2022, the Year In Preview!

[BFCElvis]

4 minutes ago, Codreanu said:

........ but with how the engine is built maybe that really is just the best that can be done.

There we have it. Somefink like removing the password protection that PBEM files have would be a massive undertaking. I know because we looked into it. Let alone revamping the entire system. 

[Codreanu]

1 minute ago, BFCElvis said:

There we have it. Somefink like removing the password protection that PBEM files have would be a massive undertaking. I know because we looked into it. Let alone revamping the entire system. 

Unfortunate but understandable, every change has to be looked at with an eye to how much time, money, and resources it would take to implement, and I'm sure even PBEM++ was a pain. Maybe in CMx3 then 

[Artkin]

45 minutes ago, BFCElvis said:

  You may surprised. We're constantly surprised at how many copies of CMBO, CMBB and CMAK are being sold through GoG. And CMBO is 22 years old! 

I have never tried the game so I can't attest to how fun it was, or even if the MP system was good. I have no clue.

But in the case of CMx2, think how many more copies would have sold, if people were just able to play the game multiplayer easily*. The AI in CM can't make choices on their own with exception to the TacAI mechanics like retreating under fire.  So eventually you play up the fun stuff and you're left craving more. This is the part where you lose most of the audience.

Others hook up on websites like TheFGM and get opponents lined up. Having to agree to preset rules and yadda yadda. It takes time. I remember reading on these forums that there can be weeks delay in software development teams due to communication alone. I don't know if they meant in particular instances or over time, but still something to consider.

I understand Combat Mission is a tool by nature. In games you can totally and mercilessly annihilate your opponents by setting waypoints and target commands at the end of them, shooting at the first spotting icon you see. I can have troops 300 meters forward, and have a ww1 tank drive up 300m and instantly blast that squad on a dime. That kind of stuff kills the current experience. You can be a Slime Ball, or a humble commander with the current system.

Maybe in the next iteration there can be an option in the multiplayer screen where players can have a ruleset predetermined. So my opponent can't abuse the CM mechanics and rape my forces. I didn't come to this community nor buy into these games for that kind of experience. That's not realism. It's better when you've known your opponent for years.

These kinds of things strangle an already pretty tight community. Anyway I forgot why I went on this tangent.

45 minutes ago, BFCElvis said:

  You may surprised. We're constantly surprised at how many copies of CMBO, CMBB and CMAK are being sold through GoG. And CMBO is 22 years old!  

No map preview but it does give information about the battle.

This is the description built into the default battles. What if you create your own scenario but don't fill in the scenario description box? You can't really tell much about the scenario you are playing either way. That is unless you pull it up manually yourself. It's a shot in the dark.

45 minutes ago, BFCElvis said:

 I'm going to guess that you've barely used the system. You do not have to log in every time. It is supposed to time you out eventually and if you close the program. But you definitely don't have to log in each PBEM turn. If you have 4 battles going you can just go from one to the next.

Yes, I have barely used the system. From what I remember, it instantly logged me out when I had gone to the main screen and then back. I haven't tried using it since.

I will also check it out again, since it has been a while.

If it can't be done now, then it should be done for CMx3.

Edited August 24, 2022 by Artkin
multiplayer easily*

[Artkin]

21 minutes ago, BFCElvis said:

There we have it. Somefink like removing the password protection that PBEM files have would be a massive undertaking. I know because we looked into it. Let alone revamping the entire system. 

This is different, if it's a technical limitation beyond what is feasible then how can anybody argue with that. I would suggest maybe an external tool built into the CM launcher since we're kicking it oldschool anyway.

[Artkin]

I would also like to say I'm very happy something was done in the first place to try to fix the problem of multiplayer. When I came around in 2017 I was definitely calling for an improvement there.

[IICptMillerII]

57 minutes ago, Artkin said:

I would also like to say I'm very happy something was done in the first place to try to fix the problem of multiplayer. When I came around in 2017 I was definitely calling for an improvement there.

