Correct me if I am wrong

[civdiv]

...or spank me if this has been brought up before. Once all the goodies are in the game via the add-on modules (EU and Marine forces), the full Syrian OOB with possible stuff like maybe T-80 or T-90 series, just think of how many conflicts you will be able to model. I mean, based on my understanding of the way the game works, once you have a skin of say, a T-72, you can change the attributes all you want, right? I mean, you could make a plain Jane T-72 unupgraded since the day it left the factory in say 1974, all the way up to the best Czech/Italian/Israeli/Russian/Ukrainian upgraded T-72 out there, right? I don't think you can build from scratch a new unit, but you can modify anything that is present, right?

But off the top of my head you could model the following conflicts;

1. India vs Pakistan

2. USSR versus Afghan rebels

3. US/EU, etc, versus Iran

4. Paki military versus AQ/Taliban

5. Current US/EU operations in Afghanistan

6. Somolia (now or back to 1992-95)

7. Eritrea vs Ethiopia

8. The old Yemenise Civil War

9. Libya vs Chad

10. An invasion of Cuba by the US?

11. Egypt vs Libya

I'm sure there are a bunch more I am forgetting.

Sure, there would have to be tweaks here and there like giving the Red Forces air support for some of the conflicts. If you threw in just a few vehicles like Merkavas, M-60 and M-48 tanks and Chieftans and Centurians you could do current and past Arab-Israeli conflicts, Iraq vs Iran, etc. Shoot, but if you can reskin a current M1A1 and give it the attributes of a plain Jane M1 you could do a 1980s conflict between the Warsaw Pact and NATO, you would need M113s and ITOWs but that is about it.

Allright, someone throw a wrench into my idea; is it really much more difficult for the modders than I think?

[Zemke]

I thought BF was not going to allow modding of CMSF, or am I wrong?

[Dogface]

BattleFront has always allowed and encouraged modifying the visual appearance of their games. They have never allowed modding any of the data that makes up the games.

[Webwing]

Originally posted by Dogface:

BattleFront has always allowed and encouraged modifying the visual appearance of their games. They have never allowed modding any of the data that makes up the games.

AFAIK modding in CMSF means skinning. You can change the paint on top of the models not the models themselves.

You can also change the sounds.

--

[civdiv]

Originally posted by Dogface:

BattleFront has always allowed and encouraged modifying the visual appearance of their games. They have never allowed modding any of the data that makes up the games.

So "modding any of the data that makes up the games" includes vehicle attributes? Is that what that means? So you can't dumb a M1A2-SEP into a plain ol' M1, and then apply an M1 skin?

I know you can do the latter (re-skin the vehicle), are you saying you can't do the former (change the vehicle attributes)?

[M1A1TC]

Yes, we are limited to skinning the models and changing the sounds

[civdiv]

Shiite! Well, shows what I know about modding. You could still do a bunch of the conflicts that I mentioned but yeah, that does limit them a bit.

I wonder if when they get to the end of the CMSF modules, before they move the series into WWII, if they would at least publish the data sets for say, all vehicles and weapon systems from say, 1967 to the present. Yes, it would be a semi-big job but not nearly as tough as skinning all of the various 'stuff'. I would assume you could just spreadsheet the data and have it dumped into existing skeletons when you are done. I mean a T-72 skeleton is a T-72 skeleton regardless of which of the 100 or so versions it is. And then let the modding community build the skins. Think about the versatility of the game series when you can simulate any conflict for the last 40 years!?!?

Shoot, with 50 or so weapon and vehicle data sets added after the modules you could still do about a 90% authenticity on all of the conflicts I mentioned.

[Dogface]

Originally posted by Webwing:

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

BattleFront has always allowed and encouraged modifying the visual appearance of their games. They have never allowed modding any of the data that makes up the games.

AFAIK modding in CMSF means skinning. You can change the paint on top of the models not the models themselves.

You can also change the sounds.

-- </font>

[Homo ferricus]

thats a shame, i was hoping someone would get around to making one of the newer Humvee models we see in Iraq, with the the improved 360 degree gunner walls, or maybe one of those rather funny looking anti-sniper turrets.

lord knows the ma deuce gunners need more survivability in this game.

[Guest]

Who knows. These things may be part of later expansion packs!

Unit-specific uniforms, on the other hand, will probably not be, so that's why they let us mod them.

