CarlXII Posted February 28, 2023 Share Posted February 28, 2023 I'm one of the guys who would NOT like to see a lowering of TOE attention to detail. IMO it ups the immersion when playing and it is also helpful when designing scenarios on my own. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artkin Posted February 28, 2023 Share Posted February 28, 2023 How's that the TOE with less attention to detail? Why don't you look up TOE's yourself and see just how much they can differ from the game, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarlXII Posted February 28, 2023 Share Posted February 28, 2023 10 minutes ago, Artkin said: How's that the TOE with less attention to detail? Why don't you look up TOE's yourself and see just how much they can differ from the game, lol. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin2k Posted February 28, 2023 Share Posted February 28, 2023 1 hour ago, kohlenklau said: I speak for myself only. I respect that aspect of BFC with getting the nitty gritty of TOEs correct by date and such. I do. But my play style came from once having a low end PC and still having a low end brain and I better enjoy the type of small scenario where the unit has been ravaged and the TOE is no longer intact. So, in the editor you have an HQ and purchase the teams tucked under there and you get your red lines. Like an adhoc force. Not a day 1 of the invasion TOE. I think there should be room for both types of approaches. I also like to play small scenarios. Real-time Quick Battles usually. Then use the autopicker with "mix" force. When necessary I press autopicker "suggestions" until I can see in the force list, that the base formation has sufficient infantry. In addition to vehicles that is. Point being: I don't think such force composition is all that realistic. Because armor is normally pooled. Not distributed to single vehicles, to assist the infantry. But I just like the dynamics of playing that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wadepm Posted February 28, 2023 Share Posted February 28, 2023 1 hour ago, CarlXII said: I'm one of the guys who would NOT like to see a lowering of TOE attention to detail. IMO it ups the immersion when playing and it is also helpful when designing scenarios on my own. I agree, if Battlefront are doing the game. However, what we are talking about is doing something that BF has said they will never do. How can this be done without them? Well, corners will have to be cut, etc. I am not a stickler for TOE's because, as has been stated by others in this thread, after a couple of months in combat the TOE is by the board... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kohlenklau Posted February 28, 2023 Share Posted February 28, 2023 1 hour ago, CarlXII said: I'm one of the guys who would NOT like to see a lowering of TOE attention to detail. IMO it ups the immersion when playing and it is also helpful when designing scenarios on my own. We are not asking that BFC's TOE attention to detail would be lowered. This was part of a one-sided beg and argue with BFC to try and get then to produce some dang version of an early war module. A vehicle pack. We have asked for JUST a vehicle pack and we'd do the TOE stuff on our own. Then we are told how that is too much time/cost/lost opportunity to do the 3D modelling and for Charles to code in each bogey wheel's movement in the z dimension/etc. Smoke and a pancake! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kohlenklau Posted February 28, 2023 Share Posted February 28, 2023 Steve has dropped a few light mentions of BFC doing Finland in the course of his lectures, er..I mean posts. He said it would be a more modest effort versus Barbarossa. I just want to say I would welcome this but I will try to don my Steve hat and explain what the module would be like. My opinions/thoughts: To maximize previously created content it would be a module to CMRT. It would not be the winter war of 1940. Nope nope nope. It is just the 1944 phase of the continuation war. If it went back into 1943 I would crap my pants. Just some modded uniform art, some new UI stuff, they'd pull their existing Finnish voices from CMBB and maybe supplement them with new stuff for artillery request wav files. Probably no new flavor objects. Maybe some new building art with the Russian words changed to Finnish. 5 minutes to do. A new region modtag of [finland] would be encoded. They would only crank out a very few new 3D models. Just a few. Finnish SMG, Finnish LMG. Very very low effort 3D modelling. You'd have the same vehicles as current CMRT but probably nothing new. Just new textures with the Finnish camo and markings. If we got even 1 new vehicle it would be for marketing reasons. One morning the new Finnish TOE stuff would be written up and encoded...then they'd go to lunch and leave early. Oh, they would fire up the campaign writers and the scenario writers. 2 campaigns and 16 scenarios would be asked for. That could take a while as they call up the BETA boys for testing. Check those sprockets please! Just trying to be realistic. Maybe I am all wrong and we'll get 1940 and T-26. BUT NOT THE 1944 part. Or we'll get both? But I doubt it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin2k Posted February 28, 2023 Share Posted February 28, 2023 Just now, kohlenklau said: Steve has dropped a few light mentions of BFC doing Finland in the course of his lectures, er..I mean posts. He said it would be a more modest effort versus Barbarossa. Is it not that the elephant in the room for expanding CMRT to earlier times is... Kursk 1943? And I don't mean they have to, on the contrary. It is more like how to expand CMRT backwards in time without having to do that whole Kursk thing, but still without leaving a gap there, that will surely make many customers ask: "Where the hell are the battles around Kursk?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vacillator Posted February 28, 2023 Share Posted February 28, 2023 6 minutes ago, Kevin2k said: "Where the hell are the battles around Kursk?" Well yeah where the hell are they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurian52 Posted February 28, 2023 Share Posted February 28, 2023 3 hours ago, Bearstronaut said: If I won the billion dollar powerball I'd definitely contact Steve about funding a Korean War Combat Mission game. I second that! If only it weren't for those pesky opportunity costs. I want more niche wars and theaters, but those are the very wars and theaters that are not likely to give BFC a strong return on investment. I bet there's a strong market for Vietnam or the Pacific, but Steve has already pointed out elsewhere that there is no way the CM2 engine could handle that much vegetation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarlXII Posted February 28, 2023 Share Posted February 28, 2023 19 minutes ago, kohlenklau said: We are not asking