Play between differing modules

[imported_Wildman]

While I like the module idea, how will this effect PBEM/TCPIP opponents that do not have the same modules.

Ex.

I have:

Base

Normandy 44

Brit Pac 44

MY opponent has:

Base

Normandy 44

Med 42

Can we still play a game or do we have to have the same modules?

[juan_gigante]

You could, but it would have to only use units, tilesets, etc. from the modules that you both have. So, you could play base and Normandy 44, but no Brits or Mediterraean. Unless I am confused or somefink, I believe that this is how it goes.

[Barrold]

Steve has given a partial answer in THIS thread.

BDH

[Battlefront.com]

juan_gigante has it correct. You'd both need the same Module to play. That's because data needs to be local. If you don't have common data, how can you possibly play the same thing?

Steve

[Sequoia]

Just wondering if you might give us a hint as to how you'll determine what modules you'll be creating. Will you poll us out here in the peanut gallery? Also are you familiar with GMT games P500 system?

[Battlefront.com]

We are going to use Voodoo to figure it out since there is no scientific way to go about it. I think the Modules will be pretty obvious, so we're not worrying about that.

No, not at all familiar with GMT whatever it is

Steve

[Sequoia]

GMT is the boardgame company that publishes Down in Flames. They put out potential titles but don't put them into production until c. 500 copies have been pre-ordered.

[RSColonel_131st]

I hope you'll give an option at battle creation to use units "exclusive" from one module?

Like, people with "Brit Pack 44" and "Normany 44" could create PBEMs mixing units from both modules, or select the option to only use common data.

Also, in theory, this was the approach intended by 1C and Forgotten Battles when they added new flyable planes. In practice, newer modules almost always changed the base code and could never be combined with older versions.

[Battlefront.com]

Ah, Preorder 500... interesting concept. Probably not something we'd do, but it is something to consider.

Yes, the intention is that if you have a Title and a Module that you can mix and match stuff between the two, provided there is no game reason that prevents this. For example, let us say you have a Normandy and a Bulge/Late War setting to choose from. You shouldn't be able to purchase Jagdtigers for a July 1944 game timeframe. However, if you have a Normanday US and Normanday CW set, then there should be no reason why you can't mix and match.

Steve

[Barrold]

Not to drag this out unnecessarily, but let me try to understand how this might work and see if I am following you correctly. Thanks for your patience and expansive explanations over the past few weeks and I apologize if I am being thick.

If someone buys every MODULE within a TITLE, to play another person, BOTH players must have EVERY MODULE. Those that have 3 out of 5 for example would be only able to play someone with the same 3 MODULES?

Or a separate upgrade could be purchased to essentially patch the base code without adding the new units made available in a MODULE?

Advances in features between TITLES would not be expected to be backtracked in the way an individual TITLE might be. OK Fine. Lets suppose there are 2 ongoing TITLES being supported that are somewhat similar. "Space Lobsters of Doom" (A) and "Clam Wars" (.

A is the more mature TITLE, with 3 MODULES. B is more recent and has 1 MODULE with significant new features to be implemented. People clamor for new substance in A and so "SL: Guns or Butter" is created to meet the demand. Does A get a big upgrade to match the current standared of B?

It just seems like either an impractical amount of work or a disincentive to do much improvement outside of including new units or unique terrain types if you know what I mean.

What am I missing or have I made it too complicated?

BDH

[Pvt. Ryan]

Originally posted by Barrold:

I ... am being thick.

If someone buys every MODULE within a TITLE, to play another person, BOTH players must have EVERY MODULE. Those that have 3 out of 5 for example would be only able to play someone with the same 3 MODULES?

Players have to have the same TITLE to play against each other. If they want to play a particular MODULE they both have to have that MODULE, not all of the modules or all the same modules.

Originally posted by Barrold:

Advances in features between TITLES would not be expected to be backtracked in the way an individual TITLE might be. OK Fine. Lets suppose there are 2 ongoing TITLES being supported that are somewhat similar. "Space Lobsters of Doom" (A) and "Clam Wars" (.

A is the more mature TITLE, with 3 MODULES. B is more recent and has 1 MODULE with significant new features to be implemented. People clamor for new substance in A and so "SL: Guns or Butter" is created to meet the demand. Does A get a big upgrade to match the current standared of B?

