New Gameplay features ?

[Holien]

My only fear is that those guys at BF one day will say: 'to h... with all of you, we are going to make science fiction games'.

 

 

My bigger fear is that we are not getting any younger and I am guessing Steve and Charles will want to exit the game at some stage, so I am hoping they can cook up a big finale before they head for the hills....

I also hope I am around long enough to see it....

In the meantime I will keep feeding them (the cooks and maitre D and bottlewashers) and enjoying each day as much as I can (as you never know what's around the corner...)

[Combatintman]

I went to the pub on Saturday with the wife and spent about 60 pounds for 4 hours drinking time. Now in that time I had a good laugh and  did some daft things.

The only daft thing you did was to take your wife to the pub with you ... I'm still trying to compute how you had a good time ...

[A Canadian Cat]

Excellent analogy @Holien. To continue your analogy most places like  that that I have been would have a hand full of people who would gladly manhandle such a trouble maker out the front door. That is if the owner didn't ban they character first and have the bouncer send him on his way.

Yes you are a critic but critics have their own places to post reviews and that is not in the forum (bar) of the restaurant.

And there is the kicker, feel free to go start your own blog / review web site where all your fans can read your wisdom and etc...

[A Canadian Cat]

The only daft thing you did was to take your wife to the pub with you ... I'm still trying to compute how you had a good time ...

LOL I suspect that means he has a pretty awesome partner.

[PanzerMike]

If the campaigns are well done and there is say ,twenty very good scenarios, thats almost worth the

money right there. Ever tried making really good scenarios? Its a lot of work.

Amen to that brother.

[Doc844]

LOL I suspect that means he has a pretty awesome partner.

She's a highland lass, which means she off her nut.  Doesnt even whinge at me when a couple of sociables with some of my ex squaddie mates turns into a mega lash up lol.

[sburke]

 

in this forum written to me that I can not expect improvements in modules, because there are only new models and scenarios - now we have a NEW GAME, so map / scenario can not justify the lack of improvements.

and one more thing, I do not care for what the game engine is created, what it is its version etc. (or problems publisher) - it's not my problem - I want to get improved product - if you are enough to play only new maps / scenarios - well.......... the less you expect, the less you get

again it would be nice if folks stopped making complete misstatements.  Did you pay attention to some of the screenshots?  Are you absolutely sure there are no improvements?  You might want to look again. Are they earth shattering, maybe not but an expectation that there will somehow be massive updates is unrealistic. 

The thing is we all want to see improvements, though we differ on what improvements are important to us. The thing that is so  disconcerting on this thread is the commentary on what is or isn't in the game before it is either released or even a full description put out by Chris. It seems more like certain folks decide in advance to simply trash the release even before they know what is in it. 

[sburke]

She's a highland lass, which means she off her nut.  Doesnt even whinge at me when a couple of sociables with some of my ex squaddie mates turns into a mega lash up lol.

I think that requires a translation. 

[George MC]

@sburke

Trnsl: She is from the Highlands of Scotland (NOTE: Highland girls are renowned for being psychotic, especially those from Buckie or Dingwall). She does not even complain when two social drinking dates with ex-military friends becomes  a drink fuelled orgy of alcoholic excess. (NOTE: In Aviemore this would be called a quiet night out).

Hope this helps

[sburke]

@sburke

Trnsl: She is from the Highlands of Scotland (NOTE: Highland girls are renowned for being psychotic, especially those from Buckie or Dingwall). She does not even complain when two social drinking dates with ex-military friends becomes  a drink fuelled orgy of alcoholic excess. (NOTE: In Aviemore this would be called a quiet night out).

Hope this helps

ahh I see. In the US we would call her the "designated driver". 

[Wiggum15]

OK, so there's basically four schools of thought expressed in this thread:

1.  CMFB doesn't need new features to be an enjoyable game.

2.  It would be nice if CMFB had at least a few new features.

3.  CMFB really needs something significantly new to be attractive.

4.  CMFB needs to be better than anything EA makes and have brand new features added every year for the next 10 years for free. 

