New game or expansion pack?

[Bruce70]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

All terrain types from CMBO do NOT exist in CMBB.

I stand corrected, thankyou. Would it be difficult to find a mapping (pardon the pun) from the old tile set to the new tile set?

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

Agreed but I suspect it wouldn't be that hard to find a mapping from the old parameter set to the new set also. If you converted an old scenario there might still be some work to do but surely a lot of time would be saved.

In an ideal world I would love to replay all the old CMBO scenarios with the nice new graphics, the new order types and the new combat mechanics, and see how they alter the game.

What we have is a great new game but in a sense we have lost a great 'old' game. I guess I am just getting nostalgic in my old age.

[Bruce70]

Originally posted by 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...

Ditto.. well pretty much anyway.

[Battlefront.com]

Quick answer, then a bunch more in few minutes...

There is *no* practical way we could have made CMBB's file format backwards compatiable with CMBO. If it were possible it would have been done. So if someone says we can do it that means a) we are lying or we are morons. Or of course c) it wasn't possible. I would put forward the humble suggestion that c is the right answer

The file format is *not* just a list of what tiles go where. It is a very complex file system that tracks every single thing that the users sees, doesn't see, and could possibly be either no matter what parameters, units, type of battle, etc. is played with.

Does the file format need to be this complicated? Yup. Could it have been made more flexible? Nope. Well, not unless in the chaotic final months of CMBO's development we predicted with 100% accuracy everything that CMBB's newly coded features was going to require. Hindsight is always perfect, nothing else is.

Now... will the future CM engine be more flexible? You bet your ass. Will it allow huge, fundamental changes to core data structures, gameplay, and environment (like CMBB did to CMBO's code) to be made in such a way that there will be guaranteed future compatiability with anything else we make? I'd say there is about a 0% chance of that, so don't hold your breath

We can, however, write the new code so that sequels can be a heck of a lot easier to make, including possible shifts to entirely different subject matter (oh, like Battle of the Space Refresh Monkies ) or the ability to fairly easily embrace major hardware changes. But the file format will not be the same. It is by necessity always going to be closely tied to the exact needs of that exact game. Trying to circumvent that means putting limitations on game improvements. That is something we are very much against.

Code just don't work like that

Additional note: sure, there could be a translation tool to make CMBO scenarios into CMBB scenarios. Er... but in order to do that all of CMBO's unit and terrain data would also have to be changed since CMBB requires new variables and other significant data changes. Even if someone hacked a way to get CMBO's scenario data into CMBB file format *and* hacked CMBO's data (all data, including formulas too!) into CMBB as is, the game would still crash hard unless the person also filled in missing data, changed around how some data was structured, removed data that was no longer needed, etc. This is something we don't even want to touch with a 10' pole and we have both the source code and the understanding (sorta) of what would need to be changed. Therefore, don't hold out too much hope of a third party doing this.

Steve

[ September 05, 2002, 09:11 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[manchildstein (ii)]

i haven't played cmbo in a long time... the truth is i was playing 'too much' so i destroyed both of my cds...

i plan though on buying cmbb and if memory serves the following improvements have been made:

1) you can click on a unit's line of movement and the unit is selected. this is intuitive and was missed in cmbo...

2) i like the move to contact order

3) when the mouse pointer is moved off of the edge of the screen, if you move it high the thing spins and if you move it low the thing slides... before it was all spin... this new way is an improvement...

i very much look forward to playing cmbb so much that i throw away my cd(s)...

i mean this is where the rubber hits the road... so many vehicles, so little time...

[Chad Harrison]

Thanks for the post Steve.

[Battlefront.com]

Woo... OK, here is probably the longest post I have made in 4 months

Bruce70

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.

Just to make sure you understand my personal position, I don't see anything wrong with your thinking here (except about the ease of backwards compatibility). However, I think you are making one fundamental mistake in your opening judgements:

You are judging how much was added to CMBB based on its 2 sceanrio demo compared to the full featured CMBO release that was patched with more features and goodies for 4 months after hitting he streets. This is comparing Apples to Oranges. Comparing the CMBB demo to the CMBO Gold Demo would be more fair, but the only real test is comparing CMBO 1.0 with CMBB 1.0. Obviously you guys can't quite do this yet

As many have said here, there are a LOT of differences between the CMBB demo and CMBO full release. These differences perhaps aren't so apparent at first, but they are huge and were quite time consuming to add. However, some of the most fundamental differences between the two games aren't evident in the demo at all. The biggest is probably Rarity, the second is the huge friggin scope. The Eastern Front is so huge that even modest design goals require huge amounts of effort.

