"We're tired of WWII..."

[Affentitten]

Originally posted by dalem:

4) OIF, whatever you opinions of it, compares rather favorably to Operation Drive Into Russia And Enslave All The Peasantry And Burn The Jews In Ovens, or even Operation Drive Into Germany And Berlin And Leave a Path Of Rapine And Destruction And Occupy The Baltics For Fifty Years. And yet we all don't seem to mind playing that game too much.

Gotta agree with that. The same people who are moaning about theis being a US versus Arab turkey shoot have no problem playing SS troops in the old CM.

[Mord]

Originally posted by Affentitten:

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

4) OIF, whatever you opinions of it, compares rather favorably to Operation Drive Into Russia And Enslave All The Peasantry And Burn The Jews In Ovens, or even Operation Drive Into Germany And Berlin And Leave a Path Of Rapine And Destruction And Occupy The Baltics For Fifty Years. And yet we all don't seem to mind playing that game too much.

Gotta agree with that. The same people who are moaning about theis being a US versus Arab turkey shoot have no problem playing SS troops in the old CM. </font>

[Affentitten]

Well you can't read every post on every thread. Maybe some one needs to do a summary thread:

1) Poeple don't like it because a) c)

2) People do like it because a) c)

3) Paradoxes of being for or against America

4) Latest BF invective against customers.

[Jamie]

Originally posted by Pheasant Plucker:

Because after licencing CMAK to the Aussie DOD they can see the potential of making a game which is a thinly veiled attempt at an Iraq simulator and rely on the redneck dollar to keep them going while they hawk it around.

That help?

What's wrong with that? That's how we've survived for the last, ummm... 8 years of making games!

It's most likely not Steve and Charles primary motivation, but if that is a feasible business alternative for them then that makes total sense. It insulates them from any potential commercial risk (any game can be a financial failure, even a CM game... well, not likely in their case ) and by creating a "non-commerical" version they can even fund some of their additional modules that could be released (to some degree).

I'm personally ECSTATIC about the modern setting (but, I'm obviously biased ) and I know that BFC is going to do an outstanding job with that era of warfare.

[WW2Wargamer]

I cant wait for the new game!

[Battlefront.com]

Wow, did Pheasant Plucker flame out or what? I haven't seen an episode of self induced public idiocy in a while. Yeah, I am using that term and using it very seriously. Bottom line is PP didn't like our choice of subject matter. Instead of just saying "wow... that's not what I want, but best of luck to you. Thanks for the other three great games" we got a laundry list of paranoid (and I use that term seriously) ramblings that, at best, are naked hypocritical criticisms (and yes, that is used seriously too).

We've explained, in rational and very straight forward terms, why we chose to do CM:SF and not CM:WW2 or CM:OIF. And of course he ignored all the real reasons an invented (yup, another literal use of the language) a host of reasons to express his anger (another correctly used word) at exercising our creative minds on something different. I suspect if we had done the Western Front WWII game first PP wouldn't have said 1/10th the BS he poured out in this Forum (or 0/10th), though if it had been Space Lobsters I'm sure there would have been just as much irrational bile spat out at us (not literally, but we'd need to see his monitor to double check) as seen in this thread. The thing is he'd have to change around his invented reasons since I'm sure there isn't a military market for Space Lobster simulators

I'm sorry to see that some people just don't have the guts to say their disapointed without making excuses for it. Most people have been far more honest and a lot less abusive, and that we can respect 100%.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Now now Jamie, why don't you go back to your redneck funded, über American, screw everbody else, money grubbing, morally reprehensible, (ramble on for a bit in your own head, my hands are getting tired) baby killing simulation company and go suck on an egg.

Hey, I figured Pheasent Plucker isn't here to say it so SOMEONE has to say the truth!

Hehe... seriously though, thanks!

Steve

[WineCape]

I prefer WWII settings. I'm not tired of WWII, nor modern warfare for that matter. Given BFC's past record, they will deliver the goods again, no matter what the setting.

As stated elsewhere: I'm open-minded. Therefor, more often than not, I get to be surprised in life, pleasantly. I'll keep the former out of respect, BFC will surely provide the latter.

Glass half full or half empty? Me, I'm just pleased I have a glass that can hold any quantity of water.

