M113 ?

[M1A1TC]

Thank you Steve

[SlapHappy]

Undead RC

To be honest, If BFC's CMX2 concept had included "conceptualized" squads withe 3-man abstractions like CMBB, I wouldn't have even considered buying it. So there is at least one person who wasn't satisfied with the status quo (me).

I find it hard to believe I am the only one.

That doesn't mean your idea of the perfect wargame is wrong, it just doesn't mean that it is the same as everyone else's.

[Blackhorse]

Progress and evolution are completely natural. Otherwise the world would have been content with biplanes, muzzle loading rifles, rotary phones, tape decks, or even old wargames (today's crop of wargames is so superior to most of those from the "golden age" of wargaming as to make the old games pale in comparison - have you seen Devil's Cauldron?).

[JasonC]

URD - seconded.

Thomm - you are right of course. Have to have M-60s. Absolutely essential. Iranians using them, Lebanese and Jordanians (OK, some are upgraded M48s), Israel still has some, Turkey, Marines used them in gulf war I, essential for cold war central front...

[Lee]

Steve: Perhaps there's a middle ground on this.

If you were to take mikewhol up on his offer of doing the M113 model for you guys for free, and then add the M113 in one of the upcoming expansion packs, then Dan wouldn't have to spend time making the model (you guys would just do the internal stuff, armor, sub-systems, crew locations, etc.), and everyone who has the expansion pack that the M113 is released in would have the M113 (no dozens of variations on which player has which equipment available to them in CM II to worry about in scenario design).

This way, mikewhol gets credited for the design of the model, BTS gets to sell it as part of the game with minimal effort, and the CM fans get another cool vehicle to use in battles. Everyone wins. What do you think?

[Dragon67]

Originally posted by SlapHappy:

Undead RC

To be honest, If BFC's CMX2 concept had included "conceptualized" squads withe 3-man abstractions like CMBB, I wouldn't have even considered buying it. So there is at least one person who wasn't satisfied with the status quo (me).

I find it hard to believe I am the only one.

That doesn't mean your idea of the perfect wargame is wrong, it just doesn't mean that it is the same as everyone else's.

Ditto, when I saw the Paradox bow I took a long hard look at the infantry on the back of the box trying to decipher if it was abstracted (as you put it). It looked like it was not so I decided to take a chance for 19.99.

But if I had known for a fact that it was the three man abstraction, I definitely would have given the game a pass.

BTW- the back of my box makes the following statement:

"Detailed, story driven, semi-dynamic campaign as told from the NATO perspective."

NATO perspective ?

[Lampshade111]

I believe the IL2 series of flight sims had some sort of system where "external" groups could submit appropriate (aircraft that were actually used) models with a skin/skins that were checked for accuracy and other details. These then were added in the next patch.

Perhaps some sort of system where you could assign interested modelers a certain project they could create/assist you with?

Glad to here ERA for the US is coming. Does that include the Stryker ERA kit?

[Kwazydog]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Thomm - you are right of course. Have to have M-60s. Absolutely essential. Iranians using them, Lebanese and Jordanians (OK, some are upgraded M48s), Israel still has some, Turkey, Marines used them in gulf war I, essential for cold war central front...

And unfortunately this is a large part of the problem Jason.

For us its a very slippery slope, as you’ve just described. If we start adding random vehicles to the TOE of US military forces which *they* will most likely never use again in a modern conventional conflict people will use it as justification to add others. I can probably think of 1/2 dozen more relevant vehicles that the US military could have over the M113 (M1 TUSK and M2 with ERA has been mentioned), and I would rather see those added myself before a vehicle that will likely never be used.

To me it appears that what Jason and others are asking for is something more than just a single vehicle. What you guys are basically after is a '3rd World' module that would cover vehicles such as the M113, M47, M48, M60, Chieftan, BTR-152, BTR-50, BRDM-1, Type-59, Type-69, Type85, etc. This is a different kettle of fish, and adding the M113 alone would be just one vehice of many which would be needed.

