a call for more variety in the WWII CMx2 game

[PanzerMike]

Originally posted by Tuomio:

I am pretty certain that if BFC goes under, we will be stuck at playing this version of CMSF for all eternity. If you want a dictionary definition of underwhelm, just look at gaming consoles and its gaming industry. People will buy new console just to get "revolutionary" SEQUEL *Cough* Halo *Cough*. Thats the future, you end up paying lots and lots for essentially nothing.

* Darth Vader mode on *

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

* Darth Vader mode off *

I really, really, really want to see this engine at work in NW Europe 1944. I will gladly pay a princely sum of money for it, so that BFC will live long and prosper. I will even buy the modern modules, if only to ensure the WWII game will see the light of day.

* Fanboy mode on *

So, quit the bitchin y'all and chip in. Otherwise we will indeed end up playing the Sims . BFC is your friend

* Fanboy mode off *

[patboy]

Originally posted by Garm:

Just one little question: Is there a chance for a release of the WWII game in this year?

(sigh)!!!

Pat

[76mm]

I totally understand why Battlefront went with the module concept and have no problem paying more for good content.

BUT, I've got to say that b/n the subject matter and lack of diverse units, I haven't fired up CMSF in months...I just find it terminally boring. A Normandy game limited to "US Rifle Battalion vs. German Kampfgruppe with four types of units" won't be much better.

I hope that for WWII the modules come out quickly and cover a wide variety of theaters/units, or I have to admit that the game is probably going to lose my interest pretty quickly. This from a guy who still regularly plays CMBB.

[Garm]

I'd like to know at what price BF is planning to offer the modules, for example the Marine addon.

Sorry if this has been answered before.

[Melnibone]

Originally posted by Garm:

I'd like to know at what price BF is planning to offer the modules, for example the Marine addon.

Sorry if this has been answered before.

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=003762#000011

[Garm]

Thanks for the link, Melnibone.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by 76mm:

I totally understand why Battlefront went with the module concept and have no problem paying more for good content.

BUT, I've got to say that b/n the subject matter and lack of diverse units, I haven't fired up CMSF in months...I just find it terminally boring. A Normandy game limited to "US Rifle Battalion vs. German Kampfgruppe with four types of units" won't be much better.

I hope that for WWII the modules come out quickly and cover a wide variety of theaters/units, or I have to admit that the game is probably going to lose my interest pretty quickly. This from a guy who still regularly plays CMBB.

I think that will depend more on the terrain sets and the scenario designers than the units involved. Even CM:BO and CM:AK did not have a wide array of US equipment and infantry unit types (dalem posted extensively about this, for example). For the most part, it didn't need them, I don't think and of course to a degree, they simply didn't have the variety that the Germans had to begin with.

I just published a book on scenario design for Advanced Squad Leader with a detailed chapter on force compositions from company to division level for all the major nationalities of the Second World War:

http://canadiansoldiers.com/publications/sdh.htm

Take a look at the number of Russian infantry battalion types I could identify:

