CMx2... a little more to chew on...

[Battlefront.com]

In another post I had talked about many of the people here not thinking about CMx2's potential to be much more than CMx1, rather than to be a modestly refined sequel. I was a little surprised to see that since the discussions I've participated in were about fundamental aspects of difference between the two game engines. But enough people seemed to not understand what CMx2 is supposed to be, I figured I should make a single, clear statement so there will be no more confusion.

Most wargame developers are more about making a better wargame, not making a better simulation of warfare. When they look for ideas they tend to look at how other games have modeled things, tweak it as necessary, then implement it. Because of this wargame designs over the years have been fairly consistent and incremental in their improvements towards modeling warfare. Very few games broke the fundamentals known to core wargame designs, and therefore wargames have remained largely unchanged for decades.

CMx1 was a ground breaking game system because of how it was designed. Instead of looking at what other wargames did, or did not do, Charles and I instead looked at real warfare and tried to model it in game format. Some wargaming conventions were retained, but only because they were consistent with the design philosophy of "model warfare, don't model wargames". In other words, no wargaming conventions were considered untouchable.

This philosophical perspective is what gave you guys CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK. The list of wargaming conventions these games broke is far, far longer than the list of conventions it retained. Things like no hexes, 3D environment, highly realistic ballistics, no national modifiers, WeGo, etc. were all combined to create a game system that bore no resemblance to any other wargame of its day. And, I think it is fair to say, none since. Since these features are the reasons for the CMx1 success, and these features would not have been possible without the "model warfare, don't model wargames" philosophy, then it is pretty safe to say that the philosophical design position we adhered to is why CMx1 (from a design standpoint) became what it became. Obviously all game designs are only as good as their execution, so the ability for Charles and I (later a bunch of others) to turn vision into reality is equally important.

So there you have it... CMx1 was made great by a combination of a design philosophy and the ability to execute it. It should be comforting to know that this combo is also the heart and soul of CMx2. Even better, our abilities to design are better than they were 7 years ago as well as our ability to execute it. We've got a lot more experience, resources, and dedicated people working on CMx2, which all translates to better capabilities to turn designs into successful games.

Now, ask yourselves... was CMx1 perfect in all ways? I don't think anybody thinks that at all. Certainly we don't! Therefore, now that we are starting with a fresh slate what should we do? Cripple our design philosophy by attaching a blanket rider to it? Such as "model warfare, don't model wargames except CMx1, and in the case of the latter follow it religiously". Er... doesn't that seem to be a bit limiting? Why not keep the same philosophy that proved itself so important in getting you guys something superior to all that came before it? This is where the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude should be applied, not to specific features of CMx1.

Regardless, Charles and I aren't changing our philosophy. CMx2 is being designed from the ground up to be an improved simulation of warfare, not an improved version of Combat Mission. Having said that, we aren't chucking things out of CMx1 just for the sake of doing something different. Things that worked well in CMx1 that can work well in CMx2 will stay in. Since a lot of what was in CMx1 worked well, a lot of it will be staying in. Other things will be in, though perhaps not in a way that is directly understood by the player. Some stuff is going to be abandoned in favor of totally new things which will not only replace the old feature but allow for a better game and/or sim experience. In the end CMx2 will be recognizable as being related to CMx1, much the way that an M1 Abrams is recognizable as an improvement of the M60, which in turn was an improvement over previous tank designs going all the way back to WWI. Will the Abrams drive and shoot the way a WWII A7? It certainly should not if the point is to have an accurately modeled Abrams

With all this in mind... what will CMx2 be? The whole answer can't come in one post, nor can it come for a number of more months. But for now, these are the basics (in no particular order):

1. Not CMx1

2. A game system that is flexible enough to handle many different theaters, timeframes, and game genres without doing years of rewriting for each. This does not mean that the CMx2 codebase will automatically support things like horse cavalry or Space Lobsters, rather that it will not automatically preclude them from being added in later. The CMx1 codebase was absolutely not written this way, which is why we told you almost 2 years ago that CMAK would be the last game made using this code.

