General discussion about CM:SF

[76mm]

Dear fytinghellfish:

You've got yourself a deal! (um, if PBEM is featured anyway).

I don't mean to be negative; I'm sure the game will be interesting, if nothing else because of the new engine. I'm just having a hard time getting fired up about the theater.

[karch]

I'm a bit surprised by the game. I'm pretty sure I'll get it. I'm actually a little glad they can work out the kinks in the program and add more features before getting to WWII. That just means the WWII version will be that much better out of the gate. ( I'm guessing ).

Just imagine if CMAK had been done second and CMBB had been done 3rd, we may have seen T35s and T28s with multiple turrets. Things like that.

I'm still in love with CMBB and CMAK and will probably play it regularly for years to come.

I'm not extatic, yet, but am very interested. I'm sure I'll learn a lot of new stuff.

[hoolaman]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

Will there be Camels? You gotta have Camels, they are the prime movers for insurgent artillery, field kitchens, mobile prayer Mosques, etc.

And their eyes are potent AT weapons:

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

BTR-60

Good for: Armored personnel transport

Similar WWII vehicle: M3 halftrack

Notes: Giant boat of a vehicle. Can carry twelve dismounts in addition to the crew of 2. Same armament as BRDM-2. Vulnerable to nearly anything - including small arms fire, shell fragments and evil looks from passing camels.

[Salkin]

If Tom is not using his right to be the president chearleader on this project, maybe I should run.

I'm tired of the old Swedish geek/lurker image you all have of me so maybe I should be leader of the chearleading community for Shock Force.

If you agree say: "Aye , we shall make Salkin , chearleader president for he is the brown nosiest of them all !"

Oh, and unlike Tom I have a PC.

Tom, you will of course keep your Bonethread-making previlege.

Let the voting begin.

//Salkin

[hellfish]

Originally posted by 76mm:

Dear fytinghellfish:

You've got yourself a deal! (um, if PBEM is featured anyway).

I don't mean to be negative; I'm sure the game will be interesting, if nothing else because of the new engine. I'm just having a hard time getting fired up about the theater.

Sweet. Watch out for my improvised camel dung devices (ICDDs).

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Salkin:

If Tom is not using his right to be the president chearleader on this project, maybe I should run.

//Salkin

Its all yours.

I will not be in the running for "president/resident cheerleader for CM:SF".

I will however reserve the right to run again for the same position when CMx2 WWII in the ETO comes around !!!

thanks

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

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

BTR-60

Good for: Armored personnel transport

Similar WWII vehicle: M3 halftrack

Notes: Giant boat of a vehicle. Can carry twelve dismounts in addition to the crew of 2. Same armament as BRDM-2. Vulnerable to nearly anything - including small arms fire, shell fragments and evil looks from passing camels.

</font>

[Salkin]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

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

If Tom is not using his right to be the president chearleader on this project, maybe I should run.

//Salkin

Its all yours.

I will not be in the running for "president/resident cheerleader for CM:SF".

I will however reserve the right to run again for the same position when CMx2 WWII in the ETO comes around !!!

thanks

-tom w </font>

[aka_tom_w]

LOL

[konstantine]

Thank you Battlefront. Not only am I ecstatic about CMSF but I get to tell everyone I know "I told you so".

[Ivan Drago]

I don't think this has been asked yet...

Whats the state of current progress?

This is the Alpha build I realise, but are the core features of the game already coded after 2 years?

I'm sure coding an entirely new engine is more complex then I imagine, but it seems to me logical to assume that main features and framework were build from the ground up first of all, requiring the most time, and now mainly the graphical representation is left for creation.

Am I off the mark BFC?

Doubt we'll see a demo earlier then Q1, 2006 - or is it Q2?

[aka_tom_w]

I sure hope they are aiming for mid to late Q1 2006

(I hope!)

-tom w

[gunnersman]

After the discussion about the KIA and WIA and bodies I wondered about actual death animation. Since 1:1 is represented and the graphics are going to be so great, what about death animations? What will happen when a soldier is shot? Will he just fall down? It would be a buzz kill for me to have such good graphics only to see a soldier who has been shot or hit by shrapnel to have something lame like two stage animation: soldier shot, soldier on ground. Not that I expect that to happen. But for me a good death animation is a must.

