Steve's recent CMx2 Bones

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bigduke6:

An alternative would of course be Vietnam, which didn't have armored vehicles...

WRONG! The US had a whole fistful of various kinds of AFVs, including armored cars, the Marines ONTOS, but most importantly M113s—including some heavily armed for the cavalry role—and M48s. The NVA had T54/55s and later on (I think) T62s as well. I think at the beginning they may have had T34/85s as well.

Armor in Viet Nam rarely lost a battle. I've heard it claimed that it was NVA armor that carried them to final victory in 1975.

What there wasn't was tank vs. tank fighting. Almost exclusively, the armor was employed in an infantry support role. There was as least one interesting incident however, when a platoon of American M48s shot up and sank a number of NVN gun-running boats on the coast at night.

Michael </font>

[junk2drive]

Adding to M.E.'s post, pre-USA IndoChina the French used basically the same kit we have now in CM.

Add to late period list, PT-76s, various Soviet AA AFVs, M551s, etc. plus aircraft and choppers.

Anybody try my CMAK Lang Vei battle?

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

The NVA had T54/55s and later on (I think) T62s as well. I think at the beginning they may have had T34/85s as well.

Add to that the PT/76, which as MD pointed out helped overrun Lang Vei.

What there wasn't was tank vs. tank fighting.

There were a few, but almost all were ARVN vs NVA. The incursion into Laos featured a few battalion-sized battles with armor. Then of course there were numerous engagaments during the NVA's Easter offensive.

I do know of one encounter between an American and NVA tank. A M48 took out a NVA tank which had been parked next to a river and the crew was washing it . Granted, not your typical CM armor duel, but hey, at least our side won.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

Granted, not your typical CM armor duel, but hey, at least our side won.

No, our side did not win Incidentally, you know what the Vietnamese call the war? The America War, go figure...

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bigduke6:

An alternative would of course be Vietnam, which didn't have armored vehicles...

WRONG! </font>

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

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

Granted, not your typical CM armor duel, but hey, at least our side won.

No, our side did not win Incidentally, you know what the Vietnamese call the war? The America War, go figure... </font>

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by GJK:

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

hmmm

Did I miss something?

Did Seanachai get banned?

Yes, some time ago. The thread that he got banned in wasn't about CMx2, so yeah, you probably missed it. </font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

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

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

hmmm

Did I miss something?

Did Seanachai get banned?

Yes, some time ago. The thread that he got banned in wasn't about CMx2, so yeah, you probably missed it. </font>

[GJK]

Originally posted by Panzer76:

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

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

hmmm

Did I miss something?

Did Seanachai get banned?

Yes, some time ago. The thread that he got banned in wasn't about CMx2, so yeah, you probably missed it. </font>

[Battlefront.com]

Thanks Tom for the summary!

Kellysheroes ,

I think what Steve seems to miss and their critical mistake, is while he boasts of a new game for us in 6-8 months, he forgets that many of us may be waiting still two years for a game module we are "interested" in.

You're making some pretty big assumption. The first is that you are representative of the bulk of the CM fanbase, and two that you'll be worse off with the new system vs. the old system. Bad assumptions to make on both counts.

If you don't like what we release then of course you're going to have to wait or move on. What do you think a bunch of people did inbetween CMBO and CMAK? They waited 3 years for their next CM fix because they didn't want to play the Eastern Front. Our new strategy would probably have reduced that wait time to months, not years. And if they are like most of our customers, they might be interested in the 2-3 completely different games we'll release in that 2 year timeframe.

The wait for the average BFC customer for CMx2 titles they are "interested" in could be no less than the wait on the CMx1 titles.

Sure, but on average it is likely to be far LESS. Very few of our total customers (which this Forum represents a small and distorted slice) are ONLY interested in WWII. While they might not all be interested in the same non-WWII stuff, that's OK too. Let me break into a new concept for some of y'all...

We currently service probably 1/100ths of a % of the entire gaming market. If we grabbed the attention of another 1/100ths of a % of the gaming market out there we'll have doubled our customer base. Personally, we think we can do even better than that.

