Steve's recent CMx2 Bones

[Michael Emrys]

My sense of what Steve has posted is that because some of the Modules will have to be hard coded, they will only be produced in-house or by licensed developers, not players. But once a Game and subsequent Modules are out, there should still be plenty of work for scenario designers and modders, just as there is now.

Or I could be completely wrong.

Michael

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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?

That's another point for "the new style". There's so much input from the community. I have seen a lot of good ideas during all the years.

I guess much more of it could be realized when the game is in some kind of ongoing development.

I hope at some point we need to redefine the word 'mod' as we use now in CM1x...

[aka_tom_w]

Hey that sounds good.

BUT in your (Michael Dorosh's post in bold below).... understanding of this idea how will BFC sell or market these new player designed modules???

I have read your post and it looks like a GREAT idea but some how BFC has to make a profit selling the module in the first place.

This post by Micheal Emrys also makes sense to me:

"Michael Emrys

Member

Member # 361

posted June 05, 2005 12:14 PM

My sense of what Steve has posted is that because some of the Modules will have to be hard coded, they will only be produced in-house or by licensed developers, not players. But once a Game and subsequent Modules are out, there should still be plenty of work for scenario designers and modders, just as there is now."

-tom w

Dorosh:

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?

[Abbott]

Personally I have faith in BFC’s quality of production. I like their products and their style. I enjoyed CMBO and CMBB, while I am not much of a North Africa fan I purchased CMAK because BFC produced it and I knew it would be worth the purchase price. I look forward to CMX 2 and plan to purchase future titles based on fun and playability rather then period or “slice” of period covered. I am convinced BFC will produce something I can find entertaining in any time frame covered and worth the price I paid for it.

[Battlefront.com]

Mace, the core engine isn't all things to all types of warfare in any real sense. The core engine doesn't know any more than what is going to be used for the first installment. The difference between the new core and the old core is that the new core was built in such a way that it can be "easily" modified to simulate other forms of warfare. This still involves coding and all the support stuff (graphics, sounds, etc), so the games and modules built on top of it don't come for free. They just come with a far smaller pricetag (time and money) than doing a ground up game.

Kellysheros, you have to remember that we have a pretty sizeable fan base. Only a small percentage of them come to the Forum on any regular basis. The ones that do tend to be the most hardcore. All are responsible for our success, not just the ones that post.

When we do strategic thinking we need to keep in mind that the Forum is a sounding board for a minority of our customers. Important as they might be, if we alienate the REST we die for sure since the core isn't big enough to keep us going. If we alienate the core... we'd probably survive, though not without taking lumps. Obviously we want to find a balance, but if we are going to err it will be on the side of the majority of our customers not the minority. Thankfully we're very good at balancing stuff

I'm also quite pleased by the response from the core guys so far. The bulk have instantly recognized the benefits of the new system, even if it means a fundamental change to the scope of the game (it is unavoidable). We're sure the new strategy will work out best for everybody, therefore we aren't concerned about a few negative comments. If we have a strategy that pleases the bulk of our core audience AND the majority audience... losing a couple of people here and there won't matter at all.

No, modules can not be made completely out of house. At least we don't anticipate that being possible. Code changes are likely, even if minor. But yes, we are anticipating that a good number of the Modules that come out will not be made by Battlefront employees (for the most part anyway). Of course we'll still be there to approve the design and assure quality, but once the game itself is done the modules don't require the same sort of attention. Kinda like how most of the scenarios that shipped with CMx1 games were made by volunteers. Not exactly the same thing with Modules, but it does demonstrate that outside parties, with fairly light direction from us, can produce some whopping great stuff!

We will likley not outline what all future Modules will be. We want to keep that flexible (i.e. take user input AFTER they play the game). The great thing is that nobody, including us, needs to have this sort of thing nailed down ahead of time.

No, I do not anticpate us ever fleshing out a Game to the extent of CMBB. That was just too massive. Hell, what do I know though... we MIGHT, it's just that I shudder to think about it (again)

As for when the "Rare German Vehicle" Module will come out... defeine "rare" We've got so many rare, redundant, and even useless German stuff in the three CMx1 games already. If you mean the dozen or so we didn't put in (including those never produced), well... who knows

Steve

[c3k]

Steve,

Hey, I don't care WHAT those whingers say, I like the deeper, more frequent, game module idea. (Of course, as a forum member I have to add my two cents and hope that ALL modules can be linked together. Forever.)

