CM 3

[aka_tom_w]

"I think CMII should use all the info and data from all the models and units and time frames of BOTH CMBO and CMBB and put it ALL into a NEW BIG robust KILLER game engine (the CMII rewrite) to be released sometime in late 2004 or 2005 but that's just me DREAMING!"

BUT.....

Would that sell well?

Maybe they need ALL of CMBO and ALL of CMBB and new units and terrain tiles from the Med and North Africa, with less emphasis on new units and terrain, ( a few minor additons) and more focus on the NEW Relative Spotting Game engine that would Cover the ETO The Eastern Front and the Med and North Africa?

Sure I'm Dreaming

And HELL YES I want it ALL

What I really want is CMBO in the ETO in the Next Engine with all the CMBB goodies AND (THE MAIN Attraction! ) Relative Spotting! and HELL YA I'd pay $50.00 US (inflation) for it in 2.5 years !

-tom w

[ September 16, 2002, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

Now the Real question is

(Back to the original BTS Manifesto)

What Kind of a game does Steve and Charles and Matt and Dan and Martin want to play in the Summer of 2005?

Since they make games that THEY themselves dream of playing (like the CMBO breakthrough!), then lets ask those folks what is their Dream Game?

(lets assume in the Dream Game of the Future they have found a workable and playable way to impliment Relative Spotting), NOW.....

What kind of Cool New Game ( the NEXT big thing) do they Dream about?

Med?

North Africa?

ETO? (did it two years ago)

(Scratch Pacific, thats OUT!)

East Front/Russia? (oh just finished spending two years on that one! Doh!)

Early War years (All Blitzkrieg, not much play balance there (is there?) :confused: )

Campaign options?

What else is there?

Your thoughts?

-tom w

[ September 16, 2002, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by SuperSulo:

BFC, in the new engine, do you plan to add a "campaign engine"? If not, PLEASE reconsider.

I am aware that campaign games are very popular among players, but I think such games as exist give a false picture of what the war was like. If CM maintains its commitment to realism, players might be very disappointed in what they got.

I think a lot of players have this warm and fuzzy notion of a band of brothers going through the war together, sharing experiences and becoming more and more adept as they went along.

The reality was that among infantry units in the line, during a single campaign they might suffer up to a 90% turnover in personnel. If this unit was in action for the duration of the whole war, or a major part of it, the turnover would be approaching 100%. In addition, units that fought for months on end reached a peak in efficiency and then fell off rapidly. There is just so much stress and exhaustion that the human animal can take.

So, if you are interested in seeing those and similar realities portrayed, by all means ask for a campaign game, though there is no assurance at this point that BTS would be interested in developing one. If you are just looking for a feel good fantasy you can identify comfortably with, you'd probably be better off looking elsewhere.

Michael

[Panzer Leader]

My idea of a CM campaign game would be similar to the way operations are handled, only the battles could use separate maps (rather than just extending the same one) and the time could be months long instead of days. All else would generally be the same as ops, is that so 'wrong??'

It would allow assault/defense (by using different maps you wouldn't necessarily have a single 'mission'), it would allow a lot more freedom than ops currently give.

And about units - CM abstracts units at the individual level, so why are you harping on about 'turn-over-rates' and 'bands of brothers?'

I think on the genral board they call that type of thing "straw-man arguments". Campaign games can be realistic too.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Now the Real question is

(Back to the original BTS Manifesto)

What Kind of a game does Steve and Charles and Matt and Dan and Martin want to play in the Summer of 2005?

Whiz-bang crapola IV - Wet Attack was the stated favourite by Steve.

[SuperSulo]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

I am aware that campaign games are very popular among players, but I think such games as exist give a false picture of what the war was like. If CM maintains its commitment to realism, players might be very disappointed in what they got.

I would want it to be something like this:

I get command of say a company, and get to play/command it for as long as it's fit to fight, with reinforcements/resupplies and what not. Then, depending on the beating it took, it would get taken offline for some serious restructuring and re-outfitting and returned to the front some months(?) later, OR, if it got beaten up really bad, disbanded ("game over"). Would that be so unrealistic?

So, if you are interested in seeing those and similar realities portrayed, by all means ask for a campaign game

I think I just did...

though there is no assurance at this point that BTS would be interested in developing one.

Yes, I have a gut feeling they are NOT going to add one ("out of scope", or my bad luck, take your pick).