Red Army Infantry Battalion 1939-41

Red Army Reduced Strength Infantry Battalion July 1941

Red Army Infantry Battalion Jan-Jun 1942

Red Army Infantry Battalion Jul-Dec 1942

Red Army Infantry Battalion 1943-45

Red Army Reduced Strength Infantry Battalion 1943

Red Army Rifle Brigade Battalion 1941

Red Army Rifle Brigade Battalion 1942

Red Army Mountain Company 1940-Apr 1943

Red Army Mountain Company Apr 1943-1945

Red Army Mountain Battalion 1944-45

Red Army Ski Battalion Winter 1941-42

Red Army Ski Battalion Oct 1942-1945

Red Army Line Squadron (cavalry) 1939-41

Red Army Motor Rifle Company 1939-41

Red Army Light Cavalry Squadron 1941

Red Army Line Squadron 1943-45

Red Army Motor Rifle Battalion 1939-40

Red Army Motorized Infantry Battalion 1941

Red Army Infantry Battalion (as in Tank Brigade) Aug 1941-Dec 1941

Red Army Motorized Rifle Battalion Dec 1941-Jul 1942

Red Army Motorized Rifle Battalion Apr 1942-Nov 1943

Red Army Motorized SMG Battalion (as in Tank Brigade) Nov 1943-45

Red Army Motorized Rifle Battalion (as in Mechanized Brigade) Sep 1942-45

Red Army Parachute/Glider Battalion Nov 1940-Sep 1941

Red Army Parachute/Glider Battalion Sep 1941

Red Army Parachute Battalion 1943

and those of the US:

US Army Infantry Battalion 1942-45

US Army Armored Infantry Battalion 1942-43

US Army Armored Infantry Battalion 1943-45

US Army Mountain Battalion 1945

US Glider Infantry Battalion 1942-44

US Parachute Infantry Battalion 1942-45

US Glider Infantry Battalion 1945

USMC "D" Series Infantry Battalion 1942-43

USMC "E" Series Infantry Battalion Apr 1943-May 1944

USMC "F/G" Series Infantry Battalion May 1944-1945

And 30% of those are USMC and did not even fight in Europe.

So I don't think you will see any major variations in US infantry troop types, nor should you. The variations will come in scenario types, and hopefully this will be tied in part to things we don't have in CM:SF currently:

river crossings (think St. Goar, Nijmegen, the Rhine, etc.)

Bridges (Nijmegen Bridge, the Bridge at Remagen, etc.)

European villages

Dense forests

As well as greater engineering assets, etc. Armour (sorry, armor) will not be too great a mixed bag either - M10s, M36s and M18s for TDs, M3s, M5s and M24s for lights, and progressively uparmored and upgunned Shermans with the odd Pershing late in the war as main battle tanks. Module sales will revolve around which German goodies are available or not.

As for the dull gameplay experience, I'm not worried so much about the subject matter as by the execution. The campaign simply isn't one; the player has absolutely no interaction or control over where his units fight, which units get selected to fight, or how the subunits are organized. None. It isn't a campaign, it's just a meek collection of unrelated scenarios. I recently went through the campaign in 1.07 and hit CEASE FIRE each scenario on turn 1. I got all the way through the entire campaign, managed to "win" a good proportion of the games in that manner, and came out at the far end, having progressed my task force all the way to the final objective. That shouldn't happen.

In-game experience is dulled by the lack of an interactive Tac AI. As was pointed out recently in another thread, if you managed to take an objective building, the AI will not counterattack to take it back. There are no event triggers - the enemy's movements are pegged completely and solely to the clock and its own timer. The game is an electronic shooting gallery. Shooting galleries can and are quite popular. But not for me.

Of course, the mix of armour in a Normandy title may also see a return to "asymmetric warfare" if we have large numbers of Panthers vs. Shermans scenarios...I would like to see the emphasis shifted back to the infantry, but the infantry need to be able to do more things, better, in CM before that can happen. Carrying out accurate 1944 battle drills will be important in that regard. Will we see "marching fire" as an infantry tactic for the Americans, for example? Will smoke grenade use be curtailed? Will we have the ability to change out small arms dispositions? Or even better, have the ability to start subunits (i.e. squads) at less than 100% manpower (as was the cae in CM:AK) since this was the historical norm in 1944?

Many things will need to change from CM:SF in order to correctly get the "feel" of 1944 captured.

[Dirtweasle]

Steve wrote -

The campaign experience is better than CMx1's and probably will not change much in the near future.

That's too bad.

Trying to make a "perfect" campaign is a fool's errand since there are too many systems to go with and people tend to be emotionally attached/hostile to certain ones.

