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

[Battlefront.com]

Oh, and I forgot to add...

We fully expect the game play value of CMx2, on a battle by battle basis, to far exceed CMx1. To oversimplify things... if a CMx1 game that shipped with 50 scenarios and 100 possible units, and a CMx2 game shipped with 25 scenarios and 50 possible units... you'd most certainly pick the CMx2 game as your favorite simply because it was an overall more deep, enjoyable experience.

Obviously this is a pretzles to french fries comparision, but I think you can figure out what I mean by this. And if not... "less is not necessarily less than more" Yeah, that ought to clear things up...

Steve

[junk2drive]

So back to the deli...

With BB you gave us the big dills and some baby gerkins.

With AK some pepperocinis.

I want to put them all on my salami and cheese even if the taste doesn't appeal to you.

Make sense????

[Ardem]

I totally understand where you are coming from Steve and I fully support what you are saying. What I am hoping for I will have to wait and see.

I can illustrate it with other games, I bought Operation Flashpoint and even though they came out with addon every year, with nice extra feature I really enjoyed downloading extra vehicles or made my own scenarios on the maps and still have it loaded on my machine now until Operation Flashpoint 2 comes out. I could do and play the game in so many ways with friends it was awesome.

I bought another game, battlegrounds a hex based strategy, they had additional packs and played different areas, you could modify the units to a limited degree you could not change the maps and you were stuck playing it the same way over and ovr again.

Lasted 2 months and I trashed the game and refused to buy any of the addons.

Now I can understand not giving us the whole salami and I do feel spoilt rotten <smile>, but some of us buy games purely for the ability to create rather then just playing the game. If you check these boxes on scenario building then I reckon 90% of the CM community will not be overly concerned about scope, cause most of us can fill in the details of imagination for other parts heheheh.

Ability to create your own maps from scratch like CMx1. (Map Editor)

Ability to change graphic details (I know moding your own equipment would not work as you lost income for you guys)

Ability to change sounds (I going to add the aussie voices this time, ahha a real aussie pack)

Ability to design your own OOB and a real enhancement of CMx1 scenario editor. (Just a bonus)

If you add these things I won't be playing Battle of the Bulge for 8 months, I will be playing American verus Germans (1944) on anywhere my imagination will take me.

If you take away say ability to make your own maps and changing of graphic details, I be playing Battle of the Bulge for 8 months, well maybe 2 months after I played all the maps twice and shelved the game.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

I am not at all happy with the prospect of being offered a really thin slice of a GREAT game engine, and then being asked to pay again for add on after add on! :mad:

IS that not EXACTLY the marketing strategy that spelled doom for SL and ASL in the board game market? (I could be wrong about that?)

I thought it was the mindless proliferation of rules, so that you spent more time looking up the one you wanted to use to annihilate your opponent rather than just play the game.

Edited to add: Also, the skyrocketing price of succeeding modules probably didn't help. That probably wasn't directly the fault of the game company, but it would certainly cut into the size of the market of actual buyers.

Michael

[ June 01, 2005, 02:50 AM: Message edited by: Michael Emrys ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Scenarios should wind up being far more editable in CMx2 than in CMx1. What I mean by that is in CMx1 the designer had only a limited back of tricks to draw from in order to get the scenario to feel correct. Things like objectives, AI behavior, force Order of Battle, chains of command, etc. were sometimes very difficult to simulate for a particular battle. In CMx2 such stuff should be much more controllable.

Well that sounds interesting.

We spoiled you rotton

Nah, we were already rotten. Or rather, they were. I remain, as always, a paragon of all the admirable virtues.

Michael

[Mace]

Originally posted by Ardem:

I'm going to add the aussie voices this time, ahha a real aussie pack

The current Aussie voices were provided by real Aussies.

Fair dinkum, mate!

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Yes, but no South Aussies to add class to the accents!

Regards

Jim R.

[aka_tom_w]

You can be SURE......

that Most of the hard core, devoted, die hard fans and early adopters of the CMxx series will be looking for EXACTLY this:

"We fully expect the game play value of CMx2, on a battle by battle basis, to far exceed CMx1." ("to FAR exceed" that is a VERY large claim, we'll see )

AND the first release better have Tigers, King Tigers or Elephants in it or you can be sure there will be much Bitching, Moaning, and Kevtching (if we are ONLY limited to 50 possible units and by that I hope to mean only 50 possible VEHICLES for me the rest of the units are JUST option extra's and also rans...)

sorry... don't worry about it, this is JUST my morning rant....

I would humbly suggest that when you say 25 instead of 50 pre built scenarios you will find that most of us don't care if it ONLY comes with a handful of scenarios as long as you release the scenario builder and map editor with the game.