I bought them all mainly because they were WWII titles and came with a quick battle system.

Far more probably DIDN'T buy them because they were WWII titles (or some other thing). While we certainly don't care to abandon our roots, there is SOOOOO much more out there to tap into than doing the same thing we just did.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Posted in the Cold War Rant thread (now locked) and added here because, well, it's relevant darn it!

You guys basically have it right. The Engine supports Games, each Game supports its own set of Modules. The purpose of the Module is to expand the scope of the Game.

As stated, the starting scope of each Game will be much more focused than with CMx1 releases. Therefore we would never release a "World War Two" game. We would, instead, release a Western Front Game + Modules and an Eastern Front + Modules. While they are both WWII, and share a little in common, basically they are two entirely different games. That was true for CMx1 and it is certainly true for CMx2.

New part of the post...

Some guys had asked about being able to do very specific, detailed, and non-conforming battles in Modules. Yes, in theory we could release a Module for something that required unique stuff. Easiest example:

Let's say that the Game is Normandy *after* the initial and follow up landings. We could release a Module to do the beach landings at D-Day, complete with Funnies, "special forces", landing craft, naval bombardments, and of course terrain. In order to do such a Module we would need to do the following things specific to this Module (i.e. not included with the Game):

1. TO&E

2. OBs

3. Vehicle models/textures

4. Code support for any special feature (like flail tanks)

5. Terrain modeling (which probably includes models)

6. Lots and lots of textures for all sorts of things

This is no small undertaking, even if it was limited to just US or just Commonwealth. However, there are a lot of scenario options waiting to be had! And there would have to be otherwise it doesn't make sense to put the time and energy into the Module in the first place.

However, since each Module adds to the "pool" of stuff we have to draw from, the more Modules we do the easier it is to support "broader" topics. For example, let us say we release a post landing Normandy campaign without Commonwealth forces. Then we release a Module with the Commonwealth stuff. Now a Normandy landing Module for BOTH US and Commonwealth might be feasible, whereas if we did the landing Module 2nd it would not be.

Again, the scope of a Module (and the Game too, for that matter) will be a balance of effort and playability. With CMx1 we did huge effort for enormous playability... which means things were not in balance. Now we are shooting to do big effort for big playability for the Game and medium effort for medium (or better) playability for Modules. As our effort load goes down we're more willing to give more playability because, basically, it doesn't "cost" us anything to do that. Or to put some numbers on it...

Let us say the Normandy landing Module looks like it will take us 5 months of solid work just from the US side. But since most of the work is for things which are common to Commonwealth, and/or present in the previous Module, then perhaps adding support for Commonwealth landings might only add another 2 months to our schedule. 5 months isn't a huge load of time so adding another 2 months might not be such a big deal to our Big Picture plans. But if the original load were 12 months and the extra work 6... totally different story because now we're talking about a large chunk of time.

Hopefully you guys can follow this logic

Steve

[Bigduke6]

Oh Michael, for Heaven's sake, don't be that way. I was generalizing. You want me nit-picking every little thing you write?

Of course there were armored vehicles in NAM, and a few of them even got into combat. The first time TOW did its thing from a helicopter in combat, for instance, was when some Air Cav Hueys did in a pair of PT-76s, in 1972 I think. Same campaign, Air Cav infantry found out LAWs by the bundle WILL take out a T-54/55; penetration ratings be damned. Beat that trivia.

I am even pretty sure there was a tank-to-tank fight or two in the war, although I'll leave it to one of the real NAM grogs to sort you on that one.

The Vietnamese (the Communist kind) even had a medal: "Heroic Destroyer of the M-113." Andrew could go to town putting those in on uniforms.

My point was that presence or absence of armor a cool NAM game will not make. But 3D choppers disgorging troopies and doing gun runs and MEDEVACS getting smashed by hidden PPSh MGs to clog LZ XRAY - with gobs of smoke and explosions - that would be tres cool, and I am maintaining tres cool computer depiction of the coolest war machines in a high-fidelity tactical environment, is what sells BFI games. Maybe I'm wrong but that's my opinon.