Wiggum15 has always been, and likely will always be, in the #4 group.  It's a lonely group, but he seems happy there even though we'll never give him 1/10th of what he demands at any price, not to mention free.  Which means he "pushes us" only in terms of our patience.  Otherwise he's ignored because he isn't relevant.

Hi Steve !

No, thats just wrong in every way.

Why do you even mention EA ? No one talked about EA or endless patches for free.

I dont care about AAA graphics in a 3D wargame as long as the wargame is good in simulating the battlefield and runs well.

A game can be 2D top-down hex i dont care but then it has to run smooth.

CMx2 (bigger maps) run mostly sluggish it thats only the fault of a "not so good" (some would say badly) optimized engine.

And now dont tell me CMx2 simulates so much in the background, so many calculations...what about "that other game" or ArmA3 ?

Both run in highest setting totally smooth on my PC but CMx2 is always sluggish.

I'm in the group #3 !

For me to buy another CMx2 game there need to be significant improvements that make the gameplay interesting againand get rid of the CMSF retro flair.

 

Oh, yeah...

That game.

The one that has the shortest total play time of anything that I've ever bought.

Not 'cause I wasn't winning.

'Cause I got bored of the gameplay and annoyed at too many design choices, and because I felt the realism was too patchy as compared to CM.

And, modded CM looks better in most ways to me, with some stock things like infantry looking better out of the box.

Sorry, Charlie.

BS.

Realism is up to CMx2 standard at least and graphics are generally better while the engine is far better optimized.

You cant fool me here, sorry

 

 

Try doing a 5x5 km map in detail with flavor items based on a period overlay of some of the iconic battles of the period.  This will be by far the best release yet for that sort of thing.  For some folks that level of labor is what they want to buy.  Is that a feature?  Not in the strictest sense of what we usually refer to in software terms.  Is it an item that represents a lot of labor time that many players really appreciate having?  Absolutely.  (on the other hand the overlay is an actual new feature that CMSF never had).  Then there are the meticulously researched ToEs, some folks, myself included are nowhere near versed in that level of detail and I am amazed at the depth of knowledge of some of the contributors to that aspect.  Does that have no value?  Then there is the continual cry for tank riders in the Western front . I guess we are all so jaded now having them on the Eastern Front that it no longer matters- and yet that also meant a lot of labor for BF.. God help me I am partly drawn to this community because I figure the pursuit of historical information would make them more open minded and appreciative of the finer details.  Damn was I ever wrong.

Doing maps in CMx2 is always time consuming but just look at the ArmA community maps + its only that difficult because of the cumbersome editor.

TO&E's have been researched countless times already especially for such huge and famous battle, thats not that much of a achievement.

Tankriders ? Sorry that was maybe important for the eastern front but its only minor stuff for the west front and does not really improve gameplay.

 

Let's link to this thread when Wiggum complains about the price to upgrade all his content to the next engine...with whatever improvements it may bring.  

For everyone else, look at what CMFB offers and decide if it's worth the cost. No need for angst...

 

If there are real improvements i will pay a reasonable price for a new game, upgrades will not work anyway.

Edited December 21, 2015 by Wiggum15

[Rinaldi]

 

And there is the kicker, feel free to go start your own blog / review web site where all your fans can read your wisdom and etc...

C'mon boys....are we going to conclude that any form of negative criticism is not going to be allowed now because this is BFC's forum? Bit of a leap - though I know I'm putting words into your mouths. I'm going to continue to play devil's advocate here and point out that on several occasions (including literally today in the Red Thunder forums) a bit of well-reasoned criticism of a game has brought the Devs to the thread with good intentions.

