Annual look at the year to come - 2023

[kohlenklau]

5 minutes ago, Redwolf said:

Right now you cannot do new TO&E without Charles,

Work with me man!

I ain't waiting on stinking TO&E stuff. Make it have a formation editor and the TO&E stuff can be hand entered and saved as part of a CMMODS scenario or whatever. Have a squad editor or at least a dropdown menu to dial in/out a certain number of panzerfausts, demo charges, bundled grenades, SMG, LMG, etc

A new dropdown menu category is added to vehicles ok, immobilized, burning, destroyed and now captured and host nation on the purchase editor is assigned as the crew.

 

[Redwolf]

12 minutes ago, kohlenklau said:

Work with me man!

I ain't waiting on stinking TO&E stuff. Make it have a formation editor and the TO&E stuff can be hand entered and saved as part of a CMMODS scenario or whatever. Have a squad editor or at least a dropdown menu to dial in/out a certain number of panzerfausts, demo charges, bundled grenades, SMG, LMG, etc

A new dropdown menu category is added to vehicles ok, immobilized, burning, destroyed and now captured and host nation on the purchase editor is assigned as the crew.

 

That would presumably be good to have, even and especially for internal development. Like maps, formations could be XML (or whatever format) and the kinds of content that could be released Charles-free would go up. It's the bottleneck.

[JM Stuff]

42 minutes ago, kohlenklau said:

I don't have a powerpoint presentation nor a flipchart but here is my pitch.

CMEW Combat Mission Early War

A war gamer kit.

This is designed to snag that segment of the market using as little of Charles' time as possible.

It will be a lot of "some assembly required" and a lot of "mods required" and fan content based.

It can ship without any scenarios or campaigns.

It should be based off CMFI as that title has lots of nations for each side.

Cram pack each side with all existing vehicles and as many of what I call place holders as possible.

Place holder Vehicles IN THE CODE to try and be the early war vehicles and match to an existing mdr but we could mod to be PzI, tankettes, etc. A vehicle with just an MG and light armor on tracks for example.

The scenario editor would be used to mix and match sides as needed for Spanish Civil War, Winter War, Poland 39, Norway, Invasion of France, Sea Lion, Barbarossa, North Afrika.

It would be designed to be able to try and replicate a wide range of "early war" confrontations AFTER modded.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's called "THE ARISTOCRATS!!!" (famous end to a classic crude joke)

very attractive program.

I just demonstrated in my last videos that vehicles could be swapped  with the examples that I give of

the Chevrolet truck replacing the Bedford and

the Dodge jeep replacing the Willys

ftom differents game, but for the moment I stumble against a problem of wheels and tracks when they have to move.

So added Pz I or something else adapted to the context, will be possible swaping only cabine turret or hull will also already help, when we can resolve the problem, just saying that I am working on.

Cheers

[Battlefront.com]

Just now, JM Stuff said:

very attractive program.

I just demonstrated in my last videos that vehicles could be swapped  with the examples that I give of

the Chevrolet truck replacing the Bedford and

the Dodge jeep replacing the Willys

ftom differents game, but for the moment I stumble against a problem of wheels and tracks when they have to move.

So added Pz I or something else adapted to the context, will be possible swaping only cabine turret or hull will also already help, when we can resolve the problem, just saying that I am working on.

Cheers

Wow, this thread has gone in a fairly off topic direction

Remember that the data for a vehicle is not stored in the model.  Swap out a Bedford for a Chevy and you get a Bedford that looks like a Chevy but still acts like a Bedford.  However, since the two vehicles are roughly the same there's not a lot of other problems that go along with it.  The less similar the more problems.  Like replacing a BMP-3 with a Bradley... don't expect good results.  Too different.

Then there's the issue that you can't just go out and get/make a model of something and have it work in the game.  There's a lot to it that simply can't be hacked around.

Steve

[kohlenklau]

3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Then there's the issue that you can't just go out and get/make a model of something and have it work in the game.  There's a lot to it that simply can't be hacked around.

