Tarkus Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 Originally posted by Redwolf: If your wargame offer modern in addition to WW2, then fine, otherwise you have to live of military contracts or somesuch.Right. Reading this reminds me that BFC, from the little bones we've been reading so far, are apparently developping a much more flexible core engine. Possibly the point to that is to enable/facilitate development of multiple theatres? Then we're back right were we started. No ideas whatsoever. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 Originally posted by Tarkus: Reading this reminds me that BFC, from the little bones we've been reading so far, are apparently developping a much more flexible core engine. Possibly the point to that is to enable/facilitate development of multiple theatres? Well, probably not flexible enough to do long-range ATGMs and helicopters to any realistic extend. As for Cold War before that, I would guess that the flexibility of the new engine is not exposed to users, that means BFC reserves the right to do any kind of unit and terrain definitions on their own. In that case we are where we began: even with the flexible engine a Cold War setting would not pay off if you have to pay people by the hour to make the models and unit data. But the volunteers would still be locked out from doing them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarkus Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 Originally posted by Redwolf: [...] I would guess that the flexibility of the new engine is not exposed to users, that means BFC reserves the right to do any kind of unit and terrain definitions on their own. [...]even with the flexible engine a Cold War setting would not pay off if you have to pay people by the hour to make the models and unit data. But the volunteers would still be locked out from doing them. Since I am no software expert, the ground gets slippery pretty fast for me in these topics, but don't you think there might be a way to safely implement some sort of user-end content making tool ? For example, say BFC retain for itself the unit models and data (therefore a relative control of what theaters are adressed), if it can manage to let people create a larger variety of terrain, buildings and so on, the mod scene could burst and help reduce the BFC effort. They could just sell units package and basic, generic terrain. An example *could* be Half-Life . It gave birth to many quite extensive mods. I am far from sure my example holds though, since a) Valve is a larger team and I think HL is now open source, which is, as we all know, a word BFC understandly does not like. Another example: Neverwinter Nights . I don't know this RPG game very well, but from what I understand, there is a complete tool that enable people to create very extensive materials for scenarios, including 3D objects, scripts etc. Again, the manpower behind this thing is tenfold, but the principle is not uninteresting: the NWN tool is almost a game in itself... The point is: a middle ground maybe could work. I mean, one thing that is almost sure is that the community would definitely be there to produce quality material, so any rope its been given will be taken care of to the full, IMO. The fact that BFC isn't a large team could then be an assets, keeping the focus on the core engine, researches, patches, new games developpment, while the 3D environnement is fed with new material by the community. And even if the user-end 3D tool is restricted to terrain, that could still be very useful. Obviously this whole thing would need a very thorough thinking. These are just as-they-come ideas. :cool: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 I would be all for turning CM into an engine which is extensible as e.g. Quake or Unreal. That would mean you could add your own 3D models, unit data, and even AI. But you can't go as far as Quake or Unreal. Quake or Unreal sell the next incarnation of their engine based on new graphics features. But if we could haven taken CMBO, fix the MG issue and then go on to define our own TacAI and AI and add all the units and terrain from 1871 to 1980 that we wanted, then there would not be than much that made CMBB and CMAK better. Also keep in mind that so far BFC has been even more closed than other wargame developers when it comes to any kind of interoperability. They don't even give us a BMP list, and there is not even a hook to im/export an OOB. I don't think this is suddenly going to change. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 Originally posted by Redwolf: A modern one wouldn't sell enough, plain and simple. Unfortunately there an be no doubt about the WW2/modern issue. If your wargame offers modern in addition to WW2, then fine, otherwise you have to live of military contracts or somesuch. Although SPMBT seems to have a surprisingly big fanbase.What an odd thing to say. I believe Operation Flashpoint sold quite well; well enough to warrent a sequel at least. And I somehow doubt that Dice is counting on military contracts to pay their bills after they release Battlefield: Modern Combat next year. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 OFP can hardly count as it is of a different scale. In fact, modern small-units shooters along the lines of Rainbox 6 and Delta force sell very well. That doesn't mean a CM-scale modern game would sell well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 Doesn't mean it wouldn't either. Fact is modern-themed wargames can and do sell well. No reason a modern CM would be an exception. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zemke Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 CM2 should be, must be WWII! Modern is well, very deadly and very complicated. What would make CM 2 super is the ability to have mutiple players on each side, like Steel Panthers, World at War has. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis Grant Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 Today, we are phasing it out of the infantry altogether as far as I can tell.Nope. In fact, we're equipping them with new sights. A 1960s-era fictional WWIII game could be cool. Centurions vs T-52s! Woot! And I want my Ferrets! DG 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Redwolf: A modern one wouldn't sell enough, plain and simple. Unfortunately there an be no doubt about the WW2/modern issue. If your wargame offers modern in addition to WW2, then fine, otherwise you have to live of military contracts or somesuch. Although SPMBT seems to have a surprisingly big fanbase.What an odd thing to say. I believe Operation Flashpoint sold quite well; well enough to warrent a sequel at least. And I somehow doubt that Dice is counting on military contracts to pay their bills after they release Battlefield: Modern Combat next year. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junk2drive Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 SPMBT has quite a following. It is strategy, modern, and free. I also read the SP Camo group is going to make a Windows friendly version soon. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 Long range ATGMs? Not that old chestnut. The limit's about 4km, even today. Earlier ones were less capable, and LoS will cut ranges down anyway. The real problem for really modern stuff is the power of modern artillery. Scary stuff. 1960 - 1970s would be good. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 Originally posted by Sergei: Like Redwolf said, there's a mile of difference between first person shooters and strategy games. It is a generalization, but I would like to claim that strategy wargamers are more often interested in history than shooter players are. And people interested in history are more often interested in WW2 than later conflicts. For CM type games, making it WW2 is cheaper (because it is easier to come up with data because there is such a multitude of literature, and because 1939-45 is narrower than 1945-2005) and sells better, so of course it is wiser to concentrate on that. But for a FPS it's the graphics and such that count the most.Graphics matter for any tactical wargame, whether it is first person or not. CM is a tactical wargame. Data for modern weapons is not hard to find, nor are people who have first-hand experience with them in many cases. And it is likely that any modern game would concentrate on a narrow timeframe, like 1980-82, rather than all of the last 60 years (that would be a massive undertaking). WW2 games sells well, but the downside is that there is a glut of WW2 games. Hell, even most of the first person shooters are WW2 anymore. WW2 is not the be-all end-all of strategy wargaming. I don't want to see BFC release the same games over and over with better graphics. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tifosi Posted October 19, 2004 Author Share Posted October 19, 2004 Just came accross a game called Cold War Conflicts:Days in the Field - its an RTS as opposed to click and go, but its set in the korean war and a 1970's war between Egypt and Israel. It is however, built on the same principals as CM, e.g its not a base-builder and the abilities etc of various units are painstakingly modelled. Apart from the the fact it´s in realtime, it seems I have actually found what I´m looking for! It is not in the same league as CM in terms of depth of play or size, but is still worth a look if anyone else is interested in this time period. http://www.cwc-game.com/main.shtml 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junk2drive Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 It looks alot like Blitzkreig from CDV. Did you play the demo? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David I Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 WW2 or Bust! 1939 - 1945, Europe, North Africa & Pacific! And no shared BMP's! :mad: DavidI 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tifosi Posted October 19, 2004 Author Share Posted October 19, 2004 Originally posted by junk2drive: It looks alot like Blitzkreig from CDV. Did you play the demo? Actually, I picked up the full game (English language) from a shop in Benidorm for 15 Euros (about ten pounds). Only had a quick go, but it's so far a) not as fast and hectic as other RTS (i.e command and conquer), so you do get a bit of time to react (and theres a pause button anyway!) harder than a very hard thing in a concrete waistcoat! If this time period interests, and you don't mind too much about it being RTS as opposed to turn based, then it´s worth a look. And aircraft are player controllable too. Doesn't sound like a big deal, but when you have used your commandos to knock out some AAA, then descend on an enemy with fighter bombers, attack helos and then assault helos loaded with assault troops, it does tend to induce a big grin The engineers are a bit handier too, they can build bailey bridges, and operate captured enemy radars and supply dumps etc. You can also turn an enemies MG´s and arty on him if you can capture the guns intact! Top stuff. Truly combined arms! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 Originally posted by Tifosi: Just came accross a game called Cold War Conflicts:Days in the Field - its an RTS as opposed to click and go, but its set in the korean war and a 1970's war between Egypt and Israel. And it is made by battlefront.com Product page at amazon It is however, built on the same principals as CM, e.g its not a base-builder and the abilities etc of various units are painstakingly modelled. Hm, the screenshots leave few doubt that combat ranges are severely compressed for the sake of gameplay. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junk2drive Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 Good thing you got it cheap. Looks like it's a dead game from the forum etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tifosi Posted October 19, 2004 Author Share Posted October 19, 2004 Originally posted by Redwolf: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Tifosi: Just came accross a game called Cold War Conflicts:Days in the Field - its an RTS as opposed to click and go, but its set in the korean war and a 1970's war between Egypt and Israel. And it is made by battlefront.com Product page at amazon It is however, built on the same principals as CM, e.g its not a base-builder and the abilities etc of various units are painstakingly modelled. Hm, the screenshots leave few doubt that combat ranges are severely compressed for the sake of gameplay. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Warrior Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 Yes SPMBT is very popular. I've played Steel Panthers scince it came out in 1996 and there for I think a modern verson of CM would work and would be as popular. :cool: As for info on vehicles and weapon systems, the guys at SPCAMO have worked hard to get there information for the game so it can be done. Let us also remember that it is a game so not every thing need be 100%. Some times you have to just take your best guess on modern weapons. AS for me, I hope they do a modern version of CM. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junk2drive Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 @ The Warrior Welcome to CM. You will find many SP players here. Feel free to ask questions. Old SP habits are hard to break. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 've always been for a core game engine and models, as I really like the way CM plays, as for me it's the best command game around. real time isn't realistic above first person shooters, and map based sims like TACOps, though it's a great game, don't give you that being their feel. I like modern warfare which for me runs from a bright idea thought up by mister maxim about 100 years ago until today. At the end of the day the lethality of modern artillery arguement can just as well be applied to 1914-18. Trying playing a CM scenario with russian infanty across rough cratered ground with multiple wire trenches and pillboxes, backed by lots of artillery, and you pretty much end up with WW1, Peter. 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.