The people complaining in this thread are basically having a very public tantrum, but its not like they don't have a shred of legitimacy in their criticisms. Don't let them ruin it for people who can be polite in a critique. Why shouldn't we give BFC our opinions, last time I checked a forum is meant to discuss a game, pros and cons

[sburke]

 

Doing maps in CMx2 is always time consuming but just look at the ArmA community maps + its only that difficult because of the cumbersome editor.

TO&E's have been researched countless times already especially for such huge and famous battle, thats not that much of a achievement.

Tankriders ? Sorry that was maybe important for the eastern front but its only minor stuff for the west front and does not really improve gameplay.

 

Okay let's address the 3 answers because it is a slow week at work, I already checked the news and @GeorgeMC has already provided a translation..

1 -Doing maps in CM is far less cumbersome than that other game you like to promote because- you can actually do maps - Arma on the other hand is a completely different game so please, as you are so fond of saying, stay on topic.  BF has made some major strides for map making and far from being cumbersome, it actually works pretty well.  a 5x5 km map is a lot of space.  Be nice if you simply commented on topics you were actually familiar with.

2 - Oh really so then the ToEs should simply be something you can just pop open a book and they will all be there eh? Again stick to what you know as you are obviously poorly informed.

3 - Ha I am surprised one of the people that was so ardently pushing BF for tank riders hasn't stepped in.  Obviously you haven't listened to their viewpoint on how it affects gameplay - oh that's right you don't actually care what anyone else thinks.

Really wiggum, you have nothing better to do?  You obviously don't like the game despite all your protestations.  You really don't have anything better to do with your time?

[LukeFF]

I dont care about AAA graphics in a 3D wargame as long as the wargame is good in simulating the battlefield and runs well.

A game can be 2D top-down hex i dont care but then it has to run smooth.

Wait a second - you posted this in your opening message:

Will there be any new graphic effects and features, improvements or optimizations ?

So, what is it - do graphics matter to you, or do they not? Geez, make up your mind already. 

[Wiggum15]

Okay let's address the 3 answers because it is a slow week at work, I already checked the news and @GeorgeMC has already provided a translation..

1 -Doing maps in CM is far less cumbersome than that other game you like to promote because- you can actually do maps - Arma on the other hand is a completely different game so please, as you are so fond of saying, stay on topic.  BF has made some major strides for map making and far from being cumbersome, it actually works pretty well.  a 5x5 km map is a lot of space.  Be nice if you simply commented on topics you were actually familiar with.

2 - Oh really so then the ToEs should simply be something you can just pop open a book and they will all be there eh? Again stick to what you know as you are obviously poorly informed.

3 - Ha I am surprised one of the people that was so ardently pushing BF for tank riders hasn't stepped in.  Obviously you haven't listened to their viewpoint on how it affects gameplay - oh that's right you don't actually care what anyone else thinks.

Really wiggum, you have nothing better to do?  You obviously don't like the game despite all your protestations.  You really don't have anything better to do with your time?

1. I never said that this other game has a editor. I dont know if there are any dev tools put if the devs use the same ingame editor as we then yes, it is unnecessary cumbersome.

2. Come on, do they need to know how many cookies the average Landser in a VG füselier company had in his pocket ? No !

The information about formations and weapons is widely available already.

3. i dont think it affects gamplay that much, could just get patched into CMBN and CMFI as a gimmick

4. Im injured and cant leave the house (rib injury because someone gave me a knee strike to the ribs)

 

Wait a second - you posted this in your opening message:

Will there be any new graphic effects and features, improvements or optimizations ?

So, what is it - do graphics matter to you, or do they not? Geez, make up your mind already. 

They dont matter that much but if a game runs sluggish anyway like CMx2 (big maps) then i want at least some eye-candy or optimization (which means make the engine better optimized for modern pc's).

With "new effects" i mean improved fog,snow effects or finally get rid of the unholy "floating in nirvana" map.

Edited December 21, 2015 by Wiggum15

[sburke]

1. I never said that this other game has a editor. I dont know if there are any dev tools put if the devs use the same ingame editor as we then yes, it is unnecessary cumbersome.