The PBEM++ and tournament system are Slitherine infrastructure, and Slitherine requires all future CM Steam releases to have PBEM++ and the tournament system. So more CM games haven't been released to Steam because the tournament system is still a work in progress. It has taken far more time to implement due to unforeseen technical issues with merging the Slitherine infrastructure into CM. 

[Warts 'n' all]

Anyone waiting for new releases and definite info should bear in mind what Elvis said back in '78, "Accidents Will Happen". 

[BFCElvis]

2 hours ago, Artkin said:

But in the case of CMx2, think how many more copies would have sold, if people were just able to play the game multiplayer easily*. The AI in CM can't make choices on their own with exception to the TacAI mechanics like retreating under fire.  So eventually you play up the fun stuff and you're left craving more. This is the part where you lose most of the audience.

This sounds like a case of projecting your feelings about multiplayer and assuming it is the rule across the board. There could be some merit to it but I tend to suspect Steve is correct when he says the overwhelming majority of CM players play solo. It's easy enough to base that opinion on what we see. I know how many copies of each game have been sold. I know how many members there are on this forum. I know, of those members, how frequently people post to the forum. That number is a tiny fraction of the number of copies of the games that have been sold. Even if you account for the guys at FGM it is minuscule compared with how many copies of the games have been sold. If multiplayer were the primary mode of play these forums would be overrun with people looking for people to play against. 

Does a less dynamic multiplayer arrangement cause the lack of the forums being overrun and people just leave the CM world because of it? That might hold some water if we didn't see that a HUGE majority of players own multiple CM games.  It is rare when I'm helping someone with their account that I only see 1 CM game purchased. 

Those, very tangible, things point to Steve being more likely right than wrong. Plus, as the game designer, it's his business to know.

That said, I am 100% in the camp that plays mostly multiplayer for fun. I wish we had turn based TCP. But I understand that I am a sample size of 1.

 

3 hours ago, Artkin said:

Having to log in EVERY single time you enter the pbem+ screen. Even if you dont close the program. 

It's been almost exactly 3 hours and I haven't had to log back in. 

[Artkin]

4 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

The PBEM++ and tournament system are Slitherine infrastructure, and Slitherine requires all future CM Steam releases to have PBEM++ and the tournament system. So more CM games haven't been released to Steam because the tournament system is still a work in progress. It has taken far more time to implement due to unforeseen technical issues with merging the Slitherine infrastructure into CM. 

Thanks for clarifying. I have no problem waiting for the rest of the titles.

3 hours ago, BFCElvis said:

This sounds like a case of projecting your feelings about multiplayer and assuming it is the rule across the board. There could be some merit to it but I tend to suspect Steve is correct when he says the overwhelming majority of CM players play solo.

Because they aren't given an easy opportunity to find opponents. The opponents finder section of these forums is pretty dead, and FGM really isn't much better. Life is not really growing in the multiplayer sphere. It's the same 50-100 people, and a few new faces every now and then.

3 hours ago, BFCElvis said:

It's easy enough to base that opinion on what we see. I know how many copies of each game have been sold. I know how many members there are on this forum. I know, of those members, how frequently people post to the forum. That number is a tiny fraction of the number of copies of the games that have been sold. Even if you account for the guys at FGM it is minuscule compared with how many copies of the games have been sold. If multiplayer were the primary mode of play these forums would be overrun with people looking for people to play against.

Well now with Steam you might even have more detailed analytics. I bet you will find that people put the games down after playing them for a couple hundred hours at the most. They will probably pick the game back up and slowly play a little afterward  but I doubt you are getting anybody hooked with the Steam version of CMCW.

3 hours ago, BFCElvis said:

Does a less dynamic multiplayer arrangement cause the lack of the forums being overrun and people just leave the CM world because of it? That might hold some water if we didn't see that a HUGE majority of players own multiple CM games.  It is rare when I'm helping someone with their account that I only see 1 CM game purchased.

I think it's easy to buy into the CM series at first, but it's pretty easy to get bored of it too if you don't explore the potential ... like map converting. Copies sold doesn't really tell you enough about the interest level of your customer. They bought the game. Okay, do they like it? When was the last time they played it? How often do they play it? What can we do to make them play it more? How can we make our games more fun while not making changes to our core beliefs and structure?