Dan

[ May 20, 2008, 04:22 AM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]

[Battlefront.com]

Blackhorse,

Progress and evolution are completely natura

Quite correct. Not only natural, but expected. Two people have just chimed in about that, and we feel they are the majority of our customer base. As rough as CM:SF might have been out of the starting gate, it's still at the beginning of its lifespan. CMx1 was already at the end of it's lifespan before CMAK was finished. As I've said elsewhere, we almost didn't make CMAK because we weren't quite sure it was worth it. I'm glad we did because it was worth it, but only because we didn't add more than a few things to the game engine (unlike CMBB).

Dragon67,

But if I had known for a fact that it was the three man abstraction, I definitely would have given the game a pass.

You, SlapHappy, and many others too That's why "1:1 representation" was the second thing Charles and I decided upon in 2003. The first was to put the CMx1 code to bed. There are wargame companies out there that appear to make a living off of aging game engines which offer little innovation from release to release, but that's not the sort of thing we're interested in. I don't think such a thing to support even two of us, not to mention more.

Detailed, story driven, semi-dynamic campaign as told from the NATO perspective

The storyline is that NATO forces are involved, not just the US. The Brits are coming with the 2nd Module and other NATO forces in subsequent ones.

Lee,

If you were to take mikewhol up on his offer of doing the M113 model for you guys for free, and then add the M113 in one of the upcoming expansion packs, then Dan wouldn't have to spend time making the model (you guys would just do the internal stuff, armor, sub-systems, crew locations, etc.), and everyone who has the expansion pack that the M113 is released in would have the M113 (no dozens of variations on which player has which equipment available to them in CM II to worry about in scenario design).

This isn't out of the question. It's controlled and limited, which are our two primary requirements besides how it fits in with the setting itself. The M113, for example, fits in fine. As I've said since the beginning, it would not be unrealistic to have it in the setting. M60... well, that's getting into a can of worms.

But as I said earlier, it's not just a modeler's time that is involved. Charles has to code the vehicles so everything works correctly. This takes little time if it is a variant, more time if it is something new, even more time if it has some unique feature on it. Availability of data is also a factor to some extent. The M113 is kinda middle of the road.

The other problem is that getting someone up to speed on how to code a model for CM:SF is quite time consuming. It's a one time hit, but it isn't like someone can send us a model and we can stick it in. Doesn't work that way. And we know, because Dan isn't the only person making models for CM:SF any more

So I'm not saying "no" to this idea, though because it isn't something we can afford to do right now it for sure isn't going to happen right away.

Steve

[ May 19, 2008, 07:11 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[JasonC]

KD - "just one vehice of many which would be needed"

Xactly.

[Kwazydog]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Xactly.

Yup, which is why this debate shouldnt really be about adding an M113, becuase that alone will not suit your needs anyway. Instead it should be about whether there is enough demand out there for a type of '3rd World' module.

Dan

[ May 19, 2008, 10:01 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]

[M1A1TC]

Id rather see Russians or Chinese which could fight with Americans on equal ground

[Combatintman]

In which case then - and I don't want to use the term 3rd World in this context but why not strip the Canadians out of the NATO Module and add the French to it and then have a Commonwealth Module with the Canadians, Australians and Kiwis?

[undead reindeer cavalry]

showing individual men is cool and evolution is the way to go. i am all for improved game features and mechanics.

claiming that dynamic realtime vehicle suspension is more crucial than real mines and field fortifications for simulating tactical battles between extremely mechanized hitech aggressor and mostly static lotek defender, however, has nothing to do with it.

it is not a question of personal opinion.

claiming that it is an evolutionary step is, well, silly. having no real mines or field fortifications is clearly counterevolutionary -- it is a step back. having vehicle suspension instead is just visual candy instead of real tactics.

if it shows some strategical desicion about where BFC is heading at you could as well have hitpoints for vehicles, the target audience wouldn't care.

of course going Close Combat instead of Steel Panthers is the choise of BFC and there's no point whining about their choises. but claiming that such a choise is made because it simulates tactical battles more accurately or realistically is just nonsense.

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by KwazyDog:

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

Xactly.

Yup, which is why this debate shouldnt really be about adding an M113, becuase that alone will not suit your needs anyway. Instead it should be about whether there is enough demand out there for a type of '3rd World' module.

Dan </font>

[Battlefront.com]

URC,

showing individual men is cool and evolution is the way to go. i am all for improved game features and mechanics.

That's good to hear, but understand that this is all relative. What you see as a step forward other people might not care about, and vice versa. You also need to keep in mind the total sum of improvements vs. picking out this or that and assigning undo importance to them.

claiming that dynamic realtime vehicle suspension is more crucial than real mines and field fortifications for simulating tactical battles between extremely mechanized hitech aggressor and mostly static lotek defender, however, has nothing to do with it.

Again, your opinion of the defenses CM:SF offers is yours to keep, but I fundamentally disagree with the importance you assign to them. The fortifications we made available are adequate and within the bounds of realism. As full and fleshed out as it could possibly be? No, I grant you that. But the entire weight of the simulation does not rest on them. Not by a long shot. In WWII the equation changes, though, and fortifications become more important. This is why you will see enhancements for that game.

it is not a question of personal opinion.

Sure it is. Who are you to say that the fortifications we have are factually inadequate? I've debated this point many times and I've not seen a convincing argument yet that establishes this as a fact. It is also my opinion that atmospherics, which moving suspensions are a part of, are no longer optional for any game made in 3D any more. So we could have your wetdream vision of defensive emplacements and yet have a failure of a game system because the visuals just don't cut it.

if it shows some strategical desicion about where BFC is heading at you could as well have hitpoints for vehicles, the target audience wouldn't care.

Well, I'll just have to categorize you as "unreasonably narrow minded and therefore not very interesting to listen to". If someone can get that focused on one thing, to the point of seeing nothing else positive around it, that is someone who really is dangerous to pay attention to. You're the sort of guy that, if left in charge of things, would put us out of business. And I mean that with all sincerity. Your mindset is as unreasonable as it is irrational, therefore I can't take your suggestions seriously unless I think you are reasonable and rational.

of course going Close Combat instead of Steel Panthers is the choise of BFC and there's no point whining about their choises. but claiming that such a choise is made because it simulates tactical battles more accurately or realistically is just nonsense.

Who said that moving suspensions make the tactical battles more accurate or realistic in a tactical sense? Certainly not I. Things like that make the game more visually realistic, which in turn makes the game more engaging and viable as a product. Having a few more defensive elements would have negligible effect on the simulation on the whole, including the tactical aspects. Having less than we have now would also have a negligible effect on the whole, though of course certain tactical engagements would no longer be possible.

Just because you can't do something in CM doesn't mean that the rest of it has no value. I assume you agree with this because the laundry list of things you couldn't do in CMBO, BB, or AK is extremely long, as is the list of things the simulation does poorly or just adequately. And yet they are great games with rich tactical relevance to real warfare, are they not?

Steve

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

That's good to hear, but understand that this is all relative. What you see as a step forward other people might not care about, and vice versa. You also need to keep in mind the total sum of improvements vs. picking out this or that and assigning undo importance to them.

certainly. i fully admit that CMSF is a lot better game (game, like Pong or PacMan) than any of the CMx1.

But the entire weight of the simulation does not rest on them. Not by a long shot.

i totally agree with that. but when these types of things pile up, one starts to wonder if it indicates a larger take on visuals vs gameplay preference.

just to throw another example so that nobody thinks i have some fetish about fortifications & mines or just hate vehicle suspension: we get tree leaves that move in the wind, but we do not get towed or SP AA guns that have been specifically noted to be the most effective weapons for urban combat in ex-USSR arsenal (and which Syrians have in great numbers).

this stuff annoys me

In WWII the equation changes, though, and fortifications become more important. This is why you will see enhancements for that game.

it's good to hear that there will be enhancements.

So we could have your wetdream vision of defensive emplacements and yet have a failure of a game system because the visuals just don't cut it.

yeah, that's what it boils down to.

Well, I'll just have to categorize you as "unreasonably narrow minded and therefore not very interesting to listen to".

if only you would hear how i sound live. it's even worse than how i write

Your mindset is as unreasonable as it is irrational, therefore I can't take your suggestions seriously unless I think you are reasonable and rational.

please don't take me too seriously. i'm only stating what is just my opinion. i'm just talking, throwing things out.

Things like that make the game more visually realistic, which in turn makes the game more engaging and viable as a product.

i'm just talking, but things like that can also break the illusion. streets in CMx1 do not feel empty. streets in CMSF feel empty even while there are lots more stuff around. sometimes they do not feel empty -- they feel downright creepy. it's the uncanny valley effect.

but yes, i do understand what you are talking about. i just wish it wouldn't need to be so. i would be happy with graphics worse than those of CMBO if that would mean i would get all kinds of cool game features that take simulation of tactical combat to the next level.

Just because you can't do something in CM doesn't mean that the rest of it has no value. I assume you agree with this because the laundry list of things you couldn't do in CMBO, BB, or AK is extremely long, as is the list of things the simulation does poorly or just adequately. And yet they are great games with rich tactical relevance to real warfare, are they not?

yeah i certainly agree with all that. i am painfully aware of the shortcomings of CMx1 titles and realize that CMSF, as a game and a game engine, has taken the series to a whole new level. i really mean that. i just don't fully accept that CMSF is an evolutionary step forward what comes to simulating tactical combat.

[Blackhorse]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

yeah i certainly agree with all that. i am painfully aware of the shortcomings of CMx1 titles and realize that CMSF, as a game and a game engine, has taken the series to a whole new level. i really mean that. i just don't fully accept that CMSF is an evolutionary step forward what comes to simulating tactical combat.

I believe that is evolutionary. What it may not be is revolutionary.

The origninal CMBO was, in my opinion, revolutionary. It may be cliche', but CMBO took the tactical computer wargame genre to an entirely new level.

[Battlefront.com]

URC,

just to throw another example so that nobody thinks i have some fetish about fortifications & mines or just hate vehicle suspension: we get tree leaves that move in the wind, but we do not get towed or SP AA guns that have been specifically noted to be the most effective weapons for urban combat in ex-USSR arsenal (and which Syrians have in great numbers).

heh... another discussion I've gotten into several times since before CM:SF was released. I challenged this assertion that AA guns are really relevant. In OIF, despite the thousands of pieces in Iraq, there had almost no impact. The only time I remember reading about one in action was when they came upon one with a dead Iraqi Major in the gunner's seat. The rest of the defenders had left and this guy thought he could mount a defense of one. They cut him down before he got a shot off IIRC.

Anyway, it's really counter-productive to say "you did this and should have instead done that". The game survives perfectly well without AA guns, the same would not be true if there were ugly, smeared billboard tree graphics. So yeah, I think the trees have MUCH higher priority. Trees should be in practically every scenario, AA guns (if included and used proportionally) would be seen very rarely.

When we have about 30 years of stuff to simulate, choices have to be made. We will never have agreement on which choices were best to make, which ones were worse. But I can say that the choices were made very carefully and with a balanced game system in mind. Unfortunately, as always happens, some of the stuff that was reserved for the end of development (because of various factors) didn't make it in. We've spent several months rectifying that, but we can't spend 26 more years getting the rest in. That's a bit too long of a development schedule Therefore, choices will always have to be made.

yeah i certainly agree with all that. i am painfully aware of the shortcomings of CMx1 titles and realize that CMSF, as a game and a game engine, has taken the series to a whole new level. i really mean that. i just don't fully accept that CMSF is an evolutionary step forward what comes to simulating tactical combat.

