Even more ranting in praise of the Cold War for CMX2 :)

[junk2drive]

Like This?

[Battlefront.com]

We're not going to do a subscription service. It's an entirely different business model and it isn't something we're interested in.

A way to note which scenarios have been played before... interesting concept. Useful too. Won't be in the first release of CMx2 most likely, but something to consider for the next one.

WW2 RTS does look rather neat. But the name says it all Infantry fans will likely be less than thrilled with it based on what I've read. Looks vehice centric.

Steve

[Kellysheroes]

Steve/Battlefront.com you didn't answer my question. Will the CMx2 series modules have random battle generators/quick battles as in CMx1?

[c3k]

Steve,

Thanks for noticing my post, and commenting on it. To be a grasping, demanding, whining type of customer, let me expand further....

Being able to note which scenario has been played would be a great boon. Obviously, there's a difference between starting a scenario and completing one. Should that be differentiated in the scenario roster?

How about tracking which SIDE you played in a scenario?

How about tracking your highest win/loss percentage in a given scenario?

Instead of tracking information, why not present it? Each scenario is FULL of information: time, setting, forces, attack/defend options, units, etc. Allow us to SEARCH the scenario database. (I tip my hat to "The Scenario Depot" for this idea.)

Okay, more ideas: make the scenario roster similar to a webpage. Each scenario listing is akin to a web-link. Selecting a scenario ports you to a page with more detailed information. I know that's too nuts and bolts, so I'll stop here.

The games you guys have created are great. The gameplay and user interfaces are fantastic. (Hey, no swollen heads: they're great, but they CAN be improved.) Making the scenario roster more user friendly would be a HUGE stride forward. I certainly hope you're able and willing to do so.

Thank you,

Ken

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by c3k:

[...] The gameplay and user interfaces are fantastic. (Hey, no swollen heads: they're great, but they CAN be improved.)

* whistling innocently, eyes pointing down *

Cheers

[Battlefront.com]

We do plan on having a random battle generator. If for some reason we can't do it for the first release of CMx2 (not saying we can't, just presuming the worst for the sake of discussion) it will be available for the second release.

The scenario tracking feature could be a real development distraction for us, which is why I don't see much of anything (if anything) happening for the first release. This is what we call a "Bell and Whistle". Good feature, but unnecessary compared to things like ballistics modeling, Realtive Spotting, etc.

Steve

[ June 02, 2005, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[MikeyD]

Sigh. All this CMx2 talk is really making me curious about the state of the game to date. For all I know (and believe me when I say I don't know anything) its still a mass of place-holder graphics and place-holder polygons going through the motions - just enough to test whether the finished game interface crashes regularly or not. Or alternately they've got a growing number of fantastic 3-D game objects (from monsters to Marders) all modeled with no finalized game to be plugged into yet.

When the process is all done I would love reading a 'Making of CMx2' history as an added bonus feature (I envision a 20 page PDF with photos on the game disk - hint hint)

[DEY]

Frankly I've been staying out of these discussions about something don't even exist yet.

But from what I'm reading I have to say I'm not happy with what I'm seeing.

I'm not going to buy into somekind of module type system that is say, a bunch of a mini type games covering short little time periods per module.

That would just to cumbersome and a headache to use.

So it sounds like combat mission ends for me with the current engine.

All things have an end.

[Michael Emrys]

Well...maybe. But I wouldn't panic just yet. Wait until you have a chance to see what the whole thing is going to amount to. Sounds to me like you are putting the worst possible reading on what has been said.

Michael

[jeffsmith]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

SNIP Sounds to me like you are putting the worst possible reading on what has been said.

Michael

and thats a total anomaly on this board

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by DEY:

Frankly I've been staying out of these discussions about something don't even exist yet.

But from what I'm reading I have to say I'm not happy with what I'm seeing.

I'm not going to buy into somekind of module type system that is say, a bunch of a mini type games covering short little time periods per module.

That would just to cumbersome and a headache to use.

So it sounds like combat mission ends for me with the current engine.

All things have an end.

Well he has a point.

I preordered CMBO because it was unique and ground breaking at the time and I simply COULD NOT wait to install it and play it as soon as possible! CMBB had GREAT improvements but no english speaking units. (so I bought the game and did not play it too much). CMAK contained ALL the great CMBB like game engine improvements, AND english speaking units so I was interested in that game as well. (Sadly it has no Mac OS X support BUT that is a WHOLE other issue!)

BUT now...

Now we are about to be offered the "next BIG thing" CMx2 game engine of our wildest dreams (or so it would seem from this early vantage point) with only a thin slice of salami to chew on. (narrow scope "modules").