Glad to see that you seem to be keeping a good sense of humor about the responses. Thanks for keeping the dialogue going.

Regards,

Ken

[Wartgamer]

Will there be demos for each module or just for each 'game'?

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

No, I do not anticpate us ever fleshing out a Game to the extent of CMBB. That was just too massive. Hell, what do I know though... we MIGHT, it's just that I shudder to think about it (again)

Well, isn't the breadth of a CM:BB potentially there anyway simply because of the concept of multiple modules? Just like us NWE fans play CM:AK now and call it NWE in our scenarios and heads even though technically we're locked in the Med?

If y'all spent the next 3 months somehow adding a "Module" to CM:AK that consisted of a handful of early war French and German units then we'd start making scenarios about the Blitzkrieg years, no problem. Likewise, the potential game of "CMx2:Christmas in Moscow 1941?" might initially disappoint Winter War fans, but only really until someone was able to "make" a "Toothpicks, Sisu, and You!" module. And that module would only need new units - terrain seems like it's going to be much less theater-specific because granularity is finer.

Now I have no ide what the business and/or reality model would be for even a "simple" module as I described. But I still see the breadth as potentially there. Maybe I'm missing something.

-dale

[Battlefront.com]

c3k, Modules for a related game will all be happy with each other, but we're still unsure if advances to the game engine can be backwards compatible with previous game releases. The hope is that they can be, but it might be too difficult to do.

Wartgamer, no...demos will be for the Game and not the Module. Once you've played the demo (or bought the Game), imagining what the Module will yield is really not very difficult to do.

Dalem, in theory we can make a CMBB again but have it not kill us. The thing is that we will still have to be involved and we won't want to bother getting a Module made that we don't think is marketable. It's going to be an interesting thing to see how this develops, but at this time I don't want to oversell the Module concept. Especially since some people already thought the whole of WWII would be possible using Modules

Steve

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Dalem, in theory we can make a CMBB again but have it not kill us. The thing is that we will still have to be involved and we won't want to bother getting a Module made that we don't think is marketable. It's going to be an interesting thing to see how this develops, but at this time I don't want to oversell the Module concept. Especially since some people already thought the whole of WWII would be possible using Modules

Steve

Gotcha.

-dale

[throwdjohn]

I'm sure CMx2 will be great....and we had a choice about buying BB and AK? ****, I thought it was mandatory. I think the basic premise of this post, and the mindset of all the developers to SHUT THE HELL UP if you don't like the ideas. Like they are going to change their minds because three people bitch and moan? this is their jobs people, theyre not in the business of losing money (although as i'll tell you, that's a growth industry right there). So to sum it up, if you don't like CMx2, don't buy it, and we'll all see you in hell. I hope this doesn't get edited or summthing.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Well well. What a nice attitude we have here towards those not lining the roads waving the appropriate flags.

I don't mind it from Steve. In fact I damn near welcome it, because with three amazing games under his belt he earned it. As long as he doesn't charge me $0.01 for every hour I enjoyed with CM he can call every name under the sun, because I do not have $1.000 right now. And if he says CMx2 will be the best thing since sliced bread, then, even if it hasn't got all the features I care for, I will trust him on that. I voiced my concerns, I trust Steve and the rest of BFC have considered it and I trust their judgment even if I might not always like it.

*edited because trading insults isn't the thing to do*

[ June 05, 2005, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: Elmar Bijlsma ]

[aka_tom_w]

WOW

Lets stay focused on the bones and Steve's VERY informative questions and prompt answers and direct replies.

So far we have had plenty of straight honest and complete answers to our questions in this thread!

Lets focus on the positive shall we?

(please)

-tom w

[V]

I am excited for all the new CM game swhich will be coming out in the future. It's good to be alive!

But I cannot wait for US Civil War games, or Medieval games.

I can't stress enough how exciting it is to me to hear of this possibility.

[A.E.B]

Guys

It isn't as though BFC will be visiting each and every one of us and holding a gun to our heads while we type in our orders for CMX (unless you live near Matt, Steve or KwazyDog, in which case expect a visit).

Wait for the demo and word of mouth - if CMX is bad you'll soon know.

It's BFC's dime and its BFC's future, so it is in their interest to get it right.

A.E.B

[Wartgamer]

I would much rather see a eastern front game that allows 2 vehicle tank sections, 3-5 tank 'platoons' and even 10 tank companys. Infantry units would mostly be company sized with some platoons. Focus on artillery realism an combined arms and command/control.