A and B are two different games and have nothing to do with each other, just like CMBO and CMBB are two different games. From what I have read, the modules for each title may add additional functionality that would probably be retroactive for that title and other modules for that title, but they certainly aren't going to apply to other titles. If the new functionality can be applied to other titles it would likely be introduced with a new module for that game. Steve said these wouldn't be free patches.

[Battlefront.com]

Pvt. Ryan has it right. You don't need to have to have ALL the same things to play, just whatever is common to the game settings you want to use. At a minmum this is the Title. If you want to play content in a Module then both people need the same one.

It is highly unlikely there will be two Titles, back to back, that have a lot of direct similarity to one another. So we think the chances are very low that making improvements from the later ones will translate into free patches to the older ones. First and foremost because the improvements won't likely be directly relevant. Therefore, we will likely be making technological improvements backwards compatiable as applicable. But this won't likely be a freebie experience for us, and therefore it will have to be rolled into something we're selling. The exact nature of that will be determined at the time, not now.

As always, however, we do not intend on gauging a captive audience. We will charge what we feel is a fair price for the value it offers and the effort it required, not what we think we can bleed out of our customers. We believe in Enlightened Capitalism

Steve

[Barrold]

My question remains as to what happens when I have MODULE A, B, and C and my opponent only has A.

My presumption is that code will be upgraded with more than just units and tiles when a MODULE is purchased.

My data would then not match my opponents and therefore I could not play him even using the settings for MODULE A....UNLESS the game reverted the data to match during the setting detection process (which doesn't seem like good programming) OR some sort of data matching upgrade is made available as a patch or separate purchase.

Upgrading to MODULE B code would make MODULE A into MODULE A 1.2 and upgrading to MODULE C code results in MODULE A 1.3 for example. Now I have the same data in both my and my opponents TITLE and we can play scenarios based on the shared units and tiles of MODULE A.

Am I on the right track?

BDH

[aka_tom_w]

I could be wrong but I am thinking Modules are NOT upgrades to the title or the game code they are JUST an add-on set of units and "maybe" some new terrain tiles.

hence:

"Players have to have the same TITLE to play against each other. If they want to play a particular MODULE they both have to have that MODULE, not all of the modules or all the same modules."

-Pvt. Ryan

followed by:

"Pvt. Ryan has it right. You don't need to have to have ALL the same things to play, just whatever is common to the game settings you want to use. At a minmum this is the Title. If you want to play content in a Module then both people need the same one."

-Steve

-tom w

[Battlefront.com]

Modules might come with upgrades to the code, but those upgrades would be available for free for the Title as well. If there was a substantial enough upgrade, one that was far more than a tweak patch, would be for sale to everybody no matter what Modules they have. However, it might also be bundled with Module in addition to being available standalone.

Think of it this way... there are lots of options for us to pursue depending on circumstances. There is no sense trying to sort out all of the possibilities now, before anything is really in front of us to decide on. The basic principle, however, is in place: fairness. We will do what is fair to us, fair to the customer, and fair to the future. We aren't interested screwing you guys.

Steve

[Barrold]

Fair enough...in fact that answers my particular question. I certainly don't think nor would I wish to give the impression that wringing dollars out of the customer is the reason for pursuing the module strategy.

I like it, I think it will offer a great deal of value, and I look forward to buying them. I trust you guys to develop the product in a way that brings an elegant solution.

Again thanks for the detailed efforts to explain these types of items over the past few weeks.

BDH

[Bertram]

I have a question along these lines. What is going to be the scope of the title/module system?

Is a title going to be Normandy, and the modules the American section/British section/Breakout (for example), with other titles the Battle of the Bulge, Arnhem, etc.,

or are the titles going to be west front 44, east front, west front 40, etc.

Or are titles going to be WW2, Vietnam, Korea, etc?

Reading the comments the latter is not very likely , but it seems that the scope is somewhere between option one and two...

Just curious

[Battlefront.com]

Title will be a fairly broad military action. Could be West Front 1940, could be all of the American Civil War. It will not be a specific battle, like the Bulge or Bull Run. That is what the Modules are for.

Steve