I KNOW one thing for SURE, I won't be pre-ordering the first release of CMx2 unless it is a complete full featured Normandy SIM or something equally "fun" from the ETO in WWII

Sorry, but to be completely honest I am somewhat skeptical about the "thin" slices of salami coming our way sometime this coming winter.

-tom w

[MikeyD]

Remember, CM's 'narrow scope modules' may possibly be bigger than other peoples full-blown games! We've been spoiled rotten being handed the entire fricken Eastern front from '41 to '45 in CMBB. I can't imagine any other game designer even attempting something on that scale!

What I've been expecting from CMx2 (admittedly in my ignorance) has been much elevated detail on platoon-company size warfighting with an accompanying narrowing of focus. I do not expect 300 different tank types but I do expect proper room-to-room fighting in cities.

[jim crowley]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

We do plan on having a random battle generator. If for some reason we can't do it for the first release of CMx2 (not saying we can't, just presuming the worst for the sake of discussion) it will be available for the second release.

Steve

A random battle generator is an absolute essential as far as I am concerned.

Irrespective of wonderful graphics, relative spotting, advanced ballistics or anything else, I really do not want my gaming experience to be entirely in the hands of scenario designers.

I want the freedom to be able to roll up a random (or otherwise) battle without designer bias or constraint.

Sure, the CMX1 generator is far from perfect. But it is servicable and can produce the odd little gem.

I assumed that the whole generated-battle thing would be expanded upon and greatly improved in CMX2.

The fact that it may not even make it into the first release tends to indicate that it is not a particularly high priority for BFC.

That bothers me

[DEY]

I for one never expected the new game engine to cover say the whole war in one release, that never even happened with the first game engine.

What I'm saying is I'm not in anyway shape or form going to buy 20 bloody small games or so called modules if like, that say are run seperate from each other in a self contained context.

Frankly I wouldn't be all that much interested in this idea even if these so called modules run under one frontend, which doesn't sound like what they have in mind.

If they have in mind to say make separate games (modules) that only covers say the early wwII Polish campaign then say another covering the German invasion of France, and another covering the Finnish winter war.

Then even worse, say on the eastern front have a module that covers only the operation Barbarossa and another for operation Typhoon and on and on.

This will not interest me at all, and also that would start to add up to some real payout of cash to say the least to playout the entire period of the second world war, and we all should know that this is the war that will be covered at first.

[Pzman]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

More stuff...

Maps will be MORE editable than they were in CMx1 for the simple fact that the map system itself is far more powerful and flexible. Also a much finer level of resolution. Will you be able to place a single rock in one spot and a particular shrub of your choosing 0.05m away from it, with the bigger branch facing north? No, but it will be a ton more close to that than the way CMx1's 20x20m tiles could allow for.

I like the sound of that... more flexable the better.

The limiting of 100 vehicles down to 50 was just an example. We might limit it down to 10 It all depends on what the setting is we're shooting for. If we did only the battle for St. Lo, for example, there would be an extremely small set of units to choose from. Probably too few, even considering the depth of the game itself. But then again... maybe not. All depends on how one wishes to look at it. If the goal of the player is.

This is the one thing I don't like, but hey thats up to you guys. If I wanted a game that needs to get a ton of expantion packs (Like those for Battlefield 1942 etc) I'd get a FPS. The one thing I have always enjoyed about CM was the ablity to play in June 1941 Russia and then ten minutes later in Berlin. New graphics etc, may not be enough for my $$$$.

If the player wishes to experience an intense, inter connected, deep, and detailed depiction of WWII warfare... then having 200 vehicles and 400 infantry formations to choose from is actually a BAD thing. And believe me... many people do feel this way about the CMx1 game system (i.e. too many choices, not enough focus). However, if the player wants to experience a little bit of everything... well, nothing short of the Full Frontal Monty will do. In fact, even that won't do for some people

While I'm not interested in entire divisions, unless its like SSG games, I do like the way CM currently gives a long time scale even if its shorter than CMBB and CMAK, like that of CMBO. Being stuck with Americans at St.Lo or the Ardennes would not be all that wonderful. Another reason I enjoy CM is the ablity to play as the Canadians, British, Polish etc. Oh well, lets hope the focus isn't too small.

[ June 02, 2005, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: Pzman ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Sorry, but to be completely honest I am somewhat skeptical about the "thin" slices of salami coming our way...

I am under the impression that the modules can be connected together as parts of a much larger game. So you end up with something of the same or greater scope, you just don't get it all at once. If that's the right interpretation, you may get your Dagwood sandwich after all.