For instance, if CM gave us a way to do river gunboats - that game would go like hotcakes. ONTOS is cool in and of itself but it just doesn't thave the Tiger I rep. No NAM mech equipment does. Of course armored vehicles should be in there, but it's the rotor-wing stuff that will make or break a game like that.

But if it makes you feel better I stand corrected, my text should have read along the lines of "An alternative would of course be Vietnam, which in mainstream combat didn't have armored vehicles per se..."

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bigduke6:

An alternative would of course be Vietnam, which didn't have armored vehicles...

WRONG! The US had a whole fistful of various kinds of AFVs, including armored cars, the Marines ONTOS, but most importantly M113s—including some heavily armed for the cavalry role—and M48s. The NVA had T54/55s and later on (I think) T62s as well. I think at the beginning they may have had T34/85s as well.

Armor in Viet Nam rarely lost a battle. I've heard it claimed that it was NVA armor that carried them to final victory in 1975.

What there wasn't was tank vs. tank fighting. Almost exclusively, the armor was employed in an infantry support role. There was as least one interesting incident however, when a platoon of American M48s shot up and sank a number of NVN gun-running boats on the coast at night.

Michael </font>

[Bigduke6]

Heh. El silencio is deafening. My brilliant speculation clearly is dead on. I hereby patent my "Kool War Vehicle" theory, any one using it from here on in will have to pay me or my heirs an outrageous royalty.

Steve, your logic is crystal clear to me anyway. Keep talking.

BTW I really appreciate your taking the time to participate in this discussion. No other computer game company on the planet, really.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

My point was that presence or absence of armor a cool NAM game will not make. But 3D choppers disgorging troopies and doing gun runs and MEDEVACS getting smashed by hidden PPSh MGs to clog LZ XRAY - with gobs of smoke and explosions - that would be tres cool, and I am maintaining tres cool computer depiction of the coolest war machines in a high-fidelity tactical environment, is what sells BFI games. Maybe I'm wrong but that's my opinon.

For instance, if CM gave us a way to do river gunboats - that game would go like hotcakes. ONTOS is cool in and of itself but it just doesn't thave the Tiger I rep. No NAM mech equipment does. Of course armored vehicles should be in there, but it's the rotor-wing stuff that will make or break a game like that.

You would actually buy a game based on what equipment is in it rather than based on what the gameplay is like?

Honestly, in a CM level sim, what possible use would you have for helicopters? They fly in, land the troops, fly out again....

Maybe you're looking for a flight sim?

[Mace]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Hopefully you guys can follow this logic

No worries there.

So my take on this is that the main executable contains script to model the factors common to all warfare, eg ballistics, environmental factors, and so on. This forms the spine of CMx2.

The 'module' will contain the information applicable to a battle (eg TOE, equipment details, terrain set, graphic skins, etc), or a series of related battles (eg battles of the 1 British AD, Desert Storm), which the main executable will draw on.

One question I have is whether tools will be made available for the player to develop a module (which could just be one battle, or a series of battles), because I have a feeling a little bit more work may be required to generate these than currently is required?

Regardless, from what I've read so far and what appears to be a more flexible system, I'm very much looking forward to CMx2.

[A.E.B]

My understanding.

There is a core engine that is not a stand alone game - lets call it the Real Physics Combat System (RPCS).

The idea is to code games based on the RPCS engine, but with extra coding to customise it to a specific theatre/battle/operation.

This game based on the RPCS engine is then in turn expanded by the addition of modules that add onto the original game.

So the RPCS engine could handle any combat using gunpowder weapons and beyond (for example - just guessing).

The games could cover any territory allowed by the RPCS engine: WWI, WWII, Korea, Nam, Arab v Isreali, Cold War goes hot, whatever.

This game + module system is probably one of the oldest and most successful models in the gaming industry - both commerically and for a player base - with the exception of subscription online gaming.

It provides a continuous stream of fresh material for the gamer and a stream of cash to pay for the game designers drug additions.

To take the example Steve mentioned, CMX may be limited to Americans vs Germans in Normandy.

The advantages of this are the ability to provide a far more realistic game: correct OOBs, better graphics for vehicles and infantry, terrain specifically of the type found in Normandy (ie hedgerows), correct architecture, etc.

This escapes the generic terrain and buildings of the previous CM games, and provides scope to create much better maps.

But every silver cloud has a black lining.

BFC has to get the balance right. For the module system to work people must keep playing the game.

Get it right and your sales of the original game plus the modules can continue for years, as new gamers will tend to buy the game plus some modules.

Get it wrong and the market dies before you can get those modules onto the market.

If the first CMX WWII game was justed limited to a couple of months of American vs German in Normandy, the question arises as to how long gamers will keep playing a limited set of battles. Or will it devolve into "same tanks, same terrain" boredom?

The beauty of CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK was the ability to play a huge range of battles and operations with a large range of equipment. This kept many people playing for years, and fueled an active modder community.

But BFC must have been cursing everytime the Bolli ran out that we gamers were getting such a longterm gaming experience without extra cash following into the BFC Swiss bank accounts.

BFC can safely assume that those of us who liked CM will buy CMX whenever it arrives. And as I am sure BFC knows - those of us here on this forum make up only a few % of the total sales of CM in the past.

The trick for BFC is to get people to buy the modules after they buy the first game. I have faith in their ability to get it right, but then the computer gaming industry has this knack of turning gold to lead.

So CMX will live and die on boths its game play and its replayability - this is what will keep gamers coming back - and this is what will allow the BFC crew to keep living their accustomed lifestyle of the 17th Century European Monarch.

A.E.B

[Panzer76]

Steve,

When you guys relase a GAME, will you also announce how many, and which modules that will follow?

Will there ever be a chance to play on the scope of CMBB with your new system? With this I mean, you make the East Front GAME and X amounts of MODULES, that in sum will be as comprehensive as CMBB.

[c3k]

Steve,

How long until the "German Rare Vehicles" module will be released? I'd like to be able to surprise my opponent with vehicles he's never seen...

Ken

[Kellysheroes]

[Very few of our total customers (which this Forum represents a small and distorted slice)]

Wow, to think, I'm just a small and distorted slice. ;(

[We currently service probably 1/100ths of a % of the entire gaming market. If we grabbed the attention of another 1/100ths of a % of the gaming market out there we'll have doubled our customer base.]

Creative Assembly did this with Rome Total War and alienated most of their previous customer base who many have now moved to Slitherine's upcoming "Legion II".

Since I am such a "small and distorted" figure, I guess it doesn't matter much to the capitalists. Losing 50 and gaining 100 doesn't matter to them much, losing 50 that helped keep them in business in the first place, buying their initial products, becoming loyal and buying the others when released is just plain ole insignificant when it comes to the bottom line isn't it Steve?

[Ron]

Originally posted by Kellysheroes:

Creative Assembly did this with Rome Total War and alienated most of their previous customer base who many have now moved to Slitherine's upcoming "Legion II".

Since I am such a "small and distorted" figure, I guess it doesn't matter much to the capitalists. Losing 50 and gaining 100 doesn't matter to them much, losing 50 that helped keep them in business in the first place, buying their initial products, becoming loyal and buying the others when released is just plain ole insignificant when it comes to the bottom line isn't it Steve?

Or in this case losing '1' since your 'lonely cry in the woods' hasn't been reflected by the continued and continuing support of the 'loyal and dedicated' fan base as shown in this and the other thread. However don't let that stop you, 'someone' has to be on the 'other side'.

Ron

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Thanks Tom for the summary!

Kellysheroes ,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I think what Steve seems to miss and their critical mistake, is while he boasts of a new game for us in 6-8 months, he forgets that many of us may be waiting still two years for a game module we are "interested" in.

You're making some pretty big assumption. The first is that you are representative of the bulk of the CM fanbase, and two that you'll be worse off with the new system vs. the old system. Bad assumptions to make on both counts.

If you don't like what we release then of course you're going to have to wait or move on. What do you think a bunch of people did inbetween CMBO and CMAK? They waited 3 years for their next CM fix because they didn't want to play the Eastern Front. Our new strategy would probably have reduced that wait time to months, not years. And if they are like most of our customers, they might be interested in the 2-3 completely different games we'll release in that 2 year timeframe.

The wait for the average BFC customer for CMx2 titles they are "interested" in could be no less than the wait on the CMx1 titles.

Steve </font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

...if it makes you feel better I stand corrected, my text should have read along the lines of "An alternative would of course be Vietnam, which in mainstream combat didn't have armored vehicles per se..."

Much better.

You see, one never knows who reads these threads or what they bring to them in terms of understanding, but you can bet your bottom dollar that if there is some way to take it wrong, some moron will. What's more, he'll go share this "information" with his friends who aren't any better informed than he is. Pretty soon, there is a flood of ignoramuses showing up who will defend to the death the notion that there wasn't any armor in Viet Nam, or if there was it was unimportant. Whereas in fact it decided many fights, some of them important indeed. And don't say I exaggerate, cos I've seen that kind of thing happen more times than I could count.

Soooo...I may not be a nitpicker nor a nitpicker's son, but I'll pick nits 'til the nitpicker comes.

Michael

[aka_tom_w]

I think that is a GREAT marketing strategy but it almost seems TOO obvious and too cra$$ly and blatently commercial for the good folks at BFC. (But you never know )

That said I think it would be a VERY profitable marketing strategy...

so I guess we'll see

-tom w

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

Thanks to aka_tom_w for summing up the posts.

I will now offer my "cool armored vehicles theory" as a predictive model for how BFI will produce games in the future.

The first CMX2 game will be WWII, and it will contain Germans from at least 1942. Why? Simple grasshopper, that's when Tiger I came out, and Tiger I is the coolest single armored vehicle ever produced, and that equals public interest and sales. Most likely after mid-1943, as that's when the second coolest armored vehicle, Panther, came out.

Most likely it will be roughly Normandy in time frame, and more likely than not the oppposition will be Americans, in part because of the size of the American buying market, but also because if you leave out Commonweatlh, then the Allied players fighting against those Tigers in the first installment of the CMX2 engine will be willing to sell the house and grandma with it to get the Commonwealth module, which will include Fireflies, so they can kill those Tigers and Panthers.

If there is one thing CM1 and this forum has taught us, it is that armored combat vehicle envy is a real psychological illness, and thousands of potential BFI customers suffer from it.

The WW2 East Front can be broken up neatly into sections based on Soviet armored vehicle development. Pre and post T-34/85. Again for Stalin. The point is that if you don't give the public all their toys at once, then they will be ready and willing to plunk down some more green on the barrel to get the next window in time with the next generation of vehicles.

Even better, you could probably build an entire module/game based on the single concept "This is the one where you get Tiger II".

This doesn't really help BFI much in terms of creativity, of course, WW2 tanks is very well-traveled ground from a research point of view. Thus I would guess the non-WWII focus Steve keeps hinting at would look somewhere else for "cool" FVs where each game leaves the player starving for what came next.

I therefore kinda lean towards the Middle East. That has lots of tanks which in and of themselves are not super-cool in the wargamer mind, I mean T-62 or Centurian just don't have the panache of Tiger I, but OHH there are helicopters and anti-tank missiles and a whole different kind of terrain. That would be pretty cool for BFI developers I should think, and that framework has almost unlimited development potential: Lebanon campaign, Iran-Iraq, India-Pakistan, you-pick-it-Africa, and right up through Desert Storm. And each time technology bumps change the fighting relationships - Sagger, then TOW, then AT helicopters, then Redeye and SA-7, the list is endless.