Sure it is. It simulates a heck of a lot more stuff in a lot more detail than CMx1 games ever could dream of doing. What it doesn't do, perhaps, is offer the same "breadth" of options to test out. That's a different matter. Think about it... is CMx1 good at simulating WW1 or Modern Warfare? No. Does that mean that what it simulates is tactically a step backwards? No. It's just designed to cover something and not designed to cover everything else.

As Blackhorse said, CMx2 is more of an evolutionary move forward. In some ways it is revolutionary, in some ways it is not anything different than what you've already seen. In game terms it can even sometimes be a step backwards, depending on perspective (for example, people who think cherry picking QBs are the most important feature).

Steve

[Patrocles]

Originally posted by Lampshade111:

I believe the IL2 series of flight sims had some sort of system where "external" groups could submit appropriate (aircraft that were actually used) models with a skin/skins that were checked for accuracy and other details. These then were added in the next patch.

Perhaps some sort of system where you could assign interested modelers a certain project they could create/assist you with?

Glad to here ERA for the US is coming. Does that include the Stryker ERA kit?

Leap Pursuit, the makers of the F-16 sim Falcon4: Allied Force have something similar to what you describe. IIBC, folks have submitted mods to LP (terrain upgrades, new cockpits, etc.) who approve these mods for sale to the public. I'm sure you can find the true story if you contact LP.

[mikewhol]

Just to be clear.

I did, and do, offer to make any model for CM:SF series, but, as Steve has pointed out, it is not as simple as "sticking it in the game"! I would need an SDK to start, build it, submit it, then get it sent back for tweaks, repeat! I offered; to make the point , it's not the model that is the issue here! If it was that simple, BF could just pick up any one of a thousand commercially available models. Having been involved with the process before, I know it can be very complicated thing to do.I could have a untextured model worked up in about 2 weeks, trust me, that is the easy part! Then probably a month of tweaking and texturing for the game engine. Then it would have to be coded into the engine, tweaked, repeat! Like BF, this is truly a labor of love, labor being the key word!

Mike

[Battlefront.com]

Thanks Mike for the "oh, if it were only that easy" first person perspective It's helpful to everybody to know that just because it's electronic, doesn't mean it's easy! We all wish it was.

The neat thing is that although the total time to get a model in from scratch to finish is not that much different than it was for CMx1, the end product is a lot better and there is far less time wasted passing things from hands to hands.

BTW, in case you guys weren't aware... Dan does the models, but we have a gaggle of 2D guys doing the textures. Without them the timeline would be increased by about 30% or so. The "Usual Suspects" can be found in just about any CM manual.

Steve

[rune]

Just adding one and only one example that occurred during GW II, a ZSU-23 took out a M1 Abrams temporary by a lucky shot that hit the gun barrel and dented it. obviously they could not fire the main gun after that, it occured right before the thunder run and was mentioned int he book of the same name. Talk about your one in a million lucky shots.

Rune

[TheVulture]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Anyway, it's really counter-productive to say "you did this and should have instead done that". The game survives perfectly well without AA guns, the same would not be true if there were ugly, smeared billboard tree graphics. So yeah, I think the trees have MUCH higher priority. Trees should be in practically every scenario, AA guns (if included and used proportionally) would be seen very rarely.

Or to paraphrase into a way that is more intuitive to me, it is less important to have lot of different vehicles etc. in the simulation than it is to make sure that what is in is done to a very high standard. And as long as you have enough in the game to give enough variety for a rich experience.

Commercially, these days, it is very important to have a very high visual standard with attention to details.

Hence trees and grass moving in the wind, vehicle suspension etc. SO that the trees and vehicles that are in the game as as good as they can be.

It is a different design strategy to "simulate a wider range of things to a low(er) standard". Some people may not like the design strategy, but I am also pretty confident that having chosen that approach they should stick to it - everyone would like the results of changing the basic design philosophy mid-stread far less I suspect.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

it's understandable that you need to sell out with eye candy to stay in business and expand. it's just somewhat disappointing, and quite annoying when things aren't called with their real names. oh well, time to move on.