2015 Christmas Bones

[Placebo]

 

     $10 download. The designer of the Battle Pack also gets a significant cut of each sale.

That is a great price for the battle pack!!  I was worried it might be more given all the man hours needed for it, but i think you have got it right.  Lets hope is sell enough to be worth continuing.

[Glubokii Boy]

 

.  Lets hope is sell enough to be worth continuing.

I hope so to...

 

I think this is the best bet we have of getting a steady flow of new scenarios and campaigns since the free community made scenarios are few and far between...

A partnership between BFC and some of the talented community members to produce 'battle packs' is a brilliant idea imo and i hope it will be s success that can be 

expanded upon to involve more and more 'developers'...hopefully leading to mulitple battlepacks every year !

The price...10 dollars...is ridicoluisly cheap...for the amount of work spent on this...

 

An instant buy...No question...

 

[AttorneyAtWar]

Agreed, absolutely nothing wrong with more maps, scenarios and campaigns at 10$ especially if they are made "professionally" so to speak.

Edited December 29, 2015 by Raptorx7

[Kieme(ITA)]

I made several mods for CM games and I feel like this "battle pack" that has been announced is not a mod per se.

While it is true that it will be done with the tools that are available to any one who owns the game, at the same time it's also true that any kind of content made with such tools is extremely intensive in terms of time, dedication, historical and technical research. Therefore I belive that such content is not a modification of content already available but it's really new content.

If the author was Steve, owner of BFC, would you call it differently? No, because the substance is the very same. I am looking forward for this new kind of product within the CM family.

When it comes to the price vs quality/quantity of the content we can't say anything until we can purchase and avaluate such product.

And I am one of those who fought against pay-for-mods formula.

Edited December 29, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[Sequoia]

I'm confident Jon will have produced some first rate scenarios and campaign. I'm especially happy to see scenarios for the CMBN vehicle pack. This is a win-win development in my perspective. I hope it does very well and inspires more Battlepacks down the road for both CMBN and other games.

[Doc844]

$10, hmmmmm, that = £6.76 pounds sterling.  1 packet of cigarettes in the Uk costs £7.65.  Cant see a problem with the price tag.  Memebers of this community who are now going to get payed to do maps/campaigns with the support of BF, well that means frequency of releases will go up and more pixel-truppen deaths for me.  The modders for want of a better word have increased their own workloads and coupled that to timescales and all the pressures that brings so why shouldnt they get a monetary reward for that, we do live mostly in capitalist nations.  However this doesnt mean that people should relax on their laurels and not protect 'mods' in their own right.  As mentioned above when Steam tried to receive financial gain from modders work for themselves, that is when it is bang out of order and steam got a good slap from its own customers for that.  Always a fine line between what is/should be free modding and when a third party is being a bit naughty.

 

Just my 2 cents.

Edited December 29, 2015 by Doc844

[Kieme(ITA)]

 why shouldnt they get a monetary reward for that,

Just my 2 cents.

Oh, plenty of reasons. The strongest one in my opinion is because that would kill mods. An example? I modded all CMBS russian vehicles, with the aim of acheiving a dirty/realistic looking and changing the green colors of the original textures. A thing that would have never happened if BTR, another user, had researched and changed such textures in a green color fit for the subjects, without his mod I would have never made mine. If he had his mod for sale I couldn't use it to make my own out of it nor I could sell it (and I never intend to).

Pay-for-mods is a bad formula, it shrinks the modding community, it ruins it in many ways. The above is just an example.

But all this discussion on pay-for-mods has nothing to do with the BFC battlepack product.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Here's a quick update on what we are up to! Well, what we're willing to reveal just yet...

1. Combat Mission: Final Blitzkrieg, our Late Western Front title, is getting pretty close to release. Our current release window for Final Blitzkrieg is the end of January 2016. Click here for some basic information on the game. Sometime before release, we will open up pre-orders for the game, as we have done with all other Combat Mission titles.

2. Ahead of the release, the 132 page Final Blitzkrieg PDF manual is attached to this post for you to read. CM Final Blitzkrieg Manual.pdf. Here is something to help you ignore your in-laws over Christmas!

3. CMBN's Battle Pack, "The Great Swan" is in its final stages before release, and is just waiting on installer construction and testing to finish (what we call "Final Candidate"). This will be the first Battle Pack made for Combat Mission. A Battle Pack is a community member-made set of campaigns, scenarios, and QB maps, built to take advantage of all the modules and packs available to the Family (in this case CMBN). The Great Swan is made by one of the best community scenario designers around, Jon Sowden (JonS on the forums). You just may have played one of his scenarios before. Probably. You can find JonS's summary of his Battle Pack here. The Great Swan will include one campaign, 12 standalone scenarios, and new QB maps.

