Steve...Charles....Campaigns anyone?

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrSpkr:

If you get jbailey@resolutecapital.com to return your email. I sent off to him about a week ago and have heard nothing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Definition of a grog:

1. Someone who knows that patience is a virtue

James is very busy, as head-GM of CMMC and someone with a real job. He will reply to you when he gets around to it. You won't miss too much, believe me. This will go on for another year or so.

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrSpkr:

Definition of a grog -

grog (grawg) - noun - (1) One who delights in irrelevant and trivial technical details, esp. regarding military equipment and weaponry. (2) Any of a class of individuals engaging in wargaming because thye believe it is 'realistic.' (3) One who enjoys belittling and degrading others who desire a wargame contain something 'just for fun.' SEE ALSO: whiner. geek, sad sack.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I said it before, I say it again:

If it was not for the grogs, you would all be playing Sudden Strike. End of story.

[MrSpkr]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

I said it before, I say it again:

If it was not for the grogs, you would all be playing Sudden Strike. End of story.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not the end of the story. Yes, the grog's were likely invaluable in helping create CMBO. Yes, they were likely a valuable resource for BTS.

That, however, does not give them any more rights or privileges than so-called 'wargamer-lites', despite what the grogs may think. God did not reach down from the heavens and lay upon them some special wisdom into the creation of the 'perfect' wargame. They are not ordained to carry out a holy war to destroy heretics who ask for something (like, say, a campaign) simply because it would be fun, even if the grogs don't think it would and even if the grogs don't think it would happen precisely the way their books told them things happened. If people were asking BTS to create Tesla coils ala 'Red Alert', that would be one thing; however, I'm tired of people getting jumped on for asking for such simple things as a JS-III or a campaign. IMHO, it looks like the grogs got some positive attention from a wargaming company for the first time in their lives, and have now decided to run the place and make ALL the decisions regarding the games (or at least, pass judgment, with a good helping of scorn and ridicule) upon those with whom they disagree.

Pathetic, pointless, and ultimately destructive to BTS (and therefore the grogs)because the casual gamer 9'wargamer-lite') will take his money elsewhere.

[karch]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrSpkr:

Pathetic, pointless, and ultimately destructive to BTS (and therefore the grogs)because the casual gamer 9'wargamer-lite') will take his money elsewhere.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have to disagree with you. From everything I've seen about the development of Combat Mission, this game was developed by wargamers to be the most realistic simulation/game they could produce. The fact that many non-hardcore gamers have enjoyed the game as much as they have shows how good of an idea they had.

IIRC BTS said that campaigns are not realistic because of all the turnover that would take place in actual units and that the same units would rarely fight day after day, but be pulled out of the line for the next attack by a fresher unit. That would seem to make campaigns less attractive... Say you just won a crushing victory and just as your army was going to advance, you were pulled from the line and would not attack until the next advance. Kinda kills the whole concept of a campaign as I think players want. To play attack after attack with the same units.

just my 2c, but I'd rather see other things included that make the game more realistic for every game played rather than any of the campaigns anyone has described.

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrSpkr:

Not the end of the story. Yes, the grog's were likely invaluable in helping create CMBO. Yes, they were likely a valuable resource for BTS.[snip]

Pathetic, pointless, and ultimately destructive to BTS (and therefore the grogs)because the casual gamer 9'wargamer-lite') will take his money elsewhere.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No who do you really think is currently beta-testing CMBB and contributing to scenario design? Answers on a postcard please.

Yes you are right, that does not give anyone the right to claim they own the game. But your post was just dismissing these people as a bunch of weirdos and sad sacks who get into the way of you enjoying the game. The Grogs have as much a right to be here than those who play the game with no care for a discussion of German optics with 620 (give or take a few) posts, if not more so.

If you don't like it, maybe you should give Sudden Strike a try?

For the record - I don't care squat about the casual wargamer. I don't care what you care for either, but it is not the casual wargamer that currently helps BTS develop CMBB. Your 'were' is entirely off the mark. It is 'are'.

Get real.

Oh, and before you come crying about being stomped on by member No.1091, you labeled a whole bunch of people as pathetic and pointless, so don't be a sissy when you get the sort of response adequate to your initial post.

[MrSpkr]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by karch:

I have to disagree with you. From everything I've seen about the development of Combat Mission, this game was developed by wargamers to be the most realistic simulation/game they could produce. The fact that many non-hardcore gamers have enjoyed the game as much as they have shows how good of an idea they had.

IIRC BTS said that campaigns are not realistic because of all the turnover that would take place in actual units and that the same units would rarely fight day after day, but be pulled out of the line for the next attack by a fresher unit. That would seem to make campaigns less attractive... Say you just won a crushing victory and just as your army was going to advance, you were pulled from the line and would not attack until the next advance. Kinda kills the whole concept of a campaign as I think players want. To play attack after attack with the same units.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said there wouldn't be a game without the casual gamers; what I said was (1) the casual gamers are a large factor in BTS' success -- hard-core wargamers are a very small market; and (2) just because grogs were important in developing CMBO does not give them the right to spout off on people who ask for inclusion of some 'fun' things that would not require all that much coding.

As far as your statements about the campaign game being boring, I respectfully disagree. I would expect that if you were leading with a battalion, and a company or so got mauled pretty badly, you would not continue in action the next day if you could be relieved. However, that would not prevent you from using the same core units at a later date when the battalion was refitted. A good example using CMBO would be commanding a battalion from the American 101st AB division. They drop in on D-Day, and within a few weeks are pretty severely mauled. As a result, they do not participate in the breakout and run across France, but instead are pulled back to England until September, when they are dropped in for Market Garden. Now, they get chewed up in Market Garden pretty badly, so they are moved to a nice quiet spot on the line for R & R -- the Ardennes. Needless to say, this places them in the thick of the Battle of the Bulge in Dec 44 - Jan 45. Once again, they are withdrawn for rest and refit, then make their final jump in Operation Varsity in March 1945. To me, that would be a great campaign. Would I relive every day of the war? No -- and I wouldn't want to. Would I be able to continue with the same units - yess, for the most part. Would I see some slow improvement in my men's capabilities? Definitely. The boys who dropped into Normandy were not the same men who defended at Bastogne. Would I have a stake in refraining from needlessly wasting my troops? Yes. Would I now have a reason to withdraw my men rather than continue a hopeless battle? You bet. Would it be fun to me (and many others)? You bet. Would it take more than a couple of three days to program? I doubt it - just set up a database, asimple algorithm to determine changes in unit experience and fitness, and either link to historical battles/operations, or let the computer randomly select the next battle/operation; or (best option) allow players to set up the series of battles/time periods in the game.

A campaign does not have to be fighting day after day. Clearly, as I stated, there would be breaks in the fighting for one reason or another. But it would be fun, and it would give the player more reason to carefully shepherd the lives of his troops.

This topic was more fully discussed here.

[edited because I miss the spellchecker]

[ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: MrSpkr ]

[MrSpkr]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

No who do you really think is currently beta-testing CMBB and contributing to scenario design? Answers on a postcard please.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're so right, oh Holy One. Without the grogs to Beta Test CMBB, why, there wouldn't be ANYONE around to do it. Oh me, oh my . . . there would be much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Get real.

Even if your premise were true (and I don't have any way of determining that), that still doesn't give grogs the right to act like complete and utter prigs to other people on this board. If you are curious as to the impact the casual gamer has had on BTS, ask them how their sales did AFTER several of the mass-media outlets (PC Gamer, etc.) began publicizing CMBO. My guess would be that their sales would be only about half to two-thirds what they are today if the casual gamer were shoved aside. Were that true, you would not be getting CMBB nearly as quickly, or, you would be getting a hastily finished product with few real improvements in the game.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Yes you are right, that does not give anyone the right to claim they own the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you for your agreement.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But your post was just dismissing these people as a bunch of weirdos and sad sacks who get into the way of you enjoying the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it wasn't. It was actually meant to be a bit humorous, although I understand some of the grogs don't have much of a sense of humor (part of that TAKING THEMSELVES TOO SERIOUSLY problem).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Grogs have as much a right to be here than those who play the game with no care for a discussion of German optics with 620 (give or take a few) posts, if not more so.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ohhhhh, darn. I almost agreed with this, up until the 'if not more so' bit. The fact is, the grogs are merely customers just like EVERYONE else. They have no more or less right to be here, and they are under no less obligation to be civil than anyone else. I find many (not all) of the grogs I see on this board as self-centered, egotistical, rude individuals with little sense of humor and an overinflated opinion of their own importance. This view is reinforced by the reaction they tend to have when someone decides to stand up for the casual gamer.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you don't like it, maybe you should give Sudden Strike a try?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And if you don't like it, maybe you should go back to playing with lead miniatures in your mom's basement?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>For the record - I don't care squat about the casual wargamer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Obviously, and that is unfortunate. I would hope BTS does not share that opinion. The casual gamer helps fund this company a lot more than you think.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I don't care what you care for either,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Obligatory rude comment noted.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> but it is not the casual wargamer that currently helps BTS develop CMBB. Your 'were' is entirely off the mark. It is 'are'.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps, perhaps not. I don't know all the people in the development team. I can tell you that without the casual gamer's economic contribution, BTS would likely be under much greater economic pressure to get CMBB out faster and keep cash flow levels up. That would mean that changes and improvements would be restricted - thus impacting CMBB. The casual gamer's dollars help give BTS the luxury of extending the release date to 'when it is ready' (Early 2002, according to the latest PC Gamer, IIRC).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Get real.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Already am. I recognize that the casual gamer is no more or less important than the grogs here. I will continue to hold that belief until BTS says otherwise (at which point, my time and money will go elsewhere).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Oh, and before you come crying about being stomped on by member No.1091,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your sense of self-importance is amusing. You haven't even lifted a leg, let alone stomped. If this is the best you can do to shoot down someone saying the grogs should try and be a little respectful of the casual gamer's desires in CMBB rather than simply dismissing them out of hand, then you really shouldn't set yourself up as their spokesman.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>you labeled a whole bunch of people as pathetic and pointless<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I don't think I called anyone 'pathetic' or 'pointless.' I did define grogs in three ways. Definition three is, unfortunately, the way a lot of people view grogs -- and I did list 'sad sack' and 'geek' in the 'see also' category following that particular definition-- but I did not list them as 'pathetic' or 'pointless.' None of God's creations are 'pointless;' all serve a purpose.

Andreas, I have never implied, stated, inferred, presumed, or otherwise believed the grogs should pack up their bags and get the heck out of Dodge. They clearly have a role here, and an important one. However, the subset of grogs I was referring to are the ones who are willing to post over 500 posts on submachine guns, but dismiss calls for a campaign style game or who rail for page after page against the inclusion of the JSII or JSIII, then scream about how BTS has screwed up part of the game, then jump on some newbie who asks a question or makes a request. Those people are counterproductive jerks.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>, so don't be a sissy when you get the sort of response adequate to your initial post.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who's being a sissy? Me, who says that certain people should lighten up a bit and realize they are not the only customers BTS has, or you, who screams and wails when someone suggests that grogs are not as important as they think they are?

Funny, I suppose now that I say grogs are no more or less important than anyone else around here, I will be accused of 'grog bashing'. Life is rather ironic at times, isn't it.

[edited again because I miss the spellchecker]

[ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: MrSpkr ]

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrSpkr:

Andreas, I have never implied, stated, inferred, presumed, or otherwise believed the grogs should pack up their bags and get the heck out of Dodge. They clearly have a role here, and an important one. However, the subset of grogs I was referring to are the ones who are willing to post over 500 posts on submachine guns, but dismiss calls for a campaign style game or who rail for page after page against the inclusion of the JSII or JSIII, then scream about how BTS has screwed up part of the game, then jump on some newbie who asks a question or makes a request. Those people are counterproductive jerks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fair enough - and I agree that the casual gamers have done more for the sales numbers of BTS than the grogs. That was built on the back of the work done by grogs (who IMO include Steve and Charles) though. Both groups are important to the success.

Now if we could agree that they both have a right to be here, maybe we can conclude that we do in fact think roughly along the same lines. I have no problems with requests from someone for a campaign game, for the Maus or for blood-splatter-gore. I have a problem with people denying me to respond to that by voicing my opinion because it hurts their feelings (which you have not done, just to make that clear). So as long as I can say that I don't agree with campaigns in the traditional model (I love CMMC though), the inclusion of the Maus or indeed the inclusion of BSG, without being accused of being the FBI, a BTS Sycophant or whatever, I am content. A bit of mutual respect would go a long way. That is missing here, and it is missing on both sides to some degree, no doubt about it.

There are people here who care deeply about one aspect of the game, and who will make that known. Debates about these aspects are not easy, because of the inherent limitations of the medium they are conducted in (see Moriarty's post elsewhere). Dismissing somebody else's opinion because it is presumed to be either sycophantism or childish love of BSG is not getting anybody anywhere.

I think to some degree some of the recent threads here (on firing on the move, or some of Scipio's inquiries) have been quite good examples of how debate can and should go. (I know Scipio or Slappy may disagree, but that maybe due to language difficulties, and a different social research tradition), and we would all be better off if that was the norm, and not the exception.

So apologies for blowing the top above. I do try to be better, but sometimes it just happens. I care very much about the contributions by the grogs that I thought you so casually dismissed. I don't consider myself one, but I have learned so much from them that I hate to see them slagged off. I was obviously out of line.

[MrSpkr]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

Fair enough - and I agree that the casual gamers have done more for the sales numbers of BTS than the grogs. That was built on the back of the work done by grogs (who IMO include Steve and Charles) though. Both groups are important to the success.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree wholeheartedly.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So apologies for blowing the top above. I do try to be better, but sometimes it just happens. I care very much about the contributions by the grogs that I thought you so casually dismissed. I don't consider myself one, but I have learned so much from them that I hate to see them slagged off. I was obviously out of line.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No apologies necessary - you have handled yourself well, as always.

Now, if I could only get that CMMC guy to email me back . . .

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrSpkr:

No apologies necessary - you have handled yourself well, as always.

Now, if I could only get that CMMC guy to email me back . . .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks. Now with four kids and a wifey you should really consider whether you want to get into CMMC

[Panzer Leader]

Uh, why is this a big match between "casual wargamers" and "grognards"? Is it not possible that a grog would want a campaign game or that a casual player wouldn't?

Hmm. I don't know where I fall, but I know more than the average person about war in general and WWII in specific, but I wouldn't "peg" myself as either one of those types.

And I DO want a campaign game, and I DO think it is impossible to have one without silly and unrealistic "One unit from D-Day to berlin" or "One Kampfgruppe from Moscow to D.C." Mrspkr pointed out a good time-line ofr a typical campaign.

I would suggest something along the lines of the Gross Deutchland regiment and their advancement, then withdrawel from Russia. They fought in many battles, and I would opine that any individual battalion of that division fought in a great number of battles.

Basically, it is possible, and it can be realistic, so you're heavy-handed attitude is not very objective. Why don't you just say "No, because I don't want them." It has as much merit.

By the way, I have played wargames since the days of Squad Leader, GI Anvil of Victory, et al, so I am not saying I want Sudden Strike. I want the best wargame around to have an added feature.

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

Basically, it is possible, and it can be realistic, so you're heavy-handed attitude is not very objective. Why don't you just say "No, because I don't want them." It has as much merit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, no idea who you are talking to. If it is me, you may want to look at the BTS Grand campaign thread, since I believe (correct me if I am wrong) that MrSpkr got his idea from my reply to him in there.

I have no issue with a campaign like that, and would think it would be a great addition to the game. I think having the mechanism to deal with a campaign like CMMC would be even greater though.

Many people in the past thought that a campaign ought to be like the ones in Panzer General, and I just think that would be a waste of time (and so does BTS, BTW)

[karch]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

Basically, it is possible, and it can be realistic, so you're heavy-handed attitude is not very objective. Why don't you just say "No, because I don't want them." It has as much merit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know what? You're right. I didn't have any real facts to back up why I didn't want campaigns so I made very broad assumptions based on my failing memory. I guess I just don't really care for them because I rarely have time for more than 1 QB per week if I'm lucky. My personal opinion is that no time should be put into campaigns that would detract from AI development, or artillery mechanics or all the other things I think are important to the game. Then again, that's just my opinion. BTS will do what they want based on what they think is best... and probably see what the masses think is the most important to include or not to include. No hard feelings.

Things are a little too edgy around here.. I think part of it is people getting tired of rehashing the same old stuff. I think everyone is ready for the next new toy.

Take care all.

Scott Karch

[Battlefront.com]

Sheesh... thread from the dead, and then a stiff exchange followed by a group hug. My my my

[edit!! - when I say "grand campaign" I am talking about a PG or SP type system where one takes a batch of units and fights with them in the major battles of the theater, complete with upgrading and experience bleed over. Other campaigns, such as what is going on at CMMC, are totally different. Some systems are not very historical, some are the opposite.]

MrSpkr:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I never said there wouldn't be a game without the casual gamers; what I said was (1) the casual gamers are a large factor in BTS' success -- hard-core wargamers are a very small market; and<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right you are. Which is partly why CM is what is, which means it is not like the other "serious" wargames out there, some of which still have yet to realize there is a program called Windows that does some rather amazing things

However, the game was designed to be appeal to hard-core wargamers first, casual gamers second. That is primarilly because we, meaning Charles and I, weren't interested in making a causal wargme. The fact that so many casual wargames love CM, and many have swung over to "grog" status, shows that strategy wasn't one that excluded non grogs. Quite the contrary.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>(2) just because grogs were important in developing CMBO does not give them the right to spout off on people who ask for inclusion of some 'fun' things that would not require all that much coding.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First part mostly true, second part not true in this case. If a non grog asked us to put in nuclear weapons because they were "fun", well... I wouldn't expect a warm reception from the grogs Mostly because they know we are 100% against such "fun" suggestions.

As for as an ahistorical, but "fun", campaign system... we have been over this issue many times in the past. We did not want to have that type of system in CM so that is why it isn't there. The primary reason is that it isn't at all realistic. Fun? To some, perhaps many, yes. But so are nuclear spewing tanks and flying saucers Yeah... I know it is not the same thing, but we drew a line and grand campaigns did not pass the test. But don't feel bad non gorgs!...

We probably excluded more grog requests than non-grog ones simply because we knew that only 1/100th of the people out there looking at CM would be even remotely interested in the feature. In other words, we were just as careful about getting distracted by grog requests as non grog ones. This allowed us the time to get the core engine "right", instead of having a half assed engine and a decent campaign structure, or a great set of spreadsheet reports detailing every little tidbit for a game which was seriously flawed. It is all about time folks. We never have enough of it, so even good ideas have to be chucked aside.

A Grand Campaign will not be a part of CMBB. To do it right we would need probably 3 solid months of development, plus testing and revision time. Yeah, I know many of you are saying "great, I'll wait", but it doesn't work that way We can not hold up the game's release for every pet project idea that comes along. We would NEVER release the thing if started down that road.

To recap... Grand Campaigns were not included in CMBO because they are inherently unrealistic. Grand Campaigns are not going to be included in CMBO partly because of that, but most practically because we don't have the time to code and test such a massive feature (trust me, to do it right it is massive). Might we be able to work with a 3rd party to do something like this? Perhaps, but we aren't going to think about it until after we get the game done and out the door. Priorities are important to keep, and releasing the game is our top priority.

Steve

[ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Right you are. Which is partly why CM is what is, which means it is not like the other "serious" wargames out there, some of which still have yet to realize there is a program called Windows that does some rather amazing things <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like crash at random intervals, and for no particular reason at all? Or like giving me a bleedin' headache for having to deal with it at work?

[coralsaw]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

To recap... Grand Campaigns were not included in CMBO because they are inherently unrealistic. Grand Campaigns are not going to be included in CMBO partly because of that, but most practically because we don't have the time to code and test such a massive feature.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve,

This is clear as spring water. May I propose a low-maintenance exercise that will allow the community to create a Grand Campaign by themselves.

Would you guys consider creating an API that exposes all the functionality of the editor, as well as a post-battle situation (casualties etc) so that people can automate the creation of battles through an external shell?

If you could do this, which from where I stand does not look a huge amount of effort, then the community would be able to create a good Campaign management tool that would export battles and import results.

Note that this proposal doesn't mean exposing the format of the scenario file at all, which for good reasons you guys do not want to do.

coralsaw

[SenorBeef]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dilger:

I have posted reguarding this issue once before and got very little in the way of feedback. CM is the best tactical level WW2 game I have ever played and I feel confident that extended campaigns would only expand the impact of this game. The long term strategy and logistics required to command an organization (ie platoon, company, battalion..etc) over the period of weeks or even months on the Western front would greatly increase the depth of this game while making the single player aspect of gameplay infinitly more enjoyable. Personal command is completely addicting! Is there any reason why campaign gameplay has been left out? Is there any chance that it will be included in CM expansions or CM2? Does anyone else find they would like to see a more traditional campaign mode in CM?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I proposed a campaign system by which BTS would have to do minimal work a while back. No reply from them.

Campaign proposal

[coralsaw]

I originally missed that SenorBeef, seems very close to what I had in mind.

Let's hope that the BTS guys will give it a 5 mins thought now (I'm sure they will).

coralsaw

[Panzer Leader]

Yes, senor beef and coralsaw both are thinking along the same lines as myself. User-defined scenarios that require onlytwo things from the core game to function:

1.) Detailed exportable after action report, to include such features as: score; win/loss; casualties; vehicles hits, abandonments, and kills; etc.

2.) Automatic generation of battles or start-up of scenarios from some sort of third-party program. This would allow a program to crunch the data from the AAR and generate a qb from those parameters (whether it is attack/defend; units; etc. It could also start a pregenerated scenario (choosing which one from a group depending on the AAR aforementioned.

This is what I want to see. Leave it to the programmers to come up with a great tool to use, but PLEASE just give them these two tools to make it possible.

[Battlefront.com]

Hi guys,

There are currently 3 entities that have been requesting some sort of API data input/output functionality. Senorbeef, Killmore, and a guy from Australia (doesn't post here much). While providing an API is *certainly* easier to do than writing a whole campaign system ourselves, it isn't a simple 5 minute thing. We have, on numberous occasions, discussed this issue at great length. The problem for us is still one of time.

Charles figures it would take about 2-4 weeks to code up and document an API interface. It isn't as simple as some my think to do this. The documenting aspect, which is required for this to work, is part of why it will take that long. He will also have to code up routines that will allow the imported data to be utilized by the system. Currently, for obvious reasons, there is no way to dump data into the game from an external source which is NOT a save game file. Since we refuse to give out the save game file format, another method has to be written up.

Will we ever take the time to do this? Probably. Will we do it prior to the release of CMBB? No.

That is all we have to say on the matter for now.

Steve

[Panzer Leader]

Thanks Steve... So, does this mean the earliest we could expect it is for CM3, or that it would be made available as a patch?

[ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: Panzer Leader ]

[coralsaw]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Will we ever take the time to do this? Probably. Will we do it prior to the release of CMBB? No.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sob.

How can one say no to logical arguments? I still want my fire-engine though...

/coralsaw

[MrSpkr]

Sigh. Okay, I can buy that, Steve. BTS' dedication to quality is one of the things that makes this company so much better than the others.

I am disappointed, however, a probably is good enough for now.

[SenorBeef]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Hi guys,

There are currently 3 entities that have been requesting some sort of API data input/output functionality. Senorbeef, Killmore, and a guy from Australia (doesn't post here much). While providing an API is *certainly* easier to do than writing a whole campaign system ourselves, it isn't a simple 5 minute thing. We have, on numberous occasions, discussed this issue at great length. The problem for us is still one of time.

Charles figures it would take about 2-4 weeks to code up and document an API interface. It isn't as simple as some my think to do this. The documenting aspect, which is required for this to work, is part of why it will take that long. He will also have to code up routines that will allow the imported data to be utilized by the system. Currently, for obvious reasons, there is no way to dump data into the game from an external source which is NOT a save game file. Since we refuse to give out the save game file format, another method has to be written up.

Will we ever take the time to do this? Probably. Will we do it prior to the release of CMBB? No.

That is all we have to say on the matter for now.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you want, to save some time, or see if its practical, I can write up the specs for the file format we'd hypothetically use, and do some psuedocode to show how input/output would work. Or not. If you've made up your minds, I can respect that, as much as I disagree.

[Panzer Leader]

Do it, Senor! Even if they can't incorporate it right now, it will at least show them a good basis, and plan, for how it will work and how it will implement in the future. I will help any way I know how, thought I know no programming.