First, we all know perfection of any system is a fool's errand. ...but I'll name two campaign systems that over the years stand out to me as decent achievements; The first is "Tornado" by Digital Integration and second is another flight sim of that era "Falcon". Both were good for difffernet reasons, especially "Tornado" which had a rich campaign that allowed the player a great amount of latitude in how to fight it, chosing what type of missions to fly, with supporting units and so on. The campaign system was really a built in air war simulation in and of itself. Not that you'll ever do anything like that but rather to give an example of a flexible system that while not perfect was quite a nice effort.

Second, when did you start worrying about emotional reacions to your product?

We'd rather put our energies into things like Quick Battles which have more needs and more agreement on what the end product should look like.

I think that is the most likely area for good variety within the module concept.

[Oddball_E8]

ok, just to make it clear... i didnt ask for CMBO mk II in a box... what i aksed for was more variety in each game...

so if you make CMBO for CMx2 you dont just put the omaha beach troops in the starter box... at least put all the american units in and most of the germans... then you can always add other COUNTRIES (and not just other branches of the same military)

thats what im whining (yes.. whining) about...

not the fact that there will be modules... im all for modules... as long as they dont drown out the game so to speak... make a good solid game with a good solid troop base (ie. the entire american military precense at normandy) since thats where the money is... not in modules (battlefront already stated that they dont expect all their costumers to buy the modules)

as for it being too much work... well i know a few talented guys around here that probarbly woulnt mind working for peanuts (they do, after all, get payed nothing for their mods)

[jeffsmith]

Originally posted by PanzerMike:

* Darth Vader mode on *

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

* Darth Vader mode off *

Wasn't that actually Luke Skywalkers reply

to Darth Vader saying "I am your Father Luke"

[Sequoia]

Originally posted by jeffsmith:

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

* Darth Vader mode on *

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

* Darth Vader mode off *

Wasn't that actually Luke Skywalkers reply

to Darth Vader saying "I am your Father Luke" </font>

[jeffsmith]

Originally posted by Sequoia:

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

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

* Darth Vader mode on *

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

* Darth Vader mode off *

Wasn't that actually Luke Skywalkers reply

to Darth Vader saying "I am your Father Luke" </font>

[flamingknives]

The Luke "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO" is far better than the other "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO"

Meanwhile...

For BFC to have cut out QB cherry-picking and right-click, it had to be in in the first place. And if it was then the removal must have had no other reason than BFC not liking it. That's one hell of a proof to make.

[PanzerMike]

Originally posted by jeffsmith:

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

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

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

* Darth Vader mode on *

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

* Darth Vader mode off *

Wasn't that actually Luke Skywalkers reply

to Darth Vader saying "I am your Father Luke" </font>

[Cid250]

Will be minor countries forgotten?...

Finnish, Romanian, Hungarian, etc... are very important for a complete russian front.

And will be possible to integrate every single module launched to build battles with troops of two separate modules?. For example: You buy German-Russian Pack, and The Pacific Pack, will you be able to build a Russian-Japanese scenario?.

I guess that CMx1 will keep as the best and most complete wargame over any CMx2.

[ March 04, 2008, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: Cid250 ]

[mazex]

Originally posted by PanzerMike:

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

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

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

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

* Darth Vader mode on *

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

* Darth Vader mode off *

Wasn't that actually Luke Skywalkers reply

to Darth Vader saying "I am your Father Luke" </font>

[Mord]

Originally posted by Cid250:

Will be minor countries forgotten?...

Finnish, Romanian, Hungarian, etc... are very important for a complete russian front.

And will be possible to integrate every single module launched to build battles with troops of two separate modules?. For example: You buy German-Russian Pack, and The Pacific Pack, will you be able to build a Russian-Japanese scenario?.

I guess that CMx1 will keep as the best and most complete wargame over any CMx2.

Game titles won't be cross pollinating. The Normandy game will have some modules, the Eastfront game will have some modules...modules from Normandy won't work in the Eastfront game and vice versa. Modules will only work for the title they are created for

However Steve said that they might be able to add new major functions to older games as they are developed...

