M113 ?

[Battlefront.com]

Dirtweasele.

Steve, I don't have a dog in this one but I do kind of wonder just out of curiously how difficult it is to add a vehicle type. I thought the new game system made it easy to add stuff. So could you describe how many hours it takes to add a vehicle? 4 or five? 10 - 20? 120?

Not hours, days. Or let me put it another way...

Instead of making a single model (ground up, not a variant) we could do one of the following:

movable waypoints added

terrain deformation issue in replay fixed

pause added for TCP/IP play

user placable trenches (probably)

progress made towards an improved QB experience

etc.

Now, if it seemed obvious to me that the overwhelming majority wants a single M113 variant in the game, as JasonC seems to think, then sure... we could have it done probably by next week. But judging from the months' and months' worth of discussions I'd have to think that such a decision wouldn't go over too well

Again, it's all about choices. Gamers don't like to hear that, so we get into a certain amount of hot water every time we highlight this fact. But in the end we have to work within the parameters of reality, not within the imagination of a single customer (remember, you guys don't all want the same things!).

Steve

[Dirtweasle]

Excellent response, thanks.

...and BTW - moveable waypoints is the way to go.

[Clavicula_Nox]

Yeah, depending on the poly count and the number of LOD's, the models in-game could take quite a while to create. Once the model is created, there is, of course, UV wrapping to deal with, normal mapping, specular mapping, etc etc etc. Each model would take a considerable amount of time, especially with the kind of detail models already have in-game.

[Mishga]

Improved QB experience please, Steve. Or the puppy gets it

[Sequoia]

Originally posted by Mishga:

Improved QB experience please, Steve. Or the puppy gets it

Puppies don't bother Steve. Threaten to steal his Weasel. Or maybe soil his camo collection.

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by Sequoia:

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

Improved QB experience please, Steve. Or the puppy gets it

Puppies don't bother Steve. Threaten to steal his Weasel. Or maybe soil his camo collection.

</font>Go with the Weasel idea. The camo collection may already be soiled.

[C'Rogers]

JasonC,

As the back and forth between you and Steve is getting somewhat unproductive let me ask you this. Considering the vehicle list (for marines) is there a vehicle in your opinion that is less important to simulate than M113?

[CommC]

I think Jason has a point on one thing... In order to promote longevity of the game and broaden the scope... with very little additional programming CMSF could be expanded to allow recreation of any recent Middle East battle, from Gulf War I to the present.

Most of the really great titles that had a continued large following had flexible scenario editors.

This may be the key to continued sales... with people playing user-created scenarios long after the initial campaign was completed.

I think it would make good business sense to make it easier to craft a custom TO&E in the scenario editor, and offer a wider variety of vehicles. An additional vehicle pack could be offered as an "expansion" pack. I think most of us would be willing to pay for that.

[C'Rogers]

An additional vehicle pack could be offered as an "expansion" pack. I think most of us would be willing to pay for that.

Isn't that what they are doing though? The difference being that to actually encompass even a portion of what people are talking about we may be discussing having 10 modules. I think they economically, and perhaps in terms of desire on what to work on, don't want to spend that much time on it.

Without a doubt greater scope equals better game. The issue is how much, to whom, and what needs to be sacrificed to bring it about.

[El Hombre]

Originally posted by C'Rogers:

Wow there, I wish to respectfully disagree.

c.f. Close Combat III.

Greater scope, nowhere near as good.

Greater scope often takes away from the feeling of completeness/thoroughness, which is critical. Make the game span the whole Great Patriotic War and every one of your 20 scripted missions feels like a drop in the bucket.

[Battlefront.com]

C'Rogers,

The difference being that to actually encompass even a portion of what people are talking about we may be discussing having 10 modules. I think they economically, and perhaps in terms of desire on what to work on, don't want to spend that much time on it.

This is the crux of the matter. We could, in theory, simulate anything given enough time and economic incentive to do A instead of B. But under no circumstances can we do A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, etc. simultaneously. We have neither the time nor the economic incentive.

