Next step?

[Marwek77 aka Red Reporter]

Hello Battlefront,

i would like to know (maybe the others too) what is your next step?

I think it will be better for you and for us too to simply tell us what do you plan... something like we plan new patch, where we would like to implement this and those and we will need this and this amount of time. If you tell us your plan, we can discuss about it on the forum, focus on bugs with conection to it and simple be happy that wou! there will be something big out there one day again...

Now i dont know nothing... There are still a few things running in the forum about what should be improved like C2 chain, QB, fog of war (the others will put their own list)... Can you answer these questions or at least tell us what is your plan? If you simple tell you plan big holiday, because you are tired i can accept it and would like to wish you nice holiday... but without knowing it, i cannot wish you this

Thanks for any answer.

[Meach]

QB improvements, Arty WAI and some new toys. That's my wishlist in that order.

The plan as it seems to be is CM:Jarheads module, CM:WW2 and CM:Euro module which sounds mighty fine to me

Any improvements as the engine develops will no doubt be patched into CMSF.

[JohnO]

Well for one its not called CM:Jarheads.

[Meach]

And you ain't called JohnOsense of humour are ya, pal?

[JohnO]

Yep, I wanted to have it named CM:Jarhead but lost on the vote so it may be titled CM:Leathernecks instead.

[aleader]

Is the Marine module going to be in the desert again? I wanna see some trees and greenery... Also, going building-to-building still needs to be fixed.

[JohnO]

Yes the Marine Module will be in the desert. What do you mean that "Going building-to-building still needs to be fixed"?

[Splinty]

How about CM Gyrene?

[flamingknives]

There's something that interests me.

I know that the Royal Marines are called bootnecks, or leathernecks, for their leather neck supports when they were purely naval infantry. Presumably the USMC has the same roots for the name, but did they wear the leather neck supports while they were the USMC?

[SgtMuhammed]

The version that I am familiar with is that they got the name because of the leather neckguards they started wearing to protect against Japanese infiltrators. The infiltrators had a nasty habit of sneaking into the perimeter and slashing the throats of sleeping Marines. It may go farther back though, I haven't spent much time studying the Naval Infantry.

[aleader]

I still see odd behaviour when moving a squad to another building from the one they're in. I never know where they will exit and what path they'll take to get to supposedly adjoined buildings.

Even when I try to plot a course for them (say to the back between a wall and the building) they still go around the front, completely exposed to fire and I lose a few guys and\or they get pinned.

It'd be nice to see a 'proposed path' indicator or something (ala CoH) showing where they will go if I plot a certain course. This is in RT mode BTW.

[Cpl Steiner]

To those in the know,

Any news on when we can expect to see the Marines module? The strategy BFC have adopted is supposed to be "a little often" rather than "a lot now and again", so it will be out in a few weeks, correct?

Seriously though, I know Charles has been busy patching but it would be nice to know something about the state of play of the Marines module beyond the few models we've seen in the blog.

[f-bomb]

the usmc wore the leather neck guards in the late 1700's, and thier roots are directly from the british marines.

[JohnO]

Well, I wont hold your breath, if you think it will be out in a few weeks. Hell we haven't even started to make scenarios for it yet. If anything I would say months done the road instead of a few weeks.

[Cpl Steiner]

JohnO,

Thanks for your estimate. I can handle it being months down the road, just not years. What I'm really looking forward to, however, is the Brits module, which hopefully will follow not too long after the Marines one.

[gibsonm]

As I see it we have two options:

1. Make sure what we have now works properly (PBEM, smoke, vehicles, buildings, etc., etc.) then add the USMC stuff to a very stable core, or

2. Charge off and add more toys / chrome but still have some flaws.

Not sure which way they will go when we get to the decision point.

Also I have no idea as to a time line (before people start interpolating this post).

[ February 24, 2008, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: gibsonm ]

[JP76er]

I heard this rip line on a US Marine before, I apologize since it's impossible for me to remember where, when or by who.

CM:Sandbags, Self-deploying, Biodegradable Module

Don't hunt me down, though I do find it humorous.

[the Fighting Seabee]

LOL

I like CM:Bullet Sponges.

Edit: No offense ofcourse, Seabees and Marines are brothers.

I think, from looking at the history of CM:SF, that they are really trying to improve the base of this game first. Then when everything is solid (and with 1.06/1.07 it seems to be that way), then they will start to make the mods/addons. Since Steve has mentioned having many improvements in mind but not enough time, I could foresee a couple more patches before they really start hitting the Marines module hard. Anyway, I can't wait. This seems to me like it will be the best tactical wargame series ever created, I'm talking pc game hall of fame. I just hope they don't forget to add Seabees into the Marine module, or it will be incomplete!

[Sequoia]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

As I see it we have two options:

1. Make sure what we have now works properly (PBEM, smoke, vehicles, buildings, etc., etc.) then add the USMS stuff to a very stable core, or

2. Charge off and add more toys / chrome but still have some flaws.

Not sure which way they will go when we get to the decision point.

Also I have no idea as to a time line (before people start interpolating this post).

I suspect the Marine Module will take less of Charles time and more of Dan's as it's mostly just new units to draw. Charles can continue work on engine improvements.

[gibsonm]

You can suspect all you like but I know that even small changes have resulted in lots of iterations for us testers to work through and we are still missing stuff.

USMC have a different ORBAT so that needs to be coded, different squad sizes, that needs to be coded, different platforms (LAV25, etc.) whose modelling has to be coded, etc., etc., etc.

It isn’t simply a case of putting them in different uniforms and saying “There that’s finished” (I’m 99.9% sure you weren’t inferring that BTW, just for those you think that is all that is required ).

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by Sequoia:

I suspect the Marine Module will take less of Charles time and more of Dan's as it's mostly just new units to draw. Charles can continue work on engine improvements.

This is my belief too, although there may be some crossover. For instance, I have long argued that a Marines module would be incomplete without water. If the Marines get amphibious vehicles it would be nice to see them ford a river now and again.

[gibsonm]

Sure but a comment like “we need water” which sounds simple enough leads to a massive increase in development time and more things to debug before it gets out to the players.

For instance what sort of water? You want a stream / river to ford, others no doubt want the whole spectrum from ocean to surf to beaches to rapid flowing rivers to slow moving rivers to fordable rivers to creeks to water holes, etc.

If you have a beach then someone will want the whole suite of tools that go with an amphibious lodgement, etc.

Then as soon as we get “water” people will want bridges of various types and then they’ll want to blow those bridges up and then be able to rebuild them and of course there will be requests for AVLB, ferries, etc.

Can soldiers wade or swim through it, can vehicles ford or snorkel it, will it act correctly from a ballistic point of view, etc., etc., etc.

So you see a simple request for “water” produces a heap of effort.

I’m not saying it shouldn’t be there, just that there is a cost (development time / delayed release) for each one of these requested features.

[Sequoia]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

USMC have a different ORBAT so that needs to be coded, different squad sizes, that needs to be coded, different platforms (LAV25, etc.) whose modelling has to be coded, etc., etc., etc.

I suppose I was hoping that the engine was made so that adding units would not take that much of the lead programmers time. That, at least, was hinted at on more than one occasion. If that is incorrect I am sorry to hear that. If I understand the work flow correctly, Steve provides the stats to Charles who adds them and the rest of the team including beta testers such as yourself test them. But perhaps I'm just engaging in wishful thinking in my desire to see other games and modules develop as soon as possible.

[C'Rogers]

I suppose I was hoping that the engine was made so that adding units would not take that much of the lead programmers time.

The thing is even if they have massively shrunk the amount of developers time that is required, that still could mean months of work. It use to be years (and can be for many other games with more than one programmer). That may make it plug and play in developer terms, if not exactly ours.

[Battlefront.com]

We are actively working on the Marines Module at the moment, though we are still keeping up patch support for the existing CM:SF. Remember that Marines is based on the CM:SF game, therefore anything that we fix for basic game is good for Marines, anything fixed for Marines is good for the basic game.

Timeframe for the Marines is not yet determined. We'll have a better sense of it fairly soon. As Gibsonm pointed out it's a lot more than sticking in a AAV-7 or LAV-25.

We'll let you know when we have a decent estimate on when it might be released.

Steve