Scipio Posted October 21, 2000 Share Posted October 21, 2000 I have several wishes (see below) and I could add more points, but I can already imagine the answer I will get from the beancounters: to expensive, will take to much time to create the graphics etcetc. How about this : Give the mob - us - the possibility to create the graphics, new units, 3D buildings and what ever you want. Select what you want to implement. CHANGE ONLY THE ENGINE to use the new features. All additional units/graphics could be posted for free download (like the mods at CombatHQ), while the customers still need to buy the original game CD. The world of wargamers would love you forever and a day! Some wishes: a)I'm missing several (only for example German) vehicles like: Aufklärer 38(t) Panzer IIIN PzIII (Flamethrower) StuH42 StuPz IV (150mm) PzJg III/IV (88mm) Well, I could continue endless, also with Allies vehicles & infantry. Also, why don't we have Command vehicles? b)Why should it be so difficult to create a 3d ruin? A square of broken walls would be enough and give a lot atmosphere to the map. c) I would also prefer to see more different handweapons. [This message has been edited by Scipio (edited 10-21-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gezeder Posted October 21, 2000 Share Posted October 21, 2000 well, A) isn't going to happen (BTS said this, in no uncertain terms.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gezeder Posted October 21, 2000 Share Posted October 21, 2000 well, A) isn't going to happen (BTS said this, in no uncertain terms.) I can't see C) happening either... but i do like - sounds like a good idea to me - i wonder how difficult it would be to implement? if it wasn't tooo hard, it would add a lot... but then again, it could be quite an effort, seemingly simple things can be very deceptive in programming... still, if it was reletivly easy, it would add a lot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Dog Posted October 21, 2000 Share Posted October 21, 2000 Briefly, BTS has said that they don't want to allow any user mod of the characteristics of the AFV's to avoid turning PBEM is to a free-for-all where before any game, the players have to sort out all the details about what "version" of the Panther they agree to.... blah, blah, etc, etc. Related to this would be the temptation of a few players to create uber-tanks and not "bother" to mention it to their opponent. For this reason (which makes a lot of sense to me), the vehicles are hard-coded into the game executable. We can change how they LOOK, but not how they PERFORM. - Old Dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theron Posted October 21, 2000 Share Posted October 21, 2000 You should read the thread on "Big Time Software could learn a lesson from Id Software and others". They answer the questions about users making new vehicles and allowing changes to the game engine very explicitly. Theron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted October 21, 2000 Author Share Posted October 21, 2000 I'm sorry, but I couldn't find that threat with lessons from ID software with the search engine. [This message has been edited by Scipio (edited 10-21-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theron Posted October 21, 2000 Share Posted October 21, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio: I'm sorry, but I couldn't find that threat with lessons from ID software with the search engine. [This message has been edited by Scipio (edited 10-21-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm sorry that the title that I put up was a paraphrase of the actual title. The actual title is, What BigTimeSftwr should learn from Id Software and others This topic has been on the front page for the past couple of days and is still on the second page today. Here is the quote from BTS: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> My 2 bits worth... This has been discussed many times over. Hell, we were getting calls for Mods before the Beta Demo was even out. So here are somet thoughts: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Banshee wrote: CM is not a game engine, it was never designed as a game engine. It would requires a complete rewrite (starting from scratch) to make it into one. There are no API's for it. The only outside 'data' it grabs are sound and textures (and very minor data from the preferences file). Just look at the size of exe, it is obvious the data is compiled in. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well put. At the present time there is no way to "Mod" the game guts in any easy way. We would have to spend a LOT of time (many, many months) doing nothing but converting the game to an open architecture. But we have no intention of doing that. So for technical reasons alone, it isn't going to happen. The argument that Mods *always* make a game better is just an opinion. I don't use Mods for CM, for example, so it in no way makes the game better for me. Mods can, to some extent, extend the life of a game. Quake mods did that. But as others pointed out, these easily modifiable games are very, very different from CM. One gets tired of playing and shooting the same stuff in the same maps time after time. So the Mods refresh and at times improve the game. But CM's appeal comes from a much deeper level. It comes from the interaction of gameplay elements, not just who can shoot faster or which Mod has cooler dismemberment abilities. Again, nothing wrong with FPS games or their Mods, but not all games are alike. We have always said, and always will say, that we are the gate keepers for Combat Mission's game guts. This will not change. Our goal