CMx2 bones a plenty (renamed)

[Sergei]

Claiming #100 so that others can't.

[Panzer76]

Tried to claim #100, and failed.

[Battlefront.com]

Thanks for the follow up comments about campaign stuff. All noted

And no Michael... I don't have any Arid CADPAT yet. Had a mountain of Temperate over the last two years, but now down to just my own stuff. Gotta love mistakes at local depots! Well, that is until the mistake was found out and the MPs went and cleaned out my source. Argh!

For the rest of you... if you don't understand the above ramblings, don't worry. You ain't missin' nuttin

Steve

[Måkjager]

Ack i see the ol "combat suit lustings" is still strong in ye Steve

Regards

Måkjager

[Stan Hope Park]

Obviously it's not in Battlefront's interests to give too much away, but I can always ask!

Will we be able to edit orbats (TO&Es) down to the level of the individual infantryman?

Is the campaign system to be "linear", like Close Combat III, i.e. one map inevitably follows the last; or "webbed", like Close Combat V, i.e. the player has choice as to the next map?

[Nelson 1812]

Would like the ability to create a large CM map, and then be able to "cut and paste" into smaller sections of individual CM maps.

[flamingknives]

You can do that anyway. I think using either shift or alt whilst trimming the map size, you can trim from the opposite side.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

You can do that anyway. I think using either shift or alt whilst trimming the map size, you can trim from the opposite side.

And how do you paste it into another map, sweetpants?

Don't forget the ability to rotate, too...like when you design an entire map and realize the north edge is to your right and will show up as east in-game.

[ January 09, 2005, 11:01 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[HawkerT]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

And how do you paste it into another map, sweetpants?

Don't forget the ability to rotate, too...like when you design an entire map and realize the north edge is to your right and will show up as east in-game.

Well the CM Map converter can do that for you. Even the rotate bit and adding elevation if desired etc. And it does so between all instances of CM (CMBO/CMBB/CMAK).

Go here for this mother beautiful program that should be on any true CM grogs HD along with Mapping Mission.

All the best

Frans

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by HawkerT:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

And how do you paste it into another map, sweetpants?

Don't forget the ability to rotate, too...like when you design an entire map and realize the north edge is to your right and will show up as east in-game.

Well the CM Map converter can do that for you. Even the rotate bit and adding elevation if desired etc. And it does so between all instances of CM (CMBO/CMBB/CMAK).

Go here for this mother beautiful program that should be on any true CM grogs HD along with Mapping Mission.

All the best

Frans </font>

[Directive#21]

Steve said

...the focus of the game is far more campaign oriented than Quick Battle or stand alone scenario (those options are of course still available). This is part of the evolution aspect of CM. We spent so much time getting the battle stuff right in CMx1 that we had to economize the campaign design. This time 'round we don't have to.

This is absolutely best news I've heard on this forum since the announcement of CMBB!!!!

Thank You Steve...

Arguments over the importance a strategic layer for CM have led to some of my low points on this forum.

I have always felt that a realistic tactical experience could not be sustained without the context and depth provided by a campaign system.

In the CM Quick Battle format, both sides commit relatively equal resources, with the goal to achieve some arbitrary locations on a map. CM becomes a game of “capture the flag” in a WWII environment.

With a strategic layer, considerations like supply, reinforcement, enemy strength etc. dictate elastic objectives. (I.e. you may initiate a tactical engagement were success is not determined by victory locations or units destroyed but by probing enemy strength and executing a successful withdrawal.

Example: You are the commander of an armored company with orders to capture a key rail junction in a small town. Intelligence reports indicate limited enemy activity in the area but after several turns initial contact reveals enemy units that are dug-in and reinforced with strong AT capability. Do you commit all of your forces with the prospect of heavy losses when you have limited supply and no reserves? When the temperature is dropping, the roads are covered with ice and snow and Moscow is hundreds of miles away? Knowing that the possibility of a counter attack is high and you may have to fight again tomorrow?

Again...many thanks...

-Zach

[Nelson 1812]

Have to check those points out ...

Thanks Guys..

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Directive#21:

[...]In the CM Quick Battle format, both sides commit relatively equal resources, with the goal to achieve some arbitrary locations on a map. CM becomes a game of “capture the flag” in a WWII environment. [...]

I tend to agree with you, but here's a simple suggestion for you and any one else interested in campaign stuff while we are waiting for more bones:

Try a QB on a large map with lots of flags on most key features, with the express intention of playing, say, a 5 battles serie with the import map/troops feature and an opponent of roughly your level of experience. I think you will agree with me that the way you approach such a program tends to be a bit different and encompass a larger line of thinking. While not being "campaign" per see, it really enlarge the scope with those details that are missing in a single QB, like counter-attacks, establishing defensive positions, protecting reinforcement routes, etc, but without the limitations of a CM operation. You can buy additionnal units at the beginning of a new battle, and cleverly designed setup zone can add some further interest, along with extra rules you may add. We, for an example, use the "landmark" tool within the editor to add some conditional lines that limits the opponent available area for reinforcement setup once crossed.

I am in one such a setup these days, and I assure you, it really add something. Big CM fun.

As for suggestions, well, IMO a simple, yet cool feature in CMx2 for campaign would be units that would be available only in the scenario editors (regiment, corps, army level HQ, supply trucks, supply dumps, communication hubs, wreckages and so on) and that could be assigned as [primary of secondary] objectives.

That being said, I am most confident in any campaign-like concept BFC will assemble.

Cheers

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Tarkus:

That being said, I am most confident in any campaign-like concept BFC will assemble.

Cheers

Based on what?

To respond to the other stuff - I like your concept very much. Do you have a codified list of how you redraw start lines between the battles?

Do you save the end game file and use it as the start to the next battle, allowing purchases of new units?

