2022 Mid Year Update

[AndreaVochieri]

7 hours ago, BFCElvis said:

Correct. And where in there did I say no one would create accurate mods? Nowhere. Because i didn't. That is where the strawman lives. But nice effort to put words in my mouth that I never said. 

I think most of the people here just want bugs and especially minor bugs fixed faster. I personally do not care if the TO&E is made editable or not, there is already a ton of content for combat mission. And I'm also ready to pay for a new module or a new game. Just put some effort in improving the deployment pipeline so that this kind of discussions never arise. Improve the internal process for fixing bugs, release bugfixes often and everybody is happy. Thank you for your hard work and please, keep bugfixing the game!

[Glubokii Boy]

9 hours ago, AndreaVochieri said:

. And I'm also ready to pay for a new module or a new game. 

As are pretty much every one else on this forum...That's not the problem...The problem is that we have close to nothing to buy !

The BFC release rate has been far from impressive during the last decade or so. Take WW2 eastern front for example. This is a theatre that easily could feature 8-10 basegames/modules.

The first eastern front game (CMRT) was released back in 2014 i belive. Almost 9 years ago. During these 9 years ONE additional module has been released. Currently we don't even have minor nations included in the timeframe depicted in these games. 

There is a lot still left to do to come even close to cover the eastern front in CM2...A task that BFC seems to be far from capable of achiving on their own...What could possibly be wrong with exploring the possibility of recruting some 'sub contracter' that could help with improving the current release rate..?

Apart from the eastern front there are many other possible theatres of war that would fit perfectly as a CM game...Very few of these will ever be made if BFC decides to go it alone...

 

 

[BFCElvis]

4 hours ago, Glubokii Boy said:

As are pretty much every one else on this forum...That's not the problem...The problem is that we have close to nothing to buy !

 

There is a lot still left to do to come even close to cover the eastern front in CM2...A task that BFC seems to be far from capable of achiving on their own...

Apart from the eastern front there are many other possible theatres of war that would fit perfectly as a CM game...Very few of these will ever be made if BFC decides to go it alone...

 

 

At the risk of dragging this topic well past it's expiration date (because what is being asked will never ever ever ever never ever ever ever never never never happen and the design decisions for that were made loooooooooooooooooooong before I was even a beta testers, let alone on the payroll) when you start getting into new models and units that is whole different thing. That involves 3D artists, 2D artists and animators. And that is before even getting into the physics of what is being rendered. A player created Pack? Sure. But a base game or module? I'm not sure that people appreciate what goes into that.

Quote

The BFC release rate has been far from impressive during the last decade or so. Take WW2 eastern front for example. This is a theatre that easily could feature 8-10 basegames/modules.

The first eastern front game (CMRT) was released back in 2014 i belive. Almost 9 years ago. During these 9 years ONE additional module has been released. Currently we don't even have minor nations included in the timeframe depicted in these games. 

It's been 22 years since CMBO was released. So, if releases were slow in the past 9 years think about how little was released in the 12 years before. CMBO/CMBB/CMAK, CMSF1 and CMBN? Yet, here we are. Other similar war game companies have come and gone during that time. But we're still going strong. Would everyone love it if we released titles more quickly? Of course, we're not a non-profit organization. But what standing the test of time has shown me is that the business decisions made over the years have been sound and deliberate. In other words.....They've worked. You and I are living proof. If we didn't care Battlefront would be gone. But we do care. It does matter to you and I.

Quote

What could possibly be wrong with exploring the possibility of recruting some 'sub contracter' that could help with improving the current release rate..?

 

You're probably not aware but that is exactly what is happening. benpark "made" the Fire and Rubble module. The_Capt, Bil and IICptMillerII "made" Cold War. GeorgeMC "made" the new Red Thunder Pack and Itahikial_AU is making the new CMBN Battle Pack. It is already being done and has been for years. 

[Ithikial_AU]

For those wanting more content, feel free to jump into the editor and build some new scenarios for the community.  Trust me there is nothing special that the CM Betas get that you don't when it comes to the editor. The unit editor is already incredibly powerful if you know how to use it. Oh and it's part of the package if you've already bought the game.

For those wanting fantasy weapons and a vehicles like tanks with automatic 120mm cannons, I reckon you'd love it for about 15 minutes before the novelty wore off and you never used the content again. There's a reason WW2 remains a popular time period for wargamers after all this time, and it isn't because of questions like: "What if the Panzer VIII Maus was deployed in 1945?"