3. A graphics engine that takes advantage of today's hardware possibilities. The idea is that a more realistic looking game is a more realistic feeling game, all else being equal. When combined with #2 above it also means that internally it is a lot easier for us to make cool graphical representations than it was in CMx1 (which was a nightmare ). Therefore, the development distraction to us should be less than it was in CMx1 even though there will be a big leap forward in terms of quality. A win-win situation for everybody.

4. A game that can be played by more than 2 people, with a heavy emphasis on cooperative play (CoPlay). While we can not do this feature for the first release (not practical), the game engine itself is being coded to work with many players as soon as we can code the rather difficult technological foundation to allow such play. Think of it like CMBO not having TCP/IP functionality even though the game was written to work using this protocol.

5. The plan is for unit focus (scale) to be flexible, though the tactical focus for the first two CMx2 games is the Squad/Team just as it was for CMx1. This may or may not vary from title to title afterwards, we simply aren't planning that far ahead. Just know that in theory the CMx2 code allows us to keep things a bit flexible.

6. The command level is, like the unit focus, somewhat flexible. However, like CMx1 the first two planned games for CMx2 are Battalion/Company centric.

7. Each soldier has its own 3D representation in the game. For the first two CMx2 games there will not be 1:1 control over these soldiers, but if the scale is lowered for another game 1:1 control is possible (eg. we make a Platoon level game where you only have 30 soldiers, obviously more control is desirable). 1:1 simulation is also desired, but hardware limitations will mean some carefully implemented compromises (i.e. 1:1 LOS checks are impossible). Overall the control should be roughly the same as CMx1, but the abstractions far less.

8. WeGo is not being abandoned. In fact, there will be more options to make this system work even better.

9. Relative Spotting, as described in depth over the past couple of years, will be a huge part of the CMx2 experience. This feature can not be turned off.

10. Overcoming CMx1 "Borg" problems is a top priority to us since it is one of the biggest distractions from a realistic combat simulator. However, there is only so much we can do with this, so it isn't like we can eliminate the Borg problem. It will, however, have far less influence over games than it has in the past. Some of these features can be toggled off for those who really want more unrealistic game experiences.

11. The "God" problem, which is related to #10 but is not the same, is also something we are trying hard to knock down. The player will be able to choose how much he wants to be like a real Human commander and how much he wants to be a God.

12. A tighter focus on "story" than in past CMx1 games. A lot of the previous mentioned features will add to this, but we are putting in specific features to draw them together into a more clean message for the player. CMx1 games were sometimes described as "soulless" because of how little influence we (Battlefront) and scenario designers had over the "big picture" setting. We agree with this and therefore are putting in more tools for the scenario designers as well as us the game designers. Again, these sorts of things will vary from game release to game release, being either a more or less important part of the game.

13. Much finer detailing of terrain. This means a ton more flexibility in how maps look and how units interact with them.

14. Coupled with the above, we are including a lot more stuff for making more realistic looking scenarios. In a CMBO setting this might be stuff like telephone poles, previously wrecked tanks, far more rubble options, decorative bushes, haystacks, etc. These things may or may not have much value to the game play (wrecked tanks would, decorative bushes not so much), but the atmospheric affects will help out in a major way.

Hmmm.... well, there is probably a lot more stuff that I've touched on in other posts, but these are the big things I can think off right now. Hopefully the totality of the stuff in this post will give you an idea of what CMx2 is intended to be, both in general terms and in some specifics.

Steve

[flamingknives]

wOOt!

[aka_tom_w]

"So there you have it... CMx1 was made great by a combination of a design philosophy and the ability to execute it. It should be comforting to know that this combo is also the heart and soul of CMx2. Even better, our abilities to design are better than they were 7 years ago as well as our ability to execute it. We've got a lot more experience, resources, and dedicated people working on CMx2, which all translates to better capabilities to turn designs into successful games."

Moore's Law suggests to us the CPU speeds DOUBLE every 18 months. That should tells us that average computer speeds have DOUBLED about four times in the past 6 years!

Sorry for the technological distraction, but IN addition to everything Steve said, Computers are WAY faster and Far more capable than they were 6-7 years ago, taking advantage of the raw speed and performance potential of today's average computer SHOULD ALSO be leveraged into what Steve is talking about here!

AND...

and

This looks to be the BEST news yet! that sounds to me like Mulitple various NEW Fog of War levels!

