CM games I'd like to see

[Erwin]

+1  

The current system generates a quantity of codes and passwords and installs that are incompatible.  It has to be a concern that the system will implode under its own complexity and the frustrations it creates.  CM1 was immeasurably easier. 

I understand that BF needed something that would give them a revenue stream so that a CM2 title broken into modules would effectively bring in several hundred $ per unit rather than the paltry amount the received for the all-encompassing CMBB or CMAK. 

But, it's hard to foresee what the CM2 system will be like if they ever get to complete some of the "families" and add other eras all the way to the start of WW2.  How many CM2 titles will we have to install on our computers by then??

Another issue is social - the fragmentation of this niche hobby into increasingly smaller numbers of players per title.  Right now we have maybe 10 folks making 90% of the posts.  And those are spread over all the forums.  At some point we're going to end up with one or two people per forum (or the same few windbags* on all forums heh). 

(*Present co excluded of course.)

Edited June 7, 2017 by Erwin

[HerrTom]

I agree with the common codebase. We have a fair number of modules in WWII - BN, FI, FB, and RT. Having them all under one hood would be immensely nice. Not just for the crosstalk (Unthinkable, much?) but also for the footprint - don't have to duplicate textures and models 4x between modules.

[sburke]

Cmx2 is in no danger of imploding. end of message

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Common codebase for me too.....Add the modules you want (in my case, all of 'em).  This would allow scenario designers to do amazing things, T-34/85s in Afghanistan or Angola, Syrian Pz.IVs, you name it!  Damn that would be so cool! 

The ability to fully customise unit descriptions in the editor would be a massive boon in combination with the above.

Edited June 7, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[A Canadian Cat]

LOL I see the allure of a common game with add-ins but @Sgt.Squarehead nailed the problem in his post above. In a word - Testing.

With the current model when a new family is created the scope is defined and the dependencies are set. You can test that. You add a module and you have a bunch more work to do (you have to test that you have not broken unexpected things in the base game too). Start thinking about running T34s around the hills and valleys of Afghanistan just because you created a module for the eastern front and one for the Afghan war and the testing job explodes out of control.

Not to mention how many useful conversations do you think that will generate? Hey what's up with these T34s being too powerful against T64s what's wrong with this game

End of message

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I'd actually be willing to pay to test it if someone wrote it and that's a fact.....Perhaps a crowdfunded Beta of some sort perhaps? 

Give the community the opportunity to put their money where their mouth is at.....Seriously. 

Edited June 7, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Sophist_13]

I just leave this here....

[John Kettler]

Erwin,

To someone who goes back to the CMBO Beta Demo, the CM Forum fragmentation has been a truly bitter pill and depressing to watch. Not only did we have Forum fragmentation as ever more games were released, but the once flourishing GDF was practically reduced to a ghost town as well.  I certainly understand why BFC needs to put out new games, but the net effect has been to severely reduce the number of posts on the respective Fora, not to mention decreasing the effective dwell time of a given release. CMFB, which was eagerly awaited by many, seems to have practically dropped out of sight. In terms of daily Forum posts, it is but a small fraction of the postings on CMBS, yet it's not only the newest game, but is the basis for all the Modules going to the end of WW II. CMBS is certainly benefiting from the ongoing international turmoil, the fascination with current and future tech, the continuing input from those who've served and are serving in the various militaries, as well as the reports we get, from people who live there, on what's happening in Ukraine and surrounds, including hybrid warfare and Russia's vulnerable neighbors. For me, though, save for my avid posting, this is all a perverse form of spectator sport, since I've been in no shape to play for months now--while having all the titles except CMA (still PC only) and CMFI. There are times when I deeply miss the days when we were all together under one or a few game roofs. It's fair to note, though, that the expanding diversity of CM games has considerably expanded my military, historical and other related horizons.

