Annual look at the year to come - 2023

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, kohlenklau said:

I was actually hoping that Steve would say Charles WAS just limited availability. It would explain or justify more in my small brain of why we hear limited development time.

The answer is complicated, but it boils down to "it takes a lot of time to code and maintain this sort of game".  This is normal for gamers.  Very often the things you guys picture being "easy" might take a month, and the things you think are "hard" take a day.  Gamers also tend to focus on a few things and think "that shouldn't take long" and not think of the hundreds of other things that also need attention.  They also do not have an appreciation that a 3D model doesn't do squat without extensive programming to define what all the pieces do.  Further, gamers never account for the vast amounts of time that are needed to do basic stuff, like memory swapping, optimizations so the thing will run in the first place, bugs with other people's stuff that need to be worked around, etc.

Therefore, the gamers' ability to sense how much time is spent on things is limited.

3 hours ago, kohlenklau said:

The one thing about the constant feud-war-romance between BFC and the forumite customers is that BFC has all the actual sales data of course and knows at a gut level what time and effort a module takes. The Early War crowd has no such central core to approach BFC with a proposal backed by signatures like a petition and indeed can't really have one. BilH had a great pitch AND an awesome angle as a veteran of that Cold War era AND had a team AND did a bunch of legwork AND Steve was in a good mood SO something magical happened for CMCW fans. The funny thing you hear over in that CMCW forum is how it is selling way better than they ever predicted. I can only say that the same low predicted sales but higher actual sales could be true for a CM Early War.

Could be, but we're not going to find out.  CMCW was a fairly modest adaptation of what we already have on hand, therefore worth the risk.  Early War is a very large departure, so a much larger risk.

Also, you have to keep in mind relativity.  CMCW might be selling better than we expected, but our expectations were quite modest to start with.  It is not doing anything to change our perspective.  Meaning, the pecking order of popularity of various fronts/time periods we had going into CMCW has not been altered.

Steve

[SgtHatred]

So, the meagre improvements since Red Thunder was released 9 years ago are the result of 60+ hour weeks? Yikes.

[FlammenwerferX]

Trying to read between the lines here does that mean that the next WWII game (if there is one) would be N. Africa, because part of the adaptation/work is done from CMFI and it would have Brits and Yanks, which moves product.

[kohlenklau]

34 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Could be, but we're not going to find out. 

Thank you Steve. I appreciate your explanations. My post was not meant to spawn another "Steve post"...

 

 

 

[Vacillator]

10 minutes ago, FlammenwerferX said:

if there is one

Maybe that's the question - I get that releasing BPs etc. is easier and less risky than going Early War or even 'worse' releasing a whole new title.  Steve obviously knows the $$$ equation better than we do and it's his business after all.

If there is one and it's North Afrika, a few of my $ would be heading that way.

12 minutes ago, SgtHatred said:

So, the meagre improvements since Red Thunder was released 9 years ago are the result of 60+ hour weeks? Yikes.

I think the explanation is that Red Thunder has not been the only thing on the 'to do' list?

50 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Could be, but we're not going to find out.

Understood, but sad all the same .  Tell me it's not true .

Edited February 14, 2023 by Vacillator
My crappy typing

[SgtHatred]

5 minutes ago, Vacillator said:

I think the explanation is that Red Thunder has not been the only thing on the 'to do' list?

You misunderstand my meaning. I was referring to all CMx2 games. The Red Thunder mention is only a time-frame.

[Vacillator]

Just now, SgtHatred said:

You misunderstand my meaning

Apologies, I did. 

I also have to confess to not knowing whether progress on modern titles has been meagre or not.  Or whether work on the professional version has been a golden goose, or kept the boat afloat etc. but I assume a bit of both.

[Battlefront.com]

51 minutes ago, SgtHatred said:

So, the meagre improvements since Red Thunder was released 9 years ago are the result of 60+ hour weeks? Yikes.

Yup, but only if you define meager as the couple of releases each year since then, including pushing the game into different time periods.

But I understand you better now.  Troll's gotta do what a troll's gotta do.

Steve

[quakerparrot67]

18 hours ago, Artkin said:

Just set your hotkeys a way that works for you. Theres a way to elevate the camera in the hotkeys file, no need to use the numpad with fixed camera locations. 

mousewheel will also elevate the camera, at least on mine...