A lot of good talented guys here would probably sign your NDA and help flesh out the mdr's for CMEW. Give them badges and deputize them sheriff.

[Battlefront.com]

17 minutes ago, kohlenklau said:

A lot of good talented guys here would probably sign your NDA and help flesh out the mdr's for CMEW. Give them badges and deputize them sheriff.

We've run into significant problems doing this with a Pro customer.  The stumbling blocks are technical in nature, therefore applicable to any attempt with anybody else.  Re-engineering is the solution and that is the sort of thing we can't afford to do.  Whatever money we might make back off of an additional product would not repay us for the lost time and opportunity.

Steve

[JM Stuff]

21 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Wow, this thread has gone in a fairly off topic direction

Remember that the data for a vehicle is not stored in the model.  Swap out a Bedford for a Chevy and you get a Bedford that looks like a Chevy but still acts like a Bedford.  However, since the two vehicles are roughly the same there's not a lot of other problems that go along with it.  The less similar the more problems.  Like replacing a BMP-3 with a Bradley... don't expect good results.  Too different.

Then there's the issue that you can't just go out and get/make a model of something and have it work in the game.  There's a lot to it that simply can't be hacked around.

Steve

Totally right my Chevy look like a Chevy but has the propreties to a Bedford and I cannot change it, valid also for every changes vehicles, but is also valid with all the mods that we are doing for your games, but is already nice to see a little change in a game, something that we can enjoy to apply and give another aspect for differents moments, but what alternative I have?

Personly I am already happy to get what I am trying to do, also simply when I have to keep only for myself, of course the pure gamers will find this , like you describe and for sure annoying and not acceptable.

Cheers

[kohlenklau]

7 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Whatever money we might make back off of an additional product would not repay us for the lost time and opportunity.

I guess I must go win the powerball and then give you a call. CMEW is a fantasy within a fantasy.

[Battlefront.com]

5 hours ago, Miller786 said:

Hello, are there any details you can give us regarding the CMFI battle pack?

 

5 hours ago, Ts4EVER said:

Also, I asked this before, but will there be Free French forces in the FB expansion?

I promise there will be more detailed information and discussion about the specifics of each upcoming release in the matching Forums.  I'm organizing that now

Steve

[JM Stuff]

43 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

... There's a lot to it that simply can't be hacked around.

Can we really talking about hacked? when the goal is not to obtaint money ?

But only a moment of fun !

Cheers

[Battlefront.com]

7 hours ago, massi9797Dz said:

Is CMBN battle pack still considérer to be released with the main game in steam by march or will it seperately ? 

Yes.  I mentioned this in my initial post, but I don't mind repeating it   We will release new content when it is ready even if it is ahead of a Slitherine release date.  Well, unless the timing is very close.  No point jumping the gun by a couple of weeks, for example.

7 hours ago, Dr.Fusselpulli said:

Ah yeah... the classical "it'll all be over by Christmas" every wargamer should know about. 

I've been at this game development stuff for a very long time.  It never ceases to surprise me when we're surprised.  We put in a LOT of effort into avoiding "rabbit holes", but we can't avoid them completely because everything is a potential rabbit hole when you get right down too it.

Charles and I have pretty good senses of when we're straying into areas that are "tricky", which is why we tend not to get ourselves bogged down very often.  However, it is inevitable that we will.  Usually it's something we thought would take a day taking two days vs. thinking it will take 2 months and it takes 6.  Unfortunately, though, those extra days here and there do add up.  It's why we are generally cautious in our approach to our development calendar.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

3 minutes ago, JM Stuff said:

Can we really talking about hacked? when the goal is not to obtaint money ?

But only a moment of fun !

Cheers

We were paid money to allow outside parties to produce 3D models on their own.  They were aware of a large number of limitations on what we could do for them.  In the end we delivered what we promised, but they found it wasn't all that useful and (as far as I know) they haven't used it much.

