Annual look at the year to come - 2023

[Jim Pyle]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

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.

Had to chuckle when I read this.  My last 15 years at work was in a chemical plant automating the different processes.  Getting pumps, valves, scales, agitators to do what we wanted was the easy part.  The hard part was to figure out how the operators could screw it up.  

[Battlefront.com]

15 minutes ago, JP48 said:

Had to chuckle when I read this.  My last 15 years at work was in a chemical plant automating the different processes.  Getting pumps, valves, scales, agitators to do what we wanted was the easy part.  The hard part was to figure out how the operators could screw it up.  

And we, and the environment around us, all thank you for your efforts

Steve

[Vergeltungswaffe]

17 minutes ago, JP48 said:

Had to chuckle when I read this.  My last 15 years at work was in a chemical plant automating the different processes.  Getting pumps, valves, scales, agitators to do what we wanted was the easy part.  The hard part was to figure out how the operators could screw it up.  

So true and also sounds a lot like game design.

You do all you can, test it all you can, but it takes releasing it to the masses to see what can be broken that you never even remotely considered.

[Battlefront.com]

As von Moltke stated:

No plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first encounter with the main enemy forces.

We absolutely do not think of customers as the enemy, but the underlying concept applies to software or any product

Steve

[kohlenklau]

The Early War Orphans PBEM Club is now open. 

 

[AndrewO]

Any update on the Steam games? Still not seeing any patches come through there yet and its been a while.

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, AndrewO said:

Any update on the Steam games? Still not seeing any patches come through there yet and its been a while.

Some internal process has experienced a hiccup.  Not entirely sure, sorry.

Steve

[massi9797Dz]

What do you mean by that Steve ? 

[Loki1701-e]

Hey Battlefront, 

I am kind of new to the franchise being referred to by a friend, around a year ago but only just getting the one of the games this last august. but so far, I have played nearly 150 hours on Shock Force 2 completing all the US Army missions and am around halfway through the USMC campaign. I really love the combat mission franchise so far and enjoy the work yall are making. In my time playing the game so far, I have collected some feedback while playing though the games that I would really like to suggest helping improve the game and make it even better! I am brand new to the community blog so sorry if this has been suggested before. 

 

Possibility to have a interface to set your own time for arty/mortar delay.

One of the few things that bugged me. Usually when I had a lot of arty under my command, I found it hard to coordinate it all and drop it at the same time. Usually because the unit never had more than 1 or 2 fire control teams and all that was left was spotters or command teams. Leaving an unsynchronized drop time due to the preselect delay times of 5min 10min and 15min.  It wasn't a big deal but it would be awesome to have the ability to set your own delay time so you can suppress various areas at once to support a large advance of battalion sized units. 

 

Possible ROE/WRA interface 

It would be neat to have the ability to tell separate units what to engage and what weapons to engage specific enemy units with. Some encounters I had Abrams and Stryker MGSs targeting small vehicles with MPAT or sabot shells when the 50cal will work fine in taking them out. Also other instances like Javelin teams targeting lower priority targets first like a bunker which poses no current threat to a t55 which is looking at them even though the javelin team saw them both at the same time. While it also isn't a game breaking issue it would be an awesome feature to have to help improve gameplay especially with units that have lower amounts of ordinance. 

Thanks for your time,

Loki

 

Edited February 17, 2023 by Loki1701-e

[AndrewO]

17 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Some internal process has experienced a hiccup.  Not entirely sure, sorry.

Steve

Any idea on the timeline?

[Vacillator]

14 hours ago, Loki1701-e said:

I really love the combat mission franchise

Me too.  Welcome and it's good to read your post.  I'm more of WW2 guy, but I get your points and they're valid.

[Centurian52]

On 2/14/2023 at 9:23 AM, Battlefront.com said:

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. 

So my read on that is that my chances of selling you on Combat Mission: Great War are somewhere between "not a chance" and "not a chance in hell" (too much stuff that isn't already on hand (I believe between Rome to Victory and Fire and Rubble we have most of the rifles we'd need, but there are all of all of those early tanks in the late war, direct fire artillery that would need to be modeled in 1914, and lots of new uniforms), company sized "squads" in the early war would stress the hell out of the engine, etc...). Oh well. Maybe someday a dev somewhere will deliver a realistic tactical level WW1 game. In the meantime CMCW has gone a long way towards reducing the number of itches that need scratching (and I'm excited to be getting the BAOR and Canadians, plus an extension back to 1976!).

Edited February 17, 2023 by Centurian52

[kohlenklau]

14 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

Combat Mission: Great War

Yes, they'll do it but they will start with spring of 1918 and work backwards, they promise! The first basegame would have Germans and US Army. No winter terrain. The next module would have British and the next module would take it to 11/11/18.

 

Edited February 17, 2023 by kohlenklau

[Vacillator]

16 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

Combat Mission: Great War

I'd buy it, but I'm not sure whether BFC think many others would.  And I'd rather buy early East Front WW2 (at which point Steve yawns and reaches for another beer).