It does, however, come as little surprise that someone might make a superficial judgement about CMBB based on its looks and not see what all the 2 years of our time was spent on. Sure, the graphics look nicer but not fundamentally better. The interface is cleaner and has some more doodads, but so what, right? Well, if CMBB's design goal was to be the flashiest game out there, it would be a miserable failure. But that wasn't the goal at all, but rather it was to make the GAME a ton better. Some of that is evident below the surface (a lot if you look and think about it), but much of it won't be evident until you get the full deal.

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

Then you 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.

There is no way we could have done this. As stated above, simply moving the game to the Eastern Front required at least 1 year's worth of work even if we added no significant changes to the game itself. Unlike other wargames, CM is far too detailed to just slap some new variables, data, and sprites to create a new game. So expansion packs, as you described, will never be a part of our development strategy. They just isn't viable for us to work for a year and then sell the half assed result for either an expansion pack price or an overpriced sequel price. Yes, we know plenty of companies that did this for years, but where are they now? Out of business...

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.

We should be able to churn out sequels quicker, but it will still require a lot of work unless the sequel is only a subset of whatever came before it. For example, releasing an Eastern Front game without Axis Minors, which would be added in an expansion. The reality is that no matter what the code is like the bulk of the work is just setting up the basic structure of the new theater/timeperiod. Adding models, unit data, etc. is just a function of time which is not equal to the initial work.

pad152

Question:

Does the Demo live up to two years of hype?

No, the question is "does the full release game live up to two years of expectations". We never hype our products, but instead simply state what will be in or not. Hype is an emotional characterization of facts, which is something we have always tried very hard to avoid. If people get excited about this on their own, great. But hype isn't the reason why.

I was wishing for

(snip)

Every single one of the things you listed were never, ever, in any way shape or form stated by us to even be considered for CMBB. Therefore, your wish list bears no relationship to the two years of dialog we have had with everybody on this Forum. In fact, many of the things you suggest are either historically inaccurate or (like MG ammo) a reflection of incorrect understanding of how CMBO works. Small arms ammo might not be tracked round by round, but it is correctly simulated. So a Search and you will see this misconception addressed many times in the past.

benpark:

A lot of what people seem to be asking for lately seems like that gem of a "realistic" game "Sudden Strike".

When CMBO came out there was a decent amount of complaints about it not looking as good as Quake 2. Of course the obvious differences between the two were totally ignored by the graphics bigots. The reason games like Quake 2 and Unreal looked better was because they avoided as many of the hardware limiations as they could while we had no choice but to confront them head on. Plus, there was a slight funding difference between CMBO and Quake 2, for example, which certainly should be noticable

Sgt_Kelly:

As we all know, economic reality as they see it has forced BTS to start pandering to the retail masses.

BS What do I mean by that statement? Name me one thing, ONE THING, that we changed in CMBO in the year between when we released it and when CDV started shipping it that "pandered to the retail masses"? Hmmmm... not a single, itsy bitsy thing? Correct! So if we didn't change even one tiny little feature inbetween when we released the game on our own and when CDV started selling it to Europe, then how can you make such a statement with a straight face?

Oh, and how many features were changed with CMBB to satisfy CDV's desire to "pander to the retail masses"? Well, except for making the ESC key optional, not a single one.

The only conclusion here is that we have not compromised our integrity one iota BUT still wound up on store shelves in Europe. And guess what? We now have more CM fans and more resources to make even better games in the future. Games, I might add, that will continue in the same tradition as those that came before it... in other words, NOT "pandering to the retail masses".

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

Wrong. You missed the most obvious possibility that we would choose. And that is if CDV (or any future partner) asked us to "pander to the retail masses" we would tell them to piss off and go back to selling direct to that market. The extra money we get from CDV's sales into Europe would be missed, but not nearly as much as we would miss our soul.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Actually, I want to add one more thing to make sure that nobody take's Sgt_Kelly's uninformed assumption that we were "froced" to go the retail route.

We were doing just fine before CDV approached us. It is a fact that we were not looking to partner with any retailer. In fact, we had shot down three major US based retail publishers because they were clearly going to screw us. So CDV not only had to prove that they weren't going to screw us over (it is called a "fair contract", something US publishers apparently have never heard of!) but also had to show us that they could sell more than we could into Europe. They did both of these things so we gave them the German version of CMBO only.