2. Come on, do they need to know how many cookies the average Landser in a VG füselier company had in his pocket ? No !

The information about formations and weapons is widely available already.

3. i dont think it affects gamplay that much, could just get patched into CMBN and CMFI as a gimmick

4. Im injured and cant leave the house (rib injury because someone gave me a knee strike to the ribs)

 

Saying it is unnecessarily cumbersome implies knowing more than you do about what is capable in the engine.  There are some features I'd like in the editor for sure, but there are very few games that have an editor as flexible as CM has.  I have done multiple maps on that scale and yeah I have a few things I'd like to be able to do differently, but I know of none comparable.  Start putting chicken coops in farms over a 25 km square map and tell me that is it an engine issue as to why it takes so long.

Do I need to know?  absolutely not.  But we have grogs on helmets, uniform straps, weapons, etc etc   But if you think there AREN'T people who want to know how many cookies, who baked them and whether they crumble based on movement speed then you seriously don't know this community.

The information about formations and weapons is not as widespread as you appear to think and there are lots of contradictory sources.  I have not been a participant in those discussions (I am far too ignorant) but I have observed them and simply put you are wrong.  I am very impressed by the amount of research that goes into those ToEs and while it doesn't carry as much importance to me I absolutely do appreciate the level of detail they strive for and appreciate that when I set up a unit it is as close as BF can come to representing the actual formation for the period.  It is kind of the point after all right?

What you think isn't really relevant.  Fact of the matter is increased mobility of units because they can now hitch rides on vehicles does substantially alter game play on larger maps.  I'll just assume you missed all those discussions, but there have been many.  The work to make that available for the game is time consuming as all the US vehicles that have that capability added have to be touched and checked.  This is a player requested item and work was done to incorporate it into CMFB - you'd think you'd be able to make a concession here as this clearly is new work done by BF for the Allied forces in CMFB.  The fact that you can't shows your bias.

As to that injury - are you certain it wasn't a secret proponent of tank riders on the western front who did that?  Sounds suspicious.

 

[MikeyD]

Have you visited the Toyota site to bitch about their 2016 Camry yet?

[Battlefront.com]

Wiggum15,

You are extremely consistent, and since that was my point in my previous post I'm correct.  And your last few posts prove it.  To you there are only two types of improvements:

1. the type that are within our means to develop

2. the type that are not within our means to develop

The problem is that anything that is doable is seen as having no value to you, therefore you are unwilling to pay anything for such improvements.  Yet oddly enough you expect us to put them into the game for free.  You "justify" this mindset by making the ridiculous presumption that these features don't cost us any time or money to produce.  Tank riders, for example, is something you think we should throw in for free because you don't value it and you don't think it takes any time to make.  As always, and I do mean always, you are wrong on both counts.

As for the second type of improvements, we are in a niche market and that means we can only survive to make games if we are compensated for our time.  If we are not, we go out of business.  Since you repeatedly demand (not ask) for us to make unprofitable additions to our games, you are basically advocating that we deliberately put ourselves out of business.  That's a non-starter argument right there.

This has been explained to you a thousand times, but you refuse to listen.  And that is why I said the problem with your posts is not that you are not a native English speaker, rather that you are simply wrong.  In any language.

Steve

[Kieme(ITA)]

  Tank riders, for example, is something you think we should throw in for free because you don't value it and you don't think it takes any time to make. 

Steve

My personal view on tank riders and the new CM game is that this particular feature is something I relate to CMRT, where it was first introduced. Now, a new feature that is ported from a game to another one sure is important per se because it keeps the available content at a higher level, but it's not as groundbreaking as it was within the previous title.

Therefore, while I do appreciate the work necessary to adapt such "old" feature to some of the new vehicles (which is new work), at the same time, it doesn't add as much as it did with CMRT... let's say its marginal value has decreased a lot in front of my eyes.

[Wiggum15]

As for the second type of improvements, we are in a niche market and that means we can only survive to make games if we are compensated for our time.  If we are not, we go out of business.  Since you repeatedly demand (not ask) for us to make unprofitable additions to our games, you are basically advocating that we deliberately put ourselves out of business.  That's a non-starter argument right there.

This has been explained to you a thousand times, but you refuse to listen.  And that is why I said the problem with your posts is not that you are not a native English speaker, rather that you are simply wrong.  In any language.

Steve

 

I highly doubt these additions would be unprofitable per se.

The only reason they could be unprofitable are:

1. To get these features you would need a new engine because you know it can not be done in the CMx2 engine (see infantry movement and formations)

You think further development of your vision and goal to provide the best squad level 3D wargame is not worth the work and time and money.

If you had a vision you could have done a Kickstarter campaign long ago to see how much support you could get for it but instead you fixate on releasing texture and scenario packs with few ported over "old" features. Sorry iam not happy with that, where is your vision and enthusiasm ?

Edited December 21, 2015 by Wiggum15

[Battlefront.com]

Wargames have never been about specific features.  Not since the beginning of time.  No, wargames are always about the sum of their features being able to produce an enjoyable (which has many meanings) experience.  With wargames the setting itself is a feature.  Someone who hates the Eastern Front 1941-1942 won't find the same value, or any value for that matter, in a game that caters to that specific topic.  It doesn't matter what the other features are because, basically, the subject matter is unappealing.  Which means anybody who starts a discussion about "value" in a game without taking into consideration the effort it takes to produce the setting itself is starting off on extremely weak footing.

For some wargamers the "atmospheric" strength of the setting's portrayal is not very important.  Some virtual cardboard chits are adequate.  That means they do not value the work it takes to create detailed 3D models, skins, visual weather effects, etc.  To them it's all wasted effort.  There are a LOT of wargamers like this and those wargamers tend not to be Combat Mission fans.  Some are quite the opposite, in fact.

I think we can safely agree that most CM customers are very concerned about the "atmospheric" strength of the games we make.  Therefore, by definition, this means the 3D representations are of critical importance to the game's appeal at the most basic level.  If we don't get that right, and a Bulge game looks and feels no different than a Sicilian campaign game, then people are not going to buy it.

There's a lot that goes into the "atmospheric" component of the game.  It's not just visual, but also in things like the TO&E.  In order for a late war German formation to "feel" like a late war German formation it has to be equipped like one.  That in turn means we have to do the research to know what that equipment is and how it is deployed.  We also have to NOT include the stuff that doesn't fit, which in turn requires knowing the difference.

All of these things take an enormous amount of our game budget to produce.  Even if we do not change one iota of the game mechanics itself.  People like Wiggum15 do not understand this and therefore they place almost no value on it.  But that doesn't change the costs because we do not live in a fantasy world.  And it is only one aspect of our total costs to produce a game.

CMFB, like any game we make, will primarily appeal to those who want to experience the Bulge setting.  While it is true that a bunch of new features MIGHT tempt fence sitters to jump in and buy a Bulge game even if they don't really like the setting, that number is probably pretty small.  The majority simply won't buy it no matter what.  Therefore, the most important aspect we need to get right is the atmosphere.  Anything else we include is definitely helpful to sales, but in the end doesn't do much to hurt or harm us.

Where new features become important is for addons (Modules or Packs).  If someone already has their itch for the setting largely scratched, new features can make a difference in keeping them interested in the setting or not.  Which is why we will continue to improve the game over time for the foreseeable future.  Though never to to the extent that Wiggum15 wants and not for free either.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

My personal view on tank riders and the new CM game is that this particular feature is something I relate to CMRT, where it was first introduced. Now, a new feature that is ported from a game to another one sure is important per se because it keeps the available content at a higher level, but it's not as groundbreaking as it was within the previous title.

