Add something new please.

[BFCElvis]

15 hours ago, Codreanu said:

Are they all literally the same? No, they all feel different and unique to me, although I do wish there was a little more innovation and a feeling of improving with each new game, imagine if CW added some sort of advanced hit analysis feature to the engine that was added to the rest of the games down the road, that would make buying new CM games more enticing if there were a few new special features to mess around with.

I see that you joined the forum in 2016. If my memory is correct, that is about the time the 4.0 Upgrades came out. Chances are pretty good that every base game that you purchased was using Game Engine 4, so that's a fair observation but to those who've been around for the whole thing there were big changes from Game Engine 0 (that's what I consider CMSF1 and the Afghan game) and Game Engine 1 (CMBN) and then the 3 engine upgrades after that. Steve has announced that a 5.0 Upgrade is in the works. The point is that, unlike the original 3 CM1 games, what you're asking for is what we've been doing. In other words.....your idea is a good one. That's why we do it.

 

Quote

.......... maybe dev ran tournaments would all be nice to see but I know it's never going to happen on the CMx2 engine. .........

This is actively being worked on right now. The original goal had been to release it with PBEM++ but that was being held up long enough. More detailas as they become available. 

Quote

Really depends on how much you enjoy your time playing and how many hours of entertainment you get out of the game. I don't mind $60 for the base game but maybe shave the modules down by $5. .....

Already went over this, but I agree that $35 is slightly too much imho. I have zero clue about Battlefront's margins or how much they actually earn or anything about their finances and what they can or can't afford to cut prices on, but speaking purely as a consumer you can pretty easily get games off of Steam for 50% off if you wait for a sale and it would be nice if Battlefront would do that too. Maybe they've already done steep sales like that on Steam before and I just didn't notice though.

I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that some modules require the same amount of work as base games. Do, almost. The 2 most recent modules come to mind. Rome to Victory and Fire and Rubble were both huge time and resource commitments.

  

9 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:

.......because it usually brings some interesting news from the side of BF.

Did I deliver?

[Artkin]

58 minutes ago, SimpleSimon said:

CQB or MOUT as it otherwise known is a legitimately nightmarish experience for all forces involved. It just barely covered by the scope of the game but I remain unconvinced the results replicated by the outcome of close encounters are unrealistic or routinely incorrect. If you want depictions of close assault with higher fidelity than I suggest a game like Door Kickers or Insurgency because ASL/CM were never about that.

I've busted in doors and then immediately been blasted by people in other houses across the street. This to me, is entirely unrealistic. Unless the explanation for this is that CQB is sped up, since normally it would take much, much longer.

[Artkin]

6 minutes ago, BFCElvis said:

This is actively being worked on right now. The original goal had been to release it with PBEM++ but that was being held up long enough. More detailas as they become available.

Woah woah woah, can you explain this further please?

6 minutes ago, BFCElvis said:

 don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that some modules require the same amount of work as base games. Do, almost. The 2 most recent modules come to mind. Rome to Victory and Fire and Rubble were both huge time and resource commitments.

I didn't really see what I was paying for with RtV. I got some nations and some toe's but that was about it. Not much was new.

Now, F&R was the largest module I have ever seen. I thought CMBN's MG module was insane... but F&R takes the cake.

Those maps are so goddamn beautiful, I will never, ever get sick and tired of playing them.

If you think you're a CM fan and don't own CMRT + F&R, you are a poser. It's worth the purchase for transferring maps to your other games alone.

[Bufo]

11 minutes ago, Artkin said:

Woah woah woah, can you explain this further please?

I guess he's talking about this one (from the official CM discord):

https://discord.gg/x2t42ERP?event=911568637729570836

Edited December 9, 2021 by Bufo

[SimpleSimon]

21 minutes ago, Artkin said:

I've busted in doors and then immediately been blasted by people in other houses across the street. This to me, is entirely unrealistic. Unless the explanation for this is that CQB is sped up, since normally it would take much, much longer.

It's abstracted since it's beneath the layer the game depicts. You kicked a door in that happened to be at the end of a straight well-lit hallway totally exposed to a shooter across the other end of the street etc etc. The houses are literally devoid of walls, furniture, etc. It's clearly being RNG-ed. If you don't like that this is just not the game for you. Door kickers is. Insurgency is. Call of Duty is. Your perspective is a battlefield one, not a "check those corners" one. Sorry man. 