An alternative would of course be Vietnam, which didn't have armored vehicles but had choppers out the yin yang. After Tiger I perhaps the "coolest" piece of military equipment out there is Huey as applied by 1st Cav and Coppola. Also getting voices for that would be easier all told than for Middle East. Would I, one of the worst Soviet grogs I know, buy something like that? Look at my handle...

Napoleonics might be another direction, if the engine is as flexible as Steve says it will be maybe it will be possible to take all those individuals and "represent" a battle with 100,000 on a side. I don't think we'd see 100,000 sprites, but who's to say in the CMX2 of some angle of WW2 each sprite is an individual soldier, but in the Napoleonics version it's a representation of 10 or even 100 soldiers? And if the graphics engine is everything it is cracked up to be, then on viewing level one can you imagine the Cool Factor for looking at close-ups of the 95th Rifles, Blucher's Deathshead Hussars, or that absolute Tiger I Cool Factor 10+ of the Napoleonic era: The Imperial Guard Grenadiers complete with moustaches and gold earrings?

Me, I would jump at a Napoleonic CMX2 way before even WW2 West front, as I am one of those people who is not having fun without T-34.

But I think when they get right down to it, BFI is going to go with the rational choice, the real crowd-pleaser, the one that gets the people into the movie theater: Tiger I.

BFI admin guys, obviously no need to respond to this. This is just by way to get some forum speculation going, and maybe to give you designer guys a giggle or two.

[ June 05, 2005, 08:50 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Scipio]

Let me sum up what we know for sure about CM2x:

a) It will be a wargame

It will be turn based, not RTS

c) It will use 3D graphics

d) It will use the 'we go' system

e) We have to pay money for it

Sounds all fine to me, I can't wait for the demo.

For the long term game fun, I would prefer a random (quick) battle generator as we have it in CM1x. How often can you play the same (2,3) dozen of scenarios until they get boring? That's also a marketing strategy/question to keep a game alive.

The only negative thing I see is this: since I prefer to play PBEM, I guess it will be a pain in the arse to list up if my opponent uses all the games/modules we need (including all updates) to start a match.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Scipio:

Steve said somewhere above '6 people were working fulltime and another 12 part time on a title like CMBB for about two years' - please don't nail me down on the numbers . Just a question I have to ask here. Who said that the full team have to work on only a single title/module? Of course I do not know anything of the BFC personal resources and politics, but I guess it could be possible to work parallel on (different) main titles and/or modules. What is a module? Basically maps, scenarios, new units. For example, you won't need Charles for that (I think). I think BFC will be able to produce a lot of stuff with very different settings.

Another point is of course, they can just 'test' the market. You people should also see the high financial risk - even BFC MUST get money out of the games, just to keep alive and independent.

Just imagine they develope a game that can not be selled? It's one thing to waste two or three years to cover the whole WW1, and another thing to waste 6 month on the Verdun Battle. (Just as an example, I do like WW1 very much).

Well, I hope they will be getting even more input from "the community" when it comes to the smaller modules. Perhaps the way scenario designers are doing battles and ops now, they can be bringing their talents to modules? Like if Kingfish reads up on TOTALIZE and then provides the OOB, maps, etc. for a TOTALIZE module - which would include historical OOB, what ifs, historical maps, perhaps a CD-ROM section with historical photos and after action reports, etc.?

I'd love to work on something like that for SCHELDT FORTRESS NORTH basically 2nd Canadian Infantry Div vs. KG Chill and a couple German Inf Divs. Get one or two designers doing the maps from original wartime maps (I've been researching the South Beveland area and our regimental museum has maps for the entire are 2 Cdn Div fought over from 1 October 1944 to 1 November 1944), work out historical OOB, air and naval assets, etc. Release it as a "module" - interested designers could do a lot with a simple map and force editor - though again, you'd have to guage what the market will bear.

You're suggesting, Steve, the core game would enable module developers to do this kind of thing, yes? Just plug in actual terrain maps, variables for campaign type data (reinforcements, support, weather), and of course unit specific data (including 3D models and etc. which would be hard coded) and away you go?