If you are just looking for a feel good fantasy you can identify comfortably with, you'd probably be better off looking elsewhere.

Michael

Hmm after spending some 1000+ hours on CMBO, I should just leave? I think not. And please leave my feel good fantasies out of this forum.

EDIT: I really ment company, not battalion.

[ September 16, 2002, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: SuperSulo ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

My idea of a CM campaign game would be similar to the way operations are handled, only the battles could use separate maps (rather than just extending the same one) and the time could be months long instead of days.

What's to prevent you from doing that now? Can't you fight a battle/operation, take the forces remaining, add replacements and new maps and then fight another battle/operation?

Michael

[ September 16, 2002, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[Panzer Leader]

You mean in CMBB? Yes you can do that, however you cannot makea series of linked battles for other people to enjoy. Here is what I would like to see in a perfectly clear example:

I like the Grossdeutschland Infantry Regiment (etc.) I have many books detailing their exploits, such as their advance into Russia, that first winter, Kursk, you know - there HISTORY. Well, I am going to do a series of battles covering all their major (and some minor) engagements.

What I would LIKE to do, is to break down their illustrious career into a series of 'campaigns' each perhaps of a few months or year on the front.

Take Kursk for example. It would probably take 10 scenraios to cover the GD's exploits, and an operation couldn't work because the land they covered is to vast, the battles they fought too varied.

Michael, I am sure you understand the need for a campaign layer, and any reasonable person can understand its value, right?

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Andreas:

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

Now the Real question is

(Back to the original BTS Manifesto)

What Kind of a game does Steve and Charles and Matt and Dan and Martin want to play in the Summer of 2005?

Whiz-bang crapola IV - Wet Attack was the stated favourite by Steve.</font>

[MikeyD]

I'm curious about What the fabled engine rewrite is going to LOOK like in the end.

Will it be just like good-old CM, except the coding (invisible to the players) will be easier for the programmers to manhandle? That would mean more games resembling this one coming on in quick succession. Or will it have the the more seamless look of a high-end Playstation shooter game (needing monster CPUs to operate?) Every time I read "We're planning to fix that [obscure problem] in the rewrite" I'm less and less able to imagine what the final product is to be.

I've seen one or two posts strongly imply that the rewrite is an actual work-in-progress and not just something placed on the agenda for the next company meeting. Am I wrong?

[ September 16, 2002, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Captain Wacky]

I'm hoping a more seamless look and visual effects are added in. A true 3-d environment, lighting, taking advantage of all the things graphics cards can do today.

I have trouble thinking how CM will improve actual gameplay because it's already so good I mean, armor penetration algorithms can only get so realistic, right?

[SuperSulo]

Another aspect of a campaign layer, is the sense of progress (this might be a feel good fantasy, I'm not sure...). Playing single scenarios sure is fun, but somewhat (well, completely ) lacking in that department. I remember in the old East Front 2 by Talonsoft, how excited I were when I got new toys to play with, like newer versions of PzIII and PzIV.

Yet another Good Thing is that it teaches you to take care of your troops, and not think "It's only 2 turns left, I can sacrifice this unit, I'll win this battle anyway". Granted, operations does this to a point already.

And maybe the biggest advantage of campaigns, getting decorations and medals!

[gunnergoz]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

I'm curious about What the fabled engine rewrite is going to LOOK like in the end.

Will it be just like good-old CM, except the coding (invisible to the players) will be easier for the programmers to manhandle? That would mean more games resembling this one coming on in quick succession. Or will it have the the more seamless look of a high-end Playstation shooter game (needing monster CPUs to operate?) Every time I read "We're planning to fix that [obscure problem] in the rewrite" I'm less and less able to imagine what the final product is to be.

I've seen one or two posts strongly imply that the rewrite is an actual work-in-progress and not just something placed on the agenda for the next company meeting. Am I wrong?

I recall Steve saying in a recent post in reply to pictures posted from the upcoming WW2 RTS (from the makers of IL-2) that he thought the rewrite would exceed their level of graphic detail. If you have ever seen screenshots from the Russian product, they are awesome. The game is limited to 16 units, apparently, so the graphic edge yields to playability...

Sounds to me like Steve wants his cake and to eat it also! Fine by me.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by gunnergoz:

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

I'm curious about What the fabled engine rewrite is going to LOOK like in the end.