[Codreanu]

Has the idea to start a Kickstarter to gauge interest for potential new CM games ever been tossed around? I wouldn't mind putting down $60 for an early war Eastern Front game for example, even if I knew it wouldn't release for another couple of years.

[Vacillator]

6 minutes ago, Codreanu said:

Has the idea to start a Kickstarter to gauge interest for potential new CM games ever been tossed around?

Great idea, I haven't seen it before.

[kohlenklau]

10 minutes ago, Codreanu said:

Has the idea to start a Kickstarter

I tried many years back and it didn't amount to zip diddly and we folded the tent.

[Vacillator]

3 minutes ago, kohlenklau said:

it didn't amount to zip diddly

Experience talks , but it could be worth another go?  Not so sure the result would be different though...

[Codreanu]

43 minutes ago, kohlenklau said:

I tried many years back and it didn't amount to zip diddly and we folded the tent.

Interesting, it seems like something that would work, it wouldn't be the first time an already established company funded new games through it and it requires people to put their money where their mouth is. If one guy can fund CM:FI, why can't the community fund CM:Barbarossa or any other game that people want to see?

[Centurian52]

1 hour ago, Vacillator said:

I'd buy it, but I'm not sure whether BFC think many others would.  And I'd rather buy early East Front WW2 (at which point Steve yawns and reaches for another beer).

We already have CMBB though

[kohlenklau]

2 hours ago, Centurian52 said:

We already have CMBB though

They had CMSF and still made CMSF2...

[Battlefront.com]

20 hours ago, massi9797Dz said:

What do you mean by that Steve ? 

That something on Slitherine's end didn't go as expected and it has caused some delay.

6 hours ago, AndrewO said:

Any idea on the timeline?

Unfortunately no.  We do know that it moved ahead to the last stage for release, but it won't be up this weekend.

We will likely have more information on Monday, though I don't know if it will be some sort of timeframe.

Just know that we're doing what we can and will keep you informed.

Steve

[Centurian52]

2 hours ago, kohlenklau said:

They had CMSF and still made CMSF2...

I suppose they figured that was worthwhile because most of the work was already done. And in any case, I'm not the one calling the shots at BFC. While I do think CMSF2 is a clear improvement, I thought CMSF1 was perfectly serviceable (and I still enjoy CMA, even though it hasn't got an engine update). 

In an ideal world we would have every single theater of every single war (both historical and what-if) all in the latest and greatest engine. But we don't live in an ideal world. BFC has finite time and resources, and there are so many theaters in so many wars to cover. I'd rather they spent their time providing us new theaters, rather than just updating the ones they've already given us. I would absolutely be in favor of a Combat Mission game covering Poland 1939, Norway 1940, and France 1940, since those theaters haven't been covered yet. But CMBB and CMAK both do an excellent job of covering the Eastern Front and North Africa respectively. Yes, the CM1 engine is not as good as the CM2 engine. But CM1 is still the second best engine in the world after CM2.

Edited February 18, 2023 by Centurian52

[PEB14]

8 hours ago, kohlenklau said:

Yes, they'll do it but they will start with spring of 1918 and work backwards, they promise! The first basegame would have Germans and US Army. No winter terrain. The next module would have British and the next module would take it to 11/11/18.

 

But to be honest, playing 1915-17 wouldn't be THAT interesting. Charging blindlessly in the no man's land hoping for some troops to reach the enemy trench before being completely slaughtered by an off-map artiellery barrage wouldn't make a great game!

A 1914 period game would be something completely different. You should have mounted cavalry (with spears and sabres!), THAT woiuld be GREAT!

On the other end, 1917-18 would be very interesting. But some CM game mechanics shall be modified, the present trench system is too basic for WW1 stuff IMO, and you would really need some close combat mechanics for any WW1 game (baionets and the like).

[Artkin]

5 minutes ago, PEB14 said:

But to be honest, playing 1915-17 wouldn't be THAT interesting. Charging blindlessly in the no man's land hoping for some troops to reach the enemy trench before being completely slaughtered by an off-map artiellery barrage wouldn't make a great game!

A 1914 period game would be something completely different. You should have mounted cavalry (with spears and sabres!), THAT woiuld be GREAT!

On the other end, 1917-18 would be very interesting. But some CM game mechanics shall be modified, the present trench system is too basic for WW1 stuff IMO, and you would really need some close combat mechanics for any WW1 game (baionets and the like).

But, it would crack open an entirely new egg. I'm sure BFC would get a ton of new players into the series by diversifying like this. Look at Battlefield: One. Apparently there were a lot of people that were into the WWI setting (Despite the game being essentially COD and far from the reality). It would be a risk, but maybe a quick job. The TOE's are simple enough and there really wasn't anywhere near the equipment that was in WW2.

I would totally buy a WWI Combat Mission.

Not without flaw but here is a WW1 TOE I did for CMRT:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/gjffzx7l5etutkf/Master TOE WW1.btt?dl=0

Edited February 18, 2023 by Artkin