CM:SF WW2

[atacms]

Originally posted by Normal Dude:

Atacms - In order to understand why many wargamers only want to play WW2, you must first remember that a significant portion are on the edge of being OCD - who else could play Adavnced Squad Leader ??? (Yes I played it as well ). Thankfully, we have Battlefront, a progressive and forward thinking group, otherwise we would be getting the same game on the same territory every time, with minor improvements.

Ok, I'm a novice so excuse my ignorance, but what does OCD mean? And from the point you raise, I can appreciate it if Battlefront does more than cosmetic changes which shows why you guys are so loyal to them after having fought so many battles with the same weapons. Wish other developers had that level of dedication.

[Sequoia]

Originally posted by atacms:

Ok, I'm a novice so excuse my ignorance, but what does OCD mean? And from the point you raise, I can appreciate it if Battlefront does more than cosmetic changes which shows why you guys are so loyal to them after having fought so many battles with the same weapons. Wish other developers had that level of dedication. QUOTE]

Obsessive compulsive disorder. The best example I could think of is the guy in the TOW forum who complained the FT-17 didn't have the right number of track pads.

[atacms]

Originally posted by RMC:

I liked GDWs Assault series back in the day. It was platoons and 250m/hex, but it was neat to play with the modern doodads.

As I read some of these threads, one of the turn offs of fictional modern engagements appears. The equipment mix is always changing. New vehicles, new C2 gear, new rifles, new armor technologies and such are always popping up to add a new wrinkle. A game that is missing the latest and greatest can quickly feel obsolete.

CM:SF will have a relatively short shelf life for that reason. The new modules will help of course. BFC will be able to go back and update the existing force mix in the game if they so choose.

WWII on the other hand is a known quantity, familiar and unchanging. It can get dull at times to be retreading the same ground, but it doesn't get obsolete.

The key to keeping it interesting is to have the latest tech as far as the release date is, but for the other side to use asymetric tactics such as human shields, IED's, propagada, suicide bombers, attacks on infrastructure, propagation of inter-tribal warfare. Now the question is how do you represent these things in a game, some can be done easily, others require more work on AI of the non-playable characters. So the enemy would grab for example a local civilian and use him a human shield. Then he can order an Al-Jazeera van to show how the US shouldn't attack a certain site. There would have to be some meter or point system on propaganda/world opinion.

Truck bombers, you don't know who's coming at you so you shoot indiscriminately. The enemy films when the US accidentally kills some civilians, but rightfully defends itself. Then the US can counter by deploying non-lethal weapons, we can show this footage and gain points on the world opinion meter. Obviously I'm not talking about how CM:SF would work, but just throwing out some ideas on how modern warfare can be more interesting then some might give it credit for.

As for more advanced tech, that would be part of the appeal of the game, it could be episodic with patches for some new technology. As loyal fans we might be willing to pay for the new tech to support the devs. Just my crazy rambling so you'll have to pardon me if it doesn't makes sense.

[flintlock]

Originally posted by atacms:

aren't we all tired of WW2

Definitely not!

Originally posted by atacms:

hasn't it been hacked to death?

No, we haven't even scratched the surface.

As hardware technology improves and gets more powerful, I hope publishers continue to develop future WWII titles and leverage the new power. Thanks to advance in technology, we'll get to enjoy and experience them as never before.

:cool:

[Sequoia]

I agree there's been a glut of WWII FPS and RTS games but no one else did WWII the way Battlefront did it, and WWII with the CMX2 engine will be even better. With the adaptability of the new engine hopefully we'll see campaigns Combat Mission hasn't done before such as the Pacific and 1940. Whether we’ll see more Modern settings depends on how well CMSF sells I’m sure. I’m confident we’ll see a pre-twentieth century game eventually too.

[Sirocco]

With the new CM game engine CM:WW2 will be stunning, a real leap, and not just in graphical terms, from CMAK. It will be well worth the wait.

[Aacooper]

I will get CMSF the day it comes out, but when I see the video of the CMSF artillery procedure, all I can think of "maybe we can get some real Time-On-Target shoots in CMx2 WW2". Even though WW2 has been done to death, it's still very deep and still much more technologically balanced than the modern stuff.

[Sly Fox]

Cmak and Cmbb with the graphics of theatre of war,I'm sure would be welcomed by many.I await this. Even with the three infantry figures representing a squad.Many still follow the ww2 theatre being a significant historical moment.So many sites out there dedicated to ww2 gaming, history, and in recognition of the efforts of our courageous forefathers.There are new members daily signing up for combat mission at the wargaming club i belong to and i know many wait in anticipation of an upraded (graphically) representation. The mechanics of the game are fine and need not be tampered with.

[J Ruddy]

I played my first WWII board game (Panzerblitz) in 1982. I played my first 'real' WWII tactical computer game in 1995 (Steel Panthers)

I still play WWII based board games and computer games. My COD2 dvd is wearing out and I've logged more multiplayer time on it than any other game. My copy of BF2142 is collecting dust.

Why?

Why do cows moo?

[rune]

Fox,

Then you are in for sa shock. Of course play has changed, it had to. Going from 3 person to represent a squad to having the men actually shown and move change the game. Tracking individual bullets change the way the game is played. Play CMSF like CMX1, and you will lose everytime. The game will move slower. At least, if you want your pixeltruppen to survive you will. Also with campaigns, each pixeltruppen's life means something, do cannonfodder like cmx1, and you will hurt in the next mission perhaps.

Rune

[Directive#21]

CMx2 WW2 will be the grand achievement, the apex, the total culmination all the great advancements in the long history of war-game development.

Uh....well at least for me anyway.

[Mace]

Originally posted by Directive#21:

CMx2 WW2 will be the grand achievement, the apex, the total culmination all the great advancements in the long history of war-game development.

Well until CMx3 WW2 comes along.

[Sly Fox]

Okay Rune well if its an improvement its all fine by me. Theatre Of War probally dosent sound like my idea of realism though graphics are good.Dont want to go down that path with the limitations in scenario design and tactics that game has.Thats why i stick with CM.I like to have the option to play large battles.

[Directive#21]

Mace said:

Well until CMx3 WW2 comes along.

Roger that!

[MikeyD]

I'm wondering about the upcoming modules. They have two ways of going about this.

#1: Don't change the code, just supply new textures, uniforms, equipment polygons, and patching the unit purchase list. and throw in a few new scenarios.

#2: try to complete that coding for the cool XXX feature they just weren't able to get into the initial release, plus all the stuff in #1, plus include a new campaign featuring the new units.

I ask you, which would you expect any other game company to do and which would you expect BFC to do? So module turnaround *might* not be that quick but they'd certainly be worth the wait.

[Sequoia]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

I'm wondering about the upcoming modules. They have two ways of going about this.

#1: Don't change the code, just supply new textures, uniforms, equipment polygons, and patching the unit purchase list. and throw in a few new scenarios.

#2: try to complete that coding for the cool XXX feature they just weren't able to get into the initial release, plus all the stuff in #1, plus include a new campaign featuring the new units.

I ask you, which would you expect any other game company to do and which would you expect BFC to do? So module turnaround *might* not be that quick but they'd certainly be worth the wait.

I speculated in the river thread that by the time the German/Dutch/Canadian module is scheduled for release for CMSF they'll have CMx2 France 44 done and we may see water added for the G/D/C module.

Maybe we'll see additions of this sort.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Don't forget #3: MikeyD makes everything look a lot better!

[Kineas]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

I'm wondering about the upcoming modules. They have two ways of going about this.

#1: Don't change the code, just supply new textures, uniforms, equipment polygons, and patching the unit purchase list. and throw in a few new scenarios.

#2: try to complete that coding for the cool XXX feature they just weren't able to get into the initial release, plus all the stuff in #1, plus include a new campaign featuring the new units.

I ask you, which would you expect any other game company to do and which would you expect BFC to do? So module turnaround *might* not be that quick but they'd certainly be worth the wait.

I'd do the second, and I expect BFC to do the same. I remember Steve explaining in another thread why the houses aren't moddable. He said there were far too assumptions built into the game about the window locations, story sizes etc. I guess those must be resolved before the ww2 release.

The module turnaround won't be quick anyway, a lot of artwork needed and the first module have to "sell out" before. In the meantime you can fix bug or introduce nice little things.

[Sly Fox]

Very true Mikey D is a legend and hope new versions are as modable for the likes of such persons as him. Well done to you sir ! Much appreciated by ,many i am sure.

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by rune:

Play CMSF like CMX1, and you will lose everytime. The game will move slower. At least, if you want your pixeltruppen to survive you will.

While this is not something really new, because it has been stated several times already, it is great to hear it every time. Can you give us a bit more info, to get a better understanding, a feeling for it? For example, will the increased difficulty/realism be comparable to the difference from CMBO to CMBB due to the increased efficiency of hMGs and morale effects? Or would you say, that CMBB/CMAK in comparison just were gamey Pacman games, compared to the realism in CMSF?

Come on Rune, throw us a bone!

[flamingknives]

ISTR that the modules would not include core engine changes.

[Lawyer]

I am NOT interested in "peace keeping", "nation building", "hunting insurgents", or fighting corrupt third world armies that deserve one good nuke. Let's face it, WWII literally presented a world of combat opportunites that involved fascinating military hardware and excellent tactics used by opponents who were on fairly equal footing. And we knew what we were fighting for back then... It never gets tiresome.

I must have CM:WW2, and I must have it work on Mac OSX since Windows for consumers is an oxymoron. And the whole Microsoft crew that produced Vista are morons too. I've read about new coding techniques that make it much easier to convert a great game like CM to Mac. Let's get back to the future by giving us the FULL WWII experience we never got on earlier CM's using modern graphics and advanced gameplay.

As The Lawyer has spoken, so let it be....

[benpark]

Note new "Son of Skunkworks" development forum. Possibly CMXWW2?

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Hmm. We can only hope...

[rune]

Let me crush your hopes right now.

Rune