Will it be just like good-old CM, except the coding (invisible to the players) will be easier for the programmers to manhandle? That would mean more games resembling this one coming on in quick succession. Or will it have the the more seamless look of a high-end Playstation shooter game (needing monster CPUs to operate?) Every time I read "We're planning to fix that [obscure problem] in the rewrite" I'm less and less able to imagine what the final product is to be.

I've seen one or two posts strongly imply that the rewrite is an actual work-in-progress and not just something placed on the agenda for the next company meeting. Am I wrong?

I recall Steve saying in a recent post in reply to pictures posted from the upcoming WW2 RTS (from the makers of IL-2) that he thought the rewrite would exceed their level of graphic detail. If you have ever seen screenshots from the Russian product, they are awesome. The game is limited to 16 units, apparently, so the graphic edge yields to playability...

Sounds to me like Steve wants his cake and to eat it also! Fine by me. </font>

[Ales Dvorak]

Originally posted by Captain Wacky:

Balkans...

Sutjeska, Neretva battle.

Rebuilding bridge(?) is a must in Neretva scenario. (if any)

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

Hmm I talking too much so it' time for ........

Regards

Alice ( nextdoor)

[tecumseh]

[edit] I'd better not discuss other computer games here.

[ September 16, 2002, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: tecumseh ]

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Captain Wacky:

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

CM3 will be in far east, U.S. vs Japan. Says me.

We're not getting a pacific CM unless we mod it. That much I'm sure of.

Out of curiosity, who might be interested in a Korean CM game?</font>

[CMplayer]

Some things I'd like to see in the engine rewrite:

Better balance between the incredibly complicated® armor penetration algorithms and the very simplistic way buildings and fortifications are treated.

Also, there is a lack of balance between the amazingy detailed armor rules and the simplified way infantry often behaves under fire. In particular, the way infantry flees towards an imagined 'friendly edge' rather than evaluating the recent direction of advance and the location of threats and fleeing accordinly

Also there is a lack of balance between the mega mathematical armor penetration algorithms and the way units don't understand they are in cover if they are behind a wall, for instance.

Also the way infantry run from cover into the open when under indirect fire, when real infantry, if panicky, would crawl deeper into their holes and cry.

Also the unbelievable unbalance between the phantastic armor algorithms and the way vehicles don't block LOS or LOF. And the way supporting MG fire can go right though your own friendly guys, meaning you don't have to actually think much about how you deploy.

To sum up, more attention, and more creative solutions to the behaviour of squads, and their use of cover, would nicely counterbalance the already detailed coverage of armor.

[SuperSulo]

So BFC, what's your view on a campaign layer/engine?

[Big X]

My request for a future CM version:

Grenada:ATTACK!

[MikeyD]

This thread is the first I've heard that the guys at Battlefront might(?) be waffling on their '10-year plan' of Western Front/Eastern Front/Mediterranian-N.Africa/Early War for CM.

If I may speculate, perhaps their experience with TacOps is tempting them to throw a 'Combat Mission:Modern Warfare' into the mix to diversify their product line? I personally wouldn't mind seeing a 1960-70's "WWIII Fulda Gap" game. M60A1s, AMX-30s, and JpzKanones vs T62s, T-64s and BMP-1s. Maybe even give us a few Tactical Nukes to play with! Hey guys, just think about it.

[Black Five]

Hell the ONLY thing that I really want is to allow players to draw units from the same pool (if they want to). BTS says that the existing engine cannot handle this type of unit selection due to coding restraints. It is my hope that a re-write would include this feature. There really is not any harm in it and from a coding point of view it would be rather simple to do.

This way history gamers, grogs, and pure gamers can all be happy.

I would pay an additional $45 to have this feature in CMBB.

My 2 cents worth.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by CMplayer:

And the way supporting MG fire can go right though your own friendly guys, meaning you don't have to actually think much about how you deploy.

Not only MG fire, but fire from rifles, machine pistols, and everything else.

:mad:

Michael

[Panzer Leader]

Mr. Emrys appears to be very angry about the current engine's inability to accurately model fratricide. I think Mr. Emrys needs to lie down for a while.

[Aacooper]

It's not fratricide, but in certain situations (historically) units would not fire because they were too afraid of hitting friendlies. Currently in CM your tank can fire at an enemy squad 5m from a friendly squad. Historically, support fire would let up or move to a different target. There are plenty of examples of this in literature (read "The River And The Gauntlet", for example).