3 hours ago, BFCElvis said:

You're probably not aware but that is exactly what is happening. benpark "made" the Fire and Rubble module. The_Capt, Bil and IICptMillerII "made" Cold War. GeorgeMC "made" the new Red Thunder Pack and Itahikial_AU is making the new CMBN Battle Pack. It is already being done and has been for years. 

Can vouch for each of those guys listed and the effort they put into creating official content, I'm desperately trying to scramble to keep up with that standard. I still bow in awe at benpark and his effort to recreate 1945 central Berlin. The research undertaken to try make the most accurate recreation of historical engagements and help out in designing accurate TOE/OOB is in my mind second to none among the BFC official staff and the wider volunteer circle.

Want an example? A small tidbit from my own work last Friday night. I've been recreating an engagement that includes the US 2nd Armored Division and been drawing from various historical and printed sources. Well I stumbled across digital scans of the divisional day by day reports and hand drawn maps of unit movements from June 1944. What was there was information that went against what was printed in some major history books by some big name historians. Though it was clear where the confusion over the years has come from given certain 2nd Armored battalions were detached from the Division in early June. Well this discovery slowed down putting the scenario together as it required me to go and edit my unit files and swap formations to ensure the scenario you play is the most historically accurate as possible.

Finally, keep in mind that many of us have day jobs so working on CM content is on the side of "paying the bills"* and because we have a passion for wargaming, CM and most importantly history.

* Feel free to send next weeks winning lottery numbers my way.

Edited December 12, 2022 by Ithikial_AU

[Aussiegrit]

Ahhh, I'm with my fellow Antipodean here. I'm completely happy with the content on offer and I'm ok with the it's ready when its ready approach. I'm always excited by new features, engine updates, bug fixes, and of course new content. But while I patiently wait there is just so much content, campaigns and missions before you get into the user created stuff, I honestly don't know how anyone has the time to say I've played it all. Even if I was retired, I would struggle to get through all the content. I became a huge fan of the Battlefront products when I purchased CM Normandy. The unique WeGo turn based system with the variety of orders/commands that can be combined across every waypoint for me is the closest I will come to experiencing tactical battlefield decision making. And I can sit back and watch it all unfold over and over in replay. Infantry or tank only or the ultimate test combined arms, the CM series has it all. WW2 is for me where this series shines best but modern it works just as well. Sure, it's not perfect but I can mention fancy triple A titles with buggy/glitchy replay or stability issues or that get patches that brake untold features. I don't experience that in the CM titles. Just another thing that I am grateful to Battlefront for.  Anyway I hope 2023 will be a great year for Battlefront and the CM titles. 

[Glubokii Boy]

10 hours ago, Ithikial_AU said:

For those wanting more content, feel free to jump into the editor and build some new scenarios for the community. 

That is obviously a good suggestion ...But it might not solve the 'problem' that some of the guys around here are having, including me ....

It's not neccesarely MORE content that we are looking for,  eventhough that is always welcomed, but rather THE RIGHT content.

What i mean by that is that the basegames and modules for the timeframes and locations that we are intrested in is simply not avaliable. Personally i would very much like to play and design scenarios set on the eastern front WW2 during 41-43.

Other guys might favour the pacific WW2, North Africa WW2, Vietnam, Korea, Various fictional conflicts current and past, Arab - Israeli wars etc, etc...

No matter how hard we try to work in the editor we simply can't make those scenarios because those units are not avaliable. Thanks to several gifted modders around here some of these conflicts can be done to some degree but not to the regular BFC, CM2 standard that we want a love....For that to be possible we need the correct tools avaliable...Units, terrain, timeframe from a dedicated basegame, module...

I realize that it is a tall ask to expect every single forum member around here to be able to play exactelly the conflict he wants but i think it is the lack of new basegames, modules that frustrates some of the forums members somewhat...If BFC could find a way to speed up the release of these assets that would be a very good thing imo 

4 hours ago, Aussiegrit said:

 But while I patiently wait there is just so much content, campaigns and missions before you get into the user created stuff, I honestly don't know how anyone has the time to say I've played it all.

I think quite a bunch of the guys around here don't neccesarely play all the scenarios and campaigns that are avaliable...I know i don't. Some may not like big battles, some might not like small battles, some might not like urban fighting, night fighting, bad wheather fighting, some may only play WW2 and other prefer the modern games...