that BFC's TOE attention to detail would be lowered. This was part of a one-sided beg and argue with BFC to try and get then to produce some dang version of an early war module. I understand now 26 minutes ago, wadepm said: I am not a stickler for TOE's because, as has been stated by others in this thread, after a couple of months in combat the TOE is by the board... What i like about the way that BFC does their TOEs is that it will allow you to use a more or less 'correct' force structure when designing a scenario even if you don't really know all that much about how it was/is set up IRL. Simularelly other designers will have a nice base to start with when designing their scenarios. Hopefully leading to fairly realistic force structures in the community scenarios. I originally did not like the way it worked with you as the designer having to delete the parts of a formation that you do not want to use in a particular scenario. Today however...I really like this design and i find it really easy to use...It still has its limitations but i find it to be good. A do not in any way want to prevent a player (QB) or scenario designer to tweak the original formations as desired to fit their needs but as i said...i like the current design with having to start with a 'realistic' base and tweak it from there... 29 minutes ago, kohlenklau said: Then we are told how that is too much time/cost/lost opportunity to do the 3D modelling and for Charles to code in each bogey wheel's movement in the z dimension/etc. If only BFC was not this tiny little company...How wonderful it would have been if they could do more, faster... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin2k Posted February 28, 2023 Share Posted February 28, 2023 1 minute ago, Vacillator said: Well yeah where the hell are they? I suspect these battles continued in the direction of Haïti then Jamaica. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vacillator Posted February 28, 2023 Share Posted February 28, 2023 1 minute ago, CarlXII said: If only BFC was not this tiny little company While in a lot of ways I quite like this, I was also hoping: BFC customer base + Slitherine + Steam + maybe some of those military contracts = more staff at BFC 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kohlenklau Posted February 28, 2023 Share Posted February 28, 2023 8 minutes ago, Kevin2k said: Is it not that the elephant in the room for expanding CMRT to earlier times is... Kursk 1943? I think/guess Finland only came up as a "discussion purposes only" example of how they can't invest to do Barbarossa. I just went into conjecture & hypothesis mode about what it would be like. KURSK Steve could just say that they will do a cmx2 Kursk title and end all the worry that WW2 has been ditched until CMX3 Normandie starts the whole cycle over. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vacillator Posted February 28, 2023 Share Posted February 28, 2023 (edited) 7 minutes ago, kohlenklau said: Steve could just say that they will do a cmx2 Kursk title Kursk is only a short while before RT base timescale, so not so many new (or should I say old) vehicles to produce? Perhaps mainly earlier models of existing vehicles? Steve has however said (I think) that the likely payback would not be enough to justify the risk. Or did I just hear that in a bad dream? Edit: he probably said that about Early East Front... Edited February 28, 2023 by Vacillator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vacillator Posted February 28, 2023 Share Posted February 28, 2023 (edited) On 2/26/2023 at 11:09 PM, Battlefront.com said: Making a 1943 Eastern Front game focused on the Summer period is vastly easier to do than Barbarossa. Hang on, reading a few posts I'd missed, Steve agrees with me (partly). Kursk here we come . Edited February 28, 2023 by Vacillator 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearstronaut Posted February 28, 2023 Share Posted February 28, 2023 44 minutes ago, Centurian52 said: I second that! If only it weren't for those pesky opportunity costs. I want more niche wars and theaters, but those are the very wars and theaters that are not likely to give BFC a strong return on investment. I bet there's a strong market for Vietnam or the Pacific, but Steve has already pointed out elsewhere that there is no way the CM2 engine could handle that much vegetation. For the Korean War I'd figure it would be relatively easy. The North Koreans and Chinese essentially used late WW2 Soviet gear and the US and South Koreans used late WW2 US gear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin2k Posted February 28, 2023 Share Posted February 28, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, Vacillator said: Hang on, reading a few posts I'd missed, Steve agrees with me (partly). Kursk here we come . Steve: "Making a 1943 Eastern Front game focused on the Summer period is vastly easier to do than Barbarossa." Well spotted! "Vastly easier to do", isn't that just like saying: very, very easy to do? Edited February 28, 2023 by Kevin2k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarlXII Posted February 28, 2023 Share Posted February 28, 2023 12 minutes ago, Kevin2k said: isn't that just like saying: very, very easy to do? That's what it sounds like to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vacillator Posted February 28, 2023 Share Posted February 28, 2023 We can only hope. I would pay now for it, even a couple of years in advance. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted March 2, 2023 Author Share Posted March 2, 2023 On 2/28/2023 at 3:33 PM, CarlXII said: That's what it sounds like to me You guys are funny It is vastly easier for me to build a single skyscraper than an entire city. I wouldn't confuse "easier" with "easy" If I were you guys. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wadepm Posted March 2, 2023 Share Posted March 2, 2023 On 2/28/2023 at 2:19 PM, Kevin2k said: Steve: "Making a 1943 Eastern Front game focused on the Summer period is vastly easier to do than Barbarossa." Well spotted! "Vastly easier to do", isn't that just like saying: very, very easy to do? "We didn't do this because it was easy, we did it because we thought it would be easy." Churchill, or somebody similar... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lethaface Posted March 2, 2023 Share Posted March 2, 2023 Believing in something is half of the work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kohlenklau Posted March 2, 2023 Share Posted March 2, 2023 10 hours ago, Battlefront.com said: You guys are funny 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeatEtr Posted March 2, 2023 Share Posted March 2, 2023 This reminds me of an old George Carlin joke, something about he never banged a perfect 10… but one night… he banged five twos. That counts right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts