What are BTS facing with CMBB?

[Tiger]

For the next Combat Mission game: Combat Mission: Barbarossa and Beyond.

1) rewrite of the entire code including a new 3-d engine (???)

2) completely new graphic textures set

3) new models for tanks & vehicles associated with the Eastern front

4) research into ballistics for all East front vehicles & weapons not currently modelled in CMBO

5) new custom scenarios and the research that goes into making them

6) the tcp/ip from CMBO should be useable in CMBB with some changes

7) new code for lots of user requested features they decide to add to CMBB

8) marketing (?)

9) new message boards

10) manual writing and printing

11) TO&E for East front forces

All I can think of off the top of my head.

john

[Schrullenhaft]

I can't answer officially on this, but I'll give you my impressions...

1) The rewrite of the 3D engine will happen after CM2 (I'm not sure what game it will appear in first). The engine is called CM II (different from CM2).

2) Yep... not sure if they'll redo some of the models that exist already in CMBO or keep them as is.

3) Yep... same as above.

4) Yep... some of the BETA testers are gathering some of this info now.

5) Something that happens later in the process, but people have ideas all the time and are doing research on them.

6) Yep... whatever small tweaks will be necessary to accomodate changes made for CM2.

7) There'll be a limit to the number of things that can be included without rewriting the engine. The engine will remain very similar to the current CMBO engine, with whatever tweaks are necessary to accomodate the Eastern Front. Some additional command and control features and some work towards addressing "relative spotting" (but not a large "fix" for this issue) are some of the things that will have to be hammered in.

8) Not sure how much time this will take. The purchasing public will mostly be current CMBO users. Probably some banners on the gaming sites and some QuickTime movies of running BETAs, etc. Print ads are probably too expensive to reach the type of audience that would purchase CM2. But marketing isn't my forte...

9) Guess they'll have to make that change at some point. Probably right before they release it. There may be some different software running the forum by that point (other than UBB).

10) It will probably be quite similar to the CMBO manual, with some obvious changes and refinements.

11) Being researched right now.

A lot of it is in the details. A lot of work will have to be done on the 3D models and textures, which can be quite time consuming. Decisions on what to tweak and include will take quite a bit of time to forge for a solid set of goals to accomplish in development. BTS obviously wants to do this right and it will take some time (18 months is an approximate guess). It will take too long to rewrite the 3D engine and AI code (though the AI may be tweaked for some of the special cases of the OstFront). I think that there'll be some new features that will make CM2 a very nice surprise in game play that will differentiate it from CMBO (and that's not even considering the nature of the units involved). However it may not be this huge, groundbreaking difference that some gamers expect from game to game. But don't worry... BTS won't pull a Talonsoft maneuver and repackage the same game with different units and scenarios (not to hammer on Talonsoft too much here).

[The Commissar]

Personally, I would like to see the first three points taking place. Then again, I realise that a new 3D engine is time consuming and the "special effects" such as sun flares, sparky flashy explosions, etc. just do not have a place in CM.

Then again, technologies like bump mapping and smoother animation along with more motion in the units would be very, very cool.

I'd like to adress one point, that point being advertising.

Seeing as how large of a success CM:BO became and how much it appealed to almost all of the gaming magazines out there, the marketing for CM2 will most likely be provided by the fans, and these fans will include magazine editors who will no doubt devote a section to the upcoming game.

PC Gamer, for example, runs a "Peviews" section where they show off upcoming games. If fans send off a few e-mails to William R. Trotter, the wargamer at the publication, I am sure he would be delighted to pursaude the editors to devote a preview to CM2. In the worst possible case scenario, he will at the very least mention it in his collumn.

I'm sure online websites, store-bought publications, and word of mouth will make people aware of the second coming of Jes - Uhh, I mean CM2.

------------------

"...Every position, every meter of Soviet soil must be defended to the last drop of blood..."