Therefore, while I do appreciate the work necessary to adapt such "old" feature to some of the new vehicles (which is new work), at the same time, it doesn't add as much as it did with CMRT... let's say its marginal value has decreased a lot in front of my eyes.

Yup, and that is totally understandable.  We definitely view it the same way you do.  Reworking the Western Front vehicles to accept tank riders is an expense, but we do understand it's not as marketable as other changes.

 

I highly doubt these additions would be unprofitable per se.

Of course you don't.  You have demonstrated over and over again that you haven't a clue about development costs or the return on investment a tiny niche provides.  Therefore, you constantly repeat the same flawed logic over and over again.  Despite having an opportunity to learn from those who do know what they are talking about.  Which is why I only half jokingly suggest that you have a learning disability rather than a difficulty with the English language.

 

The only reason they could be unprofitable are:

1. To get these features you would need a new engine because you know it can not be done in the CMx2 engine (see infantry movement and formations)

You think further development of your vision and goal to provide the best squad level 3D wargame is not worth the work and time and money.

If you had a vision you could have done a Kickstarter campaign long ago to see how much support you could get for it but instead you fixate on releasing texture and scenario packs with few ported over "old" features. Sorry iam not happy with that, where is your vision and enthusiasm ?

We do have a vision and we're making it happen every day, which in this horrible industry (and it is horrible) requires a large degree of enthusiasm.  If we did not have vision we'd be out of business long ago despite enthusiasm/passion.  If we did not have enthusiasm/passion for wargaming we'd not be making wargames in the first place.

The problem is your "vision" and "enthusiasm" are not based on nearly 25 years of industry experience and first hand knowledge of what it takes to simply survive, not to mention succeed.  Most importantly, your ability to keep a roof over your head or food on your table is not at risk when you state your "vision".  I welcome you to start your own Kickstarter campaign to support your "vision" and your "enthusiasm" because that's the only way you're going to get what you want.  Not that you will get it that way either

Steve

Edited December 21, 2015 by Battlefront.com

[CarlWAW]

 

As to that injury - are you certain it wasn't a secret proponent of tank riders on the western front who did that?  Sounds suspicious.

 

A civilized but critical customer is being threatened with banning and every word is weighted on the gold scale but a permanent provoking and trolling of old forum members is accepted here? Even joking about injuries of others to provoke them is accepted here? I must say that as customer I am shocked that a company tolerates that.

[Jotte]

A civilized but critical customer is being threatened with banning and every word is weighted on the gold scale but a permanent provoking and trolling of old forum members is accepted here? Even joking about injuries of others to provoke them is accepted here? I must say that as customer I am shocked that a company tolerates that.

By "civilized but critical" you mean someone acting like a 20 year old 'known it all' brat.

You might want to look up the concept of constructive critisism. You catch more flys with honey then with vineger....

[womble]

 

in this forum written to me that I can not expect improvements in modules, because there are only new models and scenarios - now we have a NEW GAME, so map / scenario can not justify the lack of improvements.

and one more thing, I do not care for what the game engine is created, what it is its version etc. (or problems publisher) - it's not my problem - I want to get improved product - if you are enough to play only new maps / scenarios - well.......... the less you expect, the less you get

I know it's not your mother tongue, but please go back and read: there are improvements. Not that they've ever been an intended part of a new family release: BS had a similar number of minor engine tweaks for its period/region, but wasn't "version 4"; if this was the first "not a new engine" release, would you be whingeing? When "version 4" comes out, you can complain if there are no new features. Families, inherently, contain support for a new area and/or period, which may include some engine tweaks, but just because FI was concurrent with the release of v2 and RT concurrent with v3 doesn't, by any means, imply that every new Family will have a full-blown engine upgrade associated with it. And it's never been asserted by BFC that this will be the case, either: you're just assuming.

Your assumption is incorrect. If you recognise that, and modify your expectations, perhaps you won't be so fired up about it.