"11. The "God" problem, which is related to #10 but is not the same, is also something we are trying hard to knock down. The player will be able to choose how much he wants to be like a real Human commander and how much he wants to be a God."

Woo HOO!

-tom w

[ February 14, 2005, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

In another post I had talked about many of the people here not thinking about CMx2's potential to be much more than CMx1, rather than to be a modestly refined sequel.

Steve, really, who cares at this point? I don't recall who said that, but either way the legions of the faithful will be excited to see it. And if it is half as good as you say, then new players also will be drawn into the fold.

So go make the game and stop angsting because no one here aside from tom is dropping to their knees and genuflecting at your every post. We trust you. To paraphrase Sally Field - we like you, we really like you.

And if making us believe a word of this without a screenshot montage, an interview with Charles, a movie, and a playable demo, is important to you, I think you may be in for a disappointment.

I'm not sure why you drop stuff on the forum like "we're going to have a story focus (ie no operations)" or "we're going to concentrate on the game, not how you play it (ie PBEM not a priority)" and then get upset when we make show interest (concern?).

[junk2drive]

Could CMx2 have it's own forum so that CMAK forum can go back to CMAK?

[V]

No fricken' Space Lobsters?!?!?!?!?!

jobbed....

Thanks for the update, sounds like it will be an amazingf sim....

[benpark]

Steve-a question and maybe a way to think a bit "differently" about CMX through another games' example...

I have been playing a lot of Take Command Bull Run lately. I really enjoy playing a part in a larger battle going on around me, while I command a smaller corner of the battlefield(scalable from Corps, Div, etc.).

Is this possible for CMX? I see that a multiple player option is being added to MP-I would love to see the AI also handle friendly forces, while I have a set Company, Battalion etc. Having to react to friendly movements beyond one's control is a missing element in wargaming by and large-even with modern tech.

[benpark]

Good idea on the CMX forum. It's getting hard to wade through the different posts...

[Battlefront.com]

My posts have nothing to do with getting people to suck up and quiet down. I know darned well you guys will buy whatever we release even if it is crap

What I'm trying to do is straighten some stuff out now, because past experience shows that the sooner the better. Productive discussions aren't really possible when people aren't on the same page, not to mention not even reading the same book!

Steve

[Watson & Crick]

Originally posted by V:

No fricken' Space Lobsters?!?!?!?!?!

Too late. :mad:

[flamingknives]

The trouble with some of these threads is that so much is going on, you never know if anyone noticed your idea for the next big thing. Makes it tricky to discuss things.

Ammo resupply would be good. It would serve to make the game more realistic.

Rather than treat your units as 'use once and discard', you'll try and rotate units out of the line, keep a reserve and lines of communications in place.

[c3k]

Steve,

Thanks for the updates.

Since none of us have a clear idea of HOW CMx2 will look or work, we have to guess and add what we'd LIKE in CMx2.

What would I like? Well, I'm glad you asked....

Everything you said, plus:

1) Clear separation between cover and concealment, and concomittant with that, clear differentiation in the penetration statistics of the various projectiles. (An energy state, if you will. How much energy is a available, how much is required, therefore, how much energy does the projectile have if/when it penetrates.)

2) A much higher fidelity armor/vehicle model. Particularly in behind-armor effects. I assume you've looked at the "Panzer Elite" armor model. In that the various vehicle systems are represented as boxes. Hit the box for, say, "transmission", and you MAY immobilize the vehicle (or keep it stuck in gear?). Different boxes added and sized as desired.

3) Please, for the love of all that's holy in gaming design, DO NOT model Matrix-like bullet effects.

That should do it.

Thanks,

Ken

[jim crowley]

Steve

The premise sounds absolutely marvelous and I have no doubt that what BFC eventually deliver will be well worth waiting for (especially if it initially centres on WW2 )

My doubt: is a release date of late 2005/early 2006, in any way realistic for a game of this obvious magnitude? Especially since, according to a recent post of yours,it is not yet coded?

[MikeyD]

Ooooohhh....Some CM die-hards have got a fixed idea on what should or should not be incorporated into CMx2, and it sounds like CMx2 is NOT going to resemble what they're expecting. I can imagine all sorts of cries of pain when the thing's finally released - not due to any shortcomings in the thing but because it willl not match-up with the 'mental template' thatpeople have spent two+ years building up.

Me, I'll be crushed if individual troops don't all have working wristwatches... and if the game doesn't run perfectly on mac system 8.5

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

My posts have nothing to do with getting people to suck up and quiet down. I know darned well you guys will buy whatever we release even if it is crap

What I'm trying to do is straighten some stuff out now, because past experience shows that the sooner the better. Productive discussions aren't really possible when people aren't on the same page, not to mention not even reading the same book!

Steve

I think it was a good idea for you to summarize things this way Steve. Who on the BFC team won the pool for "how many hours will it take between Steve posting things like 'PBEM not an archetypical feature for CMx2' and "CRITICAL FREAK OUT MASS" being reached"?

I bet it was Charles. Frikkin' brains-in-jars and their square picks...

-dale

[yacinator]

hellyeah

[YankeeDog]

All sounds good to me! Thanks for the update, Steve.

If I may be so bold as to suggest a further addition to the list:

XX: Standard Operating Procedures & the TacAI: When and where time and technology allow, futher improvements in the TacAI modeling. This not only should decrease complaints of "unrealistic" behavior by the AI [a minor problem, IMHO], but more importantly will create possiblities for a player control system that requires less micromanging and a more open-ended player input system, (i.e., so called "SOPs").

***

IOW, I actually want *less* control over the *exact* position and actions of my of my units, but more influence over how they will react to new situations & threats.

Basically, I would prefer to put on the section leader/squad sargeant's helmet a little less, so I can focus more on being the Company or Battalion commander.

But for this to work, I think it's important that the TacAI be up to the task of assuming the role of the section and/or squad leader, at least for the short term (2-3 minute timeframe or so).

I also think that improvements in this area will help implement goal #s 9, 10 & 11 you mention.

Cheers,

YD

[David I]

BFC,

I, for one, look forward to the Demo. What'cha think? October? November?

DavidI

PS. What was that bit about horses?

[Larry Thorne]

Long waited update...WOW good news again

[hoolaman]

Thanks a lot Steve,

This thread will no doubt be helpful to clear the water about what the new engine WILL be.

That is of course to the exclusion of what it might or might not be.

Personally, I think everything this community has to say about CMX2 has well and truly been said, even in light of the new "bones".

I hope someone up there was reading the "what do we want in the new CM game" threads, as there were tons of great brainstorming type ideas in there that may benefit even hardened wargame design veterans.

[Joe Shaw]

Originally posted by V:

No fricken' Space Lobsters?!?!?!?!?!

jobbed....

Thanks for the update, sounds like it will be an amazingf sim....

Oh for GAWD'S sake stop whining ... space lobsters are a stupid idea ... however, since Charles didn't SPECIFICALLY rule out ALL Space crustaceans I think we can confidently look forward to seeing the REAL warriors in CMX2 ... SPACE CRABS!

Joe

p.s. Sounds tremendous Charles, I'll buy it ... gee, what a surprise huh? Do us all a favor though and keep rune out of the mix ... that boy could screw up a wet ... uh ... well, you know.

[Kong]

Thanks for the info, many of us here have great faith in what you guys can and will do. In particular I am very excited about Co-op play and improved tools/options for scenario designers.

I am looking forward to CMx2 and expect it to be as ground breaking as CMBO was when it was released. I fully anticipate many 5 Star reviews!!

Take your time and do it right. Personally I am stealing myself for a Summer '06 release but I would be very happy to be wrong!

[British Tommy]

From the scenario designers point of view, the things Steve talked about sound great!

More detail on the maps, knocked out vehicles and armour.... I CANT WAIT!

[DS Phelps]

A lot of what you guys have done so far works really well. As someone who is not a heavy duty wargamer, but more of a gamer in general, I eventually learned the limitations of the AI. Playing against people is best, but I would like to play against a decent AI, too. Thanks.

[RMC]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Ammo resupply would be good. It would serve to make the game more realistic.

Oh, yeah. Reminds me of the first time I played the demo for Close Combat. After my mortar expended its 30 rounds I moved them to the building called "Ammo Dump" to get more.....