Edited December 9, 2021 by SimpleSimon

[Aragorn2002]

24 minutes ago, BFCElvis said:

Did I deliver?

Would be the first time, if you didn't. 

[Artkin]

12 minutes ago, SimpleSimon said:

If you don't like that this is just not the game for you. Door kickers is. Insurgency is. Call of Duty is. Your perspective is a battlefield one, not a "check those corners" one. Sorry man. 

You must be new around here.

12 minutes ago, SimpleSimon said:

It's abstracted since it's beneath the layer the game depicts. You kicked a door in that happened to be at the end of a straight well-lit hallway totally exposed to a shooter across the other end of the street etc etc. The houses are literally devoid of walls, furniture, etc. It's clearly being RNG-ed.

It happens far too often.

[SimpleSimon]

9 minutes ago, Artkin said:

You must be new around here.

It's ok Artkin one wouldn't make the mistake of thinking you had anything to say. I have a sign-up date just one year after yours tho so like idk where you get that. I'd much prefer posts with actual content from now on than smug non-replies over something as incredibly sad and pathetic as who signed up on an internet forum first. Your next reply will probably more interesting than this one though. Go ahead. Let's see how much worse you can make this. Amuse me. 

9 minutes ago, Artkin said:

It happens far too often.

That's like, your opinion man! 

[BFCElvis]

41 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Would be the first time, if you didn't. 

Come on! I leaked the Tournaments feature.

[BFCElvis]

1 hour ago, Artkin said:

Woah woah woah, can you explain this further please?

Too soon to get into much detail but those that are familiar with other Martix tournaments will know the basics. Head to head. Players play 2 battles, one as Red and 1 as Blue. Loose scoring is displayed as the battles rage on. Here's what the tournament leader board looks like :

Matrix Tournaments

At the risk of boring behind the scenes talk, PBEM++ had a single big roadblock. We fought that roadblock hard and once we broke through that 1 thing everything cam together very quickly.  This is similar but we already have the roadblock basically gone. So much so that, as @Bufopoints out, the first tournament date is already set.

Oh yeah, @Aragorn2002, this is news to the beta testers too.

Edited December 9, 2021 by BFCElvis
To add link

[BeondTheGrave]

Id like to make a reverse suggest to the one that OP made in the first post:

My ultimate wish would be for the series to transition away from individual games to some kind of platform system. Something like DCS or IL2 (I know I know, people dont like to compare CM to the competitors, but bear with me). Instead of buying CMCW or CMSF2 or whatever, you just buy the CM starter kit. Which is basically just the front end. Hell maybe even BFC could throw it up on steam. Its the thing in which all the games live. You launch it and it takes you to a unified front end. On menu for missions, campaigns, PBEM, the editor, etc. Of course with the basic front end you dont get much, maybe like a get started scenario or something. Instead you just by modules. Different map types, different unit types, campaign packs and scenario packs. As you 'plug in' the modules it unlocks things in the menus. Get the SF2 module pack and you get the missions in the mission menu, campaigns in the campaign tab, new units and TOEs in the editor, and the ability to create and play PBEM games in the multiplayer menu. Instead of siloing content behind different modules and executables, it would also open the series/games/modules up to more cross content experiences. Maybe unlocking the CMBN vehicle pack would let creators use those assets in CMFI. I think both the BFC devs and general scenario creators would benefit from just having the doors thrown off like that. But I bet there are a lot clever things that people could if the games all lived on the same 'platform.'

Of course I understand also that doing something like that would be a HUGE amount of work, and probably need a change in the monetization model too. So probably unlikely to happen. But to me its such a waste to see so much beautiful content siloed off in each game, unable to cross over from one to another. Especially since everything is on the same engine with, I assume, the exact same game systems underlying each. 

[Aragorn2002]

50 minutes ago, BFCElvis said:

Come on! I leaked the Tournaments feature.

You asked whether you delivered. My answer confirmed that because you always deliver. It can sometimes take a while, but you always deliver. 

