Cessna Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 We've got the Western Front, 1944-45. We've got the Russian Front. We've got North Africa and Italy. What's next? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eichenbaum Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uzi Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 I think the next Combat Mission game should return to Normandy. This needn’t be a repetition of CMBO if you take into account the possible enhancements that could be included such as; 1. Amphibious beach assaults and terrain; LCT’s, sand, dunes, obstacles etc 2. Strongpoints and more elaborate bunkers 3. Bangalore torpedoes 4. Enhanced soldier animations 5. Enhanced building graphics and broader, more detailed town building possibilities ie; fountains, mills, sheds, haystacks, higher walls etc 6. Option to play game in 2 modes; turn based or real time 7. Option to record video of battle for playback like in Bungies’ Myth series 8. Inclusion of; Nebelwerfers, Schwimmwagens, British 25 pounder gun and tractor, DUKW, motorbike and sidecar, 9. Option to include bomber formations (Carpet bombing) 10. Enhanced uniform graphics (Distinction between 101st and 82nd airborne for example) 11. Option to limber and unlimber artillery to vehicles for movement after firing I’m sure people can think of some more….. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cessna Posted March 30, 2004 Author Share Posted March 30, 2004 Yeah - along those lines, I'd like to see a full Western Front game. Not just Normandy to Berlin, but also France in 1940... And the Pacific would be interesting, too... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Some_God Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 Yeah a Western Front game would be wise decision, since the previous game (CMBO) was lacking on the part of the graphics. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 I heard it would be about ice hockey. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Praxis Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 Not the western front again... The Pacific would be interesting. Jungle, fanatic Japanese defenders. Admittedly there would be very little armour, but the infantry battles in thick jungle, small LOS, abundant large calibre naval gunfire and strike aircraft. They could also take in the Chinese and Burma campaigns. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParaBellum Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 BFC have stated repeatedly in the past that their interest in the Pacific war is low. I'd personally like to see a western front game, 1940-45, which is then expanded to the eastern front/africa as it has been with CM. Much better grafics, dynamic lighting (including night battles with spotlights and battle field illumination), better arty modelling, restricting Borg spotting, vehicle formations (including a "follow" order for road marches), better infantry modelling, deformable landscape including trees that can be smashed by arty fire, mannable bunkers and fortifications, map-editing in 3d-view, pictures in briefings and a hundred other things... Just some thoughts. [ March 30, 2004, 12:07 AM: Message edited by: ParaBellum ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yaphank Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 Why not a single game with all of the nations/terrain elements from 1939 till 1945? :eek: How much would you pay for that? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schoerner Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 Folks, stay realistic. 1. BTS is a small company. 2. What they do usually is well done. This means in doubt quality over quantity (although the quantity is already overwhelming and could IMO be reduced). And everyone interested in history, could only agree. 3. the new engine is going to be designed with a faster adaptation to other war-scenarios in mind. So there's no need, to have the whole WesternFront in the first release. I personally would like to see an evolution of what we have now. This game is so fantastic, that it only needs refinement, instead of a revolution (there are to many bad examples of good games, that were developed to death, because of leaving the good old virtues). And there's no need for BTS to include all goodies in the first release, because we already have an excellent game. Only one single major enhancement (I.e. full battle replay, borg-spotting, campaign-module, terrain-FOW, true-combat-modes, and many many more) would be reason enough for CM-fans, to buy the game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 Originally posted by Schoerner: Only one single major enhancement (I.e. full battle replay, borg-spotting, campaign-module, terrain-FOW, true-combat-modes, and many many more)Isn't that more than one? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JONNY.B Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 What about Late 1939-Mid 1940,imaging,a dunkirk operation! But I do agree on a revamp of CMBO was and still is a good game but the graphics and SOME info a little hazy (e.g uniforms and buildings)but still a good game 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cessna Posted March 30, 2004 Author Share Posted March 30, 2004 Originally posted by Yaphank: Why not a single game with all of the nations/terrain elements from 1939 till 1945? :eek: How much would you pay for that? I would LOVE to see this - I'd drop $100 for a fully integrated CMBO/BB/AK. If they could make a game that combined and cleaned up all of the games we have now - plus filled in gaps like France in 1940 - well, I'd be a very, very happy man... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sycander Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 Well, all this wishing is pointless, as BFC is already hard at work on a game they have likely already decided upon. But whatever: How about some open source, so users could develop units/vehicles themselves, in much the same way that we can currently make our own mods. It would create some problems with multi-player games, because you have to make sure that everyone is using the same sort of units, but it could be done. And just think of all the grog-uments we could avoid on the forum about über stugs and what-not when users could tweak unit characteristics themselves. Or, just think of all the grog-uments we could have! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kondor99 Posted August 5, 2004 Share Posted August 5, 2004 Please God, let them restrict AFV's spotting ability while buttoned! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted August 5, 2004 Share Posted August 5, 2004 If BFC is going to keep to single CDs then the scale of the game is simply going to have to go down as the complexity goes up - just so it'll fit on disk! Dynamic shading, complex buildings with rooms, and twelve men per squad is not compatible with division-size attacks, supply chains, and war-length campaigns. Of course they may go for a multi-CD fifteen gig monster game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted August 5, 2004 Share Posted August 5, 2004 Originally posted by MikeyD: If BFC is going to keep to single CDs then the scale of the game is simply going to have to go down as the complexity goes up - just so it'll fit on disk! Dynamic shading, complex buildings with rooms, and twelve men per squad is not compatible with division-size attacks, supply chains, and war-length campaigns. Of course they may go for a multi-CD fifteen gig monster game. Or start using jpeg's instead of bmp's. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrpwase Posted August 5, 2004 Share Posted August 5, 2004 The graphics are bad enough as it is (not saying they're not good in places) - we don't want worse textures...or do we? That could be an idea. Cut back on the graphics (which I doubt anyone cares about anyway) and include more actual game features. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted August 5, 2004 Share Posted August 5, 2004 If CD space is really such a hot issue, then a) use a precise compression on the textures on the disk, e.g. in PNG files. You don't have to go JPEG. Then, expand them to BMP when installing to disk, or even better leave the choice to expand them at game startup time. BMP also have optional lossless compression, seperately by color channel and hence halfway effective. Not as good as PNG though, and of course such BMP files are unsuitable as direct source for the textures, they would have to be uncompressed, too. implement optionally shared textures and models. At 3D engine load time, and the Futterpanzer IVC is requested, then the games looks on the disk "is texture 11677.bmp" there, which is one of Futterpanzer IVc's textures. If so, it selects the 3D model for the IVC and loads the textures. If 11677.bmp is not there, then the games displays the Futterpanzer IVC by selecting the 3D model for the Futterpanzer IVB and loads the textures belonging to that. That way you can limit shipping textures to one CD and when the user downloads a mod for the Futterpanzer IVC then he gets the 3D model for that vehicle, otherwise it shared the 3D model with the IVB. This way you can also cleanly do different textures for left and right turret sides. If the texture for the left side is there, use it, if not, reuse the texture for the right side. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted August 6, 2004 Share Posted August 6, 2004 Originally posted by Uzi: 9. Option to include bomber formations (Carpet bombing)LOL Lesley McNair was killed by carpet bombing (he commanded all US Army Ground forces) Rod Keller was wounded by carpet bombing (he commanded Third Canadian Division) Hundreds of allied soldiers were killed and wounded by Allied four engine bombers in Normandy. Point? These generals were dozens of miles from the intended bombing areas. You really want to buy carpet bombing for a scenario and never have it show up? And if it does show up, what would the challenge be afterwards? Panzer Lehr Division was all but annihilated in Cobra by Allied bombs. At the tactical (battalion) level, what point would there be to including it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bogdan Posted August 6, 2004 Share Posted August 6, 2004 Considering that many modders are working for better graphic rendering and missing textures, I really think that the main focus for the next game is for more accuracy and details in the combat simulation in itself. I mean, there is so much to be done about borg spotting, dynamic lighting, campaigns, order of battles, ballistic, 3D rendering of urban areas or forrest (etc. etc. etc. ...) that BFC staff can stay away from working about new BMP textures files, IMHO, leaving it to modders and other fanatics ! They only have to let the BMP "slots" free, and we'll have winter units and uniforms, as we had for the other CM games. It's really not a problem. I would prefer only one CD with a big .exe file for a game which will better simulate tactical engagements than two CD fulls of BMP files ! Also, many persons here have not the last-utmost-new generation of PC (and I'm not only speaking for myself ), handling megs and megs of graphical textures... I'm not opposed to some eye-candy, sweet cosmetic graphics : better trenches, poles, some more terrain tiles for example... ....but with moderation ! We really don't need 3D units with zillions of polygons and the BMP files that go with ! I've read that the objective, the ideal, was to be the best tactical combat simulation possible. Then go for it : ballistic rendering needs to improve, weather possibility, morale and fatigue of units, spotting, artillery, map editing possibilities and so more... Talking about uniform options or carpet bombing ( ) is the wrong way, IMO. ...Adding moo-ing cows in the bocage too 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted August 6, 2004 Share Posted August 6, 2004 I don't really see what the point about not using multiple CD's is about, though. CMAK uses two (the European version), so what's the problem? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denwad Posted August 6, 2004 Share Posted August 6, 2004 Start using DVDs exclusively DVD drives are dirt cheap 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bogdan Posted August 6, 2004 Share Posted August 6, 2004 Time and price would be the main drawbacks... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted August 6, 2004 Share Posted August 6, 2004 Originally posted by Uzi: I think the next Combat Mission game should return to Normandy. This needn’t be a repetition of CMBO if you take into account the possible enhancements that could be included such as; [List smipped] I’m sure people can think of some more….. Royal Marine Commandos. I can understand them getting left out of CM:BB, but leaving them out of both the other two is an unconscionable omission. All the best, John. 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.