4. Patch 3.12 will arrive for CMBN at the same time as the Battle Pack. Here are a few of the bigger items on the patch list:

• Fixed a bug that caused players to swap sides in a 2-player Quick Battle.
• Fixed some issues with vehicles interacting with bridges.
• King Tiger (Henschel turret) mantlet armor protection increased.
• Fixed a bug that could cause a unit's pause orders to be change to a one-second pause if a waypoint was repositioned.
• Fixed some issues with AI purchasing logic in Quick Battles.
• Some micro terrain, such as rocky ground, now provides more protection from high explosives.
• Commonwealth module campaign "Kampfgruppe Engel" has been updated: fixed an issue where core tanks would disappear after Mission 1.

5. After Final Blitzkrieg is out early next year, our plan is to spend 2016+ expanding our current titles with more modules and packs. The following are closest in the pipeline:

• Fortress Italy module: this is the next big thing coming, and work has already begun on it. See #5 below for details!
• Red Thunder module: winter combat on the East Front...
• Black Sea module: think Marines, Naval Infantry, and VDV, among other new forces. And new high-tech toys. I want to really flesh out American, Ukrainian, and Russian forces/equipment on all levels before moving on to new nationalities.
• More Battle Packs.

6. The next Fortress Italy module is in the early stages of development, at this point primarily artwork by our 3D artist Cassio.

• This new module will push the timeline for the Italian front all the way from June 1944 to the end of the war in May 1945.
• The main operations covered will be the race north following the capture of Rome, the fighting on the Gothic Line, and the Po Valley offensives in 1945.
• The following services will be added: British Indian Army, South Africa, French Expeditionary Corps (including Moroccan Goumiers), and Waffen-SS. Of course, existing services will be filled out with all of the new formations that have been created for other Combat Mission titles since the last Fortress Italy module released: Gebirgsjäger units, Luftwaffe Field Divisions, flamethrower units, etc. All currently existing formations will be updated to 1945 TO&E. Also: US Mountain units.
• 3D work has already been done on the following equipment for the module: Sherman III Kangaroo, Churchill NA75, Sherman IC Firefly Hybrid, StuG IV, M1917 Enfield rifle, M1935 and M1982 French pistols, FN/29 French LMG, Gewehr 33/40(t) rifle, T32 37mm AT gun, and the GebG 36 75mm mountain gun. These are just the start of the work on new equipment.
• The module will also incorporate all of the work done on the Combat Mission engine to date since since Gustav Line launched... that's a LOT of stuff to add to Italy. Off the top of my head, that includes features, units, and equipment from: Engine v3.0, Red Thunder, CMBN Vehicle Pack, CMBN Market Garden, and Final Blitzkrieg.

Fun PRE-ALPHA image of a new soldier for the Fortress Italy module:

7. We are currently working on (and have been for some time) a new website for Battlefront as well as a new storefront. Our current website and store are... long in the tooth and showing it. The new website will be mobile friendly, with a modern structure that is much easier to use and navigate. The new storefront will tie into the website better, and have more flexible purchase options than the old one. With 15 years worth of stuff to move over, a new website is a bit of a process, but we are getting there!

8. Work on Upgrade 4.0 is going to start early next year. I can't get into specifics yet because the feature list is still in flux, but the planned areas of emphasis are going to be user interface upgrades, graphics/effects upgrades, and campaign/mission structure upgrades. However, like other Upgrades almost all aspects of the game will get some facelifts.

OK guys, that is what I can share with you right now. I hope all of you have a great holiday season!

Chris

CM Final Blitzkrieg Manual.pdf

Looks like a fine list there Chris. Obviously a lot of projects on the go and much to do.