[David I]

BFC,

I would be happy to see a "Campaign" type system like "Steel Panthers" had. You lead you formation throw a series of more or less connected scenarios over a period of time. This allowed you to reinforce, upgrade over time, etc.

HawkerT,

Where in your CMAK file do you download the map editor to?

DavidI

[Stan Hope Park]

I would be happy to see a "Campaign" type system like "Steel Panthers" had.

Did this allow you to create your own "campaigns"?

[David I]

CSO_Talorgan,

You know, I can't remember. As I recall you chose the starting year, army, and front. You then bought your "Basic formation" (approx 1 battalion), you then went to your 1st battle at which time you could buy "Support" units. You fought the battle afterwhich the time advanced a couple of weeks or a month (depending on your losses and whether you moved to a different front). You took on replacements and upgraded units, units gained experiance and then you advanced to the next battle.

DavidI

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Based on what?

Nothing in particular. CM is the one game I really play since 2001. Almost daily, and any version. Of course I think CM can be better that it is now, and as it happens, the guys that made CM are now geared on making all the experience gathered so far bear its fruits. To me, this is good reasons for confidence. When Rush release an album, I buy it because they are Rush. If they ever switch to reggea I may reconsider this though.

Do you have a codified list of how you redraw start lines between the battles?

Starting a new thread for this one.

[HawkerT]

Originally posted by David I:

HawkerT, Where in your CMAK file do you download the map editor to? DavidI

You simply download the program to your desktop or any convenient folder and use it as you would any other application.

/Frans

[David I]

HawkerT,

Thanks.

DavidI

-------------

"....and thanks for all the fish."

[Directive#21]

Tarkus said:

Try a QB on a large map with lots of flags on most key features, with the express intention of playing, say, a 5 battles series with the import map/troops feature and an opponent of roughly your level of experience. I think you will agree with me that the way you approach such a program tends to be a bit different and encompass a larger line of thinking. While not being "campaign" per see, it really enlarge the scope with those details that are missing in a single QB, like counter-attacks, establishing defensive positions, protecting reinforcement routes, etc

Tarkus, I agree with this! In fact, I only play CM in this fashion (although mostly against the AI). It does enable you to encompass a larger line of thinking from a military perspective. I want to approach a tactical engagement with the same depth of context that applied to a real battlefield commander. Details such as counter attacks, defensive positions, reinforcements, casualties, supplies and a global military objective that places your engagement it some form of historical context.

The down side to this is the set up time. I often spend more time tracking units and creating/modifying maps etc than I do playing CM itself.

That being said, I am most confident in any campaign-like concept BFC will assemble.

Here I agree also…BFC has yet to commit to something that they were not confident they could execute well. And like you, CM is the only war game that I’ve played for the last 4.5 years, so I’ll be buying CMx2 either way.

Thanks,

-Zach

[Other Means]

How the hell did I miss this thread? Why isn't "Bones within?" added to the title?

Steve - good news all round. As long as QB's can still be played I'll be happy.

Will there be the ability to play community created campaigns? Even without a TOE editor it would be brilliant.

[mPisi]

Originally posted by Battlefront:

Yes we can do pre-gunpowder type environments. Might take a little more work in some respects, but in other ways it will be easier (no vehicles ).

I am disappointed to see that so early in the process, cavalry has already been written off. Oh well...

(Bren chariot, droooollll)

:cool:

[hellfish]

Hi Steve

How exactly will parallel development work? I mean, if you're making two or three games at a time, where are you going to pull people and research from?

I ask because I work on mod teams for another game where we do almost exactly what you're talking about - take an engine and creating something entirely different out of it. Granted we do it for free and as a hobby... but I'm curious to know if you (BFC) don't have an interest in, say, modern combat or medieval warfare, how would you handle a version of CMx2 to cater to those interests? Sub contract it? Straight partnerships? What would be the criteria for that?

I know I've got a merry band of modellers, texturers and programmers who would love to see a version of CMx2 set in, say China 2010 or Germany 1985. We'd jump at the chance to help you guys out and we've got the experience bringing modern US combat vehicles and weapon systems into games. If we get free copies of CMx2 we may even work for free.

[Battlefront.com]

Cavarly has certainly not been rulled out for some future development. In fact, I don't think it is possible to do either fantasy or historical settings pre-gunpowder without cavalry. By "vehicles" I mean VEHICLES

Future development projects will not be a mod like experience. It will be very involved and require quite a bit of core resources (like Charles' brain). We'll therefore only be able to handle a very finite amount of overlap of products, even if we have unique development teams for all the rest of the work.

The key difference between CMx1 and CMx2, in terms of making new products, is the new engine's more open architecture. Fairly small changes could have taken days for Charles to program, but with CMx2 perhaps only hours. This means instead of spending 1-2 years of solid programming to develop ONE title he can spend the same time making several. How many and how fast will be dependent on the subject matter.

For example, trying to make a cavlary based game would involve a lot of new elements compared to making a new game in the same theater of operations as the previous game. We will, to some extent, try to do development in such a way that we work towards certain concepts that are difficult to do in one bite. For example...

Let us say that we want to make a game based on a Lord of the Rings type setting. Well, there is a LOT of stuff to cover for such a thing, including horse cavalry, formations of hand to hand combat troops, magic, siege weapons, castles, etc. That's a lot to cover in one title! It could therefore take a fairly long time to make. But if we made a Mideval game first you guys would have something to play in much less time and yet we'd be probably 1/2 way towards a fantasy type setting. In that way gamers get two games in the same period of time instead of just one.

Hope that makes sense

Trust me, when the time comes to branch out you guys will be the first to know if we need help. Now is too early for such thinking. While we might be thinking years down the road, we're only acting on things that are directly necessary for completing CMx2's engine.

Steve