Would CM:SF sell more units if it was able to simulate any conventional engagement in the Middle East, and bordering areas (such as Turkey, Egypt, and Afghanistan)? I don't think so. The people interested in such a theater will likely purchase CM:SF in its current scope because it's better to have something rather than nothing. So there is no economic incentive to give away everything in one $45 package. That was the lesson we learned with CMx1 and we'll never repeat that mistake (as I've been saying consistently for 4 years now).

Adding things in Module form, with an associated cost for it, makes sense to us. If someone really wants more, then they should pay for it. The problem is that even if someone said "I'd like to have the entire Middle East and am willing to pay $500 for it" we wouldn't be able to do it because of the time involved. We're talking about a couple of years worth of work. And during that time we wouldn't be doing anything else. That might be OK for the guy who is a Middle East buff, but that doesn't do anything for the WW2 or other guys.

Without a doubt greater scope equals better game. The issue is how much, to whom, and what needs to be sacrificed to bring it about.

I agree that in theory "more is better". The problem is that "more" always comes with sacrifice. The primary sacrifice is depth. CMx2 is a far deeper simulation than CMx1 partly because we keep the setting's focus much narrower than we have in the past. One can argue about if the actual end result was better than CMx1 if they want, but there is no denying that CM:SF has a ton more going on within a scenario compared to CMx1 games. I'm not just talking about the 1:1 stuff, but also things like asymmetrical and diverse Objectives.

Steve

[Clavicula_Nox]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I have no problem with your module system. I've given you guys money for 3 copies of CMBO, CMBB, CMAK,CMSF, your cut on TacOps, and one of your german field manuals and I plan on continuing to give you my money. Why? You're the only dev/group that makes or publishes the games I like. Simple.

Your module system makes too much sense from a business standpoint for you to do anything else, and I think it's unfair for a customer to expect the same amount of content as a 10 year old game, especially when one considers the expectations on visuals, or the behind the scenes coding that many gamers simply take for granted.

[Sgt Joch]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

user placable trenches

SOLD! will that be in the next build?

[Battlefront.com]

If you guys saw how little time was needed for some of the requested features out there, you'd probably have a fit. The problem is that when all added up there is probably 2 years worth of stuff on our immediate "good idea" list. So yeah, Feature X may only take us 1 day to do, but it might not get done for 6 months because Features A-R took a cumulative 6 months to do. Trust me, picking and choosing what to prioritize and get done is the least fun part of the job. We're gamers at heart... we want to do them all. But it just doesn't work that way

Now, if we could get a couple thousand of you to commit to the same exact Top 10 List, then we could at least make sure those things happened first. But that's as likely to happen as all Battlefront employees getting struck by lighting at the same time in our respective homes scattered around the world So no matter what we put in there will be grumbles about our choices. Especially because sometimes our choices are based on code issues instead of user requests.

Steve

[C'Rogers]

Wow there, I wish to respectfully disagree.

c.f. Close Combat III.

Greater scope, nowhere near as good.

I am curious about this statement, though maybe you are just reading the sentence out of context. Would more scope actually make a game worse? The issue to me is cost. After a certain point scope loses relevancy to game improvements. It is much quicker to me than others (I think) and I would far rather see the things on Steve's list added before 1, 5, or 10 units.

But does scope actually detract from a game? If Charles could snap his fingers and add the M113 it would make the game better, but only marginally so. At least I think so, can't see how it would be worse.

[El Hombre]

Originally posted by C'Rogers:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Wow there, I wish to respectfully disagree.

c.f. Close Combat III.

Greater scope, nowhere near as good.

I am curious about this statement, though maybe you are just reading the sentence out of context. Would more scope actually make a game worse? The issue to me is cost. After a certain point scope loses relevancy to game improvements. It is much quicker to me than others (I think) and I would far rather see the things on Steve's list added before 1, 5, or 10 units.

But does scope actually detract from a game? If Charles could snap his fingers and add the M113 it would make the game better, but only marginally so. At least I think so, can't see how it would be worse. </font>

[El Hombre]

On my way to the office this morning...

sorry about the bad quality, but you know how it is, snapping picts when you're not supposed to.