Have faith. BFC will provide the goods, 'cause there is no ways I'm sending good vino to useless buggers.

EDIT: One of BFC's future releases might well be the bush war, Angola vs South West Africa/Namibia.

Sincerely,

Charl Theron

-----------------------------------------------------

Co-creator & Sponsor of the following CM tournaments:

</font>

• The serial Rumblings of War (RoW I, II, III, IV, V)</font>
• The infamous CMBO Invitational</font>
• WineCape Tourney I and II</font>

-------------------------

Do remember the CM is really all we have. There are no alternatives for true, unhinged grogs. Currently, the CM games are not just games, but real works of military history – Kip Anderson 28 Oct02

[ October 11, 2005, 03:55 AM: Message edited by: WineCape ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by WineCape:

Glass half full or half empty? Me, I'm just pleased I have a glass that can hold any quantity of water.

Given up on wine, Charl?

Michael

[Kellysheroes]

@ STEVE/Battlefront

Can you explain if every new product is a "module" or a "game" that will have other "modules" made for it?

Reason I ask is, this modern era product is coming out first, will you make "modules" for it before you make another product for WWII or will the next product out be the WWII one?

[Wicky]

Originally posted by Kellysheroes:

@ STEVE/Battlefront

Can you explain if every new product is a "module" or a "game" that will have other "modules" made for it?

Reason I ask is, this modern era product is coming out first, will you make "modules" for it before you make another product for WWII or will the next product out be the WWII one?

There's this thread which contains info which was disclosed before CMx2 was named: Topic: Synopsis: BFC’s recent comments on the CMx2 engine [Long]

Modules + compatibility

The thought is that Modules will focus on adding new functionality to the game, but not new features. This means a Civil War release would see several Modules that didn't do much to change the core of the game system, rather add a whole bunch of other game features like terrain, units, weather, etc. Things like CoOp multiplayer or what not would most likely come out with the next game release.

…if you mean that we plan on allowing the Modules to be combined on the player's end, so you can pick between all the stuff without having to load individual modules... yes, that is the plan.

We hope to be able to have the changes be backwards compatible. There are far more reasons why this won't work than will work, so we can't make promises. Simply put, we can not afford to spend our time giving away stuff for free. You buy the game "as is" and that is the end of the customer's rights. That's that. However, if we can release the advances for nearly no work, we probably will simply out of the goodness of our hearts (and I am not being sarcastic).

If such easy upgrading is not possible (and it likely won't be) we do have another option. Charge for it just like every other software company in the world. For example, we could offer a fairly inexpensive download only upgrade. Those of you who have had your fun with the game and are ready to move on will be all set. Those of you that want to eek another year or two of gameplay out of a rather inexpensive piece of entertainment... for a modest amount of money you can basically get some sort of major new game experience.

With CMx1 it simply wasn't worth our time to make such an upgrade. For CMx2, because of the modularity of the code, it shouldn't be prohibitive for us to do it. Not necessarily easy, but not horribly costly like CMx1. That gives us options at least.

As for the modules working with each other... yup, that is the thoght. Let's say you get a WWII ETO game that is limited to Battle of the Bulge, US vs. Germans (specific unit types). 6 months later we release a Normandy modlule that allows you to play US vs. Germans (specific unit types). The latter will simply add options to the game you already own, kinda like CMBO. Another module comes out that supports Commonwealth for both Normandy and Battle of the Bulge. Now it really is like CMBO. Yes, it took three releases to get it to that stage, but in the mean time other games have been released and others started.

Every development strategy has its tradeoffs. The CMx1 strategy was to make a "mother of all fronts" game and then move onto another front. Downsides to this were:

1. Looooooong waits inbetween titles

2. Modest improvements to the game engine (game stuff and graphics stuff)

3. No other CM type products for any other theater, time period, or what have you

4. Players not interested in a particular front had even longer wait times for a new game of interest

The new strategy fixes all three of four problems, but of course has its own tradeoffs:

1. More narrowly focused content per release

2. Less chance of a full "mother of all fronts" type game, even with modules

3. Need to reinvest in the game every 6 months or so when a new module comes out (if interested, otherwise it can be skipped)

These all seem to be reasonable tradeoffs for the new flexibility, game engine improvements, and general boradening of the CM community (i.e. not JUST WWII nuts ) that will be gained from it. Obviously we'll all have to see if the new strategy works the way we think it will. Great thing about being independent is that we can make adjustments without having to win a Publisher's OK:)

Modular titles?

