Big announcement... Battlefront is now Slitherine

[Raging Al]

10 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Absolutely. CM2 has still a LOT to offer. Apart from that I'm not in a hurry for CM3, since the graphics and performance of CM2 is good enough for me. Personally I don't need more details or better graphics. It would be nice, but it's not essential or very important. I'd rather have CM2 Afrika Korps or Stalingrad, than to start all over again with CM3. Just my opinion of course.

Completely agree with this.  Just give us the toys and TOE's, please, to take us right back to the early war years.  Please!!! 

[Artkin]

30 minutes ago, Raging Al said:

Completely agree with this.  Just give us the toys and TOE's, please, to take us right back to the early war years.  Please!!! 

That's pretty much all I want to do, when formations were so much less convoluted. 

[Centurian52]

I want early-war content too. Thinking about Boys anti-tank rifles, those Polish anti-tank rifles that Forgotten Weapons made a video about a few days ago, 37mm gun-armed Panzer 3s, short barrel Panzer 4s, those tiny 25mm French anti-tank guns (which are actually deceptively good (very rapid rate of fire and just enough armor penetration to poke holes in early-war tanks)), a Panzer force made up of mostly Panzer 1s and Panzer 2s, R35s going head to head with tanks that they're about on par with. I don't know what it is about thin armor and tiny anti-armor weapons, but it's all enough to make me start salivating. But honestly resetting everything with CM3 might not be so much of a setback on that front. It will be a bit of a setback, at least at first, since I assume that CM3 will be retreading most of the same ground that was covered over the last 17 years by CM2.

But I don't think that means waiting another 15 years to cover all the same ground that CM2 covered, just in a newer engine, before we start seeing any genuinely new settings. My impression is that a huge chunk of the work for bringing a new faction or setting into the game is the research. That work was already done for the existing CM2 settings, and the data gathered can probably be reused for CM3 (it's possible more data will be needed if CM3 is a more complicated simulation, but they still won't need to start from scratch). Plus the additional resources of Slitherine mean that work is probably going to go a bit faster anyway. And I'm not so sure anymore that we would have gotten there faster by sticking with CM2 anyway. As I've mentioned in a previous post, CM2 is an old engine that (as I've read Steve point out on numerous occasions) is getting more complicated and harder to maintain with each new release.

[Redwolf]

I think we can forget about new units and formations, much less eras, in CMx2.

(with the exception of the CMCW British module)

[Grey_Fox]

5 hours ago, Centurian52 said:

Coming back to this, I'm actually not sure which version of the campaign I've currently got in my Game Files folder. I've currently only got the Steam version of CMBS installed, so I may have the non-updated version of the campaign. Is the corrected version of the campaign posted anywhere?

One of the later posts in the announcement thread has a working link, was how I found it.

[sttp]

21 minutes ago, Redwolf said:

I think we can forget about new units and formations, much less eras, in CMx2.

(with the exception of the CMCW British module)

So I'm assuming that CMFI Battle Pack will not happen then? Fine with me if they put everyone on CM3, but it does sound seem like they've tried to emphasize that they're not totally leaving CM2 behind. And I'd bet those Battle Pack scenarios have been being worked on for quite a while now.

[Centurian52]

Just now, sttp said:

So I'm assuming that CMFI Battle Pack will not happen then? Fine with me if they put everyone on CM3, but it does sound seem like they've tried to emphasize that they're not totally leaving CM2 behind. And I'd bet those Battle Pack scenarios have been being worked on for quite a while now.

The CMFI Battle Pack is still on (as far as I know). But it's just a Battle Pack. BPs don't add new units, formations, or eras. It's just new scenarios and campaigns.

[PEB14]

14 hours ago, Raging Al said:

Completely agree with this.  Just give us the toys and TOE's, please, to take us right back to the early war years.  Please!!! 

Even better: let us the possibility to build new TOEs ourselves.

[Lieutenant Ash]

The existing vehicle models for CM2 are well detailed and look good, if it was me I would reuse these in the upcoming CM3 games (assuming they are compatible with the new engine) but adding destroyed versions for more realism. I would like to see the real visual upgrade going into things like the terrain (curving roads, water on more than one level, running water in streams, realistic damage to walls etc), also more complex buildings (and building damage) as well as more types of buildings (large factories with open multilevel internal spaces, plus others), improved field fortifications (covered trenches). Also would like to see some work on weather conditions, real fog that you cannot see through, rain showers coming and going during a scenario (changing viewing distances as it does). Even a fraction of this stuff would be a step up from CM2 in my opinion.

[Aragorn2002]

2 hours ago, Lieutenant Ash said:

The existing vehicle models for CM2 are well detailed and look good, if it was me I would reuse these in the upcoming CM3 games (assuming they are compatible with the new engine) but adding destroyed versions for more realism. I would like to see the real visual upgrade going into things like the terrain (curving roads, water on more than one level, running water in streams, realistic damage to walls etc), also more complex buildings (and building damage) as well as more types of buildings (large factories with open multilevel internal spaces, plus others), improved field fortifications (covered trenches). Also would like to see some work on weather conditions, real fog that you cannot see through, rain showers coming and going during a scenario (changing viewing distances as it does). Even a fraction of this stuff would be a step up from CM2 in my opinion.

And fire and smoke, let's not forget those. Burning buildings, fields and trees.

[Lethaface]

On 8/31/2024 at 3:38 PM, Thewood1 said:

Not all.  Some of us have been in the 21st century for at least 10 years.

And for some of us there was actually light.

[Lethaface]

On 9/2/2024 at 4:08 PM, hank24 said:

Concernig the wishes for CM3 expressed here - I think many people would be extremely happy to see a good 'Follow the Road' and/or 'Follow other Vehicle' algorithm.

Indeed. On a higher level, from a design POV, I'd like to see CMx3 to be able to do more 'work' for the player compared to CMx2. Follow road / convoy would be great on that front. Platoon / Company orders and SOPs could be another. 
Many more ideas to be had, I'm interested to see what BFC has come up with.

Fortunately I'm sure they'll take their time to make sure CMx3 is ready when it will be released. I hope Slitherine, while boosting productivity, respects that part of BFC identity. 

[Centurian52]

On 9/2/2024 at 7:08 AM, hank24 said:

Concernig the wishes for CM3 expressed here - I think many people would be extremely happy to see a good 'Follow the Road' and/or 'Follow other Vehicle' algorithm.

Following the road would probably be best. I don't think we actually want our vehicles to follow other vehicles. At least not directly. What we want is for them to follow the same path as other vehicles. Trying to directly follow other vehicles ends up getting all sorts of undesirable behavior.

[FlammenwerferX]

2 hours ago, Lethaface said:

Indeed. On a higher level, from a design POV, I'd like to see CMx3 to be able to do more 'work' for the player compared to CMx2. ... Platoon / Company orders and SOPs 

Yes this exactly, relief for the micro-management burden of CM2's increased granularity.

And, I would surmise that this is the main add for CM3, like '1 to 1' was for CM2.

 

[CarlXII]

17 minutes ago, FlammenwerferX said:

Yes this exactly, relief for the micro-management burden of CM2's increased granularity.

And, I would surmise that this is the main add for CM3, like '1 to 1' was for CM2.

 

This is a cool idea...but it will need to be implemented VERY well ! 

If the AI subordinate commanders are not up to snuff with their deployment of troops and movements technics i fear that many players will go back to manually orders their units themself...Atleast in competative multiplayer games.

A nice idea but tricky to get right i fear.

 

[Lethaface]

10 minutes ago, CarlXII said:

This is a cool idea...but it will need to be implemented VERY well ! 

If the AI subordinate commanders are not up to snuff with their deployment of troops and movements technics i fear that many players will go back to manually orders their units themself...Atleast in competative multiplayer games.

A nice idea but tricky to get right i fear.

 

Probably, although I'm glad to leave it that to the game designers

I tend to give rather finegrained orders in PBEM as well. But fine tuning is less work compared to setting everything up. One can already select whole formations and give orders, but atm that's only useful in very specific cases imo. If you could tell a mech platoon to fastmove somewhere relatively safe (a staging area for example), following roads or not and deploy towards a direction, one could take/micromanage it from there and save a lot of clicks.