No doubt...There are a lot of scenarios and campaigns to play...but i don't want to play 200 scenarios...whatever...I want to play scenarios and campaigns that i find to be intresting and enjoyable...

Many of those scenarios and campaigns are currently unavaliable because of the fact that the basegames and modules required to make them simply does not exist and considdering the recent release rate of new basegames, modules they probably never will be and that makes me somewhat sad...

11 hours ago, Ithikial_AU said:

For those wanting more content, feel free to jump into the editor and build some new scenarios for the community.

I fear that the lack of new community made scenarios might atleast partly be the result of the slow progress of the CM2 game series as well as updates to the game engine...My guess would be that many of the oldtimers have simply lost intrest in this game...the updates are to few and to far between...

Appart from some of the modding threads there really in not all that much going on on this forum any more...sadly.

11 hours ago, Ithikial_AU said:

 

Can vouch for each of those guys listed and the effort they put into creating official content, I'm desperately trying to scramble to keep up with that standard. I still bow in awe at benpark and his effort to recreate 1945 central Berlin. The research undertaken to try make the most accurate recreation of historical engagements and help out in designing accurate TOE/OOB is in my mind second to none among the BFC official staff and the wider volunteer circle.

Want an example? A small tidbit from my own work last Friday night. I've been recreating an engagement that includes the US 2nd Armored Division and been drawing from various historical and printed sources. Well I stumbled across digital scans of the divisional day by day reports and hand drawn maps of unit movements from June 1944. What was there was information that went against what was printed in some major history books by some big name historians. Though it was clear where the confusion over the years has come from given certain 2nd Armored battalions were detached from the Division in early June. Well this discovery slowed down putting the scenario together as it required me to go and edit my unit files and swap formations to ensure the scenario you play is the most historically accurate as possible.

Finally, keep in mind that many of us have day jobs so working on CM content is on the side of "paying the bills"* and because we have a passion for wargaming, CM and most importantly history.

* Feel free to send next weeks winning lottery numbers my way.

I have dabbled quite a bit in the editor during the years and are fully aware of what it takes to design a scenario, map or not least a campaign.

I'm greatlful for the guys doing these things and  i do considder the products that BFC do release to be of the highest quality and i have no doubt that the guys working for BFC are working hard. ...

I just wish there could be more of them...espesially working on new basegames, modules, game engine updates...

When it comes to these things i'm a little bit dissapointed...It takes to long ! 

 

[Artkin]

Lol if you don't have the Rebels in Odessa map on your hard drive then that's indicative

[Vacillator]

4 minutes ago, Artkin said:

if you don't have the Rebels in Odessa map on your hard drive then that's indicative

I have it but don't think I've played on it.  I suppose that could indicate quite a few things .

Anyway, as a relative newcomer I'd like to take a positive from this thread - there is still a great passion for the game.  Okay this leads to frustration at times (for those wanting content - early East Front yes please - and those wanting perceived bugs squashed or improvements made).  Perhaps its my newness but I can ignore all of this most of the time.

[Redwolf]

On 12/9/2022 at 4:56 PM, Artkin said:

I VERY highly doubt anyone in this community wants to play Panther fires 100 rounds a minute.

What people want is content, and theyre sick of paying $60 for a half recycled game.

I'd happily pay $60 for a 3/4th recycled game - if I could.

The "Charles-free" new content such as scenario packs is not that interesting to me. I want to play with new toys and I want bugs fixed.

[A Canadian Cat]

On 12/9/2022 at 4:56 PM, Artkin said:

I VERY highly doubt anyone in this community wants to play Panther fires 100 rounds a minute.

@BFCElvis used an over the top example but just think about all the fans of <insert favourite equipment here> that would like to tweak its capabilities just a bit more in line with the reputation they have in their own heads. What happens to PBEM? Do I have to play with your idea of <insert favourite equipment here> or do you have to play with mine?

Hard pass thanks I'll take consistent capabilities thanks.

 

On 12/9/2022 at 4:56 PM, Artkin said:

What people want is content, and theyre sick of paying $60 for a half recycled game.

LOL so they want to recycle their own content?

[Artkin]

5 hours ago, IanL said:

@BFCElvis used an over the top example but just think about all the fans of <insert favourite equipment here> that would like to tweak its capabilities just a bit more in line with the reputation they have in their own heads.