It's easy to see this niche series and say wow! That game looks cool as hell, sure $60 is pennies here in the USA no problem! Selling copies really doesn't indicate enjoyment.

3 hours ago, BFCElvis said:

That said, I am 100% in the camp that plays mostly multiplayer for fun. I wish we had turn based TCP. But I understand that I am a sample size of 1.

You aren't the only one.  Official AAR's are typically done PBEM from what I've seen. There needs to be some sort of focus on this from Battlefront. People are calling for cooperative team games.

If there are enough people to want friggen Fortress Italy, or CM:A, then undoubtably there are twice as many people who would appreciate a Multiplayer system that was fleshed out, and didn't feel like it was slapped together in a month.

3 hours ago, BFCElvis said:

It's been almost exactly 3 hours and I haven't had to log back in. 

Maybe this was solved in an update? Call me crazy I swear it used to log me out every time.

[Grey_Fox]

4 hours ago, Artkin said:

Because they aren't given an easy opportunity to find opponents. The opponents finder section of these forums is pretty dead, and FGM really isn't much better.

Check out the unofficial discord server, there's an invite in my signature. 1600+ members and far more CM activity than here or TFGM.

Edited August 25, 2022 by Grey_Fox

[BFCElvis]

12 hours ago, Artkin said:

Thanks for clarifying. I have no problem waiting for the rest of the titles.

Because they aren't given an easy opportunity to find opponents. The opponents finder section of these forums is pretty dead, and FGM really isn't much better. Life is not really growing in the multiplayer sphere. It's the same 50-100 people, and a few new faces every now and then.

Well now with Steam you might even have more detailed analytics. I bet you will find that people put the games down after playing them for a couple hundred hours at the most. They will probably pick the game back up and slowly play a little afterward  but I doubt you are getting anybody hooked with the Steam version of CMCW.

I think it's easy to buy into the CM series at first, but it's pretty easy to get bored of it too if you don't explore the potential ... like map converting. Copies sold doesn't really tell you enough about the interest level of your customer. They bought the game. Okay, do they like it? When was the last time they played it? How often do they play it? What can we do to make them play it more? How can we make our games more fun while not making changes to our core beliefs and structure?

It's easy to see this niche series and say wow! That game looks cool as hell, sure $60 is pennies here in the USA no problem! Selling copies really doesn't indicate enjoyment.

You aren't the only one.  Official AAR's are typically done PBEM from what I've seen. There needs to be some sort of focus on this from Battlefront. People are calling for cooperative team games.

If there are enough people to want friggen Fortress Italy, or CM:A, then undoubtably there are twice as many people who would appreciate a Multiplayer system that was fleshed out, and didn't feel like it was slapped together in a month.

 

We're beating a dead horse at this point. I own 3 different versions of Civilization. I would not have purchased the second and third if I didn't enjoy the first. Seeing how many multiple versions of CM games people have purchased is not only a good way to see if people are enjoying it, it is the only valid tangible way to tell. Do people wish the games did things that they don't do now? Sure. It's been that way in these parts for 23 years. Our ears are always open to new ideas but we also know that there will always.......always...be things that some people wish were in the game but isn't. Despite the game developer believing that that most players do not use multiplayer as much as solo play, multiplayer will always be an important part of all CM games.

 

Quote

Maybe this was solved in an update? Call me crazy I swear it used to log me out every time.

I was able to play a turn after leaving it alone over night without logging back in. It isn't something that had to be solved. It isn't even determined by the game. Slitherine servers are set to log people out after a certain amount of time. If they changed that time from 1 hour to unlimited it would explain what I'm seeing. But it wasn't a bug that needed fixing. It was by design for their servers.

[Artkin]

4 hours ago, BFCElvis said:

We're beating a dead horse at this point. I own 3 different versions of Civilization. I would not have purchased the second and third if I didn't enjoy the first. Seeing how many multiple versions of CM games people have purchased is not only a good way to see if people are enjoying it, it is the only valid tangible way to tell.

