Annual look at the year to come - 2023

[JoMac]

@Battlefront.com...Hey Steve, but trying to remember, is the Engine 5 Update roughly coming out for all of CMx2 by end of this year or early next? 

[Battlefront.com]

10 minutes ago, JoMac said:

@Battlefront.com...Hey Steve, but trying to remember, is the Engine 5 Update roughly coming out for all of CMx2 by end of this year or early next? 

No firm timeframe to announce.  We're presently assessing several options and whatever we choose will dictate when it comes out.

Steve

[Freyberg]

Thanks for the update -- you guys sound like you've been amazingly busy!

I love Battlepacks, especially when they have Master Maps in them! Looking forward to them  

[Aragorn2002]

3 hours ago, MikeyD said:

Heh heh, I'm reminded of an old college friend (back last century) who had opinions on EVERYTHING. He told me about how he once found himself sitting at a table with the editor of 'Consumer Reports' magazine, whereupon he proceeded to spend the evening telling the editor AAAAAAALLL the things wrong with his magazine and exactly what he needed to do to fix it. I'm sure the editor appreciated a pimply faced 19 year old with black horn rim glasses and a polyester shirt bending his ear on the correct way to run a magazine that had been in business since 1938.

Sounds more autobiographical to me, Mikey.

[massi9797Dz]

Steve the new updates adressed for combat mission shock force 2 and black sea also cold war didn t get released in steam , whene will they come out ? they are onlu availble at battlefront.com

[Battlefront.com]

6 hours ago, massi9797Dz said:

Steve the new updates adressed for combat mission shock force 2 and black sea also cold war didn t get released in steam , whene will they come out ? they are onlu availble at battlefront.com

Those are posted by Slitherine and that involves an extra step.  They have them in hand and their QA didn't turn up any issues so they should be up very soon.

Normally they would be up pretty much at the same time, however we Americans work on our weekends and lazy Europeans don't.  Something about taking time off from work being important or some other lame excuse

Steve

[Vacillator]

5 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

lazy Europeans don't.  Something about taking time off from work being important or some other lame excuse

It's so we have more time to play CM of course .

[AndrewO]

This discussion reminds me of this quote

 

[CarlXII]

5 hours ago, AndrewO said:

This discussion reminds me of this quote

 

Well...A world with NO DEMANDS (or very limited ones) might not be the best thing. Look at the old eastern block during the cold war for example. No demands ment that they were driving around in cars 40 years behind in development compared to the western world.

Perhaps not the best thing imo.

 

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, CarlXII said:

Well...A world with NO DEMANDS (or very limited ones) might not be the best thing. Look at the old eastern block during the cold war for example. No demands ment that they were driving around in cars 40 years behind in development compared to the western world.

Perhaps not the best thing imo.

 

There is a difference between demands and requests.  Has a lot to do with attitude.

The Forums here exist partly go give you guys a space to talk about stuff amongst yourselves, but also for a way for us to see what it is you want.  It's a great thing and it has absolutely made Combat Mission better.  But the more someone acts as Billy Connolly, the harder it is for us to tell what is really important since things are phrased as demands and those demands are so widespread, scattered, and unreasonably broad they are absolutely unrealistic.  This takes time to sort through and taking time to sort through unreasonable stuff means less time focused on more realistic, doable things.

Which is to say that the more stuff you ask us to do, the less we'll be able to deliver.  So it pays to stay focused because focused requests (not demands) get more attention and, therefore, are more likely going to be considered for inclusion.

The same is true for bug fixes, though to a lesser extent because we do want to fix all bugs.  But phrasing everything as some sort of Bug of Doom (e.g. "the game is unplayable because the spent casings don't bounce correctly off of bushes") is distracting from bugs of more importance (e.g. a tank variant not being in Individual Vehicles or a weapon with the wrong ammo).  It is also time consuming to sift through reports of X problem only to find out it's not really a bug or it's far more limited than was originally claimed.  TacAI behaviors very often fall into that category.

So you see, having a bunch of hot headed people demanding all kinds of stuff from us and to have done it yesterday really is counter productive.  Having a bunch of cool headed people weighing their thoughts and comments before, during, and after making them is much better for everybody.

Steve

P.S.  just the other day I was wondering how Billy is doing.  Poor bastard's having a rough time of it as of late.

[chuckdyke]

10 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

just the other day I was wondering how Billy is doing. 