- Segment from Order 227 "Not a step back"

[Guest Big Time Software]

Schrullenhaft's take on Tiger's points is pretty accurate. The rewrite of the graphics engine is certainly NOT going to happen for CM2. Unless you want to wait for an additional year or so

Basically, Combat Mission 2 will be Combat Mission 1 tailored to the Eastern Front. Most of our efforts will be dedicated to adaptation (new models, new TO&E, new C&C rules, etc.) and only a portion for blazing new trails.

We have decided to instead leave additional trail blazing for the rewrite of the entire game engine, including the graphics. Otherwise people will have to wait for about 1.5 years FROM NOW before they can get their hands on the Eastern Front. I don't think anybody here is willing to wait that long, seeing as many were calling for us to do Eastern Front first

This is not to say that CM2 will play exactly like CM1 with some new units. That is how other game companies do things, not us. Think of CM2 as being a half step to the engine rewrite; it won't feel like CM1, but it isn't everything that we have dreamed of adding.

Thanks,

Steve

[Sgt. Steiner]

My only question is, will there be a new 3D model for infantry? I.E. a little more realistic looking..

------------------

Ob's stürmt oder schneit, ob die Sonne uns lacht, der Tag glühend heiß oder eiskalt die Nacht, bestaubt sind die Gesichter, doch froh ist unser sinn, ja unser sinn, es braust unser Panzer im Sturmwind dahin

-- Panzerlied

[Walter]

And my only question is: Is it still the plan to incorporate the changes of CM 2 backwards into CM?

Cheers,

Walter R. Strapps

[Bakker@home]

It seems we will once again see the seperation in the two 'camps' we saw before CMBO came out; the 'grogs' and the 'gamers'.

The 'grogs' basically want to see every possible realistic detail incorparated and the the 'gamers' generally want more wizz-bang. I personally think they struck a fine balance in CMBO and will suspect nothing less from them for CMII.

Just think about the size of the task they are undertaking .... russia, five years of war, tons of different weapons to model.

The scope of CMBO pales in comparison.

So let's tone down on 'i want this!' or 'is this in?' questions and practice our patience. They already know what we want and they alone can figure out what's best to put in.

They started this russian thing and i am not sure if they know what they are getting into too. The sheer vastness of wars in russia has already claimed many a famous name ...

End of ramble

Greetings S. Bakker.

[This message has been edited by Bakker@home (edited 12-20-2000).]

[Dittohead]

Lets see some basic math and

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The rewrite of the graphics engine is

certainly NOT going to happen for CM2. Unless you want to wait for an additional year or so<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Otherwise people will have to wait for about 1.5 years FROM NOW before they can get their hands on the Eastern Front. I don't think anybody here is willing to wait that long, seeing as many were calling for us to do Eastern Front first<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So 1.5 years -1 years = 6 months till CM2.

Remember past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Tony

[John Kelly]

This game, as is, will never reach obsolesence if, for no other reason, the scenario editor and the graphics mod potential. Hey, I would be happy with Russian tanks and soldiers on the existing frame. Bring it on whenever...I'm still having fun with the first one. Cheers, John

[Guest Big Time Software]

Some quick answers:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My only question is, will there be a new 3D model for infantry? I.E. a little more realistic looking..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We will most likely do this. Our plan, at this moment, is to add an additional level of detail (there are 3 levels right now) that will be visible only at very close range, since that is the only time you would notice the extra details. We will likely have this be a feature that can be turned off so people with slower systems won't be penalized.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And my only question is: Is it still the plan to incorporate the changes of CM 2 backwards into CM?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The jury is still out on this one. Note that the more we try to make CM2 backwards compatible with CM1 the less we can do with CM2. So after we nail down our initial design goals we will figure out if we will have to break compatibility.

Our primary goal for CM2 is to make it as good as we can within a reasonable time frame. The more we tie ourselves to CM1 the harder this becomes. So we shall see...

Steve

[Sensible Toad]

I have a question:

From recommendations on this forum, I am reading Stalingrad by Beevor. It is quite good (although not as gripping as a Bridge Too Far) and conjurs up some incredible gameplay:

8 man Russian submachinegun assault squads

Sappers throwing AT mines in front of tanks

Super elite sniper battles

Rubble to rubble battles with ambushes everywhere

Sewer movement (like the old SL boards)

Etc, etc

The above type of game, I think, is remarkably different from the type of game that would represent long range tank battles on the Steppe (equally enjoyable I'm sure).

My question: Is BTS concentrating on one of these two "themes"? Or are they going for broke and covering both (please say yes!). I tip my hat to BTS whatever the answer for being an incredible company.

Thanks,

Rob ST

[Guest Big Time Software]

For CM2 we are looking to make a fair treatment of the front as a whole, just as we have with CM1. So city fighting and long range tank battles are all on our plate

Steve

[kipanderson]

Steve,

It’s great to hear that we will not have to wait too long for CM2. I go 100% with the view that a heavily tweaked CM1 is better than a full new engine, at this stage. I also think the graphics are great. DD’s terrain and Magua’s buildings go superbly together. I could not be happier with the entire set up and so do not feel a new engine is required.

However, one or two things you have said about CM2 do worry me a little. We are not quite talking sleepless nights, but I can see the potential for a stunningly realistic simulation being turned into something less impressive.

What worries me is that you are planning to tweak the Command and Control. Plus the fact that some time ago you wrote words to the effect that “ Soviet units will not be running around the battlefield like NATO units on exercise”. Fine, as long as the same applies to the Germans.

For me, others will differ; CM is all about tactics, tactics and more tactics, plus of course great graphics, fun and so on…. . What it is not about is realistic Command and Control. In my view this cannot be realistically modelled without live, team play. Live team play would solve two problems. One would only see enemy units that, for example, your own platoon could see; and more realistic Command and Control restrictions could be added. If there is not going to be live team play in CM2 then a very “light touch” is required in modelling C&C.

In CM you do not only play the role of company commander, but also platoon and, this is important, squad leader/vehicle commander. My great fear is that you will introduce “artificial” restrictions on Soviet units. I could imagine a situation in which a Soviet squad has to wait 30 seconds to react to one of your own commands when a German squad would take just 12 seconds. In my view this would greatly detract from the game. BTS would have fallen into the same trap as all other Eastern Front games I have come across. A Soviet squad, yelled at from 20 metres by a platoon commander, would react just as quickly, or slowly, as a German squad. Also remember “you” the CM player are also playing the part of the squad leader. If CM went down this route you would be putting artficail restrictions on “yourself”. As squad leader of a Soviet unit you would be a forced to think more slowly simply because you are “Soviet”.

A related matter is that the latest research indicates that Soviet combat effectiveness, post-Kursk, was marginally higher than that of the western allies and very close to that of the Germans. This was true even at the company level. There is more to this than just a reworking of Trevor N Dupuy’s equations using the force ratios and causality figures as we now know them to have been; although this is a part of it. It will take a very long post for me to justify this claim, and at some time in the future I will post all the evidence. All I ask is that all at BTS keep an open mind as to just how good the Soviets were, even at the tactical level, by the end of 43. It is now known that during the second half of the war Soviet forces were a lot smaller in number, and there causalities lighter, than was believed only ten years ago.

Anyway enough of my ranting.

I only hope that any C&C changes will be applied with the above mentioned “light touch” until such time as it can be done properly with live, team play.

All the best,

Kip.

[This message has been edited by kipanderson (edited 12-21-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hello Kip,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>CM is all about tactics, tactics and more tactics, plus of course great graphics, fun and so on…. . What it is not about is realistic Command and Control.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I strongly disagree. Yes, Combat Mission is all about tactics. But realistic tactical abilities are heavily influenced by C&C. You can not seperate the two.