The point is that what you are looking for is something we've tried.  Even if we were open to the idea of outside groups making content for CM2 without distracting us, it's not technically feasible.  We know, we've tried it.

The only way to work with outside groups is for us to train them how to use our tools and do the integrations ourselves.  This is an extremely time consuming process, as we know from all of our years of doing it.  It simply isn't viable.

That said, we have taken Flavor Objects made by outside artists.  Those are fairly easy because they don't have complicated properties from a coding standpoint.  Still, there is time to integrate them so even that is at a cost to us (which is fine since it's for products we release).

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Special announcement...

For some stupid reason (major brain fart) I forgot to list the Battle Pack for CMBN.  I blame general lack of sleep and yet more snow (not unrelated to each other).  I edited it into my announcement post.

As with the other upcoming content there will be a detailed discussion about it in the related CM discussion Forum.

Steve

[Probus]

1 minute ago, Battlefront.com said:

Special announcement...

For some stupid reason (major brain fart) I forgot to list the Battle Pack for CMBN.  I blame general lack of sleep and yet more snow (not unrelated to each other).  I edited it into my announcement post.

As with the other upcoming content there will be a detailed discussion about it in the related CM discussion Forum.

Steve

+1 !!!

[JM Stuff]

25 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

We were paid money to allow outside parties to produce 3D models on their own.  They were aware of a large number of limitations on what we could do for them.  In the end we delivered what we promised, but they found it wasn't all that useful and (as far as I know) they haven't used it much.

The point is that what you are looking for is something we've tried.  Even if we were open to the idea of outside groups making content for CM2 without distracting us, it's not technically feasible.  We know, we've tried it.

The only way to work with outside groups is for us to train them how to use our tools and do the integrations ourselves.  This is an extremely time consuming process, as we know from all of our years of doing it.  It simply isn't viable.

That said, we have taken Flavor Objects made by outside artists.  Those are fairly easy because they don't have complicated properties from a coding standpoint.  Still, there is time to integrate them so even that is at a cost to us (which is fine since it's for products we release).

Steve

I got it, but I remind you that my goal is not to take anything from anyone, but it is only pleasant to be able to contemplate or have a glimpse of foliage on a helmet or a vehicle of your choice, like everys mods that we can created, and I do not ask that they are integrated, but I simply try that they are playable and pleasant to maneuver, first for my personal good then for those who might be interested.

However, I understand the policy to follow to obtain what you and your small team strive to give us and have always filled our dazzled eyes with novelties for years, just say, thank you, for this.

Cheers

[callada]

[never mind, ignore please]

Edited January 31, 2023 by callada

[Vacillator]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Special announcement...

For some stupid reason (major brain fart) I forgot to list the Battle Pack for CMBN.  I blame general lack of sleep and yet more snow (not unrelated to each other).  I edited it into my announcement post.

As with the other upcoming content there will be a detailed discussion about it in the related CM discussion Forum.

Thanks for clarifying Steve, and thanks for the update in general.  I'm not complaining about any of it .

EDIT: I would add that I would buy @kohlenklau's suggested Early War stuff.  I would of course also buy any early war stuff BFC might put up, but I think you've said that's unlikely?

Edited January 31, 2023 by Vacillator

[massi9797Dz]

i know what im going to say isn t in relation with this topic but i wish if there was a Theatre of war 4 this was a hell of serie 

[Rooks And Kings]

2 hours ago, Redwolf said:

That would presumably be good to have, even and especially for internal development. Like maps, formations could be XML (or whatever format) and the kinds of content that could be released Charles-free would go up. It's the bottleneck.

ORBATS are edited with .csv files by text. Cannot be done in commercial but it does exist in Pro. 

[Artkin]

1 minute ago, Rooks And Kings said:

ORBATS are edited with .csv files by text. Cannot be done in commercial but it does exist in Pro. 

Damn I really want access to that. It would be sooooooo much easier for me.