No it absolutely is not. My Steam library is full of games that I haven't played in a decade. That doesn't mean I play any of them, nor would I buy any of their new games.

Multiple games that I've bought from on Steam alone that I won't be buying from again:

Age of Empires I DE, Age of Empires II HD, Age of Empires II DE

Arma 2, Arma 2 Arrowhead, Arma 3

Company of Heroes, Tales of Valor, Opposing Fronts,  Company of Heroes 2

Men of War (Wasnt on Steam yet but..), Men of War Assault Squad 1, 2, Call of Arms

Metro 2033, Metro Last Light

Wargame European, Wargame Airland, Wargame Red Dragon.

 

See all those games? I will never play them again, because they kind of suck.

Age of Empires released unfavorable updates around early 2021 and killed the revival they had

Arma went full life sim

company of heroes sucks

men of war sucks but had potential, call of arms exploited it in the wrong way

Metro is a purely single player experience, played it once or twice each, sucks

wargame is just terrible. they are snobs. game could have been good but noooooooo

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

The only real way you can tell is by gameplay hours being racked every 2 weeks. Steam will tell you that. Your own proprietary systems probably don't. The amount of games you own has absolutely no correlation with the amount of enjoyment you get from them. $60 is not a lot for a game. We were paying that for plastic green cases with a CD inside that said Xbox360. Console games are not worth $60, but games like Combat Mission are. And I'm sure the people know that before they buy.

 

Combat Mission x2 has been around for a very long time. Of course you will sell plenty of copies over this course of time. Also, I would argue that the recent popularity spike associated with both Steam and the CMCW release has sold you an unusually larger amount of copies than normal. This is speculation of course, and does little to prove my point alone.

 

Give me some real analytics, copies sold is absolute nonsense. That is your paycheck. Interest level can be anywhere. Ask my copies of CMFI, CMBN, and especially CMFB how they like feeling cold and unplayed since I bought them.

5 hours ago, BFCElvis said:

Do people wish the games did things that they don't do now? Sure. It's been that way in these parts for 23 years. Our ears are always open to new ideas but we also know that there will always.......always...be things that some people wish were in the game but isn't.

The cheapest, ****tiest indie games can have lavish support for multiplayer. Games that people buy and play for 10 minutes. Like Among Us. Terrible waste of money.

On the flip side games like MAG which released in 2010 were pushing the limits of multiplayer.

Everyone knew that connectivity was important. No single player game lives long. If it does, it's probably a tool and not a game. Combat Mission is this weird, undecided inbetween creation that falls into neither category. That isn't a good thing IMO.

5 hours ago, BFCElvis said:

Despite the game developer believing that that most players do not use multiplayer as much as solo play

Not really a surprise. Most people will probably be too anxious to jump into a game, not wanting to get stomped out and embarrassed. I remember my first PBEM was like that, and I know others feel the same from reading many other forum introductions. You can't expect more people to be playing multiplayer than singleplayer. The only games that function like that are dedicated multiplayer games that have singleplayer tools... I.E. War Thunder.

A majority of your players won't be playing multiplayer. Especially with how difficult and non-intuitive the current systems are. But you can grow a community by having the proper framework in place. The community creates itself, but you can't have a system that makes it difficult for this to happen in the first place. People need an easy way to connect. I'm not saying add a CM Buddies list ingame, because frankly that would be pretty lame. But having a server browser or similar will allow people to easily see new games and connect to them. It would be nice to connect to a real time lobby that way. It would be significantly easier to hook up new games if they were actively displayed in a server browser, indicating that the host is at their keyboard, ready to play a game.

The current systems is only PBEM, and you literally have no idea who you are playing besides a name, a scenario description, some time and weather conditions which doesn't really matter unless you are playing a quick battle. If you are playing a scenario? What does that tell you? Not much in practical terms. None of what we have going on currently in 2022 is practical.

 

5 hours ago, BFCElvis said:

multiplayer will always be an important part of all CM games.

It really doesn't seem like this. As said before, this seems like a band-aid on a booboo. Multiplayer is important, but I still have to download hamachi to connect to my opponents. I'm a little technically illiterate since I stopped caring after my A+ certification, but I imagine all you need is one server that connects peers to each other, through a server browser. Then the games themselves are played p2p, after the connection was made. So the upkeep to Battlefront is negligible to have a coherent multiplayer experience.

 

5 hours ago, BFCElvis said:

I was able to play a turn after leaving it alone over night without logging back in. It isn't something that had to be solved. It isn't even determined by the game. Slitherine servers are set to log people out after a certain amount of time. If they changed that time from 1 hour to unlimited it would explain what I'm seeing. But it wasn't a bug that needed fixing. It was by design for their servers.

Yeah I'm not sure, thanks for explaining. I swear it used to frequently log me out. And I don't think I closed out the game because CMCW in particular takes ages to start up with my modpack.

[Vacillator]

@Artkin my friend, I get most of what you're saying but a telling point is that we're still playing CM (you for a lot longer than me admittedly).  I did exclusively single player to start, but it's more PBEM at the moment, which has quite surprised me - I think because I was expecting the 'noob slap-down' behaviour I got in WOT and other games like Day of Defeat, but everyone (including you) has been lovely and it's a great way to learn. 

Could things be improved, yes of course, but I'll be playing CM for a long time with or without improvements.

Also for me the current mechanics of PBEM are okay, and there are enough players here on the forum to keep me going for a long time.  To me it seems you can ask a casual 'do you fancy a PBEM?' and most times the answer is yes.  My disclaimer to this is that I have no idea how PBEM++ works, my bad.

And as for games bought on Steam but not played, that is huge - I think I remember reading that at least a third were not even loaded up?

 

[Artkin]

21 minutes ago, Vacillator said:

@Artkin my friend, I get most of what you're saying but a telling point is that we're still playing CM (you for a lot longer than me admittedly).  I did exclusively single player to start, but it's more PBEM at the moment, which has quite surprised me - I think because I was expecting the 'noob slap-down' behaviour I got in WOT and other games like Day of Defeat, but everyone (including you) has been lovely and it's a great way to learn.

Definitely a benefit of having a tighter community is having respectable opponents, though I believe I did blow up quite a few of your houses unprovoked in our game, which wasn't so nice.

For sure I won't drop CM, because it does so much. With all the content in CMx2 currently you can achieve nearly anything in WW2, and you can cover a lot of conflicts thereafter. To me it is a complete shame to limit such an expansive series, where hundreds of thousands of man-hours have been spent developing content. If CMx3 comes along, it MUST be able to import CMx2 scenario and map files. To have everyone's near endless work eventually go to waste would be beyond tragic.

26 minutes ago, Vacillator said:

Also for me the current mechanics of PBEM are okay, and there are enough players here on the forum to keep me going for a long time.  To me it seems you can ask a casual 'do you fancy a PBEM?' and most times the answer is yes.  My disclaimer to this is that I have no idea how PBEM++ works, my bad.

PBEM is fine, but finding opponents for it isn't. Having to seek opponents on a forum outside of the game itself is recessive instead of progessive. And then the delegation that follows just to start a game in the first place is far too time consuming. Weeks can be spent on this process. The PBEM+ system doesn't really solve any issues that were had before. Ok now you don't have to use Dropbox. Small plus. It'd be nice to have a lobby and a short description of the game maybe, etc. Coop support could be as simple as moving save files from user to user like we already do manually..... A better multiplayer would lead to good things for CMx2.

34 minutes ago, Vacillator said:

And as for games bought on Steam but not played, that is huge - I think I remember reading that at least a third were not even loaded up?

The games that weren't ever loaded up might have been bought on sale, or at least a large percentage of them. I have plenty of games that I bought at full price that I don't touch anymore.

In terms of hours of enjoyment to hours, Garrys Mod takes 1st place, followed by Combat Mission, and then Assetto Corsa. Two of those are heavily multiplayer games, and one could be so much better if it was more fleshed out.

[Vacillator]

No arguments from me on any of that .  In particular the ability to import CM2 content to CM3 if/when it comes along is massively important.  I've played a few CM1 battles in CM2 so hopefully this would be something borne in mind when developing CM3.