Can you understand him when he tells a joke?  

 

 

[HerrTom]

2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

The same is true for bug fixes, though to a lesser extent because we do want to fix all bugs.  But phrasing everything as some sort of Bug of Doom (e.g. "the game is unplayable because the spent casings don't bounce correctly off of bushes") is distracting from bugs of more importance (e.g. a tank variant not being in Individual Vehicles or a weapon with the wrong ammo).  It is also time consuming to sift through reports of X problem only to find out it's not really a bug or it's far more limited than was originally claimed.  TacAI behaviors very often fall into that category.

So you see, having a bunch of hot headed people demanding all kinds of stuff from us and to have done it yesterday really is counter productive.  Having a bunch of cool headed people weighing their thoughts and comments before, during, and after making them is much better for everybody.

I'm not sure the hyperbole is helping your point here, Steve, even if it's understandable given the high emotions in this thread.  Going by this thread, the demanding peoples have mentioned: an easy-to-fix model bug in a Panzer III (that Phil already figured out and seems to have been fixed! Great!), the aforementioned T-90 armour bug (finally fixed, and by your definition seems a bug of more importance), the two I mentioned (9K114 missiles don't work at all and artillery damage to subsytems), bugs with the GILL ATGM guidance, and the LAV-AT sights not functioning.  All of these seem like major bugs, no?  Or are they "the game is unplayable because the spent casings don't bounce correctly off of bushes?"

I was excited to see what was coming for CMCW and to hear news of an update to the engine, but honestly after this last year and reading this thread, I'm not as much anymore. I don't trust that any bugs that show up with new units in BAOR will be fixed even within a year (if ever, going by the LAV-AT), let alone anything in the new engine.

[Battlefront.com]

37 minutes ago, HerrTom said:

I'm not sure the hyperbole is helping your point here, Steve, even if it's understandable given the high emotions in this thread.  Going by this thread, the demanding peoples have mentioned: an easy-to-fix model bug in a Panzer III (that Phil already figured out and seems to have been fixed! Great!), the aforementioned T-90 armour bug (finally fixed, and by your definition seems a bug of more importance), the two I mentioned (9K114 missiles don't work at all and artillery damage to subsytems), bugs with the GILL ATGM guidance, and the LAV-AT sights not functioning.  All of these seem like major bugs, no?  Or are they "the game is unplayable because the spent casings don't bounce correctly off of bushes?"

Sigh. If you don't think what I said applies to these bugs, then why are you taking up time and space posting this?  And really, do you think my impressions of our customer feedback, or gamer behavior generally, was a blank slate prior to this thread and only the material in this one thread is forming my opinion?  C'mon, it's like you're trying to pick a fight just for the sake of doing it.  That sort of thing certainly doesn't make me feel I need to reevaluate my understanding of the world I have to deal with.

37 minutes ago, HerrTom said:

I was excited to see what was coming for CMCW and to hear news of an update to the engine, but honestly after this last year and reading this thread, I'm not as much anymore. I don't trust that any bugs that show up with new units in BAOR will be fixed even within a year (if ever, going by the LAV-AT), let alone anything in the new engine.

Baby+bathwater+window= your loss.

Yes, I understand that we've been slower to fix some things and it's annoying and even angering.  I don't disagree with you that we should do a focused round of bug fixing for latent bugs that have, for whatever reason, failed to get addressed in previous builds.  However, perspective is important and losing sight of all that Combat Mission provides because it isn't perfect really doesn't do anybody any favors.  Least of all you, the customer.

Steve

[massi9797Dz]

14 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Those are posted by Slitherine and that involves an extra step.  They have them in hand and their QA didn't turn up any issues so they should be up very soon.

Normally they would be up pretty much at the same time, however we Americans work on our weekends and lazy Europeans don't.  Something about taking time off from work being important or some other lame excuse

Steve

LOL i don t complain 

[HerrTom]

16 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Sigh. If you don't think what I said applies to these bugs, then why are you taking up time and space posting this? 

Honestly? I don't know. Who knows what bugs you know about? Did you forget about them? Do you think they're unimportant? Some have been around for years!  As to why I'm taking time and space to post this - I want to know!

19 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

And really, do you think my impressions of our customer feedback, or gamer behavior generally, was a blank slate prior to this thread and only the material in this one thread is forming my opinion?