[Battlefront.com]

Hi guys,

Yeah, opening up the data and models is not on our agenda. We're too small to survive doing that. We've had lengthy, and sometimes heated, debates with people and it's never convinced us that it is in our best interests to open up the modding to that degree. Remember, once we let the genie out of the bottle there is no putting it back in. If we let you guys into CM:SF then we have to completely rewrite the way data and models work in CM:WW2 or it will be as equally open to modification. As I said, that's a good way to not get anything else out of us because we'll be out of business.

I do hope we can add more variety to skins like allowing scenarios to, by default, look for specific MODs instead of requiring the player to overwrite before playing. This means someone can make a scenario with, say, 3ID soldiers and as long as you have that MOD the game will use it, otherwise it will use the default. I don't know when this will happen, though. Could be quite a while.

Steve

[fireship4]

I don't understand how it would put you out of business - I would have thought it would be the opposite.

Games with full modding capabilities generate nice modding communities who start their own little teams. After a while comprehensive mods come out to cater for everyones wishes (think project reality for BF2) and sales of the product increase due to people liking the mods.

I don't see how it would get in the way of the main game...

[Spindry69]

Other games fully moddabe are Armed Assult and Oblivion. If anything they are much more popular and have greater longevity because of their strong mod community. If it's not to be it's not to be but in the case of CM WW2 i'll miss all those obscure vehicle variants that the mod community could release but Battlefront understandibly doesn't have the time or resources too.

[luderbamsen]

I'm not going to argue BFC's stance on modding (the decision is final so discussing it is pointless).

However, I would like to repeat my mantra: I want quality content, lots of it and at regular intervals. And I want to toy with that content (in terms of who's going to fight who) as I see fit. I want to pit King Tigers against 1941 vintage BT-5's as I did in CMBO. Heck, I even want Syrian paratroopers backed by US Abrams tanks up against a Stryker platoon if that's what tickles my fancy.

I don't care if it's made by modders, BFC or some 3rd party contractor, as long as it is well made and plentiful. And I'm willing to pay for it.

[Lethaface]

Problem with modding and BFC is, while there is only 1 charles, there are many customers.. Probably every unit intended to be included in CMx2 WWII would already been made by modders at the time it CMx2 WWII finished. Finished also as in the motive for many to buy CMx2. So I completely understand BFC's perspective.

Not to say I wouldn't like the idea posted by civdiv. However if I look into current CM:SF and the different versions of for example T-72's and M1A1's, i'm not worried at all about not having enough choice

[76mm]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Yeah, opening up the data and models is not on our agenda. We're too small to survive doing that. We've had lengthy, and sometimes heated, debates with people and it's never convinced us that it is in our best interests to open up the modding to that degree.

While I guess I understand why BFC wouldn't want to totally up the data and models, the fact remains that--especially once you get into WWII--there is a dedicated community here that would certainly create and use all sorts of additional units, buildings, etc. beyond what BFC is willing or able to produce.

As pointed out by others, it certainly seems like this kind of support would only make the various CM2 iterations more popular and long-lived. I for one would certainly be more inclined to buy one of the basic games if I knew there would be a regular stream of new mods, rather than one or two to be released by BFC.

This is a long way of asking whether a compromise is possible between totally opening up the data and models and keeping them totally closed--something like licensing or otherwise allowing specific individuals (or more likely groups) to create and release new units, mods, whatever, either for free or on a commercial basis?

[ December 18, 2007, 05:34 AM: Message edited by: 76mm ]

[Battlefront.com]

Letherface,

roblem with modding and BFC is, while there is only 1 charles, there are many customers.. Probably every unit intended to be included in CMx2 WWII would already been made by modders at the time it CMx2 WWII finished. Finished also as in the motive for many to buy CMx2. So I completely understand BFC's perspective.

This is it in a nutshell. If the makers of Armed Assault or Quake were locked into niche markets that would be happy to play the same engine for 10 years, they'd be out of business too

The other issue is not having chaos and confusion within the community. This comes up every time people lobby for the game to be ripped open. Customers will fight over which Mod is the best, they won't play against each other if they have different Mods, etc. When a King Tiger can do anything from act realistically to levitate while firing laser bolts... the community loses its commonality and reason to stay together. People who were big fans of Close Combat can relate, I'm sure.

