How long before ROE makes M1A2 suck dead donkeys in victory conditions

[Battlefront.com]

We'll not be ditching QBs for sure. But it might be that they boil down to slightly expanded simplistic CMx1 style victory conditions vs. the highly dynamic possibilities of scenarios. From the early days of CMBO it has been made clear, by pretty much everybody, that much more needed to be done with victory conditions. Not just for realism but for the sense of purpose. One guy, a big fan of CMBO, described it as "soulless". I wouldn't go so far as to agree with that, but we've felt the same lack of [something] ourselves. Perhaps the lead, primary, and most important overall game design goal within CMx2 is to address this issue head on. And so we are!

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

We'll not be ditching QBs for sure. But it might be that they boil down to slightly expanded simplistic CMx1 style victory conditions vs. the highly dynamic possibilities of scenarios.

That would be fine with me as long as you can somehow make it a "fair fight" with CMx1 victory condition. Maybe giving Syrians more victory points for losses inflicted? Without playing the game it's hard to know how big the qualitative disparity will be.

Oh, and as someone who plays QBs almost exclusively I will personally shoot the next person who suggests dumping them.

[juan_gigante]

QBs may be unrealistic, but for a quick throw down, they're great. In the right situation, a good QB can be about as much fun as it's possible to have with your pants on.

[Battlefront.com]

a good QB can be about as much fun as it's possible to have with your pants on.

You must have dated rather uncreatively if you think that

As far as QBs go, it is my favorite way to play CMx1 games as well. That should reassure you guys.

Steve

[juan_gigante]

Hey, you want real fun, try a QB with your pants off. Hot seat? Aww yeah.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

These will be set, on an individual scenario basis (and global paremters for Campaign) to reflect various real world situations. For example, it is planned that you can assign a "don't damage this building more than x%" to something like a Mosque or map wide. Go in and blow up everything... you lose even if all the bad guys are dead. Move through to your Objectives and miss the fact that a bunch of bad guys were holed up in a building you decided to bypass instead of checking out, you lose again. So on and so forth.

Will the players force selection in the campaign be hard coded or can he choose between infantry heavy vs armour heavy options ?

The single player campaign is the NORMAL situation for games out there.

Yes. But in most tactical/strategic games you can choose your side. I just think that going along with a single force campaign sets you back 15-20 years in the tac/strat scene even when most FPS games (which are admittedly more popular) around these days have hard coded single force single player campaigns.

Very, very few are two player. It is expected that few people are interested in playing multi-player campaigns, due to the time requirements. So why cater to something few people would ever play? Better to optimize the game experience and have a much more enjoyable and challenging campaign. That's why most campaigns are like this.

Will you be disabling in-game quick saving during the scenarios to prevent gamey abuse by the player ? They are after all what make games like CoD and MOHAA playable.

That means two people playing the campaign will likely experience a different series of individual battles based on performance. This differes from a dynamic campaign where the battles themselves are created on-the-fly based on performance. The latter is extremely hard to do and have it be much fun. I hated the Steel Panthers campaign and Panzer General bored me to tears. CC2 was pretty good, but it also had serious problems with generating on-the-fly battles (I got in a rut once and was bounced back and forth between two stupid battles something like a half dozen times).

Been there, done that.

Will you include changes in the political scenery based on the player performance ?

Will we include a campaign from the RED perspective? It is not currently planned, but I wouldn't rule it out. We'll just have to see how things develop.

OK. Having one from the get-go would make for a much better gaming experience IMO.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Ask me again in a couple of months.

How far into the next year do you project release will drag on ?