This was sort of an experiement for both parties. It worked out well, so French and English were added. That worked out well too, so a similar deal was agreed to earlier this summer for CMBB. Hey, if something is good, why turn it down? We benefit by receiving more revenue from Europe than we would likely receive on our own, CDV benefits from having a solid product that they can easily sell, and Euro customers benefit by being exposed to a historical wargame that they most likely would never have known about if it were not for the hundreds of thousands of marketing dollars spent by CDV. So everybody benefits from this deal.

And so long as we feel that Battlefront and the customer benefit from such deals, we will keep doing this sort of thing into the future. But as soon as we see either Battlefront's or the customer's interests compromised, selling future CM products into Europe again is as simple as asking MadMatt to make a few new webpages. So have no fear and don't believe a word of what the doubters say. They are clueless

Steve

[Captain Wacky]

Actually Steve, I think your "If I were President" post in the general forum was longer

[Priest]

Steve as always thanks!

I was thinking about this very thread last night (yeah I know a life, I need one!). PCGamer a few years back named a gem of a game "THE BEST PC GAME EVER!". It was called XCOM and to this day it rules!

I digress. XCOM came out and there was much rejoicing. Microprose had struck gold. So after a bit, they release XCOM II!!!!! And it sucked hard. Why? It was the same engine. It was the same graphics. Heck it was the same game but underwater, at the very least it should have done at least decent, but it did not. Why? Simple actually, the original XCOM played upon a pseudo 50s, kinda comic book, alien genre combo thing (confusing ain't it). XCOM II's venture underwater didn't have the same allure. It felt like Microprose was reaching (they let us kick the Aliens on Mars in the first game, they had to make something lame up to sell more games)for some sense in the story of why the Aliens were back. The weapons weren't as cool, the aliens weren't as cool. And they jacked up the AI to make it a challenge for all of us again, but broke the fine line that is challenge versus frustration. XCOM, the franchise, then faded away for sometime.

Then Microprose shot back with XCOM APOCOLYPSE (I think that was the title) and....failed again. This time they had scrapped everything and went RTS. Not to mention it was not nearly as cool to defend a city when not to long ago you were defending the world.

Since then XCOM has been bandied back and forth as a FPS, another RTS, there was a flight sim I think, and currently a possible reiteration of the old orignal game but with better graphics. In other words they ruined the franchise that was based upon what could be THE BEST PC GAME EVER.

Now you ask, why the long diatribe?

Well, CMBB is based on the same engine as CMBO, as was XCOM and XCOM II. The difference is that unlike Microprose which pumped out a sequel as fast as possible (which was just a friggen expansion pack in the end anyway) BFC took their time and created a new game. Like XCOM II you have new units and weapons, but unlike XCOM II they operate within a newly defined environment and under new parameters (a good example is the MGs). XCOM II did little to convey that your Underwater environments made a difference in the game, it was just a backdrop. BFC made sure that the fact you were on the Eastern Front made a big difference in the game. They expanded the maps, changed the terrain, re-did how the terrain interacts with gameplay and how it affects it. They added realism, both graphically and with regards to gameplay. They changed how you built, played, and finished a game. And most importantly they listened and tried to do everything they could for us.

Microprose was out for the money, and if I am not mistaken they are gone. BFC is out to make a game and/or series of games. Microprose with XCOM franchise was ranked number 1 within their genre one year. If I was a betting man I would say that CMBO was Wargame of the Year pretty much everywhere and CMBB will win the same if not more accolades. Already BFC will have accomplished more with CM than Microprose did with the supposed "BEST PC GAME EVER". That shows me that BFC a.) knows how to make a game b.) knows how to market that game (so they can stay in business and make more) c.) understands that (a) and ( require that they do not sell out and screw their fan base.

Notice how many companies are getting on the WWII bandwagon and finding success, well BFC has one upped them, they are doing it right and succeeding. Thanks again guys.

[Bruce70]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

So if someone says we can do it that means a) we are lying or we are morons. Or of course c) it wasn't possible. I would put forward the humble suggestion that c is the right answer

I am not saying that it was possible to make the file format compatible only that is *should* have been possible. Furthermore I hope that with the benefit of hindsight BTS will *endeavour* to make a more flexible file format in the future.