 

cheers,

rob

[Artkin]

5 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

 They also do not have an appreciation that a 3D model doesn't do squat without extensive programming to define what all the pieces do.

In reference to my complaint about the CMRT Panzer III? 

[Ultradave]

18 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

The answer is complicated, but it boils down to "it takes a lot of time to code and maintain this sort of game".  This is normal for gamers.  Very often the things you guys picture being "easy" might take a month, and the things you think are "hard" take a day. 

This isn't unique to game software.  

I just retired from a 38 year career in radiation shielding design. We use a mix of our own and commercial software. But even using commercial software, the incredibly detailed model of the submarine shielding is the key, and it takes a huge effort to make that model. Likewise, our home grown software has developed and evolved over decades to where it is today. Many times (always, really) shoehorning a new capability into this software ends up being MUCH more involved than we first expected. And we've been the recipients of the "It should be easy to add XYZ. Why is your estimate so high?" comments.  Yeah, sure. We'll see.  

I can sympathize with Steve on this.

Dave

Edited February 15, 2023 by Ultradave

[Sequoia]

Would I be right in assuming the complexity of the CMX2 engine code has far surpassed that of the CMX1 North Africa game?

[Battlefront.com]

25 minutes ago, Artkin said:

In reference to my complaint about the CMRT Panzer III? 

Nope.  That was just a general statement that there's a lot of coding work that is needed for each vehicle once there is a model for it.  Each ERA block, for example, needs to be coded because there's a variety of physics and graphical things that need to happen to it.  Too complex to script.  Each wheel needs to be coded as to how much the suspension allows it to move up and down.  Smock dischargers need to have vectors and arcs established.  And dozens of other things like that.

12 minutes ago, Ultradave said:

This isn't unique to game software.  

I just retired from a 38 year career in radiations shielding design. We use a mix of our own and commercial software. But even using commercial software, the incredibly detailed model of the submarine shielding is the key, and it takes a huge effort to make that model. Likewise, our home grown software has developed and evolved over decades to where it is today. Many times (always, really) shoehorning a new capability into this software ends up being MUCH more involved than we first expected. And we've been the recipients of the "It should be easy to add XYZ. Why is your estimate so high?" comments.  Yeah, sure. We'll see.  

I can just hear you now... "if you don't like it, learn Fortran and do it yourself!" (or is your software still running on punch cards?

12 minutes ago, Ultradave said:

I can sympathize with Steve on this.

Yeah, I think anybody in software can relate.  I think most people who work in software find themselves frustrated by the conflict between potential and practical.

Steve

[Vacillator]

6 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I can just hear you now... "if you don't like it, learn Fortran and do it yourself!"

Haha, I learned Fortran once and my brain has since chosen to forget it.

Anyway, I am with Dave on all of this.  If only his SU100s would slow down a bit in our PBEM.  But I digress...

[Vacillator]

On 2/7/2023 at 6:40 AM, chuckdyke said:

Can you understand him when he tells a joke?  

I'm a bit late on this one, but aye bonny lad I can.  I'm from just south of the border so it's nae problem.

[Artkin]

Ah yes, era in this game is totally unique in the gaming world and is pretty special. Suspensions are very good as well

[Erwin]

1 hour ago, Sequoia said:

Would I be right in assuming the complexity of the CMX2 engine code has far surpassed that of the CMX1 North Africa game?

While all the CM1 games, well certainly CMBB and CMAK. are still fun to play and if well-modded can look almost as good as CM2 from level 3 and higher, there are huge numbers of features in CM2 that CM1 does not have as one would expect since CMBO was released around 20 years ago.

[chuckdyke]

1 hour ago, Erwin said:

While all the CM1 games, well certainly CMBB and CMAK. are still fun to play and if well-modded can look almost as good as CM2 from level 3 and higher, there are huge numbers of features in CM2 that CM1 does not have as one would expect since CMBO was released around 20 years ago.

Remake them would have me as a customer. Battles and scenarios CM2 doesn't have.

[kohlenklau]

16 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

Remake them would have me as a customer. Battles and scenarios CM2 doesn't have.

Pass me that doobie your smokin'...

[chuckdyke]

55 minutes ago, kohlenklau said:

Pass me that doobie your smokin'...

Ask and you shall receive the Good Book says.

[chuckdyke]

While I am here anybody knows how a WW2 Soviet HQ like platoon and company out of C2 (no radio) manages to call in an off-map mortar mission? I don't buy the Sim Sala Bin hypothetical field telephone. It takes him 9 minutes so ample time to get to a unit with a radio. It is how I play it hypothetically he get assigned a mortar preplanned and gets the necessary communication means. One mortar/ HQ Unit and Hypothetically they can communicate using the mortar of the off-map artillery network. A more precise manual would be more than welcome. We wrote our own but PBEM players usually have different opinions. 

Edited February 15, 2023 by chuckdyke

[SgtHatred]

5 hours ago, Ultradave said:

This isn't unique to game software.  

I just retired from a 38 year career in radiations shielding design. We use a mix of our own and commercial software. But even using commercial software, the incredibly detailed model of the submarine shielding is the key, and it takes a huge effort to make that model. Likewise, our home grown software has developed and evolved over decades to where it is today. Many times (always, really) shoehorning a new capability into this software ends up being MUCH more involved than we first expected. And we've been the recipients of the "It should be easy to add XYZ. Why is your estimate so high?" comments.  Yeah, sure. We'll see.  

I can sympathize with Steve on this.

Dave

Sure, but it's also the case that inept design creates massive difficulty for simple things. There is a reason the Obamacare website cost nearly a billion dollars after all, and it isn't because "software is complex". Too often that is used as an excuse. I've been in software for 20 years, and if we tolerated the kind of faff in other fields that we do in software, well... I would avoid bridges for one thing.

 

5 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Nope.  That was just a general statement that there's a lot of coding work that is needed for each vehicle once there is a model for it.  Each ERA block, for example, needs to be coded because there's a variety of physics and graphical things that need to happen to it.  Too complex to script.  Each wheel needs to be coded as to how much the suspension allows it to move up and down.  Smock dischargers need to have vectors and arcs established.  And dozens of other things like that.

Combat Mission really has hardcoded things like smoke launcher arcs and wheel traversal? Sounds like a very labour intensive design.

[Battlefront.com]

9 hours ago, SgtHatred said:

Sure, but it's also the case that inept design creates massive difficulty for simple things.

True, though "inept" is both an oversimplification and a naive view of why designs sometimes fail over time.  The more usual reason, I'm sure, is that engineers can not anticipate everything that is going to be done with their software 5, 10, 15 years down the road.  Nor can the anticipate everything that happens with the hardware and software that they interact with.

If you're in software, you should already know this.

9 hours ago, SgtHatred said:

Combat Mission really has hardcoded things like smoke launcher arcs and wheel traversal? Sounds like a very labour intensive design.

It is labor intensive, but there's no alternative because such things are specific to each vehicle.  There is no such thing as a standard smoke launcher, for example.  So either each one has to be coded to work as the real world one does, or we'd have to just say "one size fits all" and stick with that.  You know, like what all the other games out there do that are criticized for not being realistic.

Sure, in a perfect world we could code complex analysis systems that could do this stuff on the fly with anything and everything thrown at it.  Absolutely possible.  And you'd be getting Shock Force v1.0 right about now.

You apparently live in a bubble.  A very angry bubble.  Not really a good place to be IMHO.

Steve

[CarlXII]

8 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

It is labor intensive, but there's no alternative because such things are specific to each vehicle.  There is no such thing as a standard smoke launcher, for example.  So either each one has to be coded to work as the real world one does, or we'd have to just say "one size fits all" and stick with that.  You know, like what all the other games out there do that are criticized for not being realistic.

When i'm not busy complaining  i can jump in here and confirm that this is actually one of the things that most CM players absolutely like about your games i belive. Your efforts to get things as realistic as possible. Thats part of what makes CM...CM and the reason we play this game year after year...

Don't stop ! 

[Lethaface]

1 hour ago, CarlXII said:

When i'm not busy complaining  i can jump in here and confirm that this is actually one of the things that most CM players absolutely like about your games i belive. Your efforts to get things as realistic as possible. Thats part of what makes CM...CM and the reason we play this game year after year...

Don't stop ! 

Lol I remember in CMSF1 back in 2007 trying to see whether the RPG-18 some Syrian teams had actually functioned or was just a texture. AFAIK there was no UI representation for it yet, at the time. The attention for details sure is one of the big reasons I'm still playing CMx2.