is to enhance and improve Combat Mission over time so that it is closer to the ideal of "realism". Think of the discussions we have had here on this BBS. Think of how many misguided and misinformed discussions we have had because people have states "X happened and I think Y needs to be changed". So we all look at the statement and the annecdotal evidence, think about what it means, and discuss it. Very often (far too often) we figure out that someone has missed some critical piece of information that, usually unknowingly to the original poster, uncovers flaws in the original arguments. Perhaps there is still a point there that we need to address or at least look into further, but more informed discussion is needed. This is a time consuming, and sometimes frustrating experience, but it is one that we are willing to do because we feel that in the end we can get informed discussions to help improve the game. Now... think about how this discussion would be affected by 9 different MG42 firepower modification mods. Even if that is ALL each modified, it could very well totally f-up any and all hope of improving the "blessed" data. After seeing how attentive people are, in general, to noting significant details about their "problem" (this includes tech support issues, not just CM ones) I know for SURE that if we had a discussion about the strength of infantry in close assaults people would forget they had, or at least forget to mention, that they were using x or y Mod. And then... chaos. The above is just what I am thinking of right now. There are other reasons to NOT have game guts mods. And as for the arguments for them... we don't really agree with: 1. You will sell more - no, I totally disagree with this. Mods would only increase the sales of a BAD game if those Mods were good enough. I know people that bought CCIV, for example, on the premise that there would be a "Real" mod. They actually said "I know CCIV will be crap right out of the box, but it will be fixed by the Mods". This does not apply to CM since we have taken care to "fix" things BEFORE the game is released. 2. There would be no negative impact - wrong. I saw it clear as day myself with the various CC3 Mods. You'll never convince me that Mods add nothing but icing on the cake. 3. We need Mods because we are incapable of improving the game ourselves - This goes back to one of the original presumptions that CM2 is just going to be CM1 with Soviet tanks. I can assure you that CM2 will be VERY different. In fact, some of the changes we are proposing take CM in a totally different direction (all positive, I assure you ). Bottom line here is we are NOT sitting on our butts waiting to take in more money for nothing. We will EARN the $45 spent you spend on CM2. 4. Someone else will beat us to the "open engine" thing - nope, it will not happen. And even IF someone else comes out with a generic 3D wargame engine, every game made from it using Mods will feel the same as the next one. See... simulations are not just cool weapons slapped on some tank tracks. There are a lot of things that have to be custom coded up to recreate the atmosphere and specific requirements of each war or theater of a war. So I say, be carefull for what you ask for because someday you might get it (even if I doubt you will . OK, enough ranting. Obviously people can tell that we have deep seated beliefs against opening up the game engine to Mods. These beliefs have not changed in 3 years so I wouldn't hold your breath for a change in the near future. Steve <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> [This message has been edited by Theron (edited 10-21-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
109 Gustav Posted October 22, 2000 Share Posted October 22, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio: Some wishes: Panzer IIIN PzIII (Flamethrower) StuPz IV (150mm) PzJg III/IV (88mm) Well, I could continue endless, also with Allies vehicles & infantry. Also, why don't we have Command vehicles? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> BTS decided not to implement the Pz III varients, because there were only a handful of IIIs in Western Europe at the time. I think something like one armored company was equipped with them. Command vehicles would undercut ordinary vehicle's independance from HQ units. Imagine how awkward it would be if you had to keep a command vehicle with each platoon of tanks. Besides, I doubt that they would ever have been used to lead tanks or AFVs in combat. Instead, each platoon/company would have had one overall tank commander, who would have fought alongside the others. ------------------ Charon doesn't make change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diceman Posted October 22, 2000 Share Posted October 22, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio: Some wishes: a)I'm missing several (only for example German) vehicles like: PzIII (Flamethrower)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Second StuH42 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Durruti Posted October 22, 2000 Share Posted October 22, 2000 Significant common/important vehicles that would be nice to see: German; Sdkfz222 A/C Sdkfz232 A/C Flakpanzer 38t Marder 1 Panzer IVD (used by 21st PD in important Normandy battles) CharB Flamm as used during Market Garden US; Halftrack with quad .50 cal Brit/Commonwealth; AEC A/C Cromwells available to Polish (played significant part in later Normandy battles) Sherman Flails and other 'Funnies' Airborne MG-armed jeeps as used at Arnhem All have been requested before...but as the topic has been raised again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts