Where we're headed from here... a quick glance

[Battlefront.com]

The question many of you have been asking as of late is "where does Battelfront go from here?" now that v1.08 is out. Well, that's a valid question and I hope I can answer it to the satisfaction of most. But remember... we try to not to get too specific about low level changes because we do not wish to set up false expectations. Therefore, what follows is a more philosophical answer than a list of highly detailed descriptions of feature changes. First, an explanation of who makes Combat Mission...

Battlefront is 5 full time employees and a bunch of regular contractors. The primary force behind the games is Charles and myself (Steve, if you didn't already know). I do most of the design work and historical research while Charles does all of the coding. Charles has a significant amount of impact on the design elements since, obviously, he has to code them. Charles also has some great ideas of his own, of course, so at times he is the main brain behind a particular feature and I simply flesh it out. If Charles nixes something for coding reasons I usually manage to work around the problem areas so the feature can be included in some form.

Moon (our fearless President), KwazyDog (our lead pixel pusher), Madmatt (Battlefront's jack of all trades), and Rune (master of the monster scenarios ) handle a lot of