New game or expansion pack?

[WWB]

Originally posted by redwolf:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bruce70:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by redwolf:

So what did you think when Microsoft "updated" Windows 95 to 98?

I thought it was a badly needed update, was glad that they provided an upgrade option as opposed to paying the full price and was even more glad that all my programs still worked in W98. What's your point?</font>

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by wwb_99:

Actually, they updated kind of working software with more broken software redwolf. Win95 OSR 2 is the fastest, most stable version of Win9x there was. What is your thing against MS anyhow. Not all of us are C programmers that have the time or patience to handle the Linux command line.

Well, I have Win95C on my gaming machine because it is so stable so I agree that my examples were badly chosen. Just insert a MS word upgrade instead. BTW, I do not use Linux and do not recommend it (I use other Unix variants, though).

My point against MS in the context of this thread is that MS is charging much bigger bucks for bugfixes which should come for free than BFC does. 50 bucks every two years for a well-written piece of software isn't asking too much, and the comparision with Microsoft makes that pretty obvious.

And besides, I do not see much similarity in gameplay between CMBO and CMBB. They may have reused major parts of their engine, but from a user standpoint it is a completely new game.

[ September 04, 2002, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[MikeyD]

EXPANSION PACK? You do realise this isn't DOOM.

This is a VERY serious historical battle sim.

Much of the hard work that went into this game is invisible to you, the new commands and vehicle polygons you're playing with on the demo are just the surface stuff. The level of scholarship involved in creating a game that spans all of the Eastern Front is simply mind-boggling. The jump CMBO to CMBB is NOT the equivalent to giving Laura Croft a few extra mazes to run through.

As to the full game price vs expansion pack -- the game will cost something around $45 bucks. Sounds like the cost of parking, popcorn, and a bad movie for two.

[Bruce70]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bruce70:

Maps for example are essentially the same as far as I can tell.

They are not

If you did have all the units then scenarios should be essentially the same, but of course would need to be re-playbalanced for the new combat mechanics.

Again, an incorrect assumption

From the other side quite a bit (but obviously not all) of CMBB could be backwards compatible with CMBO (graphics, sound, orders etc).

I suspect that very little is backward compatible</font>

[Bruce70]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Much of the hard work that went into this game is invisible to you, the new commands and vehicle polygons you're playing with on the demo are just the surface stuff. The level of scholarship involved in creating a game that spans all of the Eastern Front is simply mind-boggling.

As to the full game price vs expansion pack -- the game will cost something around $45 bucks.

I am very appreciative of the work that has gone into CMBB. Whether or not the game is backwards compatible has (almost) nothing to do with the historical work that has gone into it.

I have never mentioned the price and if it's $45 I will be very happy.

This is the point I wanted to make was:

I would have preferred a less exTensive expansion pack followed by an engine rewrite.

I have now been told that due to design decisions made for CMBO this was not possible but the new engine will be better designed for future expansion.

[pad152]

Question:

Does the Demo live up to two years of hype?

For you beta testers, do you think the demo does a good job of showing off the best of what's new in CMBB?

I was wishing for

Infantry Editor

I wish this version had an Infantry Editor, where I could create custom infantry sqds and arm them the way I want with weapon limits based on weight per man. I would like to be able to edit more than just the color of something.

Trains

I wish the game had trains.

Damage Model

I still would like a damage model for tanks with damage to include secondary systems like MG's, optics, radios, engine etc.

Ammo Tracking

Better Ammo model with tracking of ammo for each weapon, where you could run out of ammo for long range weapons.

New Mission Types

New mission types, where you have to defend/blow up ammo/fuel dumps, bridges, airfields, supply convys, rail yards with trains etc. Search mission where you have to rescue or eliminate a specific unit on the map. Something more than just attack/defend.

Detailed End of Battle report

Show us who shoot who, special notice for units who did the impossible.

Not being a big fan of the east front, I would have settled for an add-on for CMBO with new weapons, units, and improved graphics. Maybe the next version (3yrs++ ?) will have some of these features.

