2015 Christmas Bones

[Battlefront.com]

Can you also tell us some more about the plans for the CMRT module? What will be the focus, will it cover the entire last year on the eastern front? Will we be able to fight in Poland, the Baltics, Germany and Hungary? That sort of thing.

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

[Aragorn2002]

Thanks for your answer, Steve. My body is still fighting the impressive amount of red whine drank in the last few days, but I guess what you are saying is this: the new module will not bring new units like the Waffen SS, but will bring the last year of the war and the late war versions of the forces now present in CMRT (so for the Germans the regular army) plus winter and new regions. The other option would be all the units (including SS) of the last year of the war, but no winter and no new regions. Well, yes, if that is the choice I most certainly would prefer the first option (no Waffen SS), although a combination of both would have my (strong) preference. But you have a business to run and I appreciate that. A second module will also bring Waffen SS, Lend Lease and other goodies. I could live with that.

Edited December 27, 2015 by Aragorn2002

[Aurelius]

Where do those two options leave SU-100?

[DesertFox]

Sorry to ask, maybe I missed it but are there any plans to extend the NWEurope Timeline up until VE-Day? So that we can recreate battles like the Wesel Rhine crossing. Operations like VERITABLE, GRENADE, LUMBERJACK and UNDERTONE come to mind. We can also see new toys like the UK Comet tank and the M26 Pershing. Any updates on this timeframe ?

[RockinHarry]

Sorry to ask, maybe I missed it but are there any plans to extend the NWEurope Timeline up until VE-Day? So that we can recreate battles like the Wesel Rhine crossing. Operations like VERITABLE, GRENADE, LUMBERJACK and UNDERTONE come to mind. We can also see new toys like the UK Comet tank and the M26 Pershing. Any updates on this timeframe ?

I think not before 2017 at the earliest. Next in the line with regard to the western front should be CW forces and maybe a battle pack for CMFB. I don´t mind starting creation of scenarios for OP Veritable (with CW forces, once it´s released), or OP Grenade with CMFB base and late january 45 setiing. Required landscapes and OOB´s should be all there, even if you can´t actually set the dates to the correct time. But it´s important to get CW module as quickly as possible, so we could also tackle the very important scheldt estuary campaign, OP Blackcock ect.

Edited December 27, 2015 by RockinHarry

[A Canadian Cat]

.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

 Who's on first?  

 

[BLSTK]

My body is still fighting the impressive amount of red whine drank in the last few days...

I believe they call that vodka.

[Cobetco]

Where do those two options leave SU-100?

and its baby brother the SU-85M, gah, now i want to play red thunder again.

[hobo]

Yes I will buy all of this stuff and probably play 10% of the content in the hopes that I get rewarded sometime before my death with a real, playable, fun and major bug free  campaign system....either that or send me a unicorn.

[AttorneyAtWar]

Yes I will buy all of this stuff and probably play 10% of the content in the hopes that I get rewarded sometime before my death with a real, playable, fun and major bug free  campaign system....either that or send me a unicorn.

Have you reported these campaign system "bugs"?

What are they?

[hobo]

Raptor -

BF made a "strategic" decision many years ago to abandon dynamic campaigns in CM1 and to focus solely on building the world's greatest tactical wargame (although sometimes it feels more like a warjob) that we all know and love today as CMxx.  I disagreed this this decision from day 1 but BF has steadfastidly held to their decision.  Think of it as the broad vs narrow front argument that confronted Ike.  I want a broad front that includes dynamic campaigns as championed by Eisenhower.  BF has sadly selected the narrow front strategy as pushed by Monty.   I am not alone in my opinion as of there have been at least two attempts at great cost and time outside of BF to remedy their decision.  However, with that said, I have invested just a few hundred dollars while BF has their livelyhood invested in their decisions.  Frankly I think they are heading in to a box canyon but then again I am just a poster on a forum and do not have to live with my opinion.

If I have not answered your question I will be more direct.  There are no major campaign system bugs.  The entire approach is flawed.

Lastly to BF, thank you for your efforts with the entire CM series. 

Hobo

[sburke]

Raptor -

BF made a "strategic" decision many years ago to abandon dynamic campaigns in CM1 and to focus solely on building the world's greatest tactical wargame (although sometimes it feels more like a warjob) that we all know and love today as CMxx.  I disagreed this this decision from day 1 but BF has steadfastidly held to their decision.  Think of it as the broad vs narrow front argument that confronted Ike.  I want a broad front that includes dynamic campaigns as championed by Eisenhower.  BF has sadly selected the narrow front strategy as pushed by Monty.   I am not alone in my opinion as of there have been at least two attempts at great cost and time outside of BF to remedy their decision.  However, with that said, I have invested just a few hundred dollars while BF has their livelyhood invested in their decisions.  Frankly I think they are heading in to a box canyon but then again I am just a poster on a forum and do not have to live with my opinion.