Yes, I made you a compliment.

Edited December 9, 2021 by Aragorn2002

[SlowMotion]

22 hours ago, LukeFF said:

No, just no. If you're talking about graphics from the year 2000, then sure, but too many things that were acceptable back then just don't cut it any more:

In other games there are much better looking graphics, true. But graphics quality doesn't really bother me in CM2 games. It's some other things that do, but there aren't many things that annoy me anymore. I've been using these games since CMBO and remember how things were let's say during the first 10 years. Nowadays most things work nicely. 

One graphics thing I'd like to see improved is how difficult it is to see map height differences. In nature hills are easy to see if one side of a hill is in shadow and another part of a hill is not. In the game I struggle when trying to see which hills are higher than others - especially when there are no trees.

Edited December 9, 2021 by SlowMotion

[danfrodo]

This game is about the military-tactical challenges of warfare in various eras and areas.  We all put up w the outdated graphics because we want the challenge that we can't seem to find elsewhere.  If someone came up w CM's challenge w modern graphics & such, yeah, we'd all want that.  but where is that game? 

Men of War has better graphics (I played it for a while long ago).  It also has fighting all happening within ~ 100 meters, which is nice playground fun but utterly ridiculous.  If one wants a realistic military challenge, CM is the place. 

Most games sacrifice realism to gain bigger market, that's cool for them, but then again all those games kinda play the same.  Make base, base makes stuff, get better stuff, make better base, get more better stuff......

[landser]

2 hours ago, SimpleSimon said:

 If you don't like that this is just not the game for you.

Of course. So simple isn't it? Top advice mate.

 

1 hour ago, BeondTheGrave said:

My ultimate wish would be for the series to transition away from individual games to some kind of platform system.

Agreed I've made the same point, to make a base game and all modules plug seamlessly in to that.  Make them all play with one another. So if a player wanted to do the Tigers vs Abrams thing mentioned before they could do that. Make a new campaign system that works the same way for all modules and everything dovetails seamlessly together. One patch updates the whole thing. Engine upgrades get applied globally. I'm sure Battlefront has considered exactly this, but of course pulling it off is another matter. Not a thing for CMx2, but I'd be surprised if CMx3 didn't at least start with this concept in mind.

[womble]

3 hours ago, Artkin said:

I didn't really see what I was paying for with RtV. I got some nations and some toe's but that was about it. Not much was new.

I get the impression, over the years that 90%* of the effort in any new game's "core content" (as opposed to "new engine's core gameplay" is the ToO&E research. Well, maybe 85%. Those scenario and map makers probably contribute 5% and the new models are maybe 10%  But then I probably let Steve's posts carry more weight, and those tables are "his bailiwick", it seems, so maybe there's a little cognitive bias going on  But still "just some nations and TOE's" isn't a minor effort.

* It orter be clear that this is a figure plucked out of thin air for "discussion purposes"... but it's still "a lot", even if it's not 90.

[womble]

40 minutes ago, landser said:

Agreed I've made the same point, to make a base game and all modules plug seamlessly in to that.  Make them all play with one another. So if a player wanted to do the Tigers vs Abrams thing mentioned before they could do that. Make a new campaign system that works the same way for all modules and everything dovetails seamlessly together. One patch updates the whole thing. Engine upgrades get applied globally. I'm sure Battlefront has considered exactly this, but of course pulling it off is another matter. Not a thing for CMx2, but I'd be surprised if CMx3 didn't at least start with this concept in mind.

Aye. It seems to work for actual figures wargame companies. They sell (or even give away, though I'm not advocating that; the engine is the key IP, from my POV and should be a chargeable asset) a ruleset, then sell "splatbooks" (to borrow a term from TTRPGs) for different theatres, armies or whatever, which add rules for the specific theatre, army, or whatever. Then they sell you boxes of miniatures, so you can actually play the game. And there's a whole ecosystem of "game-agnostic" scenery and other accessories which fills out the market.

If they went to a "Spine plus plugins" setup, perhaps you would be able to play with any of the content that either (or any, if mulitplayer sides are a development) player owns. Or maybe you could only use the "unit packs" that you own, but "terrain packs" would be common assets for the given game.