[benpark]

A lot of what people seem to be asking for lately seems like that gem of a "realistic" game "Sudden Strike". Realism (in terms of WW2 armor penetration rates, infantry tactics and so on) is term that is not taken lightly by many people on this forum, nor by BTS. While there may be some legit arguments about gameplay vs. historical accuracy being bandied about, alot of what I seem to be hearing lately is a drone of complaints that seem more in keeping with advice for your average, badly researched, un-historical FPS. I think it is great that CMBB has obviously attracted so many new people to this great game that we all really love to play, mod and talk about. BUT, I am getting nervous about the loud chorus of voices with some rather misinformed views as to what this game is intended to be-a VERY well researched, VERY true to the nature of warfare of this time and place (1941-1945 Eastern Front, Second WW), and for my $45- aVERY playable, informative, and realistic as possible-game.

[ September 05, 2002, 01:48 AM: Message edited by: benpark ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by pad152:

[QB]

Infantry Editor

I wish this version had an Infantry Editor, where I could create custom infantry sqds and arm them the way I want with weapon limits based on weight per man.

Weight per man was very seldom an issue for battlefield commanders. On the Russian Front, the largest issue was getting ammunition forward in quantities.

Custom infantry squads are the stuff of fantasy; some patrols may have been armed according to whim, but these would generally have been 2, 5, 10, or 30 man patrols. Makes for a dull CM game. CM is a company level game, and you CAN edit the casualties of the company in CMBB. For a company level game, there is just no reason for outfitting entire platoons with all SMGs, etc. What would it prove? You can play Castle Wolfenstein if you want to play shoot-em-up with machineguns, if that is your intent.

I would like to be able to edit more than just the color of something.

This won't be the game for you, unfortunately.

Trains

I wish the game had trains.

Don't we all.

New Mission Types

New mission types, where you have to defend/blow up ammo/fuel dumps, bridges, airfields, supply convys, rail yards with trains etc. Search mission where you have to rescue or eliminate a specific unit on the map. Something more than just attack/defend.

Wrong scale again. Search and Destroy type stuff weren't given to companies or battalions. Again, Castle Wolfenstein or Commandos may be more your speed.

Not being a big fan of the east front,

Yet you feel the need to attempt to transform a perfectly suitable game that is a big hit with people who ARE fans of the East Front. That's called nerve where I come from. You know, I don't live in your neighbourhood, but I object to the colour of the lamp posts, so I am going to petition your city hall to have the lamp posts removed. I also don't like the intersection down the street from you and am lobbying to have it turned into a one way.

[Chad Harrison]

For once in my life, I am going to use better judgement and not say what I think

Bruce70, its nice to hear what you think, and we do appreciate your opinions and you sticking to your guns, and actually replying after your first post (which tells me you actually mean what you said to start off with). But, in no way do I agree with you on any of your views.

Chad Harrison

[Bruce70]

Originally posted by Chad Harrison:

For once in my life, I am going to use better judgement and not say what I think

Bruce70, its nice to hear what you think, and we do appreciate your opinions and you sticking to your guns, and actually replying after your first post (which tells me you actually mean what you said to start off with). But, in no way do I agree with you on any of your views.

Thankyou for your very honest post Chad. But I really do want to know what you think. In particular I really want to know why you don't want the new engine to be designed with future expansion in mind? Most of the other stuff I can understand but this I just don't get, maybe I am missing something?

Why do people keep equating expansion packs with other genres?

How many times have people (including the grogs) asked for certain features on this forum only to be told that it is not possible with the current engine?

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Bruce70:

This is the point I wanted to make was:

I would have preferred a less exTensive expansion pack followed by an engine rewrite.

Not me. What would have been in a CMBO expansion pack that would've made it worth buying? A few vehicles that didn't make the cut in CMBO? Some scenarios that could have been done by the community and that I probably wouldn't play anyway? A few minor tweaks to the game mechanics? None of this sounds very exciting to me, but that is all they would've had time for after spending 7-8 months after the CMBO release just to get TCP/IP working. I think they did the right thing to go with a new game.

[Fetchez la Vache]

Hmmmm. A couple of guys make perfectly valid suggestions and points and already I see an element of intellectual superiority creeping in. Or maybe I just missed the smilies?

Yes an expansion a year ago would have been nice.

Yes CMBB is a serious and deeply accurate wargame which attempts something no-one else has even come near to.

Yes backwards compatibility would have been nice, but unfortunately it ain't gonna happen.

Yes not everyone is madly interested or knowledgable in the Eastern Front, time to learn some new stuff.

Yes a new engine is needed, but one step at a time no?

Just remember people who post here play CMBO, the finest WW2 tactical wargame there is (in im-very-ho). That counts for a LOT in my book. So chill and give people some space chaps.