Mord.

[76mm]

Dorosh,

Of course you are right about the US unit types and the importance of additional terrain (and weather--winter, anyone?) for creating diverse and interesting scenarios, but my point remains the same: keeping a very narrow focus in the original games and not releasing enough modules to cover a wide scope of situations will lead to pretty sterile and unsatisfying (to me) gaming.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by 76mm:

Dorosh,

Of course you are right about the US unit types and the importance of additional terrain (and weather--winter, anyone?) for creating diverse and interesting scenarios, but my point remains the same: keeping a very narrow focus in the original games and not releasing enough modules to cover a wide scope of situations will lead to pretty sterile and unsatisfying (to me) gaming.

I'm not understanding what it is you think "focus" is, if not terrain, mission types, and unit capabilities?

[Childress]

Originally posted by Cid250:

Will be minor countries forgotten?...

Finnish, Romanian, Hungarian, etc... are very important for a complete russian front.

These were present, in all their glory, in CMBB. They will never be seen again. Sorry, mate.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Childress:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cid250:

Will be minor countries forgotten?...

Finnish, Romanian, Hungarian, etc... are very important for a complete russian front.

These were present, in all their glory, in CMBB. They will never be seen again. Sorry, mate. </font>

[flammenwerfer]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 76mm:

Dorosh,

Of course you are right about the US unit types and the importance of additional terrain (and weather--winter, anyone?) for creating diverse and interesting scenarios, but my point remains the same: keeping a very narrow focus in the original games and not releasing enough modules to cover a wide scope of situations will lead to pretty sterile and unsatisfying (to me) gaming.

I'm not understanding what it is you think "focus" is, if not terrain, mission types, and unit capabilities? </font>

[Sequoia]

Here's the most definitive answer to the WWII module quest I know of, at least as it stood in 2006.

Originally posted by Sequoia:

Again as I understand it, if I had to guess, the modules for the first WWII game would be something like

Base game: U.S. vs Germans Summer 1944

Module one: Brits and Canadians (maybe Poles too) vs Germans.

Module two: Airborne U.S. and Brits airborne Summer 1944 (now including Market-Garden).

Once we venture into Battle of the Bulge and winter terrain we're talking a whole new game, so WWII "games" really won't need that many modules.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

That's pretty much right on the money. However, we may or may not make something like the Bulge into a new game or a Module. It really depends on a number of factors, though you are correct that the amount of work needed to make a Bulge setting happen is almost equal to a full game's worth of effort.

Steve

I later conjectured the Commonwealth module would add Waffen SS for the Germans.

[Zemke]

Originally posted by abneo3sierra:

I have purchased 5 games from this company and will likely purchase more. I hope that they do listen to their customers however. I , and nearly everyone I know who has purchased, the titles like cmbb, would have paid even more for them. Perhaps the direction to go is not to cut things out, but to increase the price. People gladly go to stores and purchase games they will only play for a month or two, for $50-60 US. Many will pay that and even a little more for games that can be played infinitely.

Just my two cents.

I concur 100% with the above statement. Myself have purchased four games in the last six months, not from BF, (Matrix and HPS) and all are wargames, no FPS. I would gladly pay much more for a WWII version that had all of the "little" things that made CM1 so great, and for me the primary thing that would secure an un-told amoung of my cash is WEGO TCIP.

[76mm]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I'm not understanding what it is you think "focus" is, if not terrain, mission types, and unit capabilities?

Maybe my post wasn't clear, but I would say that "focus" is units, terrain, and weather, and that the limitations on these present in CMSF (and potentially the Normandy game) constitute too narrow a focus. Maybe I don't understand your point?

For instance, a post above hints that the Bulge might be a seperate game rather than a module. WTF? This would pretty much be the same units, with only winter terrain/weather effects thrown in. If a "game" is limited to Normandy, June 1944, I personally will lose interest quickly.

[ March 04, 2008, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: 76mm ]