A reminder about some basics regarding what is a Title and what is a Module:

A Title will be a fairly defined setting. For example, US forces in Normandy. Modules will be RELATED to that initial setting. For example, CW forces in Normandy, or a little bit further distant like Arnhem or Bulge. It will not, repeate, not be a battle in Russia or the desert or the PTO somewhere. That is just way too scattered and defeats the purpose of the Module concept since some of these concepts have absolutely nothing to do with the Title release. Put another way, Modules will have a high degree of overlap with the original Title's setting.

In CMx1 terms this means we would release three separate Titles in succession, hopefully not more than 8-12 months apart:

CMx2 - Western Front ETO

CMx2 - Eastern Front ETO

CMx2 - Southern Front ETO

A bunch of Modules would be released for each one, coming out generally inbetween Title releases, but not necessarily only between. In other words, you might get a Western Front ETO Module after the Eastern Front ETO Title is released. The great thing about our system is that it doesn't have to be all or nothing like CMx1.

How will we decide which Modules to do? It is going to be a lot of Voodoo for sure

[WineCape]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

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

Glass half full or half empty? Me, I'm just pleased I have a glass that can hold any quantity of water.

Given up on wine, Charl?

Michael </font>

[Panzer_M]

you know another wargame that promised to be good and sucked s.

GI combat. but it was supposed to be an improvement on the classic Close Combat.

CMx1 was good, cause in reality there was nothing else close.

CMx2 looks like Brothers in Arms in Iraq.

[PseudoSimonds]

Originally posted by Panzer_M:

CMx2 looks like Brothers in Arms in Iraq.

Then maybe it's time to read all those tedious words above the pictures.

[hellfish]

Originally posted by WineCape:

EDIT: One of BFC's future releases might well be the bush war, Angola vs South West Africa/Namibia.

Sincerely,

Charl Theron

That's one of my hopes for a future release too - something like a "Bush Wars" game that might include modules for the Sinai campaign, South Africa in Angola, maybe Rhodesia, an Indo-Paki war, etc.

Too small of a potential audience though, I worry.

[VonWebb]

Well, I certainly haven't posted here in a long long time. However, I have been patiently WAITING for this anouncement for a very long time. Now it is here and i am pleased. I too am a WWII fan, but presently, regardless of your political views,there IS a war on (i personally disagree with it (or at least the way everything has been handled-->hence present situation :confused: )), and there are commited troops, and there have been many many casualities and one thing still exists:tactics! If you want a little sense of what is going on over there, here is your chance. If not well then don't buy it. I think BFC has been very clear FOR A LONG TIME that the first title was NOT going to be WWII!!! God, like a year and a half ago this was clear from some of their first posts. I am not a software developer. BFC is, and if they say that this will allow them to make a better WWII game when they get to it then by all means "SHOCK FORCE" away! I'll set the road side bombs! I'm just phyced to have a CM game that runs native on MACOSX. YAY! No-Reboot! Now if i can just get all those classic VSTs replaced...

-Von Webb Kafka

CONFUCIOUS SAY: GET OFF YOUR SOAPBOX

[ October 11, 2005, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: VonWebb ]

[eczerwonka]

AS someone who has tried all the demos, but walked away due to the WW2 theme, I am very very grateful that finally there will be an excellent modern tactical wargame out there. I have seen waaaay too many WW2 games on the shelves lately and for one who is only mildly interested in the era other than flightsims, this new game/module is a godsend. Plus, FFS there are WW2 era modules coming out at a later date, at least now all the non-WW2 fanatics can start to get into this.

A future VERY happy customer.

[J Ruddy]

Steve, Charles et al - first of all thanks a ton for CMAK & CMBB.

Secondly, I think any wargamer who isn't one of those gamers who focus in on a single timeframe, arena of operations or even battle (no insult intended to the legion of Waterloo grogs) will probably get their money's worth from CMSF.