If I have not answered your question I will be more direct.  There are no major campaign system bugs.  The entire approach is flawed.

Lastly to BF, thank you for your efforts with the entire CM series. 

Hobo

I would also love to see a campaign system, but considering the difficulties others are already having with that animal it seems that in terms of financial health, it was a good decision on BF's part.  Knowing one's limits is a good thing.  As much as I'd love to see a campaign system, I am afraid the cost of attempting it would have been no more Battlefront.  They simply don't have the depth in programming staff to do this.  I suspect in their eyes just getting CMx2 launched and financially producing has been enough of an uphill fight.

[Aragorn2002]

I believe they call that vodka.

Wine, my dear BLSKTK, I meant wine. Disastrous for one's spelling.

[Big Boss]

Excellent news indeed. Thanks a lot BF for all the effort in expanding and complementing your games. I personally really look forward to the CMRT module, winter fighting in the east has always been a favourite of mine. The soviet January offensive in 45 (the death keel to German ambitions in the Battle in the Ardennes) should make for some frightening experiences for the German player.

[Rokko]

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

To me option 2 sounds preferable, actually.

Covering 7 months in one single module with 2 (maybe 3) campaigns and some 15 scenarios would in my opinion most likely result in a rather superficial coverage of that period, especially if it were to include every region of the Eastern front (Yugoslavia, Austria, Czechoslowakia, Poland, Germany, Finland, Romania, Hungary, etc.) without adding any new forces. Much like Gustav Line, which was a great module but much of the added timeframe wasn't really utilized, e.g. I think there was only one scenario featuring the brand new snow feature.

Option 2, expanding the timeframe from Oct 1944 to Jan/Feb 1945 (much like the upcoming CMFB) while adding some more prominent stuff (Waffen-SS, Lend Lease stuff, maybe Hungarians) would in my estimation lead to a more focused product. Some WSS summer 44 battles in Poland, Winter Warfare in Hungary in early 1945, Battle for Budapest etc.

The second module could then cover the drive to Berlin, Seelow Heights, Spring Awakening, etc and also add some more obscure new forces like Finns, maybe Romanians, Partisans, other German stuff. That way both modules would feature some of both, new forces as well as new regions and expanded timeframe

[kohlenklau]

@Rokko Oliver, I think you read it wrong. If I understand correctly, Steve said his option B was for CMRT FIRST MODULE to keep the timeframe the exact same and pour in more variety of troops. Then in the SECOND MODULE (2019?) to expand the timeframe out. What do you think? Read it again. Maybe we are both needing more coffee.

[ASL Veteran]

Raptor -

BF made a "strategic" decision many years ago to abandon dynamic campaigns in CM1 and to focus solely on building the world's greatest tactical wargame (although sometimes it feels more like a warjob) that we all know and love today as CMxx.  I disagreed this this decision from day 1 but BF has steadfastidly held to their decision.  Think of it as the broad vs narrow front argument that confronted Ike.  I want a broad front that includes dynamic campaigns as championed by Eisenhower.  BF has sadly selected the narrow front strategy as pushed by Monty.   I am not alone in my opinion as of there have been at least two attempts at great cost and time outside of BF to remedy their decision.  However, with that said, I have invested just a few hundred dollars while BF has their livelyhood invested in their decisions.  Frankly I think they are heading in to a box canyon but then again I am just a poster on a forum and do not have to live with my opinion.

If I have not answered your question I will be more direct.  There are no major campaign system bugs.  The entire approach is flawed.

Lastly to BF, thank you for your efforts with the entire CM series. 

Hobo

It probably won't make you feel any better but I have a recollection of Steve himself posting on the forums a while ago that he preferred the old campaign system from CMx1.  This was probably several years ago and he may not even remember posting it, but I remember because I think I asked him about the old campaign system making a return.  The fact that BFC hasn't implemented something that BFC themselves would prefer should give you some indication as to how difficult it would be to implement and why it isn't already in the game.  Even the way the old system worked in CMx1 was screwed up if we are honest about it.  The game could never draw the new setup zones correctly since it generally just drew a single line down the center of the map without much accounting for where your troops actually were located.  So yeah, a return of the old system will probably never happen and it isn't that way because BFC doesn't like the old campaign system.  After all, they did it that way the first time they made a campaign system didn't they?   It will never happen because BFC has determined either that it can't be done or that the cost of doing it is too high to be viable.  It's just a business decision and we all have to live with it.   

[Rokko]

Huh, no you read it right.

Option B means module 1 would essentially be like CM Commonwealth, same timeframe (June- September 1944) but a bunch of new forces.

