Michael Dorosh Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 I know this has been talked about before, but before the CM series goes to the new engine "why not a modern era game"? I have been playing Operation Flashpoint so I think my favorite series (CM) should go there too! My 2 cents.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 No mules for Afghanistan. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Kruger Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 Uh... you been drinking? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzertruppe Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 Sorry, I didn't know my thread would cause me to be rear-ended by what Bill Trotter refers to as "Grog Attitude". I take my 2 cents back....you can have the coconut. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Boggs Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 I thought BFC got the rights to something, which would give them some kind of incentive, but as far as what that is, I am not at liberty to speculate, nor do I have a clue as to what I am saying. Regardless, it does not prevent me from voicing my learned opinion on this highly controversial matter. Is that clear enough? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 At least back when BFC was talking about the proposed game engine they were most enthused about producing a base design with a modular construction (modular for them, not for us). Plug in units, plug in specs, plug in polygons. I guess as the game now stands it takes a grindingly large amount of work to hard-code every aspect of the game engine and make sure it works properly. They did say, quite awhile ago, that the new engine should allow for a much faster turn-around of titles. So once the engine's up and running maybe they'll be able to give us some modern titles, and Korean War titles, and civil war titles, and Napoleonic war titles, and Peloponnesian war titles... Gee, just how flexible is the new game engine supposed to be??!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firefly Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 Originally posted by Jim Boggs: I thought BFC got the rights to something, which would give them some kind of incentive, but as far as what that is, I am not at liberty to speculate, nor do I have a clue as to what I am saying. Everybody's been wondering who was going to do Neverwinter Nights 2. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yacinator Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 YES MAKE CMX2 MODERN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! that's what i've been asking for all the time... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 The battlefield dimensions are a huge (hehe) problem. In Combat Mission the battlefields are usually too small already, and that is for WW2 range weaponry. An Apache helicpoter will usually try to stay several kilometers away from its target, and it wants a ridge or woods to hide behind. Imagine doing that on a CM map - if at all you can park it at the friendly map edge. You would be forced to expand the CM map size by a factor of 4 in both dimensions at least, to make halfway realistic use of attack helicopters, top-of-the-line ATGMs and generally practice realistic standoff tactics. If you do that the user interface navigation on the battlefield breaks down. Your flyover as it is in CM right now gets tedious enough with the large steppe or desert scenarios, can you imagine doing that on a map 4x4 times bigger? Last but not least your textures on the 3D models go overboard, and even more so your polygon count. Then people will start bitching CM looks better because they have more detailed tanks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 But you see, Redwolf, this problem is avoided by having only two nations available in the game: Russia and Finland. Engagement ranges limited to 20-50m. Problem solved, now where's my pay check for consult services? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 What's the largest a CM map can be at the moment? IIRC, it was 3x3km for CMBB, and it got bigger for CMAK. By going back only 10-20 years you reduce weapons capabilities to suit that sized map, and that's before you take into account ways that LoS is limited by terrain. Plus the CM engine is over 4 years old? I'm sure that there are tricks that can reduce the processor strain for large maps. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firefly Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 I'm not sure FK, I remeber when SSI followed up Steel Panthers with Steel Panthers 2 using the same scale and suddenly everything on the map was within range, even the scenarios from the '70s and '80s. If you remember that a current CM map is probably only the size of a few hexes of an SP map (they were 50 metres per hex), I think you are probably looking at much larger maps, rather than just a bit bigger. If you limit it to mainly infantry bush wars, it might work,but once you get into NATO/WarsawPact territory I think you'll have problems. Also I prefer my wargames to be based on wars that actually happened, simply basing a game on what might have happened according to the experts ignores the frequency with which such experts have been wrong in the past. How many experts accurately predicted the nature of WW2? This is also ignoring the fact that WW3 would have probably gone nuclear within minutes, due to NATO's 'first use' policy and we'd have been fighting WW4 with bow and arrows. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeatEtr Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Originally posted by yacinator: YES MAKE CMX2 MODERN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! that's what i've been asking for all the time... No way man(shaking my head vigorously to the NO motion)! Besides, we all know its gonna and should stay in the same era as the big ole "Double-U-Double-U-2". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterX Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Not the least significant impediment would be the inclusion of helicopters, both combat and transport varieties. I believe the coding complexity would be greater by several magnitudes and they couldn't be abstracted as planes are in the CM series. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atiff Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Originally posted by redwolf: The battlefield dimensions are a huge (hehe) problem. In Combat Mission the battlefields are usually too small already, and that is for WW2 range weaponry. SNIP The other option is to reduce the scale fo the figures/terrain by a factor of 4 (or so). Everything becomes smaller, the tiles become 80x80m, etc. Sure, graphics quality of individual models (vehicles, etc) might go down, but CM is more about gameplay than graphics. I'm not saying it's a good option, just *an* option. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leopard Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Michael Dorosh, Why not a "Why not WWII North Atlantic" thread? Naval combat has never found the right developer to simulate it right. I would bet that this is the little company that could. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
v42below Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Originally posted by atiff: The other option is to reduce the scale fo the figures/terrain by a factor of 4 (or so). Everything becomes smaller, the tiles become 80x80m, etc. Sure, graphics quality of individual models (vehicles, etc) might go down, but CM is more about gameplay than graphics. I'm not saying it's a good option, just *an* option. Isn't there another title that BTS does in 2D that does exactly that? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugilist Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Wouldn't Vietname be the logical compromise if you wanted to keep the maps the same size, but still have accurately modelled CAS? Or am I way off base? It would suck for tank vs. tank, but in that case they could throw in the Arab-Israeli wars... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 CAS isn't a problem as you don't really use terrain masking, hiding and cover in your gameplay. But an Apache stays 4 km away from the target and if its a longbow he likes to hang out behind a ridge or some woods. If you want to play out Bradley versus BMP duels, then the 4000m versus 3750m range of the BMP is something you would play with, a red defender would typically open fire before 3750m. Try to play that on any kind of CM map. Counterbattery is also important, but may be abstracted. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Originally posted by v42below: Isn't there another title that BTS does in 2D that does exactly that? If you are referring to TacOps, no. That was not developed by BTS although it is distributed by BFC. It uses a completely different kind of game engine and has been very successful at what it does. People wanting to play NATO type games should check it out if they are not already familiar with it. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Originally posted by Firefly: Also I prefer my wargames to be based on wars that actually happened, simply basing a game on what might have happened according to the experts ignores the frequency with which such experts have been wrong in the past. How many experts accurately predicted the nature of WW2?I am of the same camp. Although I am not opposed to seeing a post-WW II set of games based on the new engine if it can be made to work for them, I would greatly prefer to see BFC first perfect the project they set out to do, namely a first-class, state of the art set of WW II era games. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yacinator Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Wouldn't Vietname be the logical compromise if you wanted to keep the maps the same size, but still have accurately modelled CAS? Or am I way off base? It would suck for tank vs. tank, but in that case they could throw in the Arab-Israeli wars... yessssssssssss!!!!!!!!!!! nam is even better than modern combat. jungle fighting, dropping napalm on civilians, nigt vision scope (starlight), dropping napalm on civilians, punji stick pits, dopping napalm on civilians, and the problem with map being too small for an appache mentioned by redwolf wouldn't appear couse a huey doesn't have long range weopns. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 No horses! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REVS Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Why not WWII? I mean the whole of WWII? DVD game, not CD. Pick your theatre: France 1940, North Africa, Barbarossa, Finland, Normandy, Berlin, Holland, Italy, Crete, Yugoslavia, Burma... Then go for it. Now, that would be good fun! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MG-42 Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 My opinion...stick with WW2. It's by far the most engaging era of warfare. Technologically advanced enough to make it highly exciting and interesting but not too technologically advanced that it becomes a dull engagement of distant button pushers i.e. I'm so far away that I can't see you but if I press this little button like so...Kaboom!! MG 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.