[Redwolf]

20 minutes ago, womble said:

I get the impression, over the years that 90%* of the effort in any new game's "core content" (as opposed to "new engine's core gameplay" is the ToO&E research. Well, maybe 85%. Those scenario and map makers probably contribute 5% and the new models are maybe 10%  But then I probably let Steve's posts carry more weight, and those tables are "his bailiwick", it seems, so maybe there's a little cognitive bias going on  But still "just some nations and TOE's" isn't a minor effort.

* It orter be clear that this is a figure plucked out of thin air for "discussion purposes"... but it's still "a lot", even if it's not 90.

The thing is that research scales. You can add more people to the work pile pretty easily. It just costs money in a manner pretty linear to the amount of work.

Programming on the other hand is very hard to add people to. And at first it gets worse. It's not a matter of money - at first you pay n + 1 money but get n - 0.5 work done.

So BFC has an easier time pumping out products that eat up research than engine improvements.

[Artkin]

1 minute ago, Redwolf said:

The thing is that research scales. You can add more people to the work pile pretty easily. It just costs money in a manner pretty linear to the amount of work.

Programming on the other hand is very hard to add people to. And at first it gets worse. It's not a matter of money - at first you pay n + 1 money but get n - 0.5 work done.

So BFC has an easier time pumping out products that eat up research than engine improvements.

It'd make sense if they were trying to teach a new programmer an old game (CMx2).

Hopefully CMx3 is so fresh that we can actually teach programmers how to use the damn thing!

[BFCElvis]

22 minutes ago, womble said:

I get the impression, over the years that 90%* of the effort in any new game's "core content" (as opposed to "new engine's core gameplay" is the ToO&E research. Well, maybe 85%. 

I wouldn't know where to begin putting a percentage on it but it is amazing the work these guys put into the TO&E. An unsung hero in that is @akd. If you guys saw some of the posts and comments these guys make your heads would spin. How many of which weapon type in each squad/platoon/company/battalion get. Ammo loadouts. And when someone like akd posts to suggest changing somefink, he doesn't just list out what he thinks should be corrected. He has researched material, mostly from historical records. And brings that research to the table. As someone who is not an expert, I'll look at it and say "eh, does it really matter that much?" until I see it in action. Once you see the way different units behave with even small adjustments it blows the mind and makes me thankful that there are people, that know so much about this stuff, on the job. It's that kind of subtly that I think the OP may not have played enough to appreciate yet.

 

[Artkin]

I appreciate the effort put fourth for the TOEs. Certainly the infantry were fleshed out, but the vehicles felt heavily recycled. 

I always tend to reference how great the CW and MG modules were. 

I think I would prefer one nation fully fleshed out rather than a bunch of nations missing a ton of content. Sort of how the NATO dlc was for CMSF

[Redwolf]

31 minutes ago, Artkin said:

I think I would prefer one nation fully fleshed out rather than a bunch of nations missing a ton of content. Sort of how the NATO dlc was for CMSF

 

Hmmm, I wouldn't want to miss the NATO module. That would mean the Bundeswiesel is gone. No way.

I guess I take an incomplete force happily if it offers some fun.

[chuckdyke]

7 hours ago, BornGinger said:

But Cities Skylines is of course not a game about war

Ok I wil put it differently which wargame.

[Ultradave]

2 hours ago, BFCElvis said:

I wouldn't know where to begin putting a percentage on it but it is amazing the work these guys put into the TO&E. An unsung hero in that is @akd. If you guys saw some of the posts and comments these guys make your heads would spin. How many of which weapon type in each squad/platoon/company/battalion get. Ammo loadouts. And when someone like akd posts to suggest changing somefink, he doesn't just list out what he thinks should be corrected. He has researched material, mostly from historical records. And brings that research to the table. As someone who is not an expert, I'll look at it and say "eh, does it really matter that much?" until I see it in action. Once you see the way different units behave with even small adjustments it blows the mind and makes me thankful that there are people, that know so much about this stuff, on the job. It's that kind of subtly that I think the OP may not have played enough to appreciate yet.

 

^^^ The breadth and depth of knowledge that @akd brings always amazes me.

Dave

[akd]

Well thanks, but archives are my happy place.