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

[junk2drive]

jl2, I'm not flaming you, ok? I also see your posts as being against a post WWII game.

"I can't even imagine what would have happened if NATO and the WP had taken a run at each other."

"The Arab-Isaeli wars are something I don't know nearly enough about."

I think these quotes explains your position but makes me wonder why you are posting. How can you say the game won't work if you can't imagine or don't know the subject.

I have learned way more from WWII wargames and forums then I ever learned in school and from video media. I am learning more and more about the post WWII era and would like to wargame it.

Hope you take this as positive.

[Battlefront.com]

Ok, perhaps it is time for me to put in an updated 2 cents on this classic topic

It is fairly accurate to say that a European conflict in the 1960s or 1970s (mid at least) would be more-or-less similar to WWII combat. The technology, though improved, was not a quantum leap from what was going on at the end of WWII. Night vision and thermal imaging, though crude, were around. Missiles were also around, but limited to guided LOS types. Airpower was vastly more dangerous to ground targets than in WWII, yet far away from the kind of lethality seen today. NBC... who cares The "N" is a non-starter for a tactical game, "B" and "N" are fairly similar in terms of how they would be simulated. In all cases the simulated counter measures are pretty much the same.

Technically, Cold War wouldn't be terribly difficult to do with the CMx1 engine, though it would still be a royal pain in the butt. It is one of the reasons we dropped CMx1 and moved onto CMx2. Not because of a desire to do Cold War, but a realization that even the most similar non-WWII setting (Korea) was pretty tough but the next most similar (1960s/1970s) Cold war was even tougher. So why stick with something that is that inflexible?

CMx2 can handle Space Lobsters of Doom™ as easily as it could handle Cold War, while CMx1 could maybe handle Cold War but no way handle Space Lobsters of Doom™. What that means is that "closeness" to CMBO/BB/AK is no longer any concern of ours. We can do whatever we want based on whatever we want

And what do we want to do? Well, we do want to make a whole range of cool games other than WWII. Unfortunately for Cold War aficionados, Cold War isn't on our Top 5 list. And since we don't have a list beyond the Top 5, Cold War is effectively not even on our radar screens. And even if it were #5, at roughly 8-12 months of development time per title... CW would be a long, long ways away even if we promised right here and now that it would be the 5th game of the series (which I am most certainly not promising ).

Sorry to rain on the CW parade yet again (at least I'm consistent!), but I just don't see it happening.

Steve

[Elmar Bijlsma]

YAY!

[Kingfish]

...May 19th, 2005 09:07am...

Steve plants the seeds of disinformation...leading everyone to believe a CW game is a no-go...

...meanwhile, in another part of the BFC compound, Moon is pouring over maps of the Fulda gap ...

[jacobs_ladder2]

Originally posted by junk2drive:

jl2, I'm not flaming you, ok? I also see your posts as being against a post WWII game.

"I can't even imagine what would have happened if NATO and the WP had taken a run at each other."

"The Arab-Isaeli wars are something I don't know nearly enough about."

I think these quotes explains your position but makes me wonder why you are posting. How can you say the game won't work if you can't imagine or don't know the subject.

I have learned way more from WWII wargames and forums then I ever learned in school and from video media. I am learning more and more about the post WWII era and would like to wargame it.

Hope you take this as positive.

You're pulling my leg, right?

[flamingknives]

...Which begs the question;

How can one do 5 games without including the Cold War era? WWII - the three theatres we have plus early war, and another, WWI?, Space lobsters?

[Battlefront.com]

CMx2 allows us to, in theory, do all of the following game settings, each of which could constitute many stand alone games (i.e. setting is too big for one game):

WWII ETO

WWII PTO

1950s Korea

2000s Korea

WWI

Napoleonics

US Civil War

100 Years War

Medival

Ancient (European)

Ancient (Asian)

Contemporary

Cold War

Near Future

Far Future

Fantasy (D&D style)

Alien Invasion

Post Apocalyptic

And probably a whole bunch of things I just didn't think of in 1 minute

The point is that as long as the combat is predominantly ground based, CMx2 can do pretty much anything. Certainly it could do all of the above, though with differing amounts of effort of course. So when I say we have a Top 5 List (which in a formal sense we don't), there is a lot of theoretical possibillities out there for us to pursue. Inluding all 5 being WWII ETO to all 5 being Fantasy, even though we would never enslave ourselves to just one genre for the next 5 years.

Steve

[mrpwase]

People seem to have ignored my idea. I know that BFC have a repuatation for realism and accuracy in their games, but I don't believe this needs a historical background. Would it not be simple to let users design their own units (along with the wireframe), introduce a system which needed both players in a multiplayer game to agree to a set of units/rules, and then play as normal? I see that Dropteam features something similar...is there any reason why this can't feature in CMx2?

I know that people might complain about no-one playing the actual realistic game anymore, and everyone will make up crazy game rules or units...but firstly, to each his own, and secondly, people who want to play with unbalanced or stupid game rules/units will not find many opponents.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Well I guess that is the end of that…

Lucky for me that WWII is by far my favourite topic… I cannot imagine that NWE and the Eastern Front will not be done, plus either or both of Med and Pacific… more than enough to keep me occupied for years at a time.

Now… there will be no Cold War… but what about my other CM related obsession… welding a fully functional operational game on to CM. So that you can play out the game to its end at the operational level, but if you wish, click down a scale to resolve any given contact battle at the CM scale… bound to happen… only rational big idea out there

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

PS. In my shock and horror at that sad news I missed the bone that the setting for each game will not be any bigger than in CMX1… this is very good news. Far better to have a series of smaller games with higher quality than HUGE settings for each game.

[MikeyD]

No cold war planned by Space Lobsters of Doom™ has been trademarked!

:eek:

[Battlefront.com]

We're not interested in making a "toolbox" type engine. Way too much work for that. No commercial incentive for us either, so that + the work = nogo

While I did not really intend on throwing any bones into this thread... might as well toss one bigish one.... never again will we make the kind of games we did for CMx1 in terms of their scope. Why not? CMAK is the best way to explain this. It took us nearly a year, with a full time team of 6 people and a part time team of probably a dozen, to make what is basically a HUGE mod of the existing engine. Relatively little programming time went into new features for that game, and yet it still took that long. We though we learned our lesson with CMBB, but I guess we had to suffer through yet another massive development effort to really learn it. And that is...

For $45 or $35 a copy it just isn't worth putting in that quantity of stuff. Yeah, I know some of you (like me!) really enjoyed playing Conscript Romanians, complete with Romanian voices... but really... how many (% of total customers) would have misssed it if that was missing? Yet we probably spent 1 year's worth of full staff development on those features. Really not smart from our standpoing, nor yours. You guys had to wait 1 year extra for BB and AK because we felt like we had to simulate every darned stinking thing for the entire Eastern Front. Yet I am sure that 95% or more of you would have rather had a smaller scoped version of the Eastern Front a year earlier and then had AK follow right up and then had something else right after (or CMx2 released a few months ago).

So... from now on you will see from us:

1. More variety from title to title

2. Less time in between releases

3. Deeper game play within a title (vs. breadth)

4. More game engine improvements with each release

I'm sure some will grumble and invent all sorts of negative things to say about all this, but that's par for the course with Gorgs After you get ahold of the first CMx2 title's demo, and you see what our new strategy REALLY means, only the hardcore whiners will still be bitching. And since these guys probably bitched about CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK not being up to their standards... well... you can guess how much we'll care

Mikey... I figured someone would note the TM I hope nobody here works for the g'vmnt 'cuz we're not exactly allowed to use that mark without having actually filed and paid for a trademark

Steve

[flammenwerfer]

Sweet.. Make the grogs pay extra for Nimrods.

[Bannon DC]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

No cold war planned by Space Lobsters of Doom™ has been trademarked!

:eek:

Bing! I was just going to say it. Read Steve's remarks and it keeps coming back to the FACT that the first release is going to be "Space Lobsters of Doom!" First the slip up of adding the full title -- "of Doom." Before he only alluded to "Space Lobsters." Now the TM symbol. And just now a quick burst of legaleze as if he was just reprimanded by the BF staff attorney. Oh I see it... clear as day.

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

After you get ahold of the first CMx2 title's demo, and you see what our new strategy REALLY means, only the hardcore whiners will still be bitching.

Steve

I'm sure no one will complain as long as the crusher claw and ripper claws are accurately modeled (including right handed vs. left handed crusher claws), and other important features - the use of armored antennae as whips, the defensive advantages of spiny armor, etc. are properly modeled. And LoD should definitely address the mysterious "lobster march" - or at least make it something that can be modeled in scenarios.

Here's the intro from Thomas Jentz's forthcoming Der Schicksalshummer

The "Maine" or "American" lobster is a crustacean with two strong claws: a big-toothed crusher claw for pulverizing shells and a finer-edged ripper claw resembling a steak knife, for tearing soft flesh. (A lobster which carries its crusher claw on the right is a "right-handed" lobster.)

Of the 30 or so types of clawed lobsters worldwide, the American lobster most closely resembles its European cousin, Homarus gammarus, though the western Atlantic crustacean has more robust tearing and crushing claws. In France this lobster is called homard; in Germany, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, it is a hummer.

The clawless spiny lobster, Panulirus argus, of more southerly waters, is a distant relation of the American lobster. "Lobster tail" comes from any of the 45 species of spiny lobsters of the Palinuridae family. Sometimes called crayfish, crawfish, rock lobster, or langouste, this lobster has a spine-studded shell and long antennae but no large front claws. Instead, the heavily-armored antennae can inflict a tearing wound when the lobster thrashes them whip-like against an opponent.

Unlike the American lobster, spiny lobsters seem to enjoy each other's company and often share their dens in coral reefs. They may warn other lobsters of danger with loud rasping sounds they make by rubbing the base of their antennae against serrated ridges below their eyes.

One of the strangest sights reported by fishermen and divers is the "lobster march." Hundreds, sometimes thousands, of spiny lobsters form columns of as many as 60 lobsters to migrate en masse, often after a storm. Are they migrating to their breeding grounds, seeking warmer water, or searching for a new food supply? Why they march is still a mystery.

The slipper or shovel-nose lobster looks like a crustacean with a flattened face. It is sometimes hard to tell the front from the rear of this lobster with its broad, flat body and very short antennae. Slipper lobsters are harvested in shallow, tropical waters from muddy bottoms, but they are not as highly sought after as other lobsters.

The freshwater crayfish, crawfish, or crawdad resembles a miniature lobster. Its color may range from pink to orange to dark blue. In the gluttonous days of the ancient Roman Empire, crayfish were kept well-fed in large earthenware pots in preparation for royal feasts. The ancient Romans knew then what we have come to appreciate over the past 150 years: lobsters, by any name, taste delicious.

[ScottDT]

Great deabte!

I look forward to whatever game Battlefront releases in the CM series. In my opinion, CM is the Holy Grail of wargaming. The perfect combination of realism, tactics, and turn-based/PBEM gaming. Heck, I've had at least one CM PBEM game in progress for the last three years straight! Besides chess, no other game has come close to matching that record of continued enjoyment.

Now I enjoy WWII as much as the next wargamer, but I agree that I would love to see some fresh material. WWII is starting to get done to death. Therefore, I would love a modern, post-WWII CM series. I think a CM with all the modern units one finds in Steel Panthers: MBT would be absolutely great! The ability to use the excellent CM engine to model any modern battlefield would be awesome. And, of course,this would also allow the Cold Warriors to wage WWIII to their hearts content (as a former WWIII enthusiast, I sympathize with them, but since the Cold War ended, it sort of became a moot point for me---this is the reason why I have yet to buy Dangerous Waters).

I would love to see a sci-fi verson of CM as well, either based upon Hammer's Slammers, WH40K, or OGRE. DROPSHIP sounds interesting, but I think it is already clear that it is not going to rival CM. It's RTS, not PBEM-capable (boo!), and the multiplayer requires broadband. Initially, I was excited, but these drawbacks have tempered my enthusiasm.

My point is this: I would love the next-gen CM to be capable of handling all of the above. If it could, that would seal CM as the ultimate wargame...EVER! But that probably is just a dream, so if I had to pick, I would say:

1)Post-WWII warfare

2)name-brand sci-fi warfare (i.e., OGRE, WH40K, etc)

3)WWII (last because I have been using CM for WWII for how many years already?!?)

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

So... from now on you will see from us:

1. More variety from title to title

2. Less time in between releases

3. Deeper game play within a title (vs. breadth)

4. More game engine improvements with each release

Hey Steve, thank you very much for the information. Im sure I speak for all of us when I say we appreciate every little piece of information thrown in our way.

Now, being a lawyer and all, Im pretty used to pouring over scarce information, trying to milk out every last piece of fact from it. More often than not, I am of cource horribly misstaken, but still I get paid somehow. How cool is that.

Hrm, back on track.

It would seem that cmx2 will be more specific. The way I interpret your post is that each title will cover a smaller area/period, but in greater depth. The reduced development time will instead lead to more titles being offered. Thus, instead of having CMBB covering the eastern front, there might be 2-3 titles covering the eastern front.

If this is correct, then its not unreasonable to imagine that one cmx2 title might be "Normandy" and cover US-Germans in Normandy June-August 1944. Another title might be [insert witty title because I ran out of ideas] and cover US-Brits/Canadians in Normandy/Holland June-September 1944.

The smaller scope would allow for more detail, so instead of giving the player the option to create quickbattles with 5-7 armies from 43-45, you get the option to create quickbattles with 2 armies under 1944, but instead you get all the detail that cmx2 promises.

I really think that would be a good idea, and I hope my ideas arent too far off the mark.

I for one would welcome such a move. And I must admit that just thinking about this has caused the groggness in me to rise. I must sit down now.

Anyway, since this post is pure speculation on my part, I welcome you all to ridicule me now, and in the future. Especially if the first cmx2 title is "ww2, 1939-45, play any side, and any battle from Denmark to Japan, from Stalingrad to El Alamein"

[Thomm]

All good and well, but in what respect should the detail of CMx2 surpass the level of detail ALREADY in CMx1?!

Number of polygons per tank?!

Armor thickness per plate?!

Hmmm. Cannot think of anything else right off my head.

As I read it now you guys are getting enthusiastic about getting LESS material (tanks, armies, regions, ...) than before and while I can certainly understand and accept the position of BF I fail to understand why customers should be too happy about it *unless* it affects the price of the games, of course, but there is no indication for that so far?!?!.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Andreas]

Just throwing some things out. Some things that 'deeper' gameplay may offer:

- much more appropriate and micro terrain relevant to the area

- wider range of vehicles relating to the specific forces modelled

- much better research into the OOB (because there is more time to focus)

- much more specific simulation of combat tactics and command based on the specific doctrine of the army modelled (i.e. at the squad level you would see a difference between e.g. German and Commonwealth squads)

- additional features such as the pioneer battle (with funnies)

- Modelling of special formations (Maori battalion, Rangers)

Etc. pp.

[Mikael]

Representing every man in a squad: that's a example of much more detail... and if it's done well, then many people will welcome the change.

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Mikael:

Representing every man in a squad: that's a example of much more detail... and if it's done well, then many people will welcome the change.

This is missing the point! Representing every man is a (very welcome) feature of the new engine, but I doubt that the behavior of - say - a German soldier of same physique and experience will differ from 1939 to 1945.

Andreas' examples are more valid ones.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Hortlund]

maybe we will finally see real campaigns too...if the scope is narrower. *drool*

[Private Bluebottle]

If we see "more titles", will they share a common file/code format which will allow you to transfer information between them? At the present moment, each one of the CM titles in incompatable with the other.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Andreas:

- much better research into the OOB (because there is more time to focus)

- Modelling of special formations (Maori battalion, Rangers)

Personally, and FWIW (which is bugger all, I know) I'd like to see these things left to the Scen Designer. Make a few basic TOE available for each of the nations 'CW Inf Bn', 'GER PzGren Bn', 'US Armd Inf Bn', that kind of thing as starting blocks, but allow the designer to tinker with it to get the unit(s) that he wants - including command linkages, number of men in each squad, weapons mix, number of squads in a pn, pns in a coy, spt wpns, spec wpns, captured wpns, etc - rather than being forced into trying to get round pegs in square holes.

It would save a heck of a lot of research effort on BFCs part by offloading it onto scen designers, who would only put the effort in to where it was actually going to be used.

Well ... it'd make me happy anyway

[Andreas]

Yes, I agree that as a scenario designer I would like to designate all these things too, and then some I have not even thought of (the unthought desires, to put it into Rumsfeldian).

Then there are the multitude of people who play QBs against the AI. Or people who just whack together a quick scenario to play against the AI without going into this sort of depth.

My uneducated guess would be that they outnumber scenario designers (who care for this sort of detail) by 1 billion : 1, so BFC needs to think about how to make a game for them as well.

[Mikael]

You're right Rollstoy, I misread your post... I thought you were talking about detail in general.