1 Quick question about Final Blitzkrieg. Will it continue until the end of January 1945? The Battle of the Bulge US counter offensive continued within that time frame, as did he fighting associated with Operation Nordwind

2 For Black Sea I would definitely like to see Eastern European NATO forces such as Poland and the Baltic States (maybe the latter are small enough to make it into the forthcoming module allowing for the possibilities of an expanded war scenario as Russia attempts to divert NATO forces with a "Second Front" invasion of Latvia. Lithuania and Estonia - thwe Marines could then see action in the Northern theater as well as in the Crimea/South Ukraine

3 The Italy module would need the Brazilian Corps and the Volksgrenadiers (there were a couple of VG divisions involved during the final battles

[LUCASWILLEN05]

 not only is the Battlepack not a mod, but the premise that the Battlepack is somehow being 'foisted' upon BFC's customers is also pretty ridiculous.  It is just as optional for someone to buy the Battlepack as it is for someone to 'voluntarily' contribute towards a mod.  The only difference is that someone who doesn't pay BFC for the Battlepack doesn't get to play with the content while I guess 'voluntary' contributions for mods mean you get to choose not to contribute and still play the content anyway.  This position then makes his little comments of 'I am willing to pay for mods and I do all the time' ring a little hollow since the foundation of his complaint is that he wants paying for the Battlepack to be 'optional' which in his case means 'I want the Battlepack to be free'.

I will probably by the battlepack eventually but it certainly is not a priority for me. I am not greatly interested in the Swan phase of the NW European campaign. Final Blitzkrieg however is of interest - I am interested in the Siegfried Line Campaign, the Bulge and the Rhineland Battles. Also the final advance across Western Germany.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

No details, but the idea is that we would extend the timeframe and existing forces before adding any new force types.  If we go that route then you'd have the late war versions of the forces already in RT + winter + new "Regions".  The other option is to add more forces to the existing timeframe and setting first, then extend the timeframe.  My guess is you guys would rather the first option first rather than the second option first and the first option second, so my vote is to do the second option second and the first option first

Steve

I would definitely need to see the Waffen SS. Hungarians/Romanians/Polish etc) would be nice but not essential. I think a good compromise would be to add the SS as a major new force, expand the existing forces as needed and do the winter/new regions. Add the other new forces (Hungarians/Romanians/Polish etc) later on

[JonS]

Thanks guys. I'm really looking forward to you getting to play these scenarios

The strongest one in my opinion is because that would kill mods. ... If he had his mod for sale I couldn't use it to make my own

I realise you're talking about mods rather than scenarios, but bear in mind that I have no issue with people re-using the guts of my scenarios to create new scenarios. In fact, that's exactly why the largest of the maps in this BP is being included as a bare map (no units, no AI, no victory locations, etc) - so folks can use it to make something of their own. After all, I put a lot of time into that map and I'd like to see it used again The usual caveat about crediting the source applies, but otherwise have at it.

[Sequoia]

Jon, that's interesting (as well as very sporting) as I thought the Battlepack scenarios and campaign would somehow be protected so they couldn't be freely "shared" by those not buying the pack.

[Kieme(ITA)]

Thanks guys. I'm really looking forward to you getting to play these scenarios

I realise you're talking about mods rather than scenarios, but bear in mind that I have no issue with people re-using the guts of my scenarios to create new scenarios. In fact, that's exactly why the largest of the maps in this BP is being included as a bare map (no units, no AI, no victory locations, etc) - so folks can use it to make something of their own. After all, I put a lot of time into that map and I'd like to see it used again The usual caveat about crediting the source applies, but otherwise have at it.

Indeed, and that was implied, as any user can take the map/scenario coming with a CM title and change it as they like. The problem isn't there as long as there is one side who buys and one who makes out of it other things for free. The problem only comes if the side who pays also gets money out of it, a Whole can of Worms opens up.

[Kieme(ITA)]

Jon, that's interesting (as well as very sporting) as I thought the Battlepack scenarios and campaign would somehow be protected so they couldn't be freely "shared" by those not buying the pack.

 

Now this is a twist I didn't consider...

But aren't campaigns "baked", therefore already protected?

Edited December 29, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[Sequoia]

Yes, in that regard, campaigns are protected from editing, but what is there to prevent one from simply emailing the Battlepack scenario and whole campaign file to other non-purchasers?

[Doc844]

As far as I can tell from JonS''s post there will be ONE large barea that cam be used for modding, not the whole battle pack.   As for Kiemes post I wholeheartedly agree with the dangers of payed for 'mods'.  Bit this is where the complications arise. 

[Glubokii Boy]

Yes, in that regard, campaigns are protected from editing, but what is there to prevent one from simply emailing the Battlepack scenario and whole campaign file to other non-purchasers?

My guess would be that BFC will provide the battlepacks with some kind of licencing...simular to basegames or modules....

Otherwise it might be difficult to prevent extensive...sharing...

[ChrisND]

Yes, in that regard, campaigns are protected from editing, but what is there to prevent one from simply emailing the Battlepack scenario and whole campaign file to other non-purchasers?

The Battle Pack contents (campaign and standalone scenarios) are indeed protected, in the same way that other CMx2 products are. No different than not allowing people to not share playable module scenarios with people who don't own the module.