[BFCElvis]

5 hours ago, Artkin said:

No it absolutely is not. My Steam library is full of games that I haven't played in a decade. That doesn't mean I play any of them, nor would I buy any of their new games.

Multiple games that I've bought from on Steam alone that I won't be buying from again:

Age of Empires I DE, Age of Empires II HD, Age of Empires II DE

Arma 2, Arma 2 Arrowhead, Arma 3

Company of Heroes, Tales of Valor, Opposing Fronts,  Company of Heroes 2

Men of War (Wasnt on Steam yet but..), Men of War Assault Squad 1, 2, Call of Arms

Metro 2033, Metro Last Light

Wargame European, Wargame Airland, Wargame Red Dragon.

 

See all those games? I will never play them again, because they kind of suck.

Age of Empires released unfavorable updates around early 2021 and killed the revival they had

Arma went full life sim

company of heroes sucks

men of war sucks but had potential, call of arms exploited it in the wrong way

Metro is a purely single player experience, played it once or twice each, sucks

wargame is just terrible. they are snobs. game could have been good but noooooooock.

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

The only real way you can tell is by gameplay hours being racked every 2 weeks. Steam will tell you that. Your own proprietary systems probably don't. The amount of games you own has absolutely no correlation with the amount of enjoyment you get from them. $60 is not a lot for a game. We were paying that for plastic green cases with a CD inside that said Xbox360. Console games are not worth $60, but games like Combat Mission are. And I'm sure the people know that before they buy.

While developers want people to love their games, paying them money for them ranks second to that. Selling games is what keeps the lights on. Whether you play them or not.

And, again, you are talking about a sample size of 1.

Quote

Combat Mission x2 has been around for a very long time. Of course you will sell plenty of copies over this course of time. Also, I would argue that the recent popularity spike associated with both Steam and the CMCW release has sold you an unusually larger amount of copies than normal. This is speculation of course, and does little to prove my point alone.

Correct. It does little to prove your point. Remember what the production of any product means to the the producer. "Are me making something that people like enough to buy more of?" Doesn't matter if you're talking about computer games or shoes. That is the question you constantly (if you're going to be around for decades) ask yourself all the time.

Quote

Give me some real analytics, copies sold is absolute nonsense. That is your paycheck. Interest level can be anywhere. Ask my copies of CMFI, CMBN, and especially CMFB how they like feeling cold and unplayed since I bought them.

The cheapest, ****tiest indie games can have lavish support for multiplayer. Games that people buy and play for 10 minutes. Like Among Us. Terrible waste of money.

On the flip side games like MAG which released in 2010 were pushing the limits of multiplayer.

Everyone knew that connectivity was important. No single player game lives long. If it does, it's probably a tool and not a game. Combat Mission is this weird, undecided inbetween creation that falls into neither category. That isn't a good thing IMO.

Again, projecting what you want onto what our larger audience might be. 

Quote

A majority of your players won't be playing multiplayer. Especially with how difficult and non-intuitive the current systems are. But you can grow a community by having the proper framework in place. The community creates itself, but you can't have a system that makes it difficult for this to happen in the first place. People need an easy way to connect. I'm not saying add a CM Buddies list ingame, because frankly that would be pretty lame. But having a server browser or similar will allow people to easily see new games and connect to them. It would be nice to connect to a real time lobby that way. It would be significantly easier to hook up new games if they were actively displayed in a server browser, indicating that the host is at their keyboard, ready to play a game.

The current systems is only PBEM, and you literally have no idea who you are playing besides a name, a scenario description, some time and weather conditions which doesn't really matter unless you are playing a quick battle. If you are playing a scenario? What does that tell you? Not much in practical terms. None of what we have going on currently in 2022 is practical.

And, yet, here we are. 23 years of essentially the same multiplayer system. Could it be better? Of course. There are lots of things that could be better. Is PBEM++ a step toward making it better? Yes. But, ultimately, the right choices in allocation of assets has been made for decades. Or I wouldn't be here typing this right now.