Of course not. But given the context of the thread, I thought citing the thread would be helpful to figure where the current conversation is. I thought that made sense, maybe not. I'm not sure.

21 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

C'mon, it's like you're trying to pick a fight just for the sake of doing it.  That sort of thing certainly doesn't make me feel I need to reevaluate my understanding of the world I have to deal with.

I might be, I'm sicker and grumpier than before. I was hoping to share my perspective. I haven't been super into CM recently after encountering a whole bunch of these bugs in a row, switching from game to game. I searched the forums before posting and found others had mentioned them, so went on to the next game, and so on. I posted about the artillery almost a decade ago.  Anyway, I took a break and came back to find that really nothing had happened. It's frustrating, and I get that this is only my perspective, but clearly a lot of people who I remember being quite positive and supportive chaps back in the day are equally frustrated.

25 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Baby+bathwater+window= your loss.

Don't get me wrong, I'll be watching for it, but I am definitely going to wait quite a while before buying anything else in the future given my own seemingly unreasonable gripes to make sure it'll actually be supported.  I'm still here because you are one of two guys who make games in this genre, and your Ukrainian friends are allergic to anything past 1943.  Despite how it may sound to you I of course want you to succeed!

28 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yes, I understand that we've been slower to fix some things and it's annoying and even angering.  I don't disagree with you that we should do a focused round of bug fixing for latent bugs that have, for whatever reason, failed to get addressed in previous builds.

Honestly, thanks for that. That's a step to the kind of communication I think I was trying to get at in my first post. People in this thread have legitimate grievances, and by and large we haven't been as civil (including me I think) with you as we should.  I think we see "We did pretty well with our 2022 calendar" in the second paragraph and immediately think "What are you guys smoking?"  According to your internal metrics - you probably did do a pretty good job. Lots of stuff behind closed doors and it sounds like tournaments were a big pile of problems for sure. But from the perspective of us plebs that sounds comical given what we've actually seen on our end.  But that's the core of the communication problem - we can't tell that, all we can do is see, right?  Anyway, thanks for staying civil Steve!

[AlexUK]

I’d also like to know the LAV-AT bug story. I was one who reported it and found out it had been reported a long time earlier. It is far removed from shell casings - it has a significant impact on scenarios where the vehicle is present (and there are a few). How come it has taken so long to fix (and maybe still not fixed now, unclear if current patch has fixed)?

From this customer’s perspective, more focus on significant bug fixing would be appreciated, together with greater clarity as to whether it is a confirmed bug and whether it has been reported and eventually accepted/fixed waiting for next patch. If there is a way that we can help with that it would also be interesting to know. 

Edited February 7, 2023 by AlexUK

[kohlenklau]

Hey Steve!

We saw Ithikial bust out of the gates to talk about his CMBN BP.

The Cold War shop is also firing up the discussion for CMCW BORE. BOAR BAOR

But was maybe your mention of a future CMFI BP a...uh...senior moment? Nothing posted at all in the CMFI forum...yet.

On our other discussion, ok, I agree to change your casting for the BFC Hollywood biopic to Chris Hemsworth. Nix Russell Crowe.

 

[Vacillator]

4 minutes ago, kohlenklau said:

Nothing posted at all in the CMFI forum...yet.

Maybe no-one has been 'volunteered' to produce it...yet .

[kohlenklau]

7 minutes ago, Vacillator said:

Maybe no-one has been 'volunteered' to produce it...yet .

yeah, could be. Or rummage through to see what was planned for R2V but never was released. Shine it up and send her out.

In the military we called this being "voluntold"

Edited February 7, 2023 by kohlenklau

[RockinHarry]

IMO BFC attempts dancing on one party too much. Get rid of RT or externalize it (seperate game), then optimize! Fix those things that were left alone for way too long, just in order to keep RT running with decent frame rates. Release some required info so that modders can be helped tackling things that were proved doable! Enough talents, passion and will around here. So WTF? Maybe releasing a new game engine would be another option, before most of us die of old age. Well... at least there´s wargaming alternatives (...believe it or rather not) and time doesn´t stand still either. I don´t have another 50 bucks to spare for half hearted efforts.

[Redwolf]

The sad thing isn't that the T-90, Gill and LAV-AT bugs exist.

The sad thing is that BFC went through an expensive release process and fix only one of them. That is inefficient. Now, if the other two bugs are supposed to be fixed they cost more. The opportunity to do them cheap is lost.

