CMx2 bones a plenty (renamed)

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Woohoo, a campaign system, excellent! It was IMHO the biggest shortcoming of CM, the bigger picture to place units you know and love in. Good to hear that us banging on about it on the forum wasn't in vain.

With that in mind... how about those Crusader AAs?

Crusader AAs, the new Bren Tripod.

[kipanderson]

Steve,

“Kip, there will be a much more involved campaign system. I won't say more than that, but 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.”

Words like “perfect” spring to mind Of course, the downside of your comments are that they make the waiting even more painful But the wait will certainly be worth it.

“This is part of the evolution aspect of CM.” This is particularly good, long-term news… for me anyway, as this is exactly what I was hoping for.

Hugely good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

PS. You might be interested to know that, Glantz, David M. Colossus Reborn: The Red Army at War, 1941–1943 is due out in March. In May a Companion to Colossus Reborn is also due. Not nearly as much fun as CMX2, but fun all the same. Not that you will have time to read them!!

[jacobs_ladder2]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

Hi,

Steve can clearly sense that the frenzy of anticipation for CMX2 is on the rise. In my case I have tired to put it to the back of my mind and concentrate on other aspects of my hobbies;)… but it is no good…I have cracked!!

It is a real bonus to know that when the title of the first game is released, the second will also be announced. It does greatly add to the fun to know what is coming next.

When it comes to the competition I too am stunned, that to date, there is no competition. It is all very odd… I constantly trawl the net looking for possible wargames of a quality close to CM, but there is nothing there. Five years after CM landed! I have thrown my money at a long list of wargames in the forlorn hope that one will “hit the spot”… but no.

One of the oddest things is the slowness of other developers to use the simultaneous resolution turn sequence used by CM. In my view, it is “ideal” for wargames of almost any scale and type. One example would be operational games, the standard one mile/km per hex type with manoeuvre units being battalion combat teams. John Tiller, or whatever he is called, produces his series of Panzer Campaigns games but stubbornly sticks to I-GO-YOU-GO. Strange. His games would “hugely” benefit from simultaneous resolution. Perfect for his operational scale and type of games. He and the rest of the wargames world are missing a trick.

Maybe an orders phase followed by simultaneous resolution is a lot more difficult to program than I imagine. Maybe, for some reason, real-time is quicker and easier to program. I have no idea but am very puzzled. ( Yes… I do understand why FPS use real-time but that is not the market I am thinking of.)

If BFC get the urge, fancy something different, there is a gap in the market for a quality operational game. There is nothing at the operational level to equal what CM has done for the tactical level.

Cracking under the strain of waiting for CMX2!!!

Stunning stuff,

All the best,

Kip.

PS. A Russian development team are producing a game called Alpha Team, or some such thing, which will be using a CM turn sequence. Rather too small a scale for my taste, in the perfect world, but I will be giving it a go. For competition, keep an eye on those cunning Russian chaps… if competition does ever appear… my hunch is that is where it will come from. Who knows.

Matrix Games has some interesting stuff. One called "Combined Arms" or some such will be a game similar in scale and shape to Panzer Campaigns but will have a much more advanced engine. Check out the website. Hex-based but with simultaneous turn resolution, multiple campaigns and theatres and a few major battles to be in the release version.

Apart from that you have Panzer Campaigns which varies from excellent to questionable depending on the age of the release (although I do agree with many of the criticisms of this system). Apparently Tiller and Scott Hamilton are working on a WWII version of the Point of Attack II engine, but who knows when we will see that.

But, I agree. There is a gap that needs to be filled by a more advanced operational level game (TOAW is aging quickly) based on an honest attempt to portray WWII as it more or less was.

Cheers

Paul

[junk2drive]

As long as there is no Eric Young edition.

[jacobs_ladder2]

Originally posted by junk2drive:

As long as there is no Eric Young edition.

What's the story behind this one?

[JonS]

EY is responsible for a string of stinkers, set roughly at the same scale as CM. While unfortunate for the hobby - and I suppose EY professionally- that isn't the main problem.

What really sticks in some craws is that:

1) each was promoted vigourously as the best thing since sliced bread generally, and CM in particular.

2) each sucked.

3) support for each was dumped promptly after release.

4) each was encouraged to develop a particularly rabid and nasty fan base.

Jon

[JonS]

Jacob & Kip,

the strange thing is that years before PzC was a glint in Tiller's eye, the V4V and W@W series had introduced the 'wego' concept to operational games (and well before CM I might add). It can - and has - been successfully done at that level ... just not for the last 10 years

Jacob,

would you happen to have PzC: Normandy? If so, would you email me please.

Cheers

Jon

[simovitch]

All this anticipation reminds me of the '70s when I waited for the release of AH's "Panzer Leader", which touted big refinements over "Panzerblitz". :eek:

Like then, I just can't wait!

[Battlefront]

I need to wope off some of the campaign drool that is hitting the keyboards. CMx2 will not, at least at first, have some sort of "meta-campaign" system. By that I meean something that would allow multiple people to do campaigns and have their results somehow matter. I am also not talking about campaigns where larger issues, which take place outside of the battle, somehow have an affect on the next tactical battle. Maybe someday, but not with the first release and perhaps not even with the second.

Instead the campaign will be somewhere inbetween a meta-campaign and CMx1's Operations. It will also be more focused and far more "story" oriented (i.e. giving meaning to the battles you fight instead of just fighting). More on this at a later date. Just didn't want you guys having your imagining going wild and then being disapointed when we outline how it works.

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 ).

Graphics will be as good if not better than the best of the 1st Person Shooters out there. We don't know of any likely wargame that can match even what CMAK looked like One game was mentioned in this thread, but we too aren't sure when (or if) it will be released. It also appears to be less of a wargame, as you guys would define it, and more RTS.

As for WeGo systems... don't forget TacOps Early Grigsby games also had WeGo. But like Jon said, there have been few and far inbetween since then. I can guess why this is for more mass market type wargames, but never understood it for ones which are designed to be realistic.

Steve

[jacobs_ladder2]

Originally posted by JonS:

EY is responsible for a string of stinkers, set roughly at the same scale as CM. While unfortunate for the hobby - and I suppose EY professionally- that isn't the main problem.

What really sticks in some craws is that:

1) each was promoted vigourously as the best thing since sliced bread generally, and CM in particular.

2) each sucked.

3) support for each was dumped promptly after release.

4) each was encouraged to develop a particularly rabid and nasty fan base.

Jon

Are we talking about the joker that came up with G.I Combat? I might be mistaken but I thik it was one of the same guys who designed Close Combat. G.I. Combat was the biggest pile of poop since that meteor hit the earth 65,000,000 years ago.

Cheers

Paul

[HawkerT]

Originally posted by Battlefront:

I need to wope off some of the campaign drool that is hitting the keyboards. CMx2 will not, at least at first, have some sort of "meta-campaign" system. By that I meean something that would allow multiple people to do campaigns and have their results somehow matter. I am also not talking about campaigns where larger issues, which take place outside of the battle, somehow have an affect on the next tactical battle. Maybe someday, but not with the first release and perhaps not even with the second.

Instead the campaign will be somewhere inbetween a meta-campaign and CMx1's Operations. It will also be more focused and far more "story" oriented (i.e. giving meaning to the battles you fight instead of just fighting). More on this at a later date. Just didn't want you guys having your imagining going wild and then being disapointed when we outline how it works.

... Steve

Acknowledged!

Thank you for the "clearification"! It still sounds mighty good to me and definitely a step in the right direction from CMx1! If you guys could come up with the ability to somehow mold and customize the 'campaigns' to facilitate the ability to 'do your own' (in short a campaign editor) then nirvana is next step.

Excellent stuff Steve!

Thank you!

All the best

Frans

[ January 06, 2005, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: HawkerT ]

[kipanderson]

Steve,

“Instead the campaign will be somewhere inbetween a meta-campaign and CMx1's Operations. It will also be more focused and far more "story" oriented (i.e. giving meaning to the battles you fight instead of just fighting). More on this at a later date. Just didn't want you guys having your imagining going wild and then being disappointed when we outline how it works.”

No problem… as it happens I had just returned to my PC in order to post along the lines of “ I know BFC are only a small company so I do not expect too much in one jump… certainly not my ultimate goal of a dream for a wargame.”

Also, I have nearly always included in my operational rantings that “setting each battle in greater context” is a big part of the aim. Just what you seem to plan.

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

PS. Steve… "if" it is possible, and I realize it is a very complicated matter, but the ability to fully edit Saved games would in one jump make CMX2 massively more “meta campaign” friendly. Believe me, you would be 90% of the way there in one jump. I realize this is a very big request, "one day" will do, if possible.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

No problem… as it happens I had just returned to my PC in order to post along the lines of “ I know BFC are only a small company so I do not expect too much in one jump…

Wow, I can't figure out if that is meant to be condescension on the order of a John D. Salt post, or merely condescension on the level of a friendly pat on the head.

I'll throw in my two cents; Steve, I'm not expecting you to get any of the Commonwealth order of battle even remotely close.

Guess it will feel that much better when you prove me wrong, eh...

Have you gotten any of the CADPAT Arid yet?

[jim crowley]

Originally posted by Battlefront:

Instead the campaign will be somewhere inbetween a meta-campaign and CMx1's Operations. It will also be more focused and far more "story" oriented (i.e. giving meaning to the battles you fight instead of just fighting).

Steve QUOTE]

Excellent.

To my mind this is the exactly right level to set "campaigns" at, for the tactical level that both CMx1 and X2( will) run at.

The outcome of a company or battalion level battle would never have had much overall impact on the larger theatre of operations.

On the other hand, getting only a marginal victory because of heavy losses will likely have an enormous effect when the counter-attack comes in in the next and subsequent battles.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by jim crowley:

The outcome of a company or battalion level battle would never have had much overall impact on the larger theatre of operations. (emphasis added)

Tell that to Johnny Frost.

Or Julian Cook, who led a battalion across the Waal by storm boat to capture Nijmegen Bridge from the far side.

Or Karl Timmerman of "A" Company of the 27th Armored Infantry, who captured the Ludenforff Bridge at Remagen on 7 March 1945.

Hmmm...bridges seems to be a theme here; that is unintentional.

[Halberdiers]

about CMX2 campaign:

It will also be more focused and far more "story" oriented (i.e. giving meaning to the battles you fight instead of just fighting.

I would like to ask to the developers if the player can make campaigns making a link of battles , and if these two possible examples of campaign could be possible to make or play in the campaign mode of CMX2

1-"Operation Thunderclap" (a Big Map)???

the encircled 6th Army at stalingrad breakout to the West.

2-"Band of Brothers" (Long time line)???

Easy company/101 div from Normandy to Hitler's Eagle's Nest.

(jun/1944 to May/1945)

In any case , thanks for this great game:combat mission.

[ January 06, 2005, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: Halberdiers ]

[vincere]

Great news that the best tactical game is being updated. I was wondering how many others would like to see Modern Warfare Combat Mission?

[Sequoia]

Originally posted by dust off:

Great news that the best tactical game is being updated. I was wondering how many others would like to see Modern Warfare Combat Mission?

Modern as in 2005? That would be low-intensity counter-insurgency. Not the best match for the scale of Combat Mission.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Battlefront:

Graphics will be as good if not better than the best of the 1st Person Shooters out there.

Better than HL2? I'll believe that one when I see it. Please surprise me!

[Le Tondu]

Originally posted by Battlefront:

............As for WeGo systems... don't forget TacOps Early Grigsby games also had WeGo. But like Jon said, there have been few and far inbetween since then. I can guess why this is for more mass market type wargames, but never understood it for ones which are designed to be realistic.

Steve

Amen!

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Michael Dorosh wrote, in reference to one of my posts,

“Wow, I can't figure out if that is meant to be condescension on the order of a John D. Salt post, or merely condescension on the level of a friendly pat on the head.”

That made me laugh… Michael…I think you have become more cynical than is good for you You are too quick to see negatives… you should be in the “rebuttal” department of some political party in an election campaign

I could not be condescending because I know only too well that I could not program my way out of a wet paper bag!

BFC is a very small company so evolution must be the way. But we all like to see CM evolve in the direction we have a particular liking for.

All the best,

Kip.

[kipanderson]

Jon and Paul,

Thanks for the hints on games that were, are going to be WEGO.

I suppose most of us here find it odd that other niche market wargame companies have not jumped on the WEGO turn sequence after the success of CM. I am astonished that HPS..or whatever they are called, have just gone on, and on, turning out games that are so far behind CM without even an attempt to close the gap.

All the best,

Kip.

[Mord]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

Jon and Paul,

Thanks for the hints on games that were, are going to be WEGO.

I suppose most of us here find it odd that other niche market wargame companies have not jumped on the WEGO turn sequence after the success of CM. I am astonished that HPS..or whatever they are called, have just gone on, and on, turning out games that are so far behind CM without even an attempt to close the gap.

All the best,

Kip.

I've thought this myself Kip. Everytime a new wargame is announced and it ends up being in RTS I get frustrated. Especially if the game involves huge battles. You miss so much of the action with realtime. I love being able to replay a turn in CM from any and every angle to pick up the little nuances of the action that I'd definately miss if it were RTS or even turn based for that matter. I just don't get how these companies step away from the perfect blend of allowing the player to plot his moves at his own pace and then the live simulatneous playback of the action. It's the best of both worlds. It's the perfect structure for wargaming.

Mord.

[ January 07, 2005, 09:04 PM: Message edited by: Mord ]

[junk2drive]

Last night I had a PZIIC shot at a few times before it was knocked out. I searched the battlefield and replays over and over and I still don't find a single unit or poof of smoke. I did see the round flying once. May be an anti tank rifle.

You can't do that in RTS, FPS, or Turn Based.

Keep the WEGO and replay in the game BFC.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

Hi,

Michael Dorosh wrote, in reference to one of my posts,

“Wow, I can't figure out if that is meant to be condescension on the order of a John D. Salt post, or merely condescension on the level of a friendly pat on the head.”

That made me laugh… Michael…I think you have become more cynical than is good for you You are too quick to see negatives… you should be in the “rebuttal” department of some political party in an election campaign

I could not be condescending because I know only too well that I could not program my way out of a wet paper bag!

BFC is a very small company so evolution must be the way. But we all like to see CM evolve in the direction we have a particular liking for.

All the best,

Kip.

Aw, give them some credit, Kipper...they are big enough to not care about alienating the Bren Gun Tripod Lobby.