Anyway I agree it isn't wise to get too hung up about details which might already been implemented or ruled out in CMx3. I trust in BFCs expertise, any way the workload on the player can be relaxed is a win; as long as things can still be micro'ed when needed

 

Edited September 5 by Lethaface

[Lieutenant Ash]

4 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:

And fire and smoke, let's not forget those. Burning buildings, fields and trees.

 Yes, I think BF tried to implement this in the early days of CM2, but without success for some reason. I would like to see CM1 style 'spreading' fire again, but if not feasible at least let individual buildings catch fire if hit with sufficient shellfire or flamethrowers etc (such that infantry cannot enter the burning building).

[SlowMotion]

On 9/4/2024 at 12:15 PM, Aragorn2002 said:

Absolutely. CM2 has still a LOT to offer. Apart from that I'm not in a hurry for CM3, since the graphics and performance of CM2 is good enough for me. Personally I don't need more details or better graphics. It would be nice, but it's not essential or very important. I'd rather have CM2 Afrika Korps or Stalingrad, than to start all over again with CM3. Just my opinion of course.

Agree with CM2 being mostly just fine. The #1 feature  I'd like to see added is having different force balance in scenarios when playing H2H and against the AI. Usually scenarios that play well in H2H would need some extra units for the AI side so that AI would play as well as human. So if in Scenario Editor some units could be flagged as "include only when playing against the AI opponent" then it would be quick and easy to have force balance that would work, both against human opponent and AI opponent.

[Thewood1]

Steel Beasts and Graviteam both have SOPs if you want them and follow roads.  They aren't perfect but they mostly work and relieve an immense amount of burden in micromanagement.

So they can work if designed right.  I'm hoping the Matrix/Slitherine involvement changes the the development path.

[Redwolf]

Here's real SOPs, from a BFC game:

Edited September 5 by Redwolf

[Thewood1]

The cool part of the SOPs in SB is you have a set of six route types that set formation, speed, reaction to spotting, spacing of the formation, reaction to fire, use of cover in transit, retreat/advance/return fire, etc. without the player having to dig into the details. Or you can micromanage it.  And those SOPs can be changed at each waypoint in a path.  You can apply them to individual vehicles/teams or larger formations.

The SB manual is on the esim website for anyone that wants to look at how it can be done in detail without making it overly complex for the player.  SOPs and unit radio messages is what allows battalion-sized battles without overwhelming the player.

If Matrix invested in developing SOPs and such, I hope they at least look at how SB does it.

[MadPes]

Would be great to see an option for bigger scale battles to control troops also on platoon level via platoon HQ(but yeah need to make platoon level AI for that option to work correctly). It also appease to people who want to play much bigger scale battles up to brigade level I think?

[Lieutenant Ash]

Another area that could use some love is the A.I. opponent. At the moment it isn't very reactive to what the player is doing, if you are attacking in one part of the map it would be good if the A.I had the ability to shift forces over to that area to resist a breakthrough or even launch a counterattack. I know this stuff is left up to the mission designer, so a few more tools like new types of decision triggers etc will be required to make the computer opponent more of a challenge.

[MadPes]

As we talking about opponent would be wise in the next CM to make opponet finder better: By clicking PBEM/Multiplayer in main menu, player would see list of other player who left thare their battles reuquests with it's settings(mods if included, RT or WEgo, scale of forces, map and how big it is map, number of turns/time etc). Would be much better than looking for opponents on forums/discord.

[Redwolf]

18 minutes ago, MadPes said:

As we talking about opponent would be wise in the next CM to make opponet finder better: By clicking PBEM/Multiplayer in main menu, player would see list of other player who left thare their battles reuquests with it's settings(mods if included, RT or WEgo, scale of forces, map and how big it is map, number of turns/time etc). Would be much better than looking for opponents on forums/discord.

Is anybody even playing TCP given the lack of VCR controls?

We used to have ladders with hundreds of people during CMBO times.