The 2 M113s behind the wheeled vehicle have a standard MG on top, and the one on the right has a double-barreled AAA gun.

[JasonC]

By all means, set priorities. That is quite different from arguing something shouldn't be there, and different again from deliberately putting in less to make the next module more necessary.

It also has a different solution. Make vehicles user-addable, like mods. Maps are editable, replay value would be near zero otherwise. Users have infinite time compared to Charles. If the scarce time has to all be used for engine upgrades, offload the other jobs on the user base.

Eventually that ends in a sandbox, of course. If on the other hand the reason is the third, well then that solution wouldn't help, would it? But then, that reason is just lame.

[Battlefront.com]

El Hombre,

We agree that the M113 has no business being on the tip of the tip. Therefore, in order to create a reason for the metal taxi to be in missions, you have to expand the scope of the game itself, which again opens a whole can of worms:

Bingo

JasonC,

By all means, set priorities. That is quite different from arguing something shouldn't be there, and different again from deliberately putting in less to make the next module more necessary.

No, it's how priorities are arrived at. If you think EVERYTHING is of equal importance, then how the heck do you prioritize? I've already laid out a strong case, based on facts, that show that the M113 is not all that important to have because it it's only marginally relevant to CM's scope. You have belittled and insulted me because you can't challenge my line of reasoning. Which is standard operating procedure for someone who can't win an argument by superior logic and yet won't concede the other side has a superior point. And yet you still dwell on it... what a surprise.

It also has a different solution. Make vehicles user-addable, like mods. Maps are editable, replay value would be near zero otherwise. Users have infinite time compared to Charles. If the scarce time has to all be used for engine upgrades, offload the other jobs on the user base.

And go out of business because we've put 3 years into a game engine that has ONE SHOT. If you think there are enough of you guys to make that sort of effort worth while, you're nuts. So sure, we could give you a user made sandbox one time, but that would be the end of it. You can run your wargame development company the way you want to.

I've stated it time and time again... there is no economic incentive for us to deliver a sandbox game, no matter how it is achieved. If we put years into it ourselves we'd get far less sales than necessary to make it worth the effort. If we cut the time and give it away to the customer base, same proportional effect.

Gamers hate economics... so do we. The difference is a customer has nothing to risk, we have everything to risk. Doesn't exactly put us on even footing now does it?

Steve

[tiny_tanker]

The chances of the M113 actually going to war agian is minimal at best. With the MRAP being put into frontline use in not only HMMWV size but also in battle bus size (11 passengers or so) the need for M113 vanishes. Hell theres people in the DOD that want to replace all HMMWV's with MRAP's to. Its the way of the future I tell's ya!

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Battlefront.com]

The original system, as it stands today, works great. Not perfect, so we'll continue to make improvements. But like CMx1 games... we could continue to patch for years based on actual and perceived deficiencies. As I said, some people saw CMBO as "a complete waste of time because it didn't have Normandy beach landings or actual para drops". We could literally have spent several years patching CMBO at the expense of everything else and STILL had people complaining.

It's all about wanting to see the glass as half empty. We can't change that, but we can change not going out of business in a futile attempt to please such people. So yup... improvements to the core game are still going on, but so too is forward progress on the game content (Marines, Brits, and of course WWII).

Steve

[Dragon67]

This is an interesting new vid on Youtube. Check out the two shots of M113 followed by a Stryker at 4:24 and 4:27 consecutively. I had to do a double take on the Stryker because with the wheels gone I thought it was a LAV without treads at first. Very sad.

[M1A1TC]

If you add M113s, we can finally simulate US police raids on Texas ranches full of crazy cultists

[ May 16, 2008, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: M1A1TC ]

[tiny_tanker]

Originally posted by Dragon67:

This is an interesting new vid on Youtube. Check out the two shots of M113 followed by a Stryker at 4:24 and 4:27 consecutively. I had to do a double take on the Stryker because with the wheels gone I thought it was a LAV without treads at first. Very sad.

Ummm... Those are both M113's.