Could it have been made more flexible? Nope. ...snip... Now... will the future CM engine be more flexible? You bet your ass.

?

Code just don't work like that

Please do not try and tell me how "code works". It is not a good idea to make assumptions about the knowledge (or lack thereof) of your customers.

sure, there could be a translation tool to make CMBO scenarios into CMBB scenarios... don't hold out too much hope of a third party doing this.

I have none.

Your comments that I have no right to judge CMBB from the demo are justified. But I can guarantee that no-one on this forum will be able to say after playing CMBB "there is nothing they could have done better - it's perfect".

I have tried to make my criticism (such as it is) constructive. This is just one area (of many) where I see room for improvement. I am not being judgmental, I expect and welcome similar criticism of my own work. If you say "we have no desire to improve in this area" I can accept that (although I will be a little dissapointed) but if you say "we *cannot* improve in this area"... you would not be BF/BTS.

Perhaps it would have been better if I had mentioned all the things I love about CMBO and CMBB as well, but I believe that others have already covered most of that.

[ September 06, 2002, 12:08 AM: Message edited by: Bruce70 ]

[Priest]

Bruce

I think Steve's point is that unless you have designed CMBO or CMBB, or cracked the exe code, you have no idea what can be done. I understand what Steve is saying perfectly. Could the current CM engine have been made more flexible, and the right answer is NO. Why? Because BTS was not in a postion to do so. On a purely technical level, well maybe, but as I said before we would not know that because we do not have access to how it was done. But designing CM is not a purely technical endeavour, it is a technical, business, gaming, loving, and rigrous process that doesn't always allow for purely technical decisions to be allowed to be made. CMBO had to be a homerun and there was ZERO assurances that a second game would come about. That meant that Steve and Charles poured everything into the current CM engine that would make sure that CMBO was a hit (And I think they reached that goal rather well!). They made an almost dedicated engine to CMBO because they needed to do everything to insure success. That is why CMBB had so much re-written and is not some cheap expansion pack write off.

So if you believe that Steve should not make assumptions on certain things then the same holds for you. He may not know your some Uber Programmer but if you are you should be intelligent enough to know not to comment on anyone's code unless you have seen it. By you own admission you have basically destroyed your own argument as you are making assumptions. The next engine will be more upgradeable, their situation has changed. Your argument is based purely on a technical level, another fact that invalidates it. That was far from the only concern when CMBO was designed. Think out of the programmers box (if that is what you are).

[Battlefront.com]

Bruce,

I am not saying that it was possible to make the file format compatible only that is *should* have been possible.

Sure, *anything* is possible in theory. But the difference between reality and theory, especially in game development, is often far apart. The reality is that there was no practical way to have kept CMBO's format as we moved into CMBB without hobbling CMBB. That is fact. Now, should we have done things differently when we coded up CMBO? Sure. We should have done a lot of things differently. But could we have? No. It is amazing that we did things as well as we did, so I think it is unreasonable to expect more than that.

Furthermore I hope that with the benefit of hindsight BTS will *endeavour* to make a more flexible file format in the future.

Of course. But it will not likely be possible to make it infinitely flexible. And therefore, the chances are we will break the format if we try to do more than modify the game slightly. If the format isn't broken too much we might be able to code in a translator, but that isn't too likely.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Could it have been made more flexible? Nope. ...snip... Now... will the future CM engine be more flexible? You bet your ass.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

?

I can only assume you are confused by my comments about reality of CMBO development (first bit) and the value of applying 5 years of hindsight to the future development (second bit). There is no contradiction unless you believe that ground breaking software can be written just as perfectly the first time as the third time.

Please do not try and tell me how "code works". It is not a good idea to make assumptions about the knowledge (or lack thereof) of your customers.

Actually, I assumed from your very first post that you have some programming experience. I have found that the only people that challenge us on issues like this are programmers. Apparently even modestly experienced programmers think they can do things better than we can (or at least to some degree).

Your comments that I have no right to judge CMBB from the demo are justified. But I can guarantee that no-one on this forum will be able to say after playing CMBB "there is nothing they could have done better - it's perfect".

Oh, of course not. We have had people saying that they could do things better or we could do things better before we even released the CMBO Beta Demo, so I expect that The difference is we don't claim CMBB is perfect, but some people expect perfection. Since perfection is impossible, it is rather silly to hold us to a standard that doesn't exist.