(and I'm adding a just so you don't think I'm too righteous )

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Bruce70:

How many times have people (including the grogs) asked for certain features on this forum only to be told that it is not possible with the current engine?[/QB]

You mean things like building rubble and heavy weapon teams that can run for short spurts? Or maybe fires that spread? Or understrength units at the start of battles? Maybe squads with randomised weapon loadouts?

[Hensworth]

Originally posted by benpark:

A lot of what people seem to be asking for lately seems like that gem of a "realistic" game "Sudden Strike". Realism (in terms of WW2 armor penetration rates, infantry tactics and so on) is term that is not taken lightly by many people on this forum, nor by BTS. While there may be some legit arguments about gameplay vs. historical accuracy being bandied about, alot of what I seem to be hearing lately is a drone of complaints that seem more in keeping with advice for your average, badly researched, un-historical FPS. I think it is great that CMBB has obviously attracted so many new people to this great game that we all really love to play, mod and talk about. BUT, I am getting nervous about the loud chorus of voices with some rather misinformed views as to what this game is intended to be-a VERY well researched, VERY true to the nature of warfare of this time and place (1941-1945 Eastern Front, Second WW), and for my $45- aVERY playable, informative, and realistic as possible-game.

As we all know, economic reality as they see it has forced BTS to start pandering to the retail masses. Gone is the proud 'only available online' boast.

This means that any old punter can now walk into a store and pick up the game just because he's got *insert random other WWII game here* already and CMxx comes in a similar kind of box. Or whatever.

Strangely, and luckily for the fans of the historical side of the game, they've managed to shoot themselves in the foot somewhat by putting out a game which will see many among their newly acquired audience (many of whom have a 9000+ member number, since the retail version came out around the time the counter hit that number) wrinkle their nose at it (much wrinkling already in evidence on this forum ?).

It seems like their software development strategy and their marketing strategy are somewhat divergent. Obviously, something will have to give. Either they will have to make more playable games (bigger bangs, less effort ?) or they will lose the interest of the people who are looking for those things and will have to find a way of surviving with their small band of history addicts.

DISCLAIMERS

People who bought their game off the rack are NOT inferior to people who bought it online.

People with 9000+ board member numbers are NOT inferior to people with lower member numbers.

I am merely trying to illustrate.

[Fetchez la Vache]

Lucky you put that disclaimer in Sgt . I only re-registered cause I lost my blinking password after a +6 month break (don't ask I didn't post much tbh). I bought the game online end of 2000 (I think, long time ago ) btw, so be careful with #'s...

I do sense some tension in the forum though. Maybe I'm rusty with the feel of this place but do I detect an old-school/new-school attitude???

Aside: What happened to Slapdragon? I went away to work overseas for a while and came back to find he'd stopped posting apparently. Or is it a 'stumm' subject?

*edit: speeling hasn't improved though

[ September 05, 2002, 08:07 AM: Message edited by: Fetchez la Vache ]

[rune]

- all tile types from CMBO exist in CMBB

This is an incorrect statement.

Many changes to the map features, including elevation, terrain types, some terrain types removed, etc.

Rune

[desim8]

Originally posted by jiggles:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by KwazyDog:

How difficult might it be to write a convertor from CMBO to CMBB maps? Convert the bits which are possible, set the new bits which have no CMBO equivalent to some sensible default? User can then tweak the map up in the editor to patch over the bad bits?</font>

Very good suggestion - also while doing it how about some extra import functions for geographic data sets and an import/export to an unprotected format so others can write thier own editors / converters.

I haven't seen the new editor so cannot comment on it but I can forsee better map editing tools being developed by the community in the future.

Dave

[Barrold]

Maybe I am reading some of these posts incorrectly, (I have a cold) but to suggest that the maps and graphics are practically the same as CMBO makes me think that they are not looking at level 1 or 2 to check things out.

The sense of depth provided by the new graphic enhancements are a definite improvement over the previous game.

Regardless, the comparison of the demo out less than a week with the modded two year old CMBO full game is premature. I am certainly impresseed the demo, but I know that as with CMBO, the full game is going to encompass a great deal of meat that is only strongly hinted at in the demo.

We should soon be receiving detailed information that documents the amount of research and comprehensive data that goes into what we are seeing and experiencing on the screen. The nature of combat that CMBB attempts to simulate makes all the efforts placed into the improvements quite necessary to ensure the laments that the new game is just CMBO with T-34s are viewed to be as frivolous as I think they are.