I don't know why such a minute fear affects what could be one of the game's largest features. The fear is that people will modify Russian tanks so they dont get stomped in cmbs? Or weaken Abrams? Etc?

I guess that's fine, I wouldn't even ask for a tool to edit unit values like that. That's BFC's thing.

I'm more interested in an editable TOE: being able to customize squads (like CMPE) and also being able to develop TOEs that aren't native to the base game + modules.. I ran into a ton of trouble when trying to create my MRB in cmbs. I had to create too many ad hoc solutions for simple problems. I'm mostly finished with a MRD for cmcw and I've come across the same issues, but less so since I'm using a source with less fidelity than the one previously used for the MRB.

 

5 hours ago, IanL said:

What happens to PBEM? Do I have to play with your idea of <insert favourite equipment here> or do you have to play with mine?

men of war, company of heroes all made you load up mod packs to use ingame, and they only worked in multiplayer if you had the same mod loaded up. Is something like this completely infeasible?

 

5 hours ago, IanL said:

LOL so they want to recycle their own content?

I'm not sure what you mean but I doubt it's relevant.

I pay you money for something good.

Personally when I make purchases around here it's because I know I can add the master maps to my other games. I feel I haven't been getting an incredible amount of new and different vehicles. CMCW has many of its vehicles from SF2 and maybe even Afghanistan. CMFB has many of its vehicles from CMFI, CMBN. SF2 was a re-do of itself which took ages also.

[Butschi]

14 hours ago, Artkin said:

men of war, company of heroes all made you load up mod packs to use ingame, and they only worked in multiplayer if you had the same mod loaded up. Is something like this completely infeasible?

I think you misread that. It's not about technical feasibility. Of course this is technically doable.

CM is a niche game and as such has a small player base. Now let's assume someone comes up with a rather popular "realism mod". Some weapon stats were tweaked because someone read that those weapons were super awesome (like the Panthers example but less exaggerated). Somehow those tweakes favour just one side. Now you have one half of the player base who will refuse to play without that mod. They will argue fiercely because it is a "realism mod". The other side argues equally fiercly and refuses to play with the mod.

What you have gained now is splitting the player base, effectively reducing the number of available pvp players by a large amount and on top of that you have poisoned the forums because you have the next religious war on your hands.

You can do such things with large player bases and rts like games yhat aren't realistic anyway and get balanced such that all factions are equally viable. A mod that negatively affects balance in such a case will die quickly. But not in CM. You'd have to forbid that kind of modding for multiplayer at the very least.

Edited December 17, 2022 by Butschi

[Thewood1]

On 12/11/2022 at 8:30 PM, BFCElvis said:

CMBO/CMBB/CMAK

Lets keep a little perspective on CM1 content.  Those three games by themselves were four entire theaters (more if you count side theaters like Finland) across 4-5 years of a single war were delivered over a real world timespan of 4 years.  It took another three years to get to a dodgy CMSF 1 release.  Then another 4 years to get the full CMSF game release complete.   CMBN came out a year after the last CMSF release.  Over the next 11 years, there have been a three non-WW2 (counting a re-release of CMSF) games and no modules.  But for WW2, its taken 10 years to get a much smaller scope of WW2 content compared to CM1's three games.   The peak of BFC releases, IMO was the 2010 to 2015 time period.  In the last couple years, its been kind of paltry.   

I think most of know and understand the reasoning behind smaller content releases as to units, regions, and timeframe, But games like CMBS appear to be somewhat orphaned.  There appears to be very little realistic and marketed content strategy.

[BornGinger]

On 12/11/2022 at 10:48 AM, AndreaVochieri said:

And I'm also ready to pay for a new module

It seems that new modules is what Battlefront is focusing on instead of doing changes to the game engine that will improve the simulation aspects of the games.

There are supposed to be changes to the engine that will improve the ability to play the game for those with certain so called "computer rigs" that are experiencing problems today.

That is of course great. But to improve to simulation aspects of the game are still more important than to push out even more new modules for a game with a very limited game engine.

[Redwolf]

19 hours ago, BornGinger said:

It seems that new modules is what Battlefront is focusing on instead of doing changes to the game engine that will improve the simulation aspects of the games.

I think it is worse. A module and game engine work both require Charles to get involved. The only Charles-free content is scenario packs.

Lately we had a serious lack of content that requires Charles. I would be happy with modules even without engine changes, but it is kinda in one pot.