I have tried to make my criticism (such as it is) constructive. This is just one area (of many) where I see room for improvement. I am not being judgmental, I expect and welcome similar criticism of my own work. If you say "we have no desire to improve in this area" I can accept that (although I will be a little dissapointed) but if you say "we *cannot* improve in this area"... you would not be BF/BTS.

I'm actually not really sure what you think can be improved. Even if we could have kept the file format from breaking (which we could not), we still wouldn't have churned out a quick sequel because it wouldn't have been the right thing to do. And since CMBB is its own product, as it should be, I am not sure what other examples you can point to where totally seperate sequels were backwards compatiable with games that came before them.

Perhaps it would have been better if I had mentioned all the things I love about CMBO and CMBB as well, but I believe that others have already covered most of that.

Nah, we aren't need of an ego massage We don't mind constructive criticism at all. It is just... well... I guess I don't totally understand what it is you are saying we did wrong and what we should do differently. I think this is what you are saying...

1. CMBB appears to be not all different than CMBO.

2. We should have been able to make CMBO scenarios compatiable with CMBB's improved system.

3. We need to make sure that we keep the new engine totally flexiable so we can crank out quick scenario/theater packs.

Is that about right? If so, I think I have answered your questions/concerns as best I can.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Priest,

Well put (both posts). X-Com is probably the best example of f'n up a great game in the pursuit of "easy money". The thing is that X-Com III took a lot longer and a lot more money to make than they expected, and flopped even harder than the X-Com II detractors predicted. At least this is from memory. That was a while ago, but not as long ago as Infocom wich some guy just asked me about yesterday (he used to be a marketing guy for them and wonder if I knew them. Hell, I still remember their office address and what their front lobby looked like ).

As for your second post, also spot on. Academics tend to think on a higher level which fails pretty badly in the real world. Academic programmers (I am not saying Bruce is one of these) fail even harder. It is one thing to write the most flexible and robust cross platform "Hello World" program, it is another to work without pay for 3 years on a project that many people think will never be finished or sell even if it is.

Steve

[Bruce70]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I think this is what you are saying...

1. CMBB appears to be not all different than CMBO.

2. We should have been able to make CMBO scenarios compatiable with CMBB's improved system.

3. We need to make sure that we keep the new engine totally flexiable so we can crank out quick scenario/theater packs.

Is that about right?

Well I wish I was some hot programmer because I sure as hell am no communicator. At least I hope that is the case and not that you are deliberately trying to put a negative spin on my comments (can't think of any reason why you would).

I guess I will just drop it. My concerns regarding the engine rewrite have been put to rest to some extent.

[Chad Harrison]

Originally posted by Bruce70:

Please do not try and tell me how "code works". It is not a good idea to make assumptions about the knowledge (or lack thereof) of your customers.

OOOHHHH! He told you Steve!

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

...Battle of the Space Refresh Monkies...

Oooooo, I want this! When can we pre-order?

Michael

[Priest]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Academics tend to think on a higher level which fails pretty badly in the real world.

Steve[/QB]

Did Steve just call me stupid?

Just kidding, just kidding. Hey it is 230 AM over there, sleep...it is okay we have the demo now we can cut you some slack!

[Lee_DiSantis]

I've gotta say, I'm impressed with the fact that the battlefront.com guys actually come in here and mix it up with the peons...most companies would never bother to do that. Even though I've never communicated directly with an administrator, I appreciate the simple fact that they're here and observing. :cool:

Now, to one small bit of criticism:

I know that you've explained this before probably, but I have to ask: Where the campaigns at??? Every time I play these games, I lament the fact that there isn't a campaign option. Why? Because fighting with the same guys (who gain experience and skill over time) would just be so damn cool!

One more thing that irks me for some reason: the fact that all of the objects like trees or rocks or things like that are really just 2 2-D images in a cross that turn with you when you rotate the view. I don't know why, but that annoys me.

Anyways, thanks for being here and interacting and for coming out with games good enough that people will actually take time to go online and get worked up about them...you must smile about that every time.

[ September 06, 2002, 04:38 AM: Message edited by: Lee_DiSantis ]

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Lee_DiSantis:

I've gotta say, I'm impressed with the fact that the battlefront.com guys actually come in here and mix it up with the peons...most companies would never bother to do that. Even though I've never communicated directly with an administrator, I appreciate the simple fact that they're here and observing. :cool:

Now, to one small bit of criticism:

I know that you've explained this before probably, but I have to ask: Where the campaigns at??? Every time I play these games, I lament the fact that there isn't a campaign option. Why? Because fighting with the same guys (who gain experience and skill over time) would just be so damn cool!