Combat Mission right now has C&C cause/effect relationships all over the place. They play a critical role in how well certain tactical decisions will work. Don't believe me? Try moving around a Company of Conscripts on the attack and see how easy it is to pull of anything but a direct frontal assault along a narrow front

Lower experience means slower reaction times. Reaction times are the heart of CM's C&C treatment. So the tactical limitations of a conscript company is not just about poorer fighting qualities, but poorer ability to organize and execute delicate tactical plans.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> In my view this cannot be realistically modelled without live, team play. Live team play would solve two problems. One would only see enemy units that, for example, your own platoon could see; and more realistic Command and Control restrictions could be added.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is not realistic either. To be totally realistic you would not be able to see anything that you (i.e. a SINGLE soldier) can't see. A platoon has roughly 30 pairs of eyes, and in reality they do not all see the same things at the same time. And because those 30 pairs of eyes are split up into roughly three or four groups, the player's access to the information they are gathering is also too much.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If there is not going to be live team play in CM2 then a very “light touch” is required in modelling C&C.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

CM2 will not have team play. That is a major undertaking that certainly will not see the light of day until we rewrite the game engine.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My great fear is that you will introduce “artificial” restrictions on Soviet units.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why do you fear this? How many times have we totally shot down people for proposing "national traits"? I don't know the number either, but it is every single time it is brought up We don't have national bias in CM1, on purpose and contrary to other game designs, so why on Earth would we start doing so for CM2?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I could imagine a situation in which a Soviet squad has to wait 30 seconds to react to one of your own commands when a German squad would take just 12 seconds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Substitute "American" for "Soviet" and you can easily see this exact behavior in CM1. But the American unit would be Green and the German one Veteran (roughly speaking).

Experience is the key C&C factor in CM1 as it will be in CM2. On the whole, Soviet units in 1941 were generally inexperienced and horribly led. Units in 1942 suffered from the same problems PLUS massive influx of raw recruits to replace the losses in 1941. In 1943 units began to get better on the whole, but still were lacking in many ways. 1944 was the first year the Soviets did not suffere catastrophic losses. Therefore, the 3 previous years of unit building finally resulted in an overall increase in abilities at all levels. This was improved upon in 1945.

The above is very general. Some units in 1941 were as good as any in 1945, both in good terms and bad.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> A Soviet squad, yelled at from 20 metres by a platoon commander, would react just as quickly, or slowly, as a German squad.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All else being equal, such as level of training and experience, sure. But to suggest that a poorly trained, conscripted unit would be able to organize itself to formulate a plan and execute it as quickly as a unit of well trained veterans is going to be a hard sell. Veteran SGTs on this BBS would readily agree, I am sure.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I only hope that any C&C changes will be applied with the above mentioned “light touch” until such time as it can be done properly with live, team play.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I am not sure what we are planning is a "light touch" or not, but it will apply equally to both sides. Just as the current system does. It will be up to the scenario designer to come up with the realistic experience level, which will in turn influence the C&C abilities for each side.

We did not put off C&C treatment in CM1 because of no team play, and we will certainly not do so for CM2. Team play is still an abstraction from a C&C perspective. Although it will be beneficial to C&C realism, in and of itself it solves nothing.

Steve

[Guest Rob/1]

Well said steve. Hay let BTS do a good job. Don't make them do somthing that will make us wait 2 or 3 years for CM2. I only had to wait 5 months from when I frist played CM till I got it... that time fealt like forever!

Rob

[kipanderson]

Steve, hi,

Thanks for the quick and full response.

My post may have sounded a little too critical before MC2 is even launched. In fact I am so happy with CM1 that if the same approach is used for CM2 I cannot wait. Your point about conscript squads taking longer to organise, and get themselves together, is a very good one. I feel reassured.

The reason for my post was that my experience of all previous Eastern Front games is not a happy one. Against that yes, I certainly do trust the team at BTS. The proof is that, in my view, and given technology as it is today, CM1 is “perfect”.

All the best to everyone at BTS for Christmas,

Cheers,

Kip.

PS.I still cannot believe how good CM1 turned out to be!

[This message has been edited by kipanderson (edited 12-22-2000).]