[Breakthrough]

I'm gonna buy it. I like the moderm era, love CM, and I'll get acquainted with the sysktem before the WW II game comes out.

A 'Raid the Insurgent Stronghold' scenario would be very timely... Stryker Force raids Iraqi insurgent stronghold inside Syria. Syrian Army units respond to the incursion....

Best of luck with this one Battlefront!

[Midnight Warrior]

More (random) thoughts on CM:SF (or comparisons of a tactical Syria 2007 setting veses a WWII setting)

1. Play Balance Since WWII was in part between 1st world powers there typically was a training and technology balance. However, this is not liley to be the case in a Syrian 2007 setting. To even out the trainng and technology imbalance I would imagine one could define scenarios where the US is outnumbered. Perhaps reminescent (sp?) of Gulf War II the Syrian war starts before all the US forces can deploy or something similar to that causes the US to launch an attack with insufficient numbers to make the outcome neither a cakewalk nor a sure thing. Thus we mght have some quality verses quantity considerations.

2.War in the 21st Century It will be interesting to be able to "try out" all the new technology in a highly realistic wargame engine as CM:SF likely will be to see where warfare in the 21st century may be heading. Part of the interest in the CM1 series was to see tactics that one read about actually come to life in the CM game. Perhaps we can see future tactics emerge where one can get a preview of what the next war (where ever and with whomever it may be) might look like. That is not to say that CM:SF will be 100% spot on but I would imagine that with all the research and attention to detail that will go into this game that many things will be really close.

Drama and Historical Significance Another element that makes WWII so interesting is the drama of the events and their historical significance. At first glance a invasion of Syria might seem to be lacking in this respect. However, if one puts oneself in the perspective of the person getting shot at al combat becomes high drama and significant. Thus at the tactical level the drama can be just as high even if at the strategic level a tank fight in Syria may not be as high drama a say a Kursk.

Higher Lethality Weapons Systems Where WWII saw many desperate battles that where savagely fought in the backdrop of national survival a Syrian 2007 will likley more often feature lethal technolgy over desperate fighting. The leathality of combat system since WWII continued to increase with new technologies. In a Stalangrad scenario street fighting was desperate but was mostly dne with samll arms. In a modern urban environment a 2000 lb JDAM or LGB bomb can be precisely dropped on a designated building that wouldblow it to pieces. Thus the terror factor would not be so much on despearte men slugging it out but on horric weapons powered by advanced technology. How this plays out in a CM WEGO setting remains to be seen but it could be awesome. Thus as a minimum one would think that it is worth giving CM:SF a chance and actually I for one can hardly wait. Warfare keeps on changing. It was one thing to hack men to pieces in close quarters with swords in ancinet times, another thing to line up shoulder to shoulder in the age of muskets and quite another to fight in the empty battlefield of WWII where most of the targets are behind cover. Future wars will have its own brand of combat but in general the lethality of the weapons will be such that if you can see it you can kill it. I would think that from a wargamng experinec it could be just as interesting if not more so for with al the new technology there may be more decisions to make. Also, as war gets more high tech it might better lend itself to computer simulations. Thus a modern CM may not be any less enjoyable to play than a WWII version.

[Mace]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

Will there be Camels? You gotta have Camels, they are the prime movers for insurgent artillery, field kitchens, mobile prayer Mosques, etc.

and 'comfort' companies.

[SgtMuhammed]

Holly cow! Leave for a few hours and the world changes. I think this one will be a real blast. The screenies are quite impressive, especially as they are just rough drafts.

[hoolaman]

I am just wondering what sorts of engagement distances (and hence map sizes) will be required to do a modern game really well.

If you can easily kill a AFV at 2000-5000m with modern AT weapons, that will make for some monstrous maps to allow proper manouvring.

I can't imagine any PC I can afford in the next year can handle 10km x 10km maps with massively improved graphics. And I don't want to see engagement ranges cut down to unrealistic levels to make it easy on hardware.

[SgtMuhammed]

Holy cow! Leave for a few hours and the world changes. I think this one will be a real blast. The screenies are quite impressive, especially as they are just rough drafts.

[Aacooper]

Wow, Syria.

I was hoping WW2 would be first, but I'm sure this would be fun. I'm glad Battlefront didn't pick any of the current wars, it would feel wrong to play a game based on an ongoing war.

Will there be PBEM?

[Battlefront.com]

Sorry to not reply question for question... no time. Some quick general responses:

I heard a nice talk from a Marine Major FAC (Forward Air Controller) who had just returned from Falujah. He talked about how fixed wing aircraft were the primary choice for MOUT warfare, vs. the open area type battles. Helos are simply too vulnerable. Gunships were what they liked best. Precision shooting with far less chance of collateral damage.

The main thing to remember is that US forces are not invincible in theory. They are quite vulnerable in many ways. Good leadership and superior training is why they do so well on the battlefield. You are that leadership. Your forces won't fight on their own and win, you have to lead them. Screw that up and you'll loose just as surely as you'd lose even with a King Tiger platoon in CMx1. It is all about the player's ability, not the hardware.

I'll say this again, and probably another 1000 times, that CM:SF is not about Cold War style armor vs. armor matchups. Those are a thing of the past since it is true that the deck is stacked against the other side very thoroughly. Small unit tactics... that's where the "fair" action is at. Especially when scenarios are able to have very flexible and realistic victory conditions, unlike CMx1's abstracted flag concept.

And of course, the other thing you'll hear many times over... if we didn't think we could make a modern setting as fun, or if not more fun, than CMx1... we would have not done a modern setting. So either we are over confident or the neigh-sayers are overly pessimistic. Since we've a long track record of proving the doubters wrong, that should factor into the odds of who is right this time around.

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Ivan Drago:

Doubt we'll see a demo earlier then Q1, 2006 - or is it Q2?

A couple of points.

1) Steve has said that a demo probably won't be released until the game goes gold.

2) He also let drop that Charles spent the last week coding the Javelin. Now, my thought is that if they are still doing basic things like coding ballistics, it may be a while before this thing is ready. Because, not only does everything get coded up, it has to go through alpha and beta testing. Then the code has to be jiggered based on what that testing reveals, and then retested. So...personally, I have revised my estimates to March of next year, possibly even the end of March.

BFC may be aiming at an earlier date, but I have the utmost respect for Murphy's Law. I know my own projects tend to take twice as long as I expect them to, even when I take into account that they will take twice as long as I expect them to.

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

Technical updates:

We'd call the game early Alpha. This is a bit misleading though since the development curve this time around had a HUGE upfront cost to it. So although we are 2.5 years into the project we are only now showing graphical signs of having worked on something for so long Things like the graphics engine itself, the way models and animations are treated, the user interface, etc. took a long, long time in the oven. They are all pretty much out of the oven now and so the work of icing the cake can begin. We are still shooting for the end of Quarter 1 2006, but don't be surprised if it slips into Quarter 2 2006. We don't want to rush this sucker out the door.

If we were to build this from scratch without prior experience, I'd estimate we'd be done in late 2006 at best. I'd also say it would be about 3/4 as good and 1/2 as flexible for future stuff. The experience gained form the frustrations of what we couldn't change in CMx1 is the heart and soul of the CMx2 design. Which is why it was so very important to use a modern setting as the "test" case to make sure we have our bases covered.

PBEM... we're not far enough along to say for sure. The things that would nix or allow PBEM haven't happened yet. We'll need some semblance of a "real" scenario with loads of terrain types to know for sure. However, I am as always cautiously optimistic that it will be in and decently functional (i.e. no need to do some sort of file swapping service as some have suggested). So far nothing Charles sees precludes PBEM from working, which is at least a good thing even if it isn't a complete and final assessment.

Steve

[Ivan Drago]

WOOT!

I s'pose next summer will see me even more pale and sun-deprived then this summer, much to the dismay of my girlfriend.

*looks at left hand*

Sorry baby.

[Bigduke6]

That's a modern Western concept. There are plenty of societies where a person is not considered a full member, unless he has a personal weapon and can use it. I would say some portions of the Middle East fit into that category.

Originally posted by Dillweed:

Read the thread before you post. And I think by definition when they start being armed, they stop being civillians.