One more thing that irks me for some reason: the fact that all of the objects like trees or rocks or things like that are really just 2 2-D images in a cross that turn with you when you rotate the view. I don't know why, but that annoys me.

Anyways, thanks for being here and interacting and for coming out with games good enough that people will actually take time to go online and get worked up about them...you must smile about that every time.

This has bee talked about alot

Here's one BTS early replys for CMBO

"No to "core units" and yes to campaigns. CM's campaigns take you through a single 1-3 day battle. There is no war wide campaign. The simple reason is that it is totally unrealisitc for this to happen at CM's scale, and therefore it is impossible to simulate.

Trust us, a single day battle will be MUCH cooler and will take just as much time to play (4-5 scrapes during a day long battle will most likely take a couple of weeks to play).

Steve"

With a search you can find many intresting discussions.

[Fetchez la Vache]

Just a little suggestion to BTS if I may?

TBH I stopped playing CMBO about 8-9 months ago. I kept checking the forums regulary for the latest screenie and 'bone' and installment of the Bren-tripod/fazine trilogy.

But somewhere along the line I've lost my sense of direction with respect to the changes and improvements done to CMBB. For example I had no idea CM modelled spaced armour and it's effect on Russian AP. Wow!

Is there any chance of posting a 'grog' list of the improvements made in CMBB? I think it would go a huge way in making people (like me) more aware of the changes. The Beta testers know them. I don't tbh.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Lee_DiSantis:

I know that you've explained this before probably, but I have to ask: Where the campaigns at??? Every time I play these games, I lament the fact that there isn't a campaign option. Why? Because fighting with the same guys (who gain experience and skill over time) would just be so damn cool!

Possibly cool, but horribly unrealistic... I say that because i have yet to see one that mirrored anything in real life.

However, there IS a solution for you...

The 'save game' file from the scenario you just finished playing can be loaded into a QB... troops intact. So, if you were to create a huge map for the first one, you could conceivably fight and unending series of battles with the same troops (even adding new ones).

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Fetchez la Vache:

Is there any chance of posting a 'grog' list of the improvements made in CMBB? I think it would go a huge way in making people (like me) more aware of the changes. The Beta testers know them. I don't tbh.

Hell, I'd like to see that... and I am a beta tester. Some of us are still finding changes, much to our surprise

[xerxes]

I think part of the problem is that a lot of the changes in CMBB are really quite subtle. If you look at a screenshot, CMBO and CMBB really don't look all that different.

From my experience with the demo the big changes that effect play are:

Vehicle morale and C&C

Mgs

Suppressive fire effects (totally different)

Artillery FOs

EFOW

[Battlefront.com]

Hi Priest,

Nah... you ain't stupid The world needs abstracted thinkers who concentrate on (more or less) theory instead of practical application. It is a very important aspect of our ability to move society, technology, arts, etc. forward. Sometimes theory and reality are pretty closely matched, but often they are not.

The best example is something like Communism. To some it looks pretty good on paper, but in reality (once Human nature and corrupt individuals enter into the mix) it totally falls apart. Communism therefore has never, and will never (in its original Marxist or Maoist forms at least) work as originally intended because it is too theoretical to really work. The "perfect" way to code up an application in academia can not withstand the real stresses of development, limited time, changing technology, etc. So when we are told what we "can" do and what we "should have done" all we can say is that reality is a constraint we do not have the luxury of ignoring.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Quite right about the campaign thing. We will never have a Steel Panthers or Panzer General type campaign system. It is just totally unrealistic at CM's level. However, we will continue to refine and improve our concept of Operations as we move into the new game engine. For example, after battle "unit citations", a bit more data tracking regarding who shot who and when, etc. will likely be included. This sort of stuff *is* realistic to have at CM's level and it does add to the fun of a multi-battle Operation. Anyhoo, like anything in any game CM's Operations aren't perfect and therefore by definition there is room for improvement. As you guys should know by now, we like improving things

As for a Grog List... we don't have one internally as such and there is really no way we can easily document all the tons of stuff that was added over the last 2 years. However, we might be able to cobble something together that isn't complete, but pretty extensive at least.

Steve