THE REAL issue here, and the thing that stings the most, will be the lack of units and vehicles. We can build our own scenarios or download other ones, BUT if CMx2 is anything like CMxx then we know we can't add or modify vechicles in ANY way so the choices you make FOR US about what units you will put in any given game you offer to sell us, should be considered A CRITICAL FACTOR to the buy or not buy decision. (It WILL be critical factor in my purchase decision and it may well be the ONLY factor, If you offer us crappy or unpopular units, and ONLY a few of them I will be disinclined to buy it for sure!) AND by that I mean the armour and specifically the FUN and popular armour.

You might consider (when the time comes) using the forum to offer a poll or a vote for the 50 MOST POPULAR Vehicles (Presuming WWII) (AND yes I am talking about a popularity contest for all military vehicles here), to include in the first release of CMx2.....

(JUST a suggestion )

Posted in the BEST of humour :cool: .

-tom w

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Oh, and I forgot to add...

We fully expect the game play value of CMx2, on a battle by battle basis, to far exceed CMx1. To oversimplify things... if a CMx1 game that shipped with 50 scenarios and 100 possible units, and a CMx2 game shipped with 25 scenarios and 50 possible units... you'd most certainly pick the CMx2 game as your favorite simply because it was an overall more deep, enjoyable experience.

Obviously this is a pretzles to french fries comparision, but I think you can figure out what I mean by this. And if not... "less is not necessarily less than more" Yeah, that ought to clear things up...

Steve

[ June 01, 2005, 07:08 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Tarkus]

Mmmm. I'm not sure I follow your thoughts Tom.

One thing I do not fear is that if BFC decide to narrow each title's scope, it will not be done at the expense of historical accuracy. In fact, I bet the exact opposite will happen. In the battle of the Bulge, we'll see more trucks, mores buildings, more terrain elements properly made for the battle of the bulge.

I do wonder about the scenario editor though.

Cheers

[aka_tom_w]

My thought was that they will no longer offer an entire front any more. OK that is a sound business decision.

But the concept Steve mentioned that was that each game would offer a select "sub set" of units. Perhaps ONLY 50 units. Of those how many will be vehicles???

My thoughts go like this...

I LIKE tank battles, with a limited number of units there might be limited replayability with a limited number of tanks and AFV's. I am not sure we are in for MORE historically accuracy? (Is that possible?)

What I mean is a VERY narrow scope and a very limited set of units might mean I may not at all be interested in their first release if it does not have some variety or enough units to enjoy diverse battles and replayability with more than a handful of AFV's.

AND Yes my point is Steve is SO RIGHT we have been Spoiled

and Spoiled ROTTEN for sure by CMBO and CMBB!

-tom w

Originally posted by Tarkus:

Mmmm. I'm not sure I follow your thoughts Tom.

One thing I do not fear is that if BFC decide to narrow each title's scope, it will not be done at the expense of historical accuracy. In fact, I bet the exact opposite will happen. In the battle of the Bulge, we'll see more trucks, mores buildings, more terrain elements properly made for the battle of the bulge.

I do wonder about the scenario editor though.

Cheers

[Thomm]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

What I mean is a VERY narrow scope and a very limited set of units might mean I may not at all be interested in their first release if it does not have some variety or enough units to enjoy diverse battles and replayability with more than a handful of AFV's.

Yes, but can you think of a scenario that could actually fulfill these criteria?! Maybe something with cowboys and indians, or WW I?

I guess that even with only Panzer IVs and Shermans you will be able to enjoy the new engine given the promised features.

Best regards,

Thomm

[kipanderson]

Tarkus posted,

“One thing I do not fear is that if BFC decide to narrow each title's scope, it will not be done at the expense of historical accuracy. In fact, I bet the exact opposite will happen. In the battle of the Bulge, we'll see more trucks, mores buildings, more terrain elements properly made for the battle of the bulge.”

Exactly… I too would bet any amount that something along the lines given above will result… I like the idea . In fact, given the views of some on this thread I must confess in having gone over the Dark Side on this subject, I think narrower focus with more releases is better, not worse. To give an example.

My favourite Eastern Front battle is the Korsun Pocket, January/ February ’44. Such a subject for CMX2 would have all the major vehicles available in January-March ’44 on the Eastern Front, but modeled and weathered in far more detail than CMX1. For example… with winter weathering more along the lines of 1/35 AFV models… far more detailed than anything in CMX1. This would fit very well with the new graphics engine, the new graphics would anyway demand a more detailed modeling of AFVs or there would be little point in a more advanced graphics engine, it you follow my rantings…. More detailed modeling would mean it was impossible to include as many vehicles as in CMX1 for reasons of time per model.

