James Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 I havent been around for months and was wondering what the latest news is on the development of the next combat mission engine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 Not much other than that Charles is already working on the engine and that it's going to be a total rebuild from the ground up. I wouldn't expect much in the way of details or bones for a good 6-12 months. BFC has stated repeatedly in the recent past that it's too early for specific discussions on the forums about the new engine, and have locked down threads attempting to start such discussions. They have even been coy about what the time period/theatre setting is going to be for the first game on the new engine, which has set off lots of wild speculation and desperate whinging about a game set in the PTO/Korea/Cold War/Mars etc. Shrug. At present, I'm lucky to get in an hour or two a week playing the current CM iterations, so I don't have much time for idle speculation about the new engine. Do a search for recent posts by Madmatt and Moon and you'll get an idea of the 'party line' right now. Cheers, YD 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Kinscherf Posted March 13, 2004 Share Posted March 13, 2004 I would like to see France 1940 in the current system. We are really missing this this era. Kevin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meach Posted March 13, 2004 Share Posted March 13, 2004 Your guess is as good as ours at the moment. I have every faith that no matter what we finally end up with it will be cracking stuff. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
searchingtom Posted March 14, 2004 Share Posted March 14, 2004 Please please please stay World War II.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meach Posted March 14, 2004 Share Posted March 14, 2004 I think that this is familiar territory for the team and should be the next theatre of operations. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hurtzDonut Posted March 14, 2004 Share Posted March 14, 2004 Poland in '39 and France in '40 would be great with the current system! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
istari Posted March 15, 2004 Share Posted March 15, 2004 I know, I know, we've had this debate many times before... But if we're starting another one, I want the good people at BTS to know that not all of us want another WWII wargame. Please - it's been a great couple of years for WWII, but it's time to inject a breath of fresh air. My vote is for "Combat Mission II: Cold War", recreating scenarios from the Arab-Israeli Wars and the hypothetical Fulda Gap standoff between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Istari 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bone_Vulture Posted March 15, 2004 Share Posted March 15, 2004 Originally posted by istari: But if we're starting another one, I want the good people at BTS to know that not all of us want another WWII wargame.AAAAARRRRGGG INFIDEL! :mad: No no no! No modern warfare! It'll suck just like Steel Panthers 2! Who'd like the tanks to have hit probabilities of 95% over a kilometer's distance? Infantry squads with a firepower of 500? I can't even fathom what the air support would be like... And it does NOT suit the WEGO system. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
istari Posted March 15, 2004 Share Posted March 15, 2004 First, I enjoyed Steel Panthers 2. The main problem was they kept the same size battlefields from SP 1, which I agree gets a little ridiculous once you're in the 1980+ era. Those hit probabilities were only 95% when you're taking M1A1 shots at 1200m. Nonetheless, SP 2 worked great for the campaigns set in the Golan Heights and Korea, and if you opened up the range a bit with larger maps to account for 2500m Abrams shots and 3750m TOW missiles, what's the problem? Oh, could you explain to me again why combat after 1950 doesn't lend itself to a WEGO system while combat before 1950 does? ;> Istari 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bone_Vulture Posted March 15, 2004 Share Posted March 15, 2004 Originally posted by istari: Nonetheless, SP 2 worked great for the campaigns set in the Golan Heights and Korea, and if you opened up the range a bit with larger maps to account for 2500m Abrams shots and 3750m TOW missiles, what's the problem? Oh, could you explain to me again why combat after 1950 doesn't lend itself to a WEGO system while combat before 1950 does? ;> Unless the graphical engine is severy tweaked, I wager that most of CM fans would have to purchase a faster computer to be able to play maps where the range of engagement is around two kilometers. I think the WEGO system is excellent when simulating the differences in command delays and WW2 era tactics; it'll become annoying in modern warfare where a single Abrams can probably decimate an entire column of weaker armor over a minute's span. Modern warfare is so sterile... The drama of the historical events half a century ago are nowhere to be found. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveR Posted March 15, 2004 Share Posted March 15, 2004 There is lots of scope for a modern version of a game like the CM series. But one of the problems, as I see it, is anybody who has tried to do such a game has focused on the high tech large battles. The fact is, other then the gulf and the arab/israeli wars, these sort of battles have never realy happened. Yes, there was Korea, but that could easily be covered by a WW2 game engine. Though Viet Nam saw the introduction of a lot of high tech equipment the majority of the fighting was still conducted, with abate highly improved weapons, but still weapons not that far removed from WW2. By and far the majority of modern warfare, say post 1970, has either been large battles fought by poorer nations, using old equipment, or much smaller 'bushfire' battles such as the US in Grenada or Somalia, or the British in Northern Ireland or Seira Leon. Generally, today, the emphasis is moving away from massed armour to rapidly deployable infantry. The infanteer is probably enjoying a huge return to centre stage in modern warfare with the ability to punch harder then ever before. Take the last Gulf war. Just about every M1 that was reported 'killed' appeared to have been taken out by a well placed infantry action rather then other armour. Perhaps the most difficult aspect of modern warfare to depict is the use of helicopters. But if they could be worked right, and the emphasis shifted to infantry rather then armour then I feel we would have a much better, more realistic 'modern' warfare game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Probert Posted March 15, 2004 Share Posted March 15, 2004 The current engine could be adapted to do wonderful Napoleonic games. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krazy Canuck Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 Or the Civil War...... KC 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodchuck Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 what ever they do, i'll buy it...i've played all the games now to some extent weather it was a demo or full version, and i have to say...next to steel panthers or something of the like, they've got my money hands down... keep it comin folks, stay true out... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavka_lite Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 I think you all are underestimating BF.C. My speculation is that they are designing an engine that will support the various time periods of post World War 1 warfare. After all a tank is still a tank and a MG is still and MG. The only real difference is that maps will need to be bigger and the time frames for turns would have to be variable, IE 1 minute for 1939 to 1960, 30 seconds for '60-85, 15 seconds '85+. All this is very do-able. Today's processors can handle this easily and I hope that BF.C is taking into account the new video cards and processors. Not because they are the latest and greatest but they make the not-so latest and greatest cheaper and a standard for the industry. Computers and harware are so cheap now it is a wonder the industry can survive...$400 for a good Dell, not great but good. I, for one, am more than willing to wait until 'it is ready." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaD JoKe Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 Well, memyselfandI would like a CMBB kinda game of a smaller scale. Kinda hybrid of Close Combats and their smallscale actions (and some slightly gamey effects like scavenging weapons etc.) and CM kind of historical accuracy, 3D + IgoUgo. Detailed infantry (even if it would only be a graphic presentation) and CAMPAIGNS are what I want.. Perhaps there is a demand for two games? CM direct decendant with the same scale and CM/CC hybrid? :confused: I would sure as hell like to get my hands on one.. Modern warfare is not good idea in my opinion. SP2 was such a poor performance. (plus because of BFCs policy of historical accuracy, Finland would not be included :mad: ) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted March 18, 2004 Author Share Posted March 18, 2004 Rember me, I started this thread asking when the new engine was coming out - little did I guess the longing it would unleash. So its not coming out for quite a while.......right see you in 3 or 4 months, I'll check then! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipanderson Posted March 18, 2004 Share Posted March 18, 2004 Hi, The only thing that I know is a small comment from Moon to the effect that they, BFC, have been listening to those asking for some form of operational layer. (I call this setting CM in greater context.) But this does not mean that there will be a full operational layer…only that BFC have taken account of the request for operational features. To some degree. BTW. It was always the case that once North West Europe and the Eastern Front had been done there would be the odd release from BFC in a setting that is not in favour with all. Amongst wargamers NWE and the Eastern Front are safe bets. I am one of the most unhinged fans of a Cold War setting…… and then back to NWE followed by Eastern Front. My all time favourite, by far, is the Eastern Front.. not very original. But even I like a change now and then. WWII for “every” version of CM/CMX2 would be shame, in my view. All very good fun, All the best, Kip. PS. Steve did say a couple of years ago that one of the design specs of the new engine is that it should be possible to increase the production of new games. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cool breeze Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 "the time frames for turns would have to be variable, IE 1 minute for 1939 to 1960, 30 seconds for '60-85, 15 seconds '85+. " I dont think that shorter turns would be reasonable. I think to give orders more than once every minute is unrealistically micro managing. If the setting was modern than you could have a huge amount of casualties in one minute, but i think that is just something you would have to plan for and try to avoid. I dont think that in the turn your abram comes across a convoy of stuff you should tell it what to shoot as he does it. He should just bast away at whatever the very smart tacAI decides. Thats my 2 cents 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.