[Ardem]

I can see the scenario developers subtext of CMx2 now.

Montys Revenge

Monty successfully takes Arnhem bridge heads straight for the head of Germany, unfortunately so are the ruskies.

You will need CMx2:Normandy Invasion with modules CMx2:Battle of Bulge, CMx2:German Rare and Finest, CMx2:Commonwealth 1944-45, CMx2:Soviets on the Rampage and finally CMx2:The Reich Experiment Lobsters Reborned to play this scenario.

If you don't have all modules I am sorry please choose another scenario or buy the missing modules. Its a good laugh and well worth downloading.

[A.E.B]

My guess is that - like CMBO, CMBB and CMAK - vehicles and other equipment will be hardcoded by BFC or whoever BFC extrusts.

This makes sense for two reasons:

1. If there is to be a multiplayer element, it is necessary to have everyone using the same data sets, rather than one player having a BFC T34A and other the JasonC T34A with remodeled curved armour.

2. It is the research into the individual pieces of equipment and their performance on the battlefield that is the key piece of intellectual property BFC possesses: no one can make a CM clone without researching that same data.

That said I hope that the system is flexible enough to take a Tank from the US Normandy module and use in in other modules.

Time will tell.

A.E.B

[Wisbech_lad]

Cool.

I look foward to the "Indo-Pakistan" war module (a supplement to the various Arab-Israeli modules)

Pattons vs Centurians, Shermans vs Shermans and some AMX13's mixed in.

[Runyan99]

BFC

If you could do it all over again..

How would you have liked to do CMBB under the Game and Modules model?

What might be the original East Front game be, and what might the modules have added on to it?

[Andreas]

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.

I think that is a very good point. With a modular approach BFC will be able to increase the utilisation rate of their staff on internal projects, and will be able to use beta-tester resrources where these beta testers know most (e.g. were I given the opportunity, I would feel far more comfortable working on a British Normandy module than on a US Tunisia module), again allowing work in parallel.

It all makes sense to me.

[76mm]

Wow! tom_w, thanks for the thread.

The game/module idea sounds like it will work great to me, unless the game and subsequent modules are just too narrow...For instance:

--I think I understand that a game might focus on a theater such as Normandy (fine) rather than a battle such as St. Lo (too narrow)?

--In a Normandy game, would we have access to Winter weather / ground conditions, or would that have to wait for the "Bulge" module? I would hate to wait several months/years before being able to gin up some DYI winter scenarios...

--I haven't seen any discussion of my favorite topic--data import/export capability (to allow for better player-designed campaign tools) or being able to modify TOE, etc. via XML or text files--any news on this?

76mm

[Dook]

I am reluctant to open this can of worms, but the preceding discussion highlights some of the reasons why including a PBEM and random battle generation capability in CMx2 might be problematic.

I assume (with all the usual caveats that accompany assumptions) that players in an e-mail game would both need to have the same modules in order to play each other. Similarly, a random battle generator would have to be able to include the new information from each module into the pool of information it uses to generate battles. I have absolutely no idea whether these tasks are easy or difficult to program, but they sound like they will add complexity at the very least.

One other issue that nobody has mentioned is the effect of this new business strategy on the CM community. It may fragment the community somewhat, as different people will play different games or modules. Imagine forums for every new game or even every module?

[Scipio]

Originally posted by 76mm:

--I haven't seen any discussion of my favorite topic--data import/export capability (to allow for better player-designed campaign tools) or being able to modify TOE, etc. via XML or text files--any news on this?

76mm

A good point. If, for example, a map-file would use some simple text based coding, a Non-BFC programmer should be able to write a random map generator. Same for OOB etc.

I have never understood why the scenario files are encrypted.

[Battlefront.com]

76mm,

Personally, I'm not too worried about the scope issue. We are aware of it and therefore won't drop the ball. Obviously anybody that is expecting CMBB all over again will be disapointed, but we will constantly restate that we are NOT going to do a game like that so any expectations for one are misplaced.

You're right about the scope thing. Something between Normandy and St. Lo, leaning more towards Normandy.

No winter graphics/effects if we did a Normandy setting. The whole point of doing a theater is to STICK to what is relevant to that theater. Adding winter terrain is just as out of scope as adding Space Lobsters

There will be more flexibility to edit the OOBs and, to a limited extent (I think) TO&E. However, TO&E will be inherently more flexible than CMx1 to begin with so the need to tweak it will be far less.

Import/Export is still something we're looking at.

Steve