[BFCElvis]

@Artkin, I guess what the bottom line is for what I'm saying is, we love, crave and want the feedback for how to improve our game. Most of the changes over the years have been born from that. But, it is important to remember that 1 person's priorities are not everyone's priorities. Or even the majority of people's priorities.  They're all taken into consideration when allocating time and resources. 

 

[Artkin]

I definitely don't speak for myself since @Codreanu already hit the nail on the head with a much more concise post than mine.

Not for nothing, but do you guys really even get much feedback in the first place? The Steam feedback is probably not worth as much as the feedback you will get on these forums.

[chuckdyke]

21 minutes ago, BFCElvis said:

I guess what the bottom line is for what I'm saying is, we love, crave and want the feedback for how to improve our game.

Pathfinding, like somebody said we don't play a traffic simulation game. I suggest looking into two camera settings 8 and 9. Replace it with a road map and a topographic map for the purpose of plotting way points for company size formations. On the road map the vehicles stick to the road network and on the topographic map formation according to the suitability of the terrain in regards AFV's. Easier said than done but I know it is possible to select edges with photo editing software. 

[Glubokii Boy]

6 hours ago, Artkin said:

If CMx3 comes along, it MUST be able to import CMx2 scenario and map files. To have everyone's near endless work eventually go to waste would be beyond tragic.

 

What CM3 really needs is a completally new AI programing design...Not a slightely updated CM2 version.

If people still like to play CM2 scenarios when CM3 is released...play them in your CM2 games.

 

 

[Artkin]

40 minutes ago, Glubokii Boy said:

What CM3 really needs is a completally new AI programing design...Not a slightely updated CM2 version.

If people still like to play CM2 scenarios when CM3 is released...play them in your CM2 games.

 

 

Really I just meant all the mapping work. Imagine having to do it all over again. 

[Glubokii Boy]

5 hours ago, Artkin said:

Really I just meant all the mapping work. Imagine having to do it all over again. 

It would offcourse be nice to be able to use old maps and stuff...But i would actually prefer if BFC aims to improve things as much as possible and not be 'locked' to  some compability demand with CM2.

With an improved map editor in CM3 map design will hopefully be more streamlined 

I don't want a CM2.5 or something...i want a CM3...

 

 

[chuckdyke]

44 minutes ago, Glubokii Boy said:

I don't want a CM2.5 or something...i want a CM3...

Which features do you want, is the question. I don't know what is CM2.5 or CM3. Some people want better graphics I really think the present graphics are functional. I need bigger maps and easier management at battalion level. 

[Grey_Fox]

For what it is, CMx2 graphics are functional. It's QoL features like making it easier to plot waypoints, better pathfinding, and most importantly performance improvements particularly on large maps. Loading times really need to be looked at as well.

[Glubokii Boy]

3 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

Which features do you want, is the question. I don't know what is CM2.5 or CM3. Some people want better graphics I really think the present graphics are functional. I need bigger maps and easier management at battalion level. 

CM 2.5 is not really a thing. It was more my expression of a SLIGHTELLY UPDATED CM2 game...As compared to what i would like to see...A completally re-designed game for CM3...

The basic concept should obviously be kept fairly the same...It's a winner !!  But many apects of the current game engine could be improved on in major ways.

I will not list all the things i would like to see included. I have done that several times before and so have many others on this forum that have simular wishes...Those ideas are no secret to BFC.

After all CM2 was NOT a slightelly updated version of CM1...It included many major changes to the previous game and as such became an almost entirely new game...The basic concept was kept but other simularities with CM1 was fairly small.

Something simular is what i would like to see with CM3...Some big changes...If the cost of that is that CM3 will not be compatible with CM2 that is perfectly fine with me...IMPROVEMENTS is what i'm looking for....not compability.

To try to keep it fairly short...what i want:

- New AI programing...Something simular to the AI programing used in DCS (by Eagle Dynamics) but more tailored to ground combat instead of areial warfare would be very nice imo. It would improve 'the brainpower' of the AI many times over...and be a joy to work with and design scenarios.

- Some way to improve, speed up, map design.

- performance improvements

- Better graphics would be nice but is not crusial...improve the worst parts like zig, zagging roads etc.