As for a new CM game, I believe an ACW game about ironclads and associated matters would be very cool. If BFC can do shotline modeling and component damage on something as complex as a tank, then I would think doing that for an ironclad would be trivial by comparison. ROF would be lower, too, and penetration modeling, vs a handful of armor materials of known characteristics, far easier to compute. Ironclads, indeed, practically every vessel, would be much slower than tanks. Small arms fire could be readily handled, as could smoke from cannon fire and stacks. This isn't to say there wouldn't be significant work needed in a bunch of other areas, but I do believe BFC would have a huge body of applicable knowledge and tools to apply to the core areas of gunnery through terminal effects, to include canister.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited June 11, 2017 by John Kettler

[Geckocalypse]

I'm not really much of a history person so nothing too specific. But the two I would think would be cool is Vietnam or Something WW1.

Or, on the positively never going to happen side, a Warhammer 40k themed one. Because nobody apparently knows how to make a good 40k game.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

2 hours ago, Geckocalypse said:

a Warhammer 40k themed one

God no! 

[JM Stuff]

On 2016-10-1 at 8:12 PM, Rinaldi said:

My dream of dreams is Israeli-Arab wars of 1967-1973 and the Korean War. BFC hasn't shied away from hypothetical campaigns in the historical titles, as Gustav Line for FI showed us, and to be fair to my own delusions a '67 title would almost certainly have to drift into the fantastic to get the ball rolling. Its probably way too sensitive and niche to be anything but fantasy ultimately.

I also don't think its very fair or accurate to deem the Korean conflict 'Pacific' in nature if we're using the common association there. If anything it would be quite a bit like Fortress Italy in terms of hilly terrain and head-to-wall smashfests for dominating ground.

+1 See on the Battlefield Patton Centurion Chifftain super sherman.. all packages of Syrian Egypt...and all Arabs states...

[JM Stuff]

On 2016-10-2 at 3:08 AM, Douglas Ruddd said:

IDF was a great game, as well as MBT. I would like to see Arab-Israeli Wars, 1948, 1967, 1973. '67 Would be interesting with Israeli M51 Super Shermans vs Jordanian M47s and M48s, or M48s vs the IS3. Good mix back then of modern (for the time) MBTs vs WW2 tanks (admittedly upgunned). North Africa would be nice, Spanish Civil War to France 1940 and the Balkans.

Just my 2 Quatloos......

+1 73 Attak of the Bar Lev line in the Sinai... but also the Golan Heighs with the Syrian tanks and theirs possibilities to see over infra red in a night fight...i thinks somebody made already  a mod about this for cmsf...?

Edited June 12, 2017 by 3j2m7

[J Bennett]

20 hours ago, John Kettler said:

Erwin,

To someone who goes back to the CMBO Beta Demo, the CM Forum fragmentation has been a truly bitter pill and depressing to watch. Not only did we have Forum fragmentation as ever more games were released, but

  I dont really understand a lamentation on the demise of a forum. If things are that bad, well, it had a good run. I'm not sure it was so much BF had to release more games, rather the "community" pleaded, requested, begged for more. They probably could have just kept the CM game in Normandy and France and kept making new engines but  I think people would have got bored with that and the forum would still pass away.  You will note I put quotes around  "community". I have never been a big fan of that term given to describe groups of players or gamer forums such as this. But it says at the top of this page "Battlefront.Com Community" That is what the Battlefront company has chosen to call it, this is their house and I respect it. To me its a place to read and post messages about a very fine game. The thing is I have seen a lot of them come and go over the years "Air Warrior" "Steel Panthers" "Warbirds" "War-Clouds" and some others...and the world keeps on turning.

Edited June 12, 2017 by J Bennett

[Ithikial_AU]

22 hours ago, John Kettler said:

Erwin,

To someone who goes back to the CMBO Beta Demo, the CM Forum fragmentation has been a truly bitter pill and depressing to watch. Not only did we have Forum fragmentation as ever more games were released, but the once flourishing GDF was practically reduced to a ghost town as well.

Merging the individual game forums into two forums, one for combined WW2 and one for Modern Era would be the easiest short term solution to put the community back in 'one place'. Perhaps give a new title 6 months in it's own space to give it some attention. Browsing through a host of individual forums at the moment isn't ideal - I know I skip a bunch unless I'm already subscribed to a topic. The ability to tag new topic by individual game (if applicable) is great for easily organising material and allows readers to browse through topics of interest if they are only intered in a handful of the titles.