I don't play any table top modern stuff. I have played some cold war bookcase games that failed to give me a grog-on for the whole era. But - I have spent around a hundred hours playing the US Army's free FPS (Yes I swallowed my Canadian pride and actually played as an American) and this may have been a good prep for CMSF.

The bottom line is I'm with a lot of the unhappy-ish folks who've said - "erm.. well I guess its ok - not my cup-o-tea, but I'll try the demo."

I just hope I can wrap my head around how the MGS is supposed to be used.

Finally - your level of asskickedness on this board when posters get 'stupid' / 'out of hand' is not only hilarious but also refreshing. I don't think I've ever seen anyone from Microsoft post "I haven't seen an episode of self induced public idiocy in a while." It made my whole day just a little bit brighter...

Keep on kicking!

[Edit - Bah! AGS - MGS what the hell is the American Goat Society doing in Syria?]

[ October 11, 2005, 10:35 AM: Message edited by: J Ruddy ]

[WineCape]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

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

EDIT: One of BFC's future releases might well be the bush war, Angola vs South West Africa/Namibia.

That's one of my hopes for a future release too - something like a "Bush Wars" game that might include modules for the Sinai campaign, South Africa in Angola, maybe Rhodesia, an Indo-Paki war, etc.

Too small of a potential audience though, I worry. </font>

[nijis]

As someone whose interest (and home) is in the contemporary Middle East, I'm pretty over the moon about this particular choice.

However, for those who aren't as parochial as I am, I think this is exactly the kind of setting that shows off where CM1 stumbled, which is urban combat.

Also, and I don't know if BFC intended this or not, setting the game in situations very close to Iraq allows feedback from folks who have very recently been directly involved in similar operations. Anyone who's interested in CMx2 becoming as realistic as possible should welcome this choice of setting.

[BDW]

I've been watching Steve and Charles develop these CM games (and the company) since before it was named CM and when they were still parting ways with Avalon Hill. When I found BTS, I didn't really know jack about WWII, and I was looking for a cool realistic tactical simulation.

Steve and Charles had to defend against WITHERING criticism and abuse for going with a 3D game - especially after they released a very silly looking pre-alpha screenshot (if I recall correctly, the trees were simply a brown rectangle with a big green triangle on top).

Needless to say, they stayed true to their vision for the first game and really blew everyone away. Since then I think they have truly built trust with their core players. I've never seen ANY company listen to it's customers and engage them as much as this one.

When I look at this modern Syria version of CM, I think, "I don't know jack about modern warfare or Syria. But I imagine the modern battlefield is way more complex and varied than the WWII battlefield, with lots of different units and weapons, offering many more combinations of tactics and much more varied game play."

When you combine that with the FACT that Charles' and Steve's #1 priority has always been making the best game possible, then I think we are likely going to be in store for easily the best tactical war game ever created. I'll bet even the most insane naysayers like that Plucker guy will windup buying the game!

Steve and Charles' have never been "sell-outs" at all. In fact, their development and marketing philosophy with these games has probably precluded them from getting rich - and thank goodness for that!

[wbs]

While I'm not disappointed with the "Near Future" version of CM, it seems to me that if the reason for doing it was because of WWII "Burnout" among the designers, they could have avoided burnout and still done WWII by doing a CM version set in the Pacific.

Scenarios could have included US Marines, Japanese and Chinese nationalities, and perhaps Phillipino scout units as well.

It would have involved new terrain, new weaponry, etc., and possibly some good amphibious scenarios.

I hope that CM will visit the Pacific in one of the future releases.

[spartan1]

Originally posted by Panzer_M:

you know another wargame that promised to be good and sucked s.

GI combat. but it was supposed to be an improvement on the classic Close Combat.

CMx1 was good, cause in reality there was nothing else close.

CMx2 looks like Brothers in Arms in Iraq.

Totally agree "CMx2 looks like Brothers in Arms in Iraq." Deeply dissappointed with choice for modern warfare.

Hope the new game goes well with Battlefront, but personally I do not think I will buy it, till there is a WW II version.

[Melnibone]

Originally posted by spartan1:

Totally agree "CMx2 looks like Brothers in Arms in Iraq."

Based on what exactly?

[Dogface]

Based on the fact that they are

TALKING OUT OF THEIR COLLECTIVE ASSES.