On the question of editing I, and all with my concerns, can now relax, Steve did answer a straight question, when it comes to battles there will be more, not less, editing freedom.

Finally, the idea of keeping modules coming on an earlier WWII based game, while BFC focus on a new game in some other setting is also good stuff. I am hardened to the fact that some releases for CMX2 will not be my thing so modules keeping me occupied until the next WWII/ post-WWII game is released is only good news.

All the best,

Kip.

[c3k]

Gents,

All this CMx2 stuff will be so much tripe if BF.C does not allow me to annotate the scenario roster as I see fit. I don't care if each module only ships with one, unalterable, scenario. I WANT TO BE ABLE TO ANNOTATE/MODIFY THE SCENARIO ROSTER.

Okay, here's a better explanation of what I mean: A lot of hard-working folks have created scenarios, many of which I've downloaded. The game came with many, as well. I've also created a bunch. Now, I've got a friggin' huge, swollen, engorged, scenario list. My brain is smaller than the list. I have NO idea which battles I've fought, which I've won, how often I've played, etc., etc. I'd also like to search the list. You know, "infantry only, night, 1944, Germans defend" "GO". You get the idea.

I don't care about the actual game promised by CMx2. I just want the friggin' battle list to be organized and accessible!

Thank you.

Ken

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

What I mean is a VERY narrow scope and a very limited set of units might mean I may not at all be interested in their first release if it does not have some variety or enough units to enjoy diverse battles and replayability with more than a handful of AFV's.

Ok Tom. That's what I understood in the first place.

What I mean is that with CMBO/BB/AK, you could play a reasonably accurate depiction of most battles those game could generate. But there were compromises. A generic looking italian building, an average set of trees, the same damn road all over a continent, a Pz I that looked like a II, CW Sherman troops with now firefly, etc. (please refer to *insert appropriate grog here* for the full list).

The way I understand Steve's comment in this thread, (and of course, I could be dead wrong) is that with the new engine, historical accuracy and level of details inherent to the depicted area of operation will rise, not decrease. And that, to me, is fun.

Beside, CMx1 will retain *some* of its replayability, if only for the reason you are mentionning.

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by Tarkus:

The way I understand Steve's comment in this thread, (and of course, I could be dead wrong) is that with the new engine, historical accuracy and level of details inherent to the depicted area of operation will rise, not decrease. And that, to me, is fun.

Beside, CMx1 will retain *some* of its replayability, if only for the reason you are mentionning.

That's my understanding, too. I.e., CMx2-Normandy comes with realistic hedgrows, sandy beaches, cliffs, Hobart's Funnies, realistic bunkers, maybe landing craft, maybe random dispersal of paratroopers or glider troops, etc.

[aka_tom_w]

OK

And I agree

JUST so long as CMx2-Normandy is THE FIRST OUT OF THE gate.

(AND I am thinking it should come with Tigers)

Now...

Can you really offer CMx2-normandy with only 50 distinct unit types? (not really I don't think if you wanted to include Hobart's Funnies which would be welcomed by most gamers here as a POPULAR and fun inclusion in the CMx2 -Normady OOB )

I quess the REAL question is what will be the first release??

-tom w

Originally posted by Lord Peter:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Tarkus:

The way I understand Steve's comment in this thread, (and of course, I could be dead wrong) is that with the new engine, historical accuracy and level of details inherent to the depicted area of operation will rise, not decrease. And that, to me, is fun.

Beside, CMx1 will retain *some* of its replayability, if only for the reason you are mentionning.

That's my understanding, too. I.e., CMx2-Normandy comes with realistic hedgrows, sandy beaches, cliffs, Hobart's Funnies, realistic bunkers, maybe landing craft, maybe random dispersal of paratroopers or glider troops, etc. </font>

[Kellysheroes]

Ok STEVE all I want to know is, is each module going to come with a "random battle generator" like the CMx1 series?

I personally don't like set battles or pre-made scenarios/modules. So, if CMX2 is not going to have any randomness to it's modules, then, I'm at least one lost customer to the new engine.

I can deal fine with a handful of units per module, but, I gotta have that random, don't know what happened, don't know what's going to happen game setup. It's the reason I bought every one of your CMx1 titles. It's all I play are the random generated battles and CMAK has the best preselection setup of them all I think.

[Ardem]

Steve did mention the scenario editing will be increase, but scenario editing can be very different from a map editor.

You may only get a selection of maps as far as terrain but features, but you might get to put overlays on it buildings and hedges and fences.

Many 3D games have gone down this path, I am hoping CMx2 come with a true terrain editor.

I am extremely happy if they model only 50 units of a particular operation with greater amounts of terrain details, as I said I can fill in the imagination part, but can't live without a map/terrain editor hahahah.