 

Edited June 12, 2017 by Ithikial_AU

[John Kettler]

J Bennett,

Guarantee you if BFC had done nothing but keep the game in Normandy and done nothing but provide new engines, there would be no BFC by now, for it needs to sell games, not new engines, in order to stay afloat. Gamers hunger for new vistas, new forces, new weapons, and Normandy is a highly constrained environment with tactical realities practically unique to it. Interesting and all that, but by no means a basis for long term business survival, let alone success. There was only so much BFC could do in this AO, which is precisely why it released, first, CMFI, opening up the MTO as an AO, the MG Module, and, later, CMFB. CMRT is there because the Eastern Front is and was  a big deal (people practically went mad over AH's "Panzerblitz") to wargamers, and the date was chosen so that the most popular AFVs (the heavy iron) on both sides were all in use. CMRT also allowed BFC to use German troops and gear already done for CMBN and CMFI, enabling it to focus on the Red Army side of the equation, an excellent leveraging of scarce staff and resources. I really, really wish we could have the PTO, but Steve seems totally opposed going there. So many possibilities.

Would absolutely support AIW, which could feature such fascinating things as an Israeli squad armed with 98Ks supported by an FT-17, jeep mounted RRs, all sorts of late WW II armor (IS-2, SU-100, to name but two), early and mid Cold War (IS-3, IS-10, T-54/55.T-62, BTR-152, BTR-40, BTR-50, BTR-60, SNAPPER ATGM equipped BTR, converted US HTs, Super Sherman and Isherman, AMX-13 (Panther gun on a light tank/w ATGMs, too, M48, M113, SP mortars. Four wars to fight: 1948,1956, 1967 and and 1973, mostly fought on the wide open desert, provide rich wargaming possibilities. 

Ithikial_AU,

Like your Forum consolidation idea.

Regards,

John Kettler

[J Bennett]

11 hours ago, Ithikial_AU said:

Merging the individual game forums into two forums, one for combined WW2 and one for Modern Era would be the easiest short term solution to put the community back in 'one place'. Perhaps give a new title 6 months in it's own space to give it some attention.

 

 Excellent suggestion. Put all WW2 stuff in one forum and the modern combat in another one.

[J Bennett]

2 hours ago, John Kettler said:

J Bennett,

Guarantee you if BFC had done nothing but keep the game in Normandy and done nothing but provide new engines, there would be no BFC by now, for it needs to sell games, not new engines, in order to stay afloat. Gamers hunger for new vistas, new forces, new weapons, and Normandy is a highly constrained environment with tactical realities practically unique to it.

Regards,

John Kettler

 I agree on this point, I favor more theaters and time frames over retooling the game, if I have to choose. The variety of different weapons, AFV's and troops of more nationalities,

2 hours ago, John Kettler said:

J Bennett,

" CMRT is there because the Eastern Front is and was  a big deal (people practically went mad over AH's "Panzerblitz") to wargamers, 

I really, really wish we could have the PTO, but Steve seems totally opposed going there. So many possibilities.

 

          The Russian front is obviously necessary , Even without a second front, the Soviets still would have defeated Nazi Germany. The rest was a sideshow.

          I want the PTO too but I guess its too much work for too little pay off. Amphibious landings, A relatively static defender, few AFV' s for Japanese. Maybe too boring. Banzai charges would be interesting though.

          I dont think it would sell enough. 

Edited June 12, 2017 by J Bennett

[sbobovyc]

11 hours ago, Ithikial_AU said:

Merging the individual game forums into two forums, one for combined WW2 and one for Modern Era would be the easiest short term solution to put the community back in 'one place'. Perhaps give a new title 6 months in it's own space to give it some attention. Browsing through a host of individual forums at the moment isn't ideal - I know I skip a bunch unless I'm already subscribed to a topic. The ability to tag new topic by individual game (if applicable) is great for easily organising material and allows readers to browse through topics of interest if they are only intered in a handful of the titles.