[Shady_Side]

One thing I would really like to have is a faster way to get extra ammo in the set up phase. Maybe by being able to get it a platoon at a time instead of squad by squad. If nothing else would make a lot of defensive battles less time consuming to set up.

[Lethaface]

10 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Sigh. If you don't think what I said applies to these bugs, then why are you taking up time and space posting this?  And really, do you think my impressions of our customer feedback, or gamer behavior generally, was a blank slate prior to this thread and only the material in this one thread is forming my opinion?  C'mon, it's like you're trying to pick a fight just for the sake of doing it.  That sort of thing certainly doesn't make me feel I need to reevaluate my understanding of the world I have to deal with.

Baby+bathwater+window= your loss.

Yes, I understand that we've been slower to fix some things and it's annoying and even angering.  I don't disagree with you that we should do a focused round of bug fixing for latent bugs that have, for whatever reason, failed to get addressed in previous builds.  However, perspective is important and losing sight of all that Combat Mission provides because it isn't perfect really doesn't do anybody any favors.  Least of all you, the customer.

Steve

One thing which imo could be improved is clarity of expectations. For example regarding the CMSF2 patch, was there a chance that some bugs which have been with us for quite a while (Syrian ammo, GILL, Syrian radio issues) would be fixed? Perhaps in reality nobody knew for certain until the patch was released.
However any patch for CMSF2 comes out, (some) people will have expectations/hopes that it will include their favorite fix. 

Personally from RL experiences I've learned to manage my expectations in such a way that I'm not easily disappointed. So unless I read a commitment that a patch(or whatever potential expectation building concept) will receive certain content, I don't have expectations to see certain content. I still have hopes though, also for some CMSF2 improvements/fixes/bugs. 

How to communicate clarity / manage expectations is another question. One could be: 'CMSF2 is, apart from engine improvements and major/critical issues, most probably EOL and won't see future patches'. 

Now I don't know if that's true even, more of an example which could perhaps prevent people building unwarranted expectations. Plus nobody would probably complain if a patch does come out even though it was communicated it wouldn't. 

[Battlefront.com]

12 hours ago, HerrTom said:

Honestly? I don't know. Who knows what bugs you know about? Did you forget about them? Do you think they're unimportant? Some have been around for years!  As to why I'm taking time and space to post this - I want to know!

A visual bug is not as important as a mechanics bug.  A bug limited to one specific system is not as important as something that applies across the board.  A bug that really isn't a bug, but is more of a limitation of the engine, is an entirely different thing completely.  Especially because it might be more of a perception problem than a real one.

All of this then competes for attention with all other things we have to do to keep all the games going.  Nothing is for free and no decision we make is ever without downsides.

12 hours ago, HerrTom said:

\Honestly, thanks for that. That's a step to the kind of communication I think I was trying to get at in my first post. People in this thread have legitimate grievances, and by and large we haven't been as civil (including me I think) with you as we should.  I think we see "We did pretty well with our 2022 calendar" in the second paragraph and immediately think "What are you guys smoking?"  According to your internal metrics - you probably did do a pretty good job. Lots of stuff behind closed doors and it sounds like tournaments were a big pile of problems for sure. But from the perspective of us plebs that sounds comical given what we've actually seen on our end.  But that's the core of the communication problem - we can't tell that, all we can do is see, right?  Anyway, thanks for staying civil Steve!

I've learned a long time ago that it is pretty much impossible to communicate how difficult and problematic, as well as imperfect, game development is to someone who hasn't been through it in person.  Fortunately, most of our customers trust us that we're doing the best we can while at the same time trying to do the most we can.  Some, and we've seen it in this thread multiple times, don't accept that and sometimes go so far as to invent their own reality. 

Sometimes it's quite frustrating for me as well.  Sometimes there's answers to your questions that I can't share with you for one reason or another.  Very often because it's not the right time to have a discussion (like what features are going to be in X release that is still 8 months away), sometimes it's because it's too complicated to explain in a useful way.

In the end we're more transparent with you guys than most game companies, in part because you have a direct line to the decision makers.  Try that with a AAA title   But it's still imperfect and subjected to the usual issues of technical people trying to have a conversation with non-technical people.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

4 hours ago, kohlenklau said:

But was maybe your mention of a future CMFI BP a...uh...senior moment? Nothing posted at all in the CMFI forum...yet.

Working on something for that, so "yet" is the operative word.

Steve