arisen from their different interpretations, right?   Obviously a fractured CM community is not the same as the schism between Suni and Shia, but from an "us vs. them" perspective the underlying psychology is more similar than dissimilar.  It is nothing we want to be a part of creating unless there is a definite upside to it.  We still see absolutely none.  Especially on the tech support side.

 

 Both still paid for the base game though.

As I've said all along, if we thought opening the game would cause more people to buy the base game in sufficient quantities to justify the risk and expense of opening it up, we'd put it to the top of the priority list.  But we have vastly more experience at this than you do and we do not see that as even a remote hope.  Until such time as there's an argument to be made that is either different or in a new context.  Since that's not happened, we're not changing our plans.

Steve

[slysniper]

Stick to your Guns, Steve.

Having been a part of them fractured systems, you are correct in what happens once there is different groups.

It is nice to have a game system where there is no question on how it plays and by what settings.

[simon21]

I'm doing my best not re-write the narrative.  I do get where the official stance comes and the hump associated with making an SDK.  The fracturing problem though is multifaceted.  I know that mod groups would form.  I know that they would put out compilation packages and some might have conflicts with each other.  The question really is 'would more people play more because of the opportunity for creativity to offset this' ?   

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 28, 2016 by simon21

[Battlefront.com]

I'm doing my best not re-write the narrative.  I do get where the official stance comes and the hump associated with making an SDK.  The fracturing problem though is multifaceted.  I know that mod groups would form.  I know that they would put out compilation packages and some might have conflicts with each other.  The question really is 'would more people play more because of the opportunity for creativity to offset this' ?   

Incorrect.  While it's wonderful to have happier players, happier players using free content that cost us a ton to make possible, costs us more to support, and has decreased our ability to earn money in the future is not a recipe for success.  Therefore, the only meaningful question to ask is:

"would more people purchase the game to offset all of the downsides of opening the game engine?"

Our 20+ years of making games for the wargame audience leaves us with no doubt that the answer to that question is "definitely not".  I don't mean "probably not" or "well, maybe not".  I mean "100% absolutely under no circumstances not".  Are you in business for yourself?  If so, would you bet your livelihood on something that every fiber of your being and two decades of experience says is a suicidal move?  I doubt it.

Steve

 

[simon21]

We'll see.  A lot of bigger studios are getting more mod friendly.  The current attitude is that it extends the life of the game.  Plenty of examples.  Just watch XCOM 2 as a test case.  I'd quote Skyrim and Men of War at you and all the Steam Workshop stuff, but you're probably already very familiar with those.  Red Orchestra 2 made a huge and fluffy expansion based on modded content quite recently as I recall.  

You don't have to open everything.  Just putting some simple stuff in an accessible .ini files would be awesome.  That was how i got started back in the day.

Maybe your opinion will change in time.  We'll see.  I think we've got about as far as we can get.  I do still remain passionate about CM.  It's a great experiment.

[Battlefront.com]

The bigger companies are... bigger.  They have more resources, they are in heavy competition with each other, and they are aimed at much larger markets.  They also do not support their game engines for more than a year or two as they are compelled by market forces to redesign their wheels every few years.  This means they have very little to lose because they have built in obsolescence.  We do not have any of those luxuries.

There is nothing we could put in an .ini file that would be useful or practical.  Our game engine is vastly complex and doesn't lend itself to minor tinkering/tweaking.  It also serves absolutely no purpose at all if we're not going the full mile and opening up the rest of the way.  Which we aren't going to do for the aforementioned reasons.

As I said, I'm happy to reevaluate our stance on this if there's something new to consider.  Nothing you said is new, nothing going on in the market around us is new.  And so you are correct that the discussion has gone as far as it can go.  Honestly, it went as far as it could go with your first post

Steve

[LukeFF]

Show me one game where the community was destroyed by the modding community.  _______________

Red Baron, European Air War

There, I gave you double what you asked for.  

[Baneman]

...

Show me one game where the community was destroyed by the modding community.  

 

The online IL-2 community went through major ructions when the code was cracked and competing Mod Packs came out. You could only fly on the servers that were running the Mod you had installed.

I think it might have shaken out into a single globally acceptable package eventually, but a lot of people had lost interest by then ( and the fact that there "could only be one" before everyone could fly against everyone else again, kinda plays against your point. )

[kraze]

Now, if BFC opened up the core engine to modding, I'd be done with pbem games. I have no desire to see a Panther turret on a Jeep. Nor do I want to see any other imaginary vehicle/upgrade.

A horror of modding - just look at all those pink abrams reskins in CM to date

 

 

The online IL-2 community went through major ructions when the code was cracked and competing Mod Packs came out. You could only fly on the servers that were running the Mod you had installed.

You still have vanilla servers and also modded ones as an option if you want to try something new. That wouldn't be an issue in CM especially where you still to have to look for your opponent "manually".

Edited January 28, 2016 by kraze