Of course this opens up a path to hope that Charles is instead working on engine v5 with multithreading and better integration with modern GPUs.

[AlexUK]

Or an entirely new game. 

[DougPhresh]

As a Professional user in my day job and what feels like a lifelong fan, I do think they've done a good job balancing development with a small team. War gamers and staff officers are a tough crowd to please, but their passion comes through in their work and their adaptation of Steam after years and years of discussion shows a willingness to be responsive, listen to the community and reach new fans. 

 

I imagine the Professional orders have taken up a large amount of time, in part because we're a demanding bunch, and also because of the nature of government procurement and contracting. Beyond that, current events sunk a Black Sea module that seems to have had a fair bit of work invested in it. The important thing to me is that they're communicating with the community here, and have remained committed to it even when people are disappointed. This has often been a point of contention, and again shows a lot of positive development. I don't want all that to get lost. 

 

In terms of specifics, of course I would like to see Partisans, Co-Belligerents and RSI in Fortress Italy, and a fully developed TOE and OOB for Italian forces in Sicily which right now are lacking a lot. I'd love to see Brigade Piron and the Princess Irene's in Battle for Normandy/Final Blitzkrieg, and the Scheldt and Rhine Crossings for the Commonwealth in Final Blitzkrieg. Finally, as with it seems everyone else, minor Axis / new Allies for Red Thunder, particularly the Poles and Romanians who played a huge role in critical operations. 

 

This is my "Christmas list" every year, and I want to point out again that in Fire and Rubble, we got partisans. That's a major item was on the list addressed, just as Rome to Victory crossed off nearly all of my wishes for Allied forces in that title. These aren't small things, and I just want to take the time to show that they don't go unnoticed. 

 

The new year is sure to be marked with some  frustration, disappointment and delay, like every year, but there will be high points too, and sometimes that gets lost in the moment. Merry Christmas everyone. 

[DesertFox]

Let´s hope progression of the Commonwealth module for Final Blitzkrieg will be a little less glacial than the rest which had been announced at the beginning of 2022.

[Glubokii Boy]

On 12/18/2022 at 4:42 PM, DougPhresh said:

but there will be high points too, and sometimes that gets lost in the moment.  

These high points needs to be more common place...

Whenever they do happen they provide us with the best tactical wargame avaliable anywhere (for non military users) thats for sure...but they are to few and to far between...

A bit more priority on us common users from the main BFC programers would be welcomed indeed.

 

 

[markus544]

What type of American units can expect from the CMFB title. If it was mentioned before I cannot seem to locate it.

Thanks

[domfluff]

20 minutes ago, markus544 said:

What type of American units can expect from the CMFB title. If it was mentioned before I cannot seem to locate it.

Thanks

I don't believe that's been stated anywhere, but there are some fairly obvious contenders that would seem likely.

[DougPhresh]

On 12/20/2022 at 6:02 AM, domfluff said:

I don't believe that's been stated anywhere, but there are some fairly obvious contenders that would seem likely.

Many of which are in R2V, I would think. 

[Vacillator]

On 12/20/2022 at 12:42 PM, markus544 said:

What type of American units can expect from the CMFB title.

Are we actually talking about Commonwealth units here?

As in:

On 12/19/2022 at 1:39 AM, DesertFox said:

progression of the Commonwealth module for Final Blitzkrieg

 

[BornGinger]

On 12/20/2022 at 12:42 PM, markus544 said:

What type of American units can [we] expect from the CMFB title.[?]

If "units" here isn't only about infantry I would think that the M26 Pershing tank could be a part of the new CMFB module.

[Artkin]

On 12/12/2022 at 12:17 PM, Redwolf said:

I'd happily pay $60 for a 3/4th recycled game - if I could.

The "Charles-free" new content such as scenario packs is not that interesting to me. I want to play with new toys and I want bugs fixed.

Hey I just bought the RT battlepack that just came out and you sure can buy something 3/4 recycled. Two of the master maps that come with the pack are a recycled map - Der Ring Der Panzer just reskinned. Another just adds another 700m or so to the western side. Another map is just a cutout from a larger map included in the pack.

 

So only 10 of the 14 advertised maps added are "new". 2 are Der Ring Der Panzer redos, 1 is the same as another map with 700m added to the West, and 1 is just a cutout from a larger map.

Edited December 25, 2022 by Artkin