License for Pacific Theater CM?

[Guest Blacksilver]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BTS:

Pacific? I very much doubt we will go there. It isn't our area of expertise and the nature of the ground combat is far less interesting to us (lots of bloody static battles and beach landings).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I, for one, find this very disappointing. I would think CM would be well suited to simulate quite a bit of the fighting on Guadalcanal and in New Guinea, Burma and The Phillippines. Certainly CM would be infinitely better at representing the nature of fighting on islands like Peleliu and Okinawa than any hex-based game (e.g., Rising Sun).

Out of something more than idle curiosity (and at the risk of putting the AT gun before the pony), would BTS entertain the notion of licensing a third-party developer to create a Pacific Theater product around the CM engine? Does anyone else agree that there would be sufficient demand to make such a project worth exploring?

(Being totally unqualified to render such an opinion, I believe a properly marketed CM could be a breakout wargame, because it's so damned fun and one is never cognizant of off-putting hexologisms like attack strength, defense strength, movement points, terrain value, blah blah.)

------------------

Blacksilver

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis -- an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

-D. W. Brogan, The American Character

[Username]

I think the close jungle terrain and the omni-aware overhead view the player enjoys in CM1 does not a good pacific game make (whats happened to my English?).

Isnt Talonsoft cluttering up store shelves with its 'Pacific Front' game? (AHHH I feel better now..took a cheap shot at Talonsoft)

A good jungle warfare game has to get down man. Down to the section level or below. Maybe 4 men sections, individual Leaders, weapon crews. Knee morters and hand grenades. Garrots, oh yeah baby!

Lewis

PS I apologize for my wierd post. I had a head injury yesterday. I was reading Fionns 'Early Soviet Tank Development' Article and I passed out cold from the hideous boringness of it and fell and hit my head. Most sorry.

[crossfire]

CM is not really infantry game. Pacific war was mainly infantry. Rarely AFV were used.

[Guest Ol' Blood & Guts]

I remember the discussions on this and although BTS has decided not to do it as concerning their interests and expertise, I think the general census was that although the fights would and could be made into CM's engine, the overall draw or fun to the PTO would not be as great or gratifying as the ETO because there was very little use of AFVs as 'crossfire' suggested. Granted there was some in the PTO, but I believe the vehicle play in the current version and the up and coming versions of CM is what is gonna make it fun.

[All American]

Why does everyone think only vehicles are fun? Personally, I hate fighting with vehickes. I much rather infantry fights.

All American

[Aacooper]

IIRC on the Wild Bill & Raiders web site, CM is described as primarily an infantry game. Of course, the interactions of vehicles, guns, and men will provide the fun of CM. Having said that, I think CM should only do a PAcific Theater game if they include Korea.

[Guest Gunnerdream]

Uhhhhhh...I don't want to sound like a sycophant, but, personally, I thought the article on Soviet tank development was fascinating...

Gunnerdream...floating down through the clouds...

[Mark IV]

Well, Wild Bill is the ringleader of the pro-PTO CM faction, and his vote counts for a lot (there have been lengthy threads on this before).

I wouldn't trade a single installment of the current development path for PTO/Korea, so you'll hear no badgering on it from me (at least until I've got the Eastern Front and the Early War safely loaded ) . But as long as Wild Bill wants it and quite a few of us seem to, I wouldn't consider the matter closed until BTS said "Not just no, but hell no".

But this would be a good one for the FAQ, to keep BTS from having to deal with it every month or so. There was a fellow named guachi who was gonna do one, once....

[Artmann]

Ok,

I think that a pacific CM may also include some other events of interest like :

- the war in China (Communist, Nationalist and Japanese) ;

- the Birman (English vs Japanese) ;

- Russian vs Japanese by late war.

ARn

[przy]

Man, I cannot even look that far into the future. I can hardly wait another month for CM1, much less 4 more variants down the road. The Pacific theatre might be interesting, but lets wait until we get the first couple of CM's out there before we get into this again.

[Fionn]

I beg to differ Crossfire. Cm is very much an infantry wargame. It is, in fact, the first wargame in which I've found myself really enjoying infantry combat since it is so well represented.

It would be wrong to think of CM as a game which focusses on tanks to the detriment of infantry. I think that people will be surprised at how effective infantry are in CM. If you take your tanks into close terrain without infantry support you can kiss them goodbye (as it should be). It's all done quite well and quite realistically.

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>CM is not really infantry game. Pacific war was mainly infantry. Rarely AFV were used.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you been playing a different CM from the rest of us?

[Artmann]

Ok,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crossfire:

CM is not really infantry game. Pacific war was mainly infantry. Rarely AFV were used.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you know when CM becomes an infantry game ?

After all AFV are blowed up.

ARn

[Zamo]

I'd put my money down on this product right now, though it might take five years to create. I think the CM engine would be fantastic for the PTO. Especially the early war years (Manchuria through Guadalcanal). Battlefront has said they have no interest nor desire to do a PTO so I'd love to see somebody do a third party licensing. Perhaps those wonderful fellows over at The Gamers.Net who are doing the Pacific War upgrade? As I said, I'll front my $60 RIGHT NOW!

Zamo

[Guest Big Time Software]

This has all been covered many times now in the last 6 months We have our plates full for the next 10 years or so, and the PTO isn't on it. Kinda like asking a Jazz singer to belt out some Opera. Sure, both involve singing, and both are classified as music, but that does not make them interchangable. Our expertise and interest is in the European Theater, and there it should stay simply because of that.

As for putting out the CM engine to a 3rd party... not totally out of the question, but it really isn't likely to happen. Charles would have to do a lot of work on getting the code ready and then supporting it once it was handed off. If we think there is some sort of arrangement that might make it worth it to stop forward motion on CM sequels, then perhaps we might do it. But we aren't looking for such a deal.

CM is a combined arms game in light of the historical realities of WWII. That means INFANTRY is the backbone of CM as it was for WWII. While vehicles, armor, artillery, and air power were all very important, it is infantry that CM was built around. Yes, our treatment of vehicles and ballistics goes farther towards "realism" than any other game out there, but it doesn't do this at the expense of infantry.

Steve

[Guest Blacksilver]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

If we think there is some sort of arrangement that might make it worth it to stop forward motion on CM sequels, then perhaps we might do it. But we aren't looking for such a deal.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tell ya what, Steve -- You make money off the original release, and I'll find you a deal that will make PTO worth your while and I'll lawyer it for free. Even if I have to get Zamo to finance the whole project. That's how good I think the game could be.

------------------

Blacksilver

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis -- an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

-D. W. Brogan, The American Character

[Guest MantaRay]

And I will play it for free!!!! Even if Zamo finances it.

Ray

------------------

MantaRays 5 Pages

Hardcore Gamers Daily

[Gen. Sosaboski]

10 years? I'll be out of college and flying for the Air Force by the time PLANNED CMs are finished! These might supply me until I die!

------------------

Sosabowski, 1st Pol. Abn.

Yes, I know my name is spelled wrong as a member!

[spider]

ARRGGHHH!!

Im never gonna get to pay cm2!!

ill be in a dead end job with a gateway box for a home,ill be broke and ill have to swap my pc for an uncooked micropizza!!!

it cant get any worse!!!

------------------

This is my rifle,

this is my gun.

This ones for killing, this ones a tasty alternative to turkey at christmas.....

[Guest tom w]

OK....

Well this where I would like to suggest BTS might think BIG.

Perhaps think different.

(OK I'm a MAC Network System Admin, what can I say....?)

There are ALOT of great idea's coming out of these discussions on this Board. I think that

PTO suggestion is another one of those good

idea's.

I post here (not to re-hash this issue because it has been formally closed by Steve) BUT there are plenty of idea's like terrain FOW and relative spotting and the PTO, and many others too numberous to name that maybe, just maybe, with the HUGE amounts of profit that

BTS will make when they start shipping CM1

that other programmers and game developers

will be knocking down their doors to help

out with up comig projects. (Ok I told you I like to dream big)

Is there any work that could be done for these

new idea's that might take place on a volunteer basis, or on a contract basis?

All I'm suggesting is that perhaps BTS might want to look to new places for more talent.

If anyone of you want to see how radical a suggestion I'm proposing, maybe BTS could

form some sort of partnership arrangement

with other game developers and software developers.

ok this might be way OUT there but check this out:

http://www.wizardnet.com/musgrave/Page/What/What_Samples/ACM_01.html

How about working with Fractal Worlds, (some elements of the development team from Bryce 4, which was recently sold to Corel) for work on exceptionally real life terrain features.

I have noticed the Sky background images in

the POTD's of the Gold demo look VERY Bryce like (Nice Job!)

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not by any means, suggesting that Steve or Charles or BTS give up creative direction and control, (it might sound like that), but I truly believe in the BTS vision and desire to

produce the kind of wargame we've all been dreaming about since we argued over LOS (and or rule interpretations) in those damn board games like Panzer Leader, Tobruk, ASL or whatever.

Anyway my point is, (before I get laughed off the stage) that when I hear Steve say (and rightly so) that this or that (PTO, Relative Spotting, whatever, is a REALLY big job, (I know he is right) maybe it could be done

collaboratively with other game developers

or volunteers (not Likely, I know) or by

making lots of Profit and growing BTS

so that a Whole Dept., (team whatever) could be devoted to PTO just one of these BIG idea's

under Steven and Charles direction of course.

I guess ALL I'm saying is it is nice to DREAM

Big...

For now I am Very very happy with the reality (dream come true for BTS) of the coming arrival of the Gold Demo and final release. I'm sure it will be beyond all of our expectations.

thanks for the opportunity to rant...

(I imagine by now, either no reads my posts

any more, they just become fodder for flaming

responses, oh well....)

thanks for the update Steve

-tom W

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

This has all been covered many times now in the last 6 months We have our plates full for the next 10 years or so, and the PTO isn't on it. Kinda like asking a Jazz singer to belt out some Opera. Sure, both involve singing, and both are classified as music, but that does not make them interchangable. Our expertise and interest is in the European Theater, and there it should stay simply because of that.

As for putting out the CM engine to a 3rd party... not totally out of the question, but it really isn't likely to happen. Charles would have to do a lot of work on getting the code ready and then supporting it once it was handed off. If we think there is some sort of arrangement that might make it worth it to stop forward motion on CM sequels, then perhaps we might do it. But we aren't looking for such a deal.

CM is a combined arms game in light of the historical realities of WWII. That means INFANTRY is the backbone of CM as it was for WWII. While vehicles, armor, artillery, and air power were all very important, it is infantry that CM was built around. Yes, our treatment of vehicles and ballistics goes farther towards "realism" than any other game out there, but it doesn't do this at the expense of infantry.

Steve <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> If anyone of you want to see how radical a suggestion I'm proposing, maybe BTS could form some sort of partnership arrangement with other game developers and software developers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Problem is that any and all arrangements involve time and energy, if not money. Nothing in life like this "just happens". My point is that we only have so much time and energy available to us. We also have a good dose of experience with other developers and larger development teams, so we understand what would be required of us if we entered into such an arrangement. We also understand that the odds of an arrangement, once started, failing for any number of reasons is high. Therefore, our interest in putting the CM engine in the hands of someone else is really, really low.

BTW, the next 10 years includes things other than CM. CM 1, 2, 3, and 4 will probably be all out the door within 4 years from now.

Steve

[Guest Ol' Blood & Guts]

I don't know this could be way off base, BUT...

Could the CM engine be used or adapted to pre-WWII wars? Such as American Civil War (CM is a combined arms simulation, right?)

Would a WWI-based CM be outta the question? Or would that be too boring? I mean I don't know. That could be interesting. Using old MkI tanks. You could even throw in the Red Baron! Haha, J/K!

------------------

"Fear is the path to the Dark Side.

Fear leads to anger.

Anger leads to hate.

Hate leads to suffering."

--Jedi Master Yoda

[Zamo]

Finance it???!!! Other than the cost of the game itself I'm afraid I'm too tapped gents...I'm too busy financing my local taverns and micro breweries!

Zamo

[Guest Big Time Software]

Anything is, in theory, possible. But when you build a game you build it with one narrow time slice in mind. It affects all decisions, major and minor. It is not easy to retrofit the system to anything other than what it was initially designed for. Heck, we are going to have to do quite a bit of work to simulate the Eastern Front, and we are talking the same war with a large precentage of one side (Axis) already done up.

The types of engines that people are used to seeing moved around from theater to theater, time period to time period, are far more generic and "gamey" than CM. This makes them more portable, but also more generic. It is the type of core design philosophy we don't agree with.

Steve

[Lobo]

I have order the game (how could I not?!) and have played the demo to death (well, the death of simulated guys anyway). I read where you mentioned the "Eastern Front". Please, please don't tell me your next installment will be Russian/German only!!

Call me weird (or better yet, don't , but I throroughly enjoy playing either the US or British when playing "war games". Some other lesser country, say like Australia would be ok too.

I do not enjoy playing Russia or Germany, although I do play with them occasionaly, just for a break and to use their advantages and disadvantages. But, the "meat" of the simulation, what really draws me into "feeling" for my men, is playing the US or British.

I didn't buy Close Combat 3 because it was Eastern front war. I only purchased it (bargain bin) when the West Front conversion came out. Please keep the US or British involved...There are so many areas of that conflict to simulate with them. Anyway, just my "2 cents" worth.. Thanks.. : )