 

There is also the corner case of modding and tools discussions.

[John Kettler]

C Bennett,

Believe your PTO thinking is far too circumscribed, for the PTO wasn't all amphibious assaults and static defense reduction: There were raids, jungle warfare, naval gunfire up to battleship caliber crashing ashore, air raids, intelligence gathering from teams in rubber boats deployed by submarine, amtracs, Japanese amphibious tanks, beach recon, CAS, coast watchers. You'd have the Special Naval Landing Force and the US Marines. You'd have theater specific weaponry, such as the tiny Japanese howitzer, the "knee" mortar, the Hotchkiss MG; not just Japanese tanks but SPGs,  artillery and gun tractors, not to mention lunge mines and the Japanese 320 mm spigot mortar. There was the Bataan campaign, the air assault to retake Corregidor, several ops to free POWs. There was New Guinea, which embodied jungle warfare and mountain warfare of the most grueling sort. There was the Japanese seizure of Malaya, Singapore and elsewhere in Southeast Asia vs battle-hardened Japanese troops (not PTO per se, but doable with Japanese troops and CW with additional earlier AFVs). There was Wake Island. The Aleutians and the Battle of Kommandorsky Island were a practically a separate war, one fought on the far end of supply chains and under terrible conditions utterly unlike the usual PTO environment. Nor is there any requirement that all actions take place on the beaches, for there was plenty of regular combat inland on the larger islands. With a toolkit of Japanese forces and US forces, it would also be possible to game various aspects of the planned and mercifully never executed invasions of Midway, Hawaii and Japan. In short, the PTO offers lots of exciting possibilities. 

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited June 12, 2017 by John Kettler

[J Bennett]

1 hour ago, John Kettler said:

C Bennett,

Believe your PTO thinking is far too circumscribed, for the PTO wasn't all amphibious assaults and static defense reduction:

Regards,

John Kettler

   Kohima, Imphal, Okinawa, The Phillippines , both loss of them and retaking them, perhaps Guam, Saipan, Peleliu, Guadalcanal, New Guinea. All big enough you could skip the beaches, similar to how we dont have D-Day landings in CMBN.   Ok I'm sold. Thats two copies. How many more can we get? 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Kohima you say.....As a Worcester man I'll take some of that. 

http://www.worcestershireregiment.com/h_burma_1944_45.php

"When you go home,

Tell them of us and say

For their tomorrow

We gave our today."

 

 

Edited June 12, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[John Kettler]

C. Bennett and Andy,

Technically, Kohima and Imphal are in the CBI, but have the virtue of employing the M3 series Stuart, the M3 Grant and other items doubtless useful for future game forays into Tunisia and the Western Desert. I must plead dazzling levels of ignorance when it comes to Kohima and Imphal. 27,000 British KIA translates to losing a division's worth of men. To put that into perspective, British KIA 1944-1945 were 30,000, essentially a push.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

[LongLeftFlank]

Having done it, I absolutely deny PTO is not appropriate for CM, unless you are the most hardcore World of Tanks refugee ever.  BFC does need to tweak that fortification spotting though. And treetop sniper nests would be nice. And caves. And... 

On 8/31/2012 at 2:49 PM, LongLeftFlank said:

Holy hell, Izzy! This island is one giant goddam' bunker!

Edited June 13, 2017 by LongLeftFlank

[Erwin]

BTW:  The jungle sound mod with tropical bird calls etc should be perfect for the tropical "African" mod pack for CMSF (re Operation BARRAS and KING COPPER MINES).  (Least I hope it works in CMSF.)

[JM Stuff]

Yeah !!! this is a mod that LongLeftFlank did and i have loading year ago and prepared a full copy of my cmbn with the name cmij (CM Invasion Japan)... and don't understand why this mod almost perfect didn't have more success and be abandoned...hope to see news about it and more people's interested and this before the new Module cos ...the way to Rome seem to be very long...Gentlemen please...a new update  is waiting have only to let him a hand...having enough knowledge to created myself sometbing correct but be ready to give my help and my best...