Will units be updated later?

[luderbamsen]

Right, CM:SF is certainly going to be played for years to come. This brings up the issue of keeping the in-game units updated in relation to their real-life counterparts.

Steve has already harped about spiral development, having to add new kit to units because the US Army keeps fielding new gadgets all the time. I for one have no doubt that when released, CM:SF will be as up-to-date as possible.

But what about, say, 2 or 3 years from now. CM:SF will certainly be played at that time, but if the rampant additions of new gear continues, the CM:SF units may begin to look a bit "old".

So, can we expect "upgrades" to CM:SF later on if/when new kit is fielded?

Respectfully

luderbamsen

[Schrullenhaft]

I don't expect that there'll be updates to CMSF beyond what is included in the follow-on modules. However the follow-on modules seemed to be geared towards completely new TO&Es not covered in the main title (i.e. - USMC, British, German, etc.). There's a slight possibility that a follow-on module may have an updated piece of kit for the main title (US Army), but that will be a decision that is up to BFC/BTS on how important that new gear is and if it fits into the simulation as something that should be represented.

Beyond the follow-on modules I don't expect BTS/BFC to add units to CMSF. Once the last module is done BTS/BFC will already be in the process of creating another "main" title that will most likely significantly diverge from CMSF (WWII NWE has been pretty much decided - as of posts last mentioning the intended development path).

I don't think that the system will be open at this time for 3rd party developers to add new units, TO&Es or terrain. That may change in the future, but utilizing past statements about this, BTS/BFC haven't been too receptive to such ideas since it costs them time and money (read: support / API documenting) to support such 3rd party ventures.

[Battlefront.com]

It is possible that updates will be made as part of Modules, as Schruly has suggested, but not in the form of patches. And when the last Module is done, that's all that there will be until we do CMx3 (whatever and whenever that is!).

Steve

[Homo ferricus]

that seems interesting, maybe in 2007 BFC will release a patch or sumfink that includes all of the equipment that Syria actually would have when the theoretical war starts, instead of what we think they will have.

[luderbamsen]

What I'm really concerned about is something that significantly alters the equasion. For the sake of argument, let's say that Trophy-equipped Stryker units become fully operational in 2009-2010. Clearly, such a system would have a significant impact on Stryker capabilities. (note: Trophy is only an example, please don't digress into discussions of this particular system.

In that case, I'll be playing CM:SF 2-3 years from now (and you can bet I'll still be playing it, no matter how many new modules have appeared) and it's going to feel a bit, well, old.

Simply saying "CM:SF is set in 2007, the end", does take care of the problem, but the sense of dealing with cutting edge military technology would also be somewhat degraded.

I'm fully aware that such upgrading can't go on forever (however much I'd like it to ), but can we expect such upgrades within the "natural lifespan" of CM:SF?

Respectfully

luderbamsen

[C'Rogers]

I don't think CM:SF will have the life span of other CM games (though we are putting it up againt a ridiculus standard, it will far outlast most games). BFC has already said that there are a number of features they have in planning that will not get in CM:SF (CMx2 version 1) but will get into later titles. Regardless of setting the later CMx2 titles will just be more developed and subsequently when 2010 rolls around I doubt very few people will be thinking "wow X just came out, I wish that was in the game".

Unless you are a huge fan of modern warfare. Then I guess your best hope is (as mentioned in another thread) the military really likes this game and throws money at BFC to keep it updated and modules are made forever.

[Sixxkiller]

I disagree with the assessment that it wont have the same or close to the same life span as previous titles. Good games last far beyond the technology, like say Diablo 2, Counterstrike (which I hate), Starcraft, etc...

And I for the life of me cant figure out why people arent interested in modern warfare. A wargamer should embrace any form of war game as the principals remain the same no matter what war is being fought. Tactics really dont change, the just get modified to fit the equipment and the environment. Advanced technology help with this but it still doesnt win the battle, you do

I am looking forward to all of the incarnations of CMx2

[C'Rogers]

Oh I certainly think it will be a great game. I just think BFC has said they have a number of wonderful ideas that they don't have the time to incorporate yet will be very important in differentiating the games. As those ideas get put into the later titles the series of games will get even better.

It will be like CM:BO vs CM:BB perhaps. Overlord is a great game to play if you want to play the Western Front, but on just the in game play BB and AK are superior. I doubt it will be on the same scale but I think there will be a similair effect.

[Battlefront.com]

Sixxkiller,

And I for the life of me cant figure out why people arent interested in modern warfare. A wargamer should embrace any form of war game as the principals remain the same no matter what war is being fought.

There are two sorts of wargamers... narrow and broad. Narrow are interested in the game as an adjunct of some sort of passion for a particular subject matter. In other words, the game supports the interest. The other type, broad, are nearly the same but with one critical difference. Their passion is tactics, strategies, and warfare in the most basic senses of the words. Therefore, the more diverse the games played, the more their interest is being satisfied. For the narrow type playing other genres of wargames is a distraction.

Oh, there is one other category of sorts. Sometimes a game system comes around that is so interesting, in its own right, that the subject matter is less important than the game itself. For example, people really only interested in WWII Western Front (narrow focus) might have bought CMBB and CMAK simply because they like the game engine so much, not because they are particularly interested in those theaters. Likewise, they might pickup a less realistic wargame because it has cool graphics, great multi-player, easy in/out gameplay, etc. even though in general they shy away from "gamey" wargames.

It is my experience that the majority of wargamers are the narrow type. Some can be won over to buy a game based on the game itself, but the majority take a pass on it.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

Well I think someone said that WWII was the last "Great War"

or something like that.

Sure I play RISK and Supremacy (Nuclear Strategic and very simple you can play it online now) and fun things like Sim City but I liked CMBO and CMAK best. Why?

I guess I am narrow in that the ETO in WWII is my passion. But that's just me.

I will buy and try CM:SF as more a learning experience then a passion, but it won't be ETO WWII but it should be educational and entertaining. (I hope)

-tom w