aka_tom_w Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Originally posted by UberFunBunny: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Originally posted by Das Reich: a West Front/Italy/North Africa game could be made This is a great idea, but hopefully with the new engine. Not "we can squeeze one more game out of it before the rewrite".... I'm sick of routed troops with no memories etc! Did I mention Full Movie Replay? </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipanderson Posted January 10, 2003 Author Share Posted January 10, 2003 Hi, When it comes to the next project, there is no avoiding the fact that not all will be pleased with the choice of subject. When CMBO came out all, certainly myself, were so shocked by the quality of the game that whether or not is was a first choice subject was neither here nor there. When turning to the East BFC were going for “the” major campaign of the last century, so few could feel disappointed by the subject. I am confident they will be back to both settings at some future date, hopefully anyway. However, when it came to BFC’s third game, we were always going to be entering territory in which there would be disagreement. My reason for wishing to move to the Cold War goes back to the late seventies when I was a student and war games were very close to being a mainstream hobby. I and my friends used to spend four-six weeks playing WWII games, then a while playing Cold War games. It made a nice change. This is at the heart of it, I am a huge fan of WWII as a subject, have just bought Glantz’s latest book and the Army at Dawn book, so am still very interested. But I would welcome a change from WWII for the next CM game. In the wargames industry clearly WWII and current/modern time periods are the two biggest, most popular. Think of all those Shooters that sell in bucket loads. (And, no I have never even owned one, but they do sell.) However, the problem with the current period in terms of CM type games, is that here are no major industrialised nations squared off against each other. Very good news in Real World terms, but in CM terms it means there are no large mechanised armies in existence. In the 1970s the armies facing each other certainly were real, as real as they can be in peace time. In Vietnam and the Middle East the Cold War was a Hot War. So if ever there is to be a CM type game other then WWII, my vote would go for 1970s Cold War. I guess 90+% of us here will be happy with the next game whatever the subject, but my first choice would be to take a rest from WWII. Getting enthusiastic about different technology would be fun in its self. T62s/T72s and such. In my view. All the best, Kip. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Weiss Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Repeat after me... Pacific, Pacific, Pacific... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Originally posted by kipanderson: Hi, When it comes to the next project, there is no avoiding the fact that not all will be pleased with the choice of subject. When CMBO came out all, certainly myself, were so shocked by the quality of the game that whether or not is was a first choice subject was neither here nor there. When turning to the East BFC were going for “the” major campaign of the last century, so few could feel disappointed by the subject. I am confident they will be back to both settings at some future date, hopefully anyway. However, when it came to BFC’s third game, we were always going to be entering territory in which there would be disagreement. My reason for wishing to move to the Cold War goes back to the late seventies when I was a student and war games were very close to being a mainstream hobby. I and my friends used to spend four-six weeks playing WWII games, then a while playing Cold War games. It made a nice change. This is at the heart of it, I am a huge fan of WWII as a subject, have just bought Glantz’s latest book and the Army at Dawn book, so am still very interested. But I would welcome a change from WWII for the next CM game. In the wargames industry clearly WWII and current/modern time periods are the two biggest, most popular. Think of all those Shooters that sell in bucket loads. (And, no I have never even owned one, but they do sell.) However, the problem with the current period in terms of CM type games, is that here are no major industrialised nations squared off against each other. Very good news in Real World terms, but in CM terms it means there are no large mechanised armies in existence. In the 1970s the armies facing each other certainly were real, as real as they can be in peace time. In Vietnam and the Middle East the Cold War was a Hot War. So if ever there is to be a CM type game other then WWII, my vote would go for 1970s Cold War. I guess 90+% of us here will be happy with the next game whatever the subject, but my first choice would be to take a rest from WWII. Getting enthusiastic about different technology would be fun in its self. T62s/T72s and such. In my view. All the best, Kip.But even given the hard data we have about the technology, is it possible (I don't know, which is why I ask) to simulate the intangibles like training and troop quality? The armies were "real" as you say, but they were peace time armies - any conflict lasting longer than a few weeks would have seen massive influxes of raw troops - and very little in the way of hardware replacements. Gwynne Dyer called any such hot war in Europe a "come as you are" war since the tanks, aircraft etc. took so long to manufacture. Moreover, every scenario type you have would be "fictional". A bit of a downer for all the history-grog-weenies who need to know what unit they are portraying and what "really" happened. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Rumor has it Matt would rather gouge out his own eyeballs than spend two years researching Japanese TO&Es. forget about CM3, I want to know the details of any eventual CM2 v.1.03! I'm a bit concerned about all the 'this will be fixed in the rewrite' talk. If you include everything that's been posted for the rewrite 'wish list' the game may be pretty well unplayable! I don't want the CM engine to be rewritten into some bloated unrecognizable mess. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
demoss Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 KVs vs Pershings anyone? Pershing, in two or three shots. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: The armies were "real" as you say, but they were peace time armies - any conflict lasting longer than a few weeks would have seen massive influxes of raw troops - and very little in the way of hardware replacements. Gwynne Dyer called any such hot war in Europe a "come as you are" war since the tanks, aircraft etc. took so long to manufacture.From my earlier occasions of reading Dyer's commentary in the Dayton Daily News editorials, I would nominally rate him among the more clueless on military affairs, present-day or otherwise. Then again, other writers like Eric Alterman can be even more so. The one truth is that yes, modern-day military equipment can't be cranked out like it was in WWII, due to overall complexities in manufacturing and in the weapons systems themselves. But if the "balloon" went up in Europe with all-out conventional war, it would have been very unlikely for the two primary protagonists (the USSR and USA) to have the majority of their troops, weapons, or even air units "on the line" at the start of such a war. It then is a matter as to how "deep" the reserves are, how long it would take to deploy these, and other global committments for each side. Could all of the trained troops of both sides been run through in 2-3 weeks? Possible, especially if tactical nukes were being lobbed. Then again, it may instead had gone on for 2-3 months. But it'll always be in the realm of the speculative. Moreover, every scenario type you have would be "fictional". A bit of a downer for all the history-grog-weenies who need to know what unit they are portraying and what "really" happened. True. But that never cramped the style of the designers of "Steel Beasts" as one such example. I will add that I don't quite think yet that the CM system would "scale" very well to modern-era combat in its present form. Unless SOP options could be worked in with greater detail a la TacOps, the range and lethality of certain weapons for CM's ground scale would probably require MUCH larger CM maps, or shorter turn intervals, or both. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Originally posted by MikeyD: Rumor has it Matt would rather gouge out his own eyeballs than spend two years researching Japanese TO&Es. forget about CM3, I want to know the details of any eventual CM2 v.1.03! I'm a bit concerned about all the 'this will be fixed in the rewrite' talk. If you include everything that's been posted for the rewrite 'wish list' the game may be pretty well unplayable! I don't want the CM engine to be rewritten into some bloated unrecognizable mess.Like ASL? Your comment presumes, MikeyD, that Battlefront considers itself obliged to include everything asked for in the engine rewrite "wish list," which I consider as very doubtful. The discretion of the BF guys on what to include, and what to not bother with, seems fairly good so far. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Hornet Posted January 10, 2003 Share Posted January 10, 2003 Originally posted by aka_tom_w: Suppose (hypothetical situation here.... ) that there were TWO game development streams at BFC (they would have to grow a little) ONE stream is the NEXT new game using the CMBB (tweaked) engine "West Front/Italy/North Africa game" it would be released before the engine rewrite... WE would then wait... For the completion of the second stream which would be the Engine rewrite with CMBO CMBB and CM NA (North Africa) ALL rolled into one WWII MONSTER combat simulator with ALL the bells and whistles ALL the dreamed of features and ALL the theaters of war previously released. You and I dream a lot alike. I would defintely and happily buy both!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipanderson Posted January 10, 2003 Author Share Posted January 10, 2003 Hi, One quick point. When it comes to the cost of modern day land warfare equipment, this was also true in the 1960s and 1970s, it is not any more expensive than was the case in the 1940s. But you have too use “true cost”, that is opportunity forgone by producing, say, 5,000 M1 tanks a year. There are two reasons why this is that case. One is that as the scale of production goes up, so the cost per units falls massively. As in most other goods. To give a specific example that has stuck in my head. The rule of thumb is that if a country moves from production of 50 fourth generation/current tanks a year, to 200 tanks a year, the unit cost falls by 30%. Clearly, at war time rates of production there would be further savings, but it is not infinite. Secondly, you have to measure the cost of, say, a batch of 5,000 current generation tanks, as “ a percentage of GDP” in the given country. At war time rates of production, and measured as “a percentage of GDP”, modern land warfare equipment is not normally more expensive than it was in WWII. Some of the ammunition is more expensive, but in a real war, of course, the “cleaver stuff” would be in very short supply as a result. Along the same lines as Tungsten rounds were in WWII. Anyway… enough of my rantings. I understand that some only wish to play WWII in CM type games. I have no problem with that and I do sympathies with it. But if you wish to play mechanised warfare post WWII, unless you go for the Arab/Israelis war, you are bound to end up playing games that never happened in reality. As someone pointed out above, just like Steel Beasts or all NATO type mechanised training of the last fifty years. BTW. I am a military history nut , there are hundreds of military history books in the room with me as I type, but I still feel like a change from WWII, just for one CM game. I did enjoy my Cold War wargames . BFC will do whatever takes their imagination. They will not wish to spend another eighteen months doing something they do not consider would be fun to play, even if they get very little time to ever actually play the game. But what takes their imagination, other then the subjects we have already had, I have no idea. Time will tell. But I believe some form of post WWII game stands as much chance as anything. Fulda Gap, here I come! All the best, Kip. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Rosenrosen Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 I would like to see Battlefront join forces with id software (which also did its first games as a small independent developer). They could release a mix of CMBB and Return to Castle Wolfenstein that would suck my life away.... What's left of it...... Dr. Rosenrosen 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kong Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Well said kipanderson. I for one would also be interested in a modern combat simulation. Yes the maps would need to be larger, and Air assets would play a greater role, but part of the fun would be doing what-ifs?!?! Mountain Forest fight versus Open Desert, etc. Regardless of what theater and/or time period BFC chooses I just want 2 things, a real campaign mode (as I am a Campaign/Operation junkie) and I really want to see more graphic detail (no not gore, go play Quank for that) I mean detail. Guns with crews firing, reloading, sighting. Tank wheels all moving, vehicle tracks on the ground, better smoke implementation, mortar crews dropping the round in the tube, MG teams with a guy feeding the gun, etc. I also fantasize about seeing a Fighter/Bomber over the battlefield... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Originally posted by Canuck: Are you refering to the, "I can tell by your silence that you agree" ??Nope. Quite the opposite in fact. Steve has stated explicitly that the next game will have the engine rewrite and will cover the Med. Of course, it is not impossible that BTS could alter their plans in the meanwhile, but until an announcement is made to the contrary, that's what I'll be looking for. They have also explicitly ruled out a game set in the Pacific. In fact, on that score, Steve was not only explicit but emphatic. There have been recent rumblings of a possible game set in the modern era, but nothing definite yet, and it would be a long way off in any case. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Gents... Like our release dates... we will announce things when we are ready too We are not currently ready to say what we are doing and when. In the mean time, I will just repeat what I have been saying for a loooooong time: 1. The current game engine is basically "dead". We will not add wish list features and such to it now (i.e. 1.02) or into the future. Tweaks and bug fixes that we feel are necessary... sure thing. 2. The new engine will not be ready for 2 years. It will break so much new ground that trying to picture it will not do you much good For example, I had a tester recently send me a list of things he wanted to see improved in the new engine. None of what he wrote was relevant because they were laid out as tweaks to CMBB as it is now. Not thinking big enough 3. The new engine will NOT have everything we want it to have, just like neither CMBO or CMBB did. But that won't stop us from trying to get it all in there! And don't worry about the big stuff I've mentioned here not being included. Those are in for sure. Just not all of the rest of the iceberg will see the light of day. 4. PTO is absolutely not going to happen for the first release of the new engine. No amount of asking, pleading, threatening, etc. will change that. We are simply not interested in making that game, and there is no way to make us interested. We are the ones that have to eat, breath, and sleep with this bloody monster project for two years, and if we are not 110% into it... disaster. Since neither Charles nor I have interest or much knowledge of the PTO it would be an unmitigated mistake for us to attempt it. 5. The engine is being built with a wide range of future applications in mind. What I mean by that is we are designing the new engine to be "open to the possibility" of simulating any number of different environments, real or imaginary. But we have no plans yet to produce anything beyond the new engine's first release, so do not ask or speculate as to what comes after the first release because we don't know any more than you do. And it is WAY too early to be talking about it. 2 years too early Er... that is about all I have to say about this for the moment. Thanks, Steve [ January 11, 2003, 01:13 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UberFunBunny Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 The new engine will not be ready for 2 years. It will break so much new ground that trying to picture it will not do you much good For example, I had a tester recently send me a list of things he wanted to see improved in the new engine. None of what he wrote was relevant because they were laid out as tweaks to CMBB as it is now. Not relevant Wow! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Originally posted by MrSpkr: This wasn't even remotely the case by 1917. The standard unit of maneuver in the Empire troops was the section, with a platoon made up of four such sections - one with grenades, one with rifle grenades, a rifle section and finally a Lewis section. The Germans were also using stormtroop tactics by the time of their big pushes in 1918. Even in the hell of the first day of the Somme, many British battalions were able to acheive tactical victories, albeit without much in the way of "stormtroop" tactics. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipanderson Posted January 11, 2003 Author Share Posted January 11, 2003 Steve, Thanks for making it clear. But you cannot blame me for trying! Knowing what the next project will to be, is quite a big event in my “hobby” calendar, like half a dozen big-item Glantz books being announced on the same day… I but dream. Anyway… it is interesting to know that the new engine is to be such a big step change. Apart from Borg spotting, live team play and a few smaller matters like better modelling of obstacles, and, yes, mine rollers would be fun , my list would be quite small anyway. CMBB already does so much, so well. However, I do have one item on my list, that I have no real hope will make it because I know from experience is very unpopular with you and BFC in general, that is a quality operational layer. In the eighties it was always my dream that there would be a quality computer version of Squad Leader, same niche anyway, there is now with CM. However, my ultimate dream was for a quality operational game in which one could them “zoom down” to resolve any individual contact battle at SL/CM scale, if one wished. Using a program similar to the Quick Battle program but with the parameters for the Quick Battle taken from the Operational game. I can but dream. All the best, Kip. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 11, 2003 Share Posted January 11, 2003 Originally posted by kipanderson: In the eighties it was always my dream that there would be a quality computer version of Squad Leader, same niche anyway, there is now with CM. However, my ultimate dream was for a quality operational game in which one could them “zoom down” to resolve any individual contact battle at SL/CM scale, if one wished. Using a program similar to the Quick Battle program but with the parameters for the Quick Battle taken from the Operational game.Y'know, back in the early '80s I think it may have been Little Wars, a magazine devoted to miniatures gaming, was sponsoring a system that allowed you to play at either strategic, operational, or tactical level. There was a system for each of Napoleonics, ACW, and WW II. You had a way to resolve conflicts at each level or you could drop down a level or two and game it out there if you preferred. My point is, that it is not impossible for some enterprising game designer to develop a system in coöperation with BTS that might do the same kind of thing on computer by interfacing a strategic/operational game with CM. Just scattering ideas on the wind... Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Crierie Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 uh...ya do realize these guys are out to make some money, yes?They've already done most of the RESEARCH on the West Front and East Front. IIRC, isn't that the big time/money killer? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipanderson Posted January 12, 2003 Author Share Posted January 12, 2003 Michael Dorosh, hi, Had a few pints with an opponent of yours last night, quite few as it turned out, and it reminded me that I had not replied to one of your posts. When it comes to troop quality in any Cold War CM I would simply take a view on the subject. My own view would be along these lines. The highest quality I would give to full time professional NATO battalions. In CMBB terms I would go for something along the lines of 30%-40% veterans the rest regular. Secondly, the first line Soviet troops I would give some what less experience levels to, say, 10% veterans, 60% regular and 30% green. However, I would use the editor to attempt to give the first line Soviet troops the same morale as NATO professional battalions. (And, yes, I it’s my hope that in the new engine one will be able to change the morale of different troops for the same experience or combat skills rating. Fanatics rating helps, but does not quite do the trick in my opinion.) For second line Soviet troops, and conscript NATO units I would give the same combat skills/experience levels, but the Soviet troops just a little higher morale. The reason I would give Soviet troops “slightly” higher morale, relative to their combat skills/experience levels, than NATO troops is that the latest studies show one would expect just that, also explains why, “relative to their training”, Soviet troops in WWII had higher morale than German troops. (BTW, when I say “morale” I mean the true definition of combat morale, the willingness of a unit to continue to generate combat power after suffering casualties.) Anyway… it turns out that the harsher someone’s childhood, the harsher the discipline in the unit, the harsher the training, the higher the combat morale of the unit. Harshness in childhood, in training and of discipline all lead to higher resistance to the stress of combat. It is all massively “politically in-correct”, but a WWI sergeant major’s view of what leads to high combat morale has turned out to be correct.But I too, can think of a long list of exceptions. Clearly, some professional units have such high quality recruits, they are almost self motivating. The above views on morale come from various Jane’s articles over the years, the context of which is always, “why do Third World arms sometimes have combat morale equal to, or better than, some Western professional units”. In the view of one of the articles I read, Turkish conscript units would be expected to have combat morale higher then some professional Western units. In short, if fighting fictional wars, then there are quite number of matters on which “a view” would have to be taken. All the best, Kip. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipanderson Posted January 12, 2003 Author Share Posted January 12, 2003 Michael emrys, I agree that it is doable. But I have my doubts that BFC wish to be involved. They are only a small company, and may not have the time. But I certainly “hope” it happens . All the best, Kip. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 12, 2003 Share Posted January 12, 2003 Originally posted by kipanderson: Michael emrys, I agree that it is doable. But I have my doubts that BFC wish to be involved. They are only a small company, and may not have the time. But I certainly “hope” it happens . All the best, Kip.Hi Kip, I think you may have missed a key clause in my post: "...it is not impossible for some enterprising game designer to develop a system in coöperation with BTS..." That is to say, someone with their own resources and personnel taking on the job and coördinating their activities with BTS, obtaining the necessary permissions from them, etc. This may be no more than another pipe dream, but the idea did occur to me and I thought I may as well toss it out. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipanderson Posted January 12, 2003 Author Share Posted January 12, 2003 Michael, Your idea is very solid, because I know that BFC have been approached in the manner you describe. However, according to Steve, when looked at in detail, it was felt that these projects would have taken up too much of BFC’s time. But Steve has explicitly stated that BFC are not against it in principle. He made clear that in practice these sorts of cooperation tend to end up taking more time than expected or planned for. I believe BFC have been approached by those wishing to write programs that can accept files exported from CM games, and maybe import files back the other way. May happen one day. If someone came up with the correct formula, they are willing to look at it was the last I heard on the subject. But that was some time ago. All the best, Kip. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcpilot Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 Originally posted by Ryan Crierie: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MeatEtr: How about cmbo and cmbb combined with the engine rewrite. The eastern and western front combined with the rewrite would mean better graphics, animations, and tweaks that can't be done with the current engine. Also, the inclusion of even more units on both fronts. I have to agree. Combine both CMBO and CMBB for the next game, and add North Africa, or perhaps even 1939/1940! It would be excellent. VERY excellent.</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 13, 2003 Share Posted January 13, 2003 Originally posted by pcpilot: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ryan Crierie: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MeatEtr: How about cmbo and cmbb combined with the engine rewrite. The eastern and western front combined with the rewrite would mean better graphics, animations, and tweaks that can't be done with the current engine. Also, the inclusion of even more units on both fronts. I have to agree. Combine both CMBO and CMBB for the next game, and add North Africa, or perhaps even 1939/1940! It would be excellent. VERY excellent.</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.