With the HUGE games, like Armed Assault and Quake, it isn't a problem because there are literally millions of gamers out there and therefore it is impossible for a group that huge to stay cohesive. So people section themselves off and still have enough other people to play against that they don't care what the rest does. These factions, if you want to call it that, are probably larger than our entire installed base.

Now, I've said in the past that we're open to the possibility of 3rd Party Modules. A group of you guys get together, make a whole bunch of things (models, data, maps, etc.) with our help, and the product is then released as a Module. The authors get a cut, we get a cut, the customer gets something we wouldn't have time for otherwise. This ensures it doesn't disrupt our viability as a business and it lessens the risk in the event that only 10 people want the "Panzer I - The Early Years" Module

We have no plans on how to do this at the moment, but it is something we are open to considering. We'll probably give it a test sometime after WW2 is first out the door.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

I think Steve might also be suggesting:

"A group of you guys get together (and sign Non Disclosure Agreements), make a whole bunch of things (models, data, maps, etc.) with our help, and the product is then released as a Module."

then everything should be fine .

[ December 18, 2007, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Webwing]

Even games like MS Flight Simulator does that.

There are loads of third party ADDONs to be used with the game.

You pay for A-10, ultra realistic, to be used in MSFS.

It´s not a MOD it´s an ADDON.

And it´s not officially endorsed by MS (or is it?)and I don´t think they get a share of the profits ( do they? )for the sales of the add ons. But then again we are talking about something in a completely different scale.

--

[ December 18, 2007, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: Webwing ]

[tankibanki]

Sounds pretty similar to the way it was handled in IL-2. If a modder provided a high quality 3D model and cockpit 1C would provide the flight model and integrate it in a patch.

[Webwing]

Originally posted by tankibanki:

Sounds pretty similar to the way it was handled in IL-2. If a modder provided a high quality 3D model and cockpit 1C would provide the flight model and integrate it in a patch.

True. Some pretty neat stuff as I remember.

--

[76mm]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Now, I've said in the past that we're open to the possibility of 3rd Party Modules. A group of you guys get together, make a whole bunch of things (models, data, maps, etc.) with our help, and the product is then released as a Module. The authors get a cut, we get a cut, the customer gets something we wouldn't have time for otherwise. This ensures it doesn't disrupt our viability as a business and it lessens the risk in the event that only 10 people want the "Panzer I - The Early Years" Module

We have no plans on how to do this at the moment, but it is something we are open to considering. We'll probably give it a test sometime after WW2 is first out the door.

Steve [/QB]

Yippee! This is great news, and I think a great way to proceed. I'm sure that in addition to whatever BFC cranks out for the East Front game (among others), the community will be ready to contribute some really cool content.

[ December 19, 2007, 05:46 AM: Message edited by: 76mm ]

[salwon]

What about things like moddable TOEs and the like? Where we can't necessarily have a Garand that fires ATGM rounds, but where we can customize the makeup of the units? This would be more in line with what Luderbamsen was talking about without running the risks of alienating large groups (100% accuracy from my mortars!!!)

I like the idea of a fully moddable game (much like the Take Command series - you can literally change anything you want) but it does make sense from a business standpoint why they wouldn't go this route.

[the Fighting Seabee]

Yeah, I guess I'm torn. There are so many great games that are moddable. Some of my favorites are oblivion, company of heroes, and il2. All of these games have been heavily modded and ALSO have official add-ons. I love all of these games and DEFINITELY played them much more because of user made mods. Business-wise, there is a fine line to walk. Maybe the makers of the other games I mentioned have more money and are able to risk more. You can't mod a game, or use mods for a game, that you haven't purchased (at least for us law abiding citizens). Saying that mods will break up the community is kinda like saying that if I buy a mustang, soup it up, then I won't be in the mustang community anymore because I don't have a stock mustang.

Either way, at least we get a good map editor, and there are already some great skins out there. People like Webwing are putting out some amazing missions and campaigns. I have heard several people mention that with these small, user made missions, their enthusiasm and interest in CM:SF has been rekindled. So, I guess it's a risk, if you open up your product to be freely changed, then it could undermine your business, as people will no longer need to purchase a USMC addon. Conversely, the ability to create and/or use user made mods may actually make more people buy the game. And there are plenty of us loyal battlefront fans who would buy the official releases no matter what, just to support the company and get the "real" stuff. Any way that Battlefront decides to go, I'm there with you.