Michael

[Pzman]

Michael Emrys, the point is you need to keep buying expantion packs... :mad: I hate that. I want to buy that game in one shot, and not have to dish out $40-50 every 6 months. Sorry, but I did that with COD, and I even with new levels and weapons I still feel a little ripped off.

[flamingknives]

It won't be $40-$50, if previous BFC products are anything to go by. CMAK, covering nigh on the entire war, in two different theatres, cost $35.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Steve, I realize you are just grabbing figures out of the air for the sake of argument but much of what I'm hearing very much dissapoints me. My fears might be unjustified, or you just might not care about my fears on their own but while there is even a remotest chance that CMx2 might still be influenced by us I will voice those fears and objections.

Hence: RED ALERT!

Is the lesser scope then CM per module or after the CMx2 series is completed? Because if at the end of several modules I still won't be able to take.. oh, let's say... a Crusader AA out for a joyride I'd be pretty upset.

How will the complete set of CMx2 titles match up to the units already in CM?

And will we know what modules are planned when the first CMx2 title gets released? Bcause, to use your example if we get US Normandy, and then Bulge modules I'd be waiting with baited breath for Commonwealth modules to be released. (I confess I'm a bit of an Anglophile anyway, predisposed to thinking "not the Yanks at the Buldge again") If it then transpires that you go off to model the eastfront and Space Lobsters of Doom first and never get round to Commonwealth... Ugh. Then I'm stuck with games which, despite your enthousiasm for them, won't be more then a pacifier until you get to stuff that really rings my bell. I would be very hesitant to purchase any part of the CMx2 series before knowing you were heading in a direction I'd really like.

Please understand, I'm not just curious, I'm increasingly getting the idea CMx2 might not be for me. Maybe that's out of lack of solid information *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge* but maybe it's because BFC is heading in a direction I don't like. And that latter thought frightens the snot out of me.

[jim crowley]

No disrespect here folks but I really do think that the "I'm not going to spend all my dollars for this, that and another module" attitude, is bollocks.

I've been playing CM for nearly five years for an outlay of around $100. Thats bloody brilliant value in anyones book.

Would I pay $35 or $45 for games/modules with relative spotting, finer graphics more depth etc. etc. Yes, of course I would. Its my hobby; my main leisure interest. What the hell is $35 in this day and age.I doubt that $35 or even $45 would buy a decent meal for two, even the the USA.

Get a grip! How much do you spend on smokes and booze, golfballs and fishhooks or whatever else turns you on?

But I must have a battle generator

[Kellysheroes]

Well, because they spoiled us and now want to ween us off the candy, I foresee some very disgruntled people in the future.

Since the random map generator is my only concern, waiting for "one" module with it will be all I have to consider.

But, I too am not a module/expansion type buyer. I see it too much as "milking the donkey" when a developer/publisher uses the same engine and just warps another game title/type over it. Paradox is well known for this with their EU engine.

It rings loudly of ASL to me, and one can sink 100's of dollars into ASL if you get everything.

But, some will enjoy the system, they certainly do the ASL system, but, I fear the consumer population will drop considerably vs a complete theater game like they already spoiled us with.

You just can't give a kid a whole bag of candy one day and then tell him the rest of his life he only gets 1 piece every 8 months. He'll go find another mamma and pappa. Or dial 911 and tell them that he's being "abused" lol

[junk2drive]

It's they outlay for a new computer that's got me stuck in wait 'n' see mode.

[Pzman]

I have spent around $50-70 Cdn per game on CMX1 games, so really, spending another $50 per module is a big deal. $35 doesn't sound like much, but when you make $8 an hour it can be.

flamingknives: CMAK was CMBB with Allied Units, which in many cases have poorly setup OOBs. It was a slap dash effort. I hope BFC does not continue on that trend. I'd rather wait a year to have a Normandy battle game with all countries that fought there than, "St.Lo: Americans against the 2SS Panzer Division" etc.

[Brent Pollock]

So, rather than relying on the swacking great legion of scenario designers and all their synergistic noggins, you'd rather rely on the handful of guys responsible for the Random Battle coding

Originally posted by jim crowley:

[redacted by Brent] Irrespective of wonderful graphics, relative spotting, advanced ballistics or anything else, I really do not want my gaming experience to be entirely in the hands of scenario designers.

I want the freedom to be able to roll up a random (or otherwise) battle without designer bias or constraint.

[Gpig]

KellysHeroes wrote:

"You just can't give a kid a whole bag of candy one day and then tell him the rest of his life he only gets 1 piece every 8 months . . ."

Sure you can. They get used to it.