But either way, I read it like either option would put all the timeframe extension in one module and all the different forces (including their TOE changes for up to seven months) into another module.

I am not sure whats the reasoning behind this and its definately a very different approach from what we have seen so far. On the other hand, the upcomming CMFI module is going to extend the timeframe by eleven months, while also adding a lot of other stuff appearently.

Anyways, under those circumstances I guess I would also prefer Option A..

[A Canadian Cat]

Hey, @hobo now is the time to suggest changes and discuss how you / we would like to see the campaign system evolve.

My recommendation is to discuss what features andenhancements would be good to add to the existing system.

[hobo]

ASL and Sb - Sadly you guys are probably right.  A man can dream however....

IanL - Believe it or not I had it all planned out about 12 years ago.  Not sure if I can dredge up my brilliance from back then but will give it a go.

 

- Hobo

[Rokko]

Well appearently it's on their todo list for 4.0 anyways, but there's a bunch of stuff that comes to mind pretty easily. Just off the top off my head:

- more branching options and conditions (not just binary win/loose conditions)

- reusing maps and keeping battle damage (craters, destroyed buildings, knocked out vehicles, KIA maybe)

- better refitting system (users can chose which units to refit/repair/resupply between scenarios maybe)

- more options for refitting in general, like differentiating between armor and infantry (e.g armor gets repaired but infantry does not recieve replacements for instance or only some specified units are resupplied while others are not)

None of those would be really major overhauls I think and could be extensions to the current system

[A Canadian Cat]

 

- more branching options and conditions (not just binary win/loose conditions)

I am no campaign expert but I thought this was already possible.

- reusing maps and keeping battle damage (craters, destroyed buildings, knocked out vehicles, KIA maybe)

- better refitting system (users can chose which units to refit/repair/resupply between scenarios maybe)

- more options for refitting in general, like differentiating between armor and infantry (e.g armor gets repaired but infantry does not recieve replacements for instance or only some specified units are resupplied while others are not)

None of those would be really major overhauls I think and could be extensions to the current system

yes, those would be good. The big one for me is the ability to play PBEM. If they just added that I would jump for joy and be happy

[A Canadian Cat]

IanL - Believe it or not I had it all planned out about 12 years ago.  Not sure if I can dredge up my brilliance from back then but will give it a go.

oh I'm sure you did. My recommendation is to think about changes and enhancements that could be made to the existing frame work rather than a whole sale recreation. Mind you that is just my impression of the plan based on how BFC works rather than some inside track.

[DougPhresh]

So far as the end point has both fleshed out units and an expanded timeframe/campaigns/maps it works for me.

For instance, I'd like to see the sPzB 41. It was used in Sicily (CMFI) Normandy (CMBN) and the Ostfront (CMRT) . It's such a small addition that it doesn't warrant a pack on it's own, but it can be added to a module adding either a larger timeframe (if they go back and add to existing forces, which was my impression) or a module (or is this a pack) adding more forces (If you're going to make guns x, y, z why not throw this in too?).

I feel the same way about the T-80 (RT light tank, although this applies to the BS modern MBT). Only about 120 were made, but they were used by existing forces and formations (Self-Propelled Gun Regiments). There are German vehicles with similar low production numbers, but they are shared across most CM titles. Since the Soviets were new, only their most significant forces were added. That makes sense to me. I believe it might be the same reason we don't have lend lease. However, now that they are expanding on those Soviet forces I see an opportunity to add more depth not just breadth.

I might be out of my lane, but I'm very impressed by the plan for 2016.

Edited December 28, 2015 by DougPhresh

[RockinHarry]

Well appearently it's on their todo list for 4.0 anyways, but there's a bunch of stuff that comes to mind pretty easily. Just off the top off my head:

- more branching options and conditions (not just binary win/loose conditions)

- reusing maps and keeping battle damage (craters, destroyed buildings, knocked out vehicles, KIA maybe)

- better refitting system (users can chose which units to refit/repair/resupply between scenarios maybe)

- more options for refitting in general, like differentiating between armor and infantry (e.g armor gets repaired but infantry does not recieve replacements for instance or only some specified units are resupplied while others are not)

None of those would be really major overhauls I think and could be extensions to the current system

+1

A branching option, that although making campaigns somewhat more labourous and complicated, that enables selecting a tactical variant of an oncoming battle. I.e selection of whether the next battle could be a night attack, or a dawn attack. The latter could include having air forces available. Or a variant that gives for one battle selection more fire support to an attacker, at the expense that the defender has more fortifications and all that. Doesn´t quite work for historical campaigns off course. Scripting branches like that is already doable with the binary system (a dummy scenario inserted to provide 2 options for the real next battle), but I´d prefer popping up a screen with some selection buttons and descriptive text.

Maps to be reused from previous battles is also on top of my wish list.