Edited December 29, 2015 by ChrisND

[ChrisND]

Looks like a fine list there Chris. Obviously a lot of projects on the go and much to do.

1 Quick question about Final Blitzkrieg. Will it continue until the end of January 1945?

Yes. There are some Nordwind scenarios and other Jan 45 scenarios included.

 

2 For Black Sea I would definitely like to see Eastern European NATO forces such as Poland and the Baltic States (maybe the latter are small enough to make it into the forthcoming module allowing for the possibilities of an expanded war scenario as Russia attempts to divert NATO forces with a "Second Front" invasion of Latvia. Lithuania and Estonia - thwe Marines could then see action in the Northern theater as well as in the Crimea/South Ukraine

Personally I'd love to see Poland included as soon as possible, but the plan currently is to expand the equipment, forces, and capabilities of the nations already present before moving to other nations. However all of this is very preliminary.

 

3 The Italy module would need the Brazilian Corps and the Volksgrenadiers (there were a couple of VG divisions involved during the final battles

Volksgrenadiers won't be a problem, after all they have been made for Final Blitzkrieg. Brazil is a solid "maybe".

[Cobetco]

there needs be a scenario called "Sikh and Destroy"

puns, all the puns

 

Edited December 29, 2015 by Cobetco
Horrible Jpeg damage

[Ithikial_AU]

there needs be a scenario called "Sikh and Destroy"

puns, all the puns

 

Actually closer to the truth than you'd think.

Earlier in the war during the Siege of Tobruk in 1941, the Indian and Australian troops used to actively patrol no mans land at night to keep the Italians and Germans off balance. The Indian troops were known to move silently into Axis camps slit the throats of sleeping soldiers, while leaving a few of their comrades sound asleep for a shock of their lives come morning. It can be difficult to navigate at night and there were a number of occasions where Indian troops mistakenly approached Australian positions. The Australian Army 'Rising Sun Badges' that Australian troops wore on their collars was the main form of identification - if they had a collar badge they were friendly, if not... well.

Some great bones here, I'm looking forward to 2016. I think this is the year we've been waiting for. A whole lot of base games over the past few years is one thing, but now moving into this module/content phase for these titles is going to be great.

[Oakheart]

Yes. There are some Nordwind scenarios and other Jan 45 scenarios included.

Personally I'd love to see Poland included as soon as possible, but the plan currently is to expand the equipment, forces, and capabilities of the nations already present before moving to other nations. However all of this is very preliminary.

Volksgrenadiers won't be a problem, after all they have been made for Final Blitzkrieg. Brazil is a solid "maybe".

The CMBS Marine & Airborne forces expansion, will that be holiday 2016 or tba '17? Just seems quite ways off.  I love my Corps and hope to command them asap.

[Sequoia]

Oakheart have you tried Shockforce yet? If not give the demo a spin. It has a Marine scenario. Shock Force could keep you happy until the Black Sea module is out.

[Battlefront.com]

Honestly I can't follow your argumentation now. You stated, that the frontlines in the CM1 system were the main problem.

Yes, but it's not a straight forward concept as one might think.  We thought it would be fairly straight forward too when we coded Operations and quickly found that the "corner cases" (i.e. minor issues that come up infrequently) turned out to be major issues too frequently.

I raised the idea, since CM2 already has supply vehicles, to use these and leave it up to the tactical abilities of the player to get the supply to his units and forget the problem with the frontlne thing completely. Now you responded that persistent damage and units on the map would be like CM1 ops? Why if there are no frontlines creating headaches anymore?

Persistent map damage + fixed reinforcements in the form of Supply Trucks would largely mimic CMx1 Operations, then leaving it in the hands of the player to actively resupply units, that would work pretty well IMHO.  But Operations offered a lot more:

1.  Automatic frontline "straightening"

2.  Automatic rest/refit/reequip of units based on various factors

3.  Selecting what portion of the map to play on based on success/failure of the previous battle (this was a rolling front sort of thing)

4.  Dynamic reinforcements based on progress or lack there of

Probably some other things that I'm forgetting, but I think you get the picture that to fully support an Operations concept there's a lot more we would have to do than persistent damage.

If you even are able to code persistent map damage and at the end of a battle all units and their status is there, why not using their position and status too to get a snapshot as new basis to expand the power and potential variety of campaigns substantially?

That takes us down the rabbit hole we don't want to revisit.

Steve

[JonS]

I really love your cartoons. Thanks for sharing them with us