I would calm down on some of the ultimatium above (or appear like ultimatiums), we should give BFC the respect it deserves, I think to voice and express concerns or ideas what we would like is valid, but then judge when the game comes out, whether it be a suitable purchase for you needs.

PS The aussie voice sound like a QLDers ( not australians different country) with a peg on his nose. I knew they were aussie voices but serious does anyone of us talk like that.

[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.

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.

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

My point here is to not get caught up with numbers of this and that. Instead, remember that variety and gameplay are inherently different things. Just as game play and replayability are as well. Meaning you can have a fantastic game with a very limited set of x, y, and z, or you can have a crappy game with everything and the kitchen sink at your fingertips. Likewise you can have a narrowly focused game that gives a lot of replaybility options, or a wide ranging game that only offers a few weeks of entertainment. The deciding factors are the quality of the game experience and what the player is looking to get from it. Numbers of units, flexibility of map editor functions, etc. are all side issues (as important as they may be for some people).

The way it will work for us is like this...

The chosen setting dictates the units, terrain, and other factors we have to choose from (be it a historical game or whatnot). Scope is then set to focus in on an interesting subset of the total possible options. And that is what you'll get. An interesting slice of a much bigger pie. Modules can be released after to give different slices of the same pie, and thus different experiences for the player.

Simple as that

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

YES!

Ken makes a Great Point!

I agree completly

I hope it is on "the list"

"Okay, here's a better explanation of what I mean: A lot of hard-working folks have created scenarios, many of which I've downloaded. The game came with many, as well. I've also created a bunch. Now, I've got a friggin' huge, swollen, engorged, scenario list. My brain is smaller than the list. I have NO idea which battles I've fought, which I've won, how often I've played, etc., etc. I'd also like to search the list"

Yes

Please let us annotate the scenario list

I second that request!

I have NEVER heard of this feature request before BUT I think it would MOST certainly be a welcome addition to the game.

Thanks

-tom w

Originally posted by c3k:

Gents,

All this CMx2 stuff will be so much tripe if BF.C does not allow me to annotate the scenario roster as I see fit. I don't care if each module only ships with one, unalterable, scenario. I WANT TO BE ABLE TO ANNOTATE/MODIFY THE SCENARIO ROSTER.

Okay, here's a better explanation of what I mean: A lot of hard-working folks have created scenarios, many of which I've downloaded. The game came with many, as well. I've also created a bunch. Now, I've got a friggin' huge, swollen, engorged, scenario list. My brain is smaller than the list. I have NO idea which battles I've fought, which I've won, how often I've played, etc., etc. I'd also like to search the list. You know, "infantry only, night, 1944, Germans defend" "GO". You get the idea.

I don't care about the actual game promised by CMx2. I just want the friggin' battle list to be organized and accessible!

Thank you.

Ken

[Ardem]

hahaha you only need 5 vehicles to play CMAK anyway 1 M10, 1 Firefly, 1 Stug and 1 Panther, 1 Tiger, that cover 90% of quick battles.

Vote!

Bring back the PIV in it glory!!!!!

hahah thanks for all that steve, I now can get some nice dreams in before CMx2.

I would happily pay a subscription that would give me two - four new models a month. Reminds me a bit like Neverwinter Nights and the add ons (expansion packs) with each new addon you were given new units and terrain features that you could combine all together in you scenario editing.

[Mace]

Originally posted by Ardem:

The aussie voice sound like a QLDers ( not australians different country) with a peg on his nose. I knew they were aussie voices but serious does anyone of us talk like that.

Well Kwazydog does come from Queensland.

IIRC there were about 5 Aussies who contributed to CMAK by providing voices.

Regardless, you must just be a more discerning customer...or a pom.

[Ardem]

Sydneyite, New South Welshman thru and thru the about 7 generations on my dad side and 3 on my mums. Na we weren't convicts.

Na I just listen to them and I cringe, it picks up ever stereotypical aussie phrase.

hahahah

[M1A1TC]

Well, there is a game called Wartime Command: Battle For Europe 1939-1945 (PC) coming out this year, and its looking good. We can play that till new CM is done

Personally, being in the US Army myself, Id love to see modern scenarios in next CM. I want to use Stryker vehicles, launch Predators and UAV against enemies, deploy Rangers wearing ACU cammies and armed with XM8 rifles. Thats would be interesting. Id love to play recreation of Falujah assault with USMC

I am currently working on a mod for CMAK to change all the americans to 3rd Infantry Division soldiers (modern)

[ June 01, 2005, 09:37 PM: Message edited by: M1A1TankCommander ]

[Ardem]

Codemasters is no longer publishing it, its now called World War 2: RTS by C1 developers.