[JM Stuff]

1 hour ago, callada said:

[never mind, ignore please]

[Rooks And Kings]

20 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

For this specific purpose, the tool is OK.  The people using it would be small in number, have better computers, probably better computer skills, and definitely superior motivation to muscle through the quirks and limitations.  It is, in a way, how the Professional customers use it.

That is how the Professional version gathers the information it needs to make a full game playback.  It's everything that happens to get those files into a single continuous "movie" that is the problem.

One thing that disappoints me is that after 20+ years of listening to you guys and spending thousands of hours delivering things you have requested somehow, for some reason, you think the evil that lurks in our hearts is finally coming out and we're withholding a feature full of rainbows and fuzzy bunnies simply because it gives us cruel pleasure to watch you beg and plead in vain for something requested since 1999.  The alternative, of course, is what I've been saying all along... it is an ugly, ungainly feature that would please few and would set off a round of abuse and demands worse than we've received for not providing it.

Steve

I don't know the technical workings behind it, but having used the replay feature and being a video editor myself while maintaining an active presence in the discord community of over 200+ people who have bought at least one of your titles throughout the years you've been in business I have to disagree with your assessment. 

Regardless of all the miniscule little complaints that are petty themself, the community as a whole would appreciate this one specific feature more than anything else. Enough to probably pay an additional fee (albeit small, $10-$15) to have this. It's not only useful for your marketing, but the community itself to bring people closer together / create content. 

Not a single user of Combat Mission: Professional that obtained their license through UK: Fight Club has complained about anything regarding the replay feature. Sure, it's not all sunshine and rainbows and the feature is surely not polished to the standard that you would like to release a finished product in, but as it stands it is more than useable. 

If there is a contract stipulation on deliverable features that cannot be released to the public, that's one thing. Telling the community on multiple occasions that we think we know what we want, but we really don't is a little rash in my opinion and I mean this with all due respect. 

My final point, is that if the community is going to find things to complain about year after year, regardless of what you do sir, then why not give them this one thing that they've been asking for so you can either; 1) Prove your point that we don't know what we want, or 2) Throw the community a bone that is appreciated. 

Either way, I respect your judgement but as a user of both the Pro and Commercial titles I do not think your assessment of the usage in regards to Replay Feature is accurate. 

[Vacillator]

12 minutes ago, Rooks And Kings said:

UK: Fight Club

I assume the first rule is you don't talk about this?  If not, can you talk about it .

[Rooks And Kings]

All of the gameplay footage in this video is from the Replay Feature. 
 

 

[ManyMilesAway]

30 minutes ago, Rooks And Kings said:

I don't know the technical workings behind it, but having used the replay feature and being a video editor myself while maintaining an active presence in the discord community of over 200+ people who have bought at least one of your titles throughout the years you've been in business I have to disagree with your assessment. 

Regardless of all the miniscule little complaints that are petty themself, the community as a whole would appreciate this one specific feature more than anything else. Enough to probably pay an additional fee (albeit small, $10-$15) to have this. It's not only useful for your marketing, but the community itself to bring people closer together / create content. 

Not a single user of Combat Mission: Professional that obtained their license through UK: Fight Club has complained about anything regarding the replay feature. Sure, it's not all sunshine and rainbows and the feature is surely not polished to the standard that you would like to release a finished product in, but as it stands it is more than useable. 

If there is a contract stipulation on deliverable features that cannot be released to the public, that's one thing. Telling the community on multiple occasions that we think we know what we want, but we really don't is a little rash in my opinion and I mean this with all due respect. 

My final point, is that if the community is going to find things to complain about year after year, regardless of what you do sir, then why not give them this one thing that they've been asking for so you can either; 1) Prove your point that we don't know what we want, or 2) Throw the community a bone that is appreciated. 

Either way, I respect your judgement but as a user of both the Pro and Commercial titles I do not think your assessment of the usage in regards to Replay Feature is accurate. 

THIS SO MUCH THIS