While I certainly wouldn't mind having a engine rewrite completed sooner, I would not accept the price of a weak GPW expansion that did not have as many improvements as CMBB contains.

While CMBO was a landmark step in historical gaming, CMBB is the proper exploitation of the knowledge derived from these past years experiences and the incorporation of the spirit of "Let's see what this puppy can do"

I am still convinced that the full game with all the bells and whistles is going to even better and I am playing the demo alot and learning more every time.

BDH

p.s. If I rambled too much, please provide allowance for the effects of cold medicine.

[tracer]

I remeber when the squad leader board game came out, I bought it while in europe for 5$, and playing combat sims ever since. My point is that my comming up in combat sims since then {board games to puter games}I have found that CM is, {be it I'm just a junior member and all}a very close to reality combat sim. I served in the military {armored} and thank you I will pass on the blown up bodies,{seen enough of those}and the weapons ablities are pretty darn close,{also remembering that you can only program so much with todays technology}, all in all this CM game { be it CMBO or CMBB}is a god send to the old farts like me as far a realisim and game play go,{and price}my thanks to the developers,{the actual ones, not the ones I've noticed who act like they are}and I hope that there will be expansions to this great game, you have my money

[pad152]

First I don't want a WWII FPS or RTS game, I hated commandos (puzzle game) and found the Sudden Strike demo a joke. Even G.I Combat is being marketed as a strategy game and not a war game, maybe (x-atomic programers) still can't get tanks to drive straight. The only games I've played this year are Uncommon Valor, CM, and Squad Battles, and TOAW.

Ammo Tracking

I want CM to be more realistic. I find all infantry weapons and tank MG's having the same amount of ammo to be very unrealistic.

Editor

I would like to create infantry squads that have only rifles. I find it unrealistic that every infantry squad in CM has one or more LMG's and unlimited supply of grenades. The weight model was just some way to prevent you giving a Infantry squad 10 heavy MG's. Maybe edit tanks to simulate battle damage, with systems like MG's, radio not working or engine damage. I would like to have the ability to edit more then just the color of something, without doing anything that would unbalance the game.

Damage Model

Where tanks could have MG's, radios, optics, are knocked out during combat or take engine damage that would limit speed.

New Mission Types

I think it would be fun to have an infantry company to not only assault a bridge or supply dump but, have the ability to blow it up! I think this is realistic and not DOOM like!.

Expansion Pack

I think what some of us (non East Front Fans) are saying is we (ok - me) would have been just as happy if an expansion pack was offered that added new units, graphics to the existing CM. There are still many vehicles that never made it in the original CM and there was talk about an expansion pack by BTS before the release of CMBO. I'm still enjoying CMBO but, I'm just not a big fan of the East Front.

Is ammo tracking, a more detailed damaged model, and more editing ability or new mission types too gammie?

The question still unanswer is does the demo show us the best or all that's new in CMBB?

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by pad152:

The question still unanswer is does the demo show us the best or all that's new in CMBB?

The answer is a resounding NO. The demo doesn't even have the QB or operations features included.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Bruce70:

- the terrain is still tiled

- the tile size hasn't changed

- all tile types from CMBO exist in CMBB

- a scenario consists of a map, OOBs and starting setups.

- graphics and sound do not alter the game mechanics at all

Please justify your comments.

All terrain types from CMBO do NOT exist in CMBB.

Scenarios consist of a good bit more than you list... or have you never looked at the perameter screen in the editor?

As to the graphics, I do not know how they are now organized, however, they have been radically altered in the Mac version

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by pad152:

The question still unanswer is does the demo show us the best or all that's new in CMBB?

No

[MrNoobie]

so uhm r they working on a new engine? ooo the new engine should have spinning road wheels...thats all IMHO that this game needs...everything else is just a bonus

[Bastables]

Originally posted by pad152:

Editor

New Mission Types

I think it would be fun to have an infantry company to not only assault a bridge or supply dump but, have the ability to blow it up! I think this is realistic and not DOOM like!.

CMBB?

You don't have the slightest clue about how long it takes to Demo a bridge or even a major supply dump do you? It's not a question of 007 Smith running up and planting a 200g HE charge on the middle of the bridge.

It takes the engineers several hours or days to prep a bridge (Erected themselves the day before) for demolition When not under fire.

That sort of realism is better seen in red alert courtesy special little girl Tanya, her auto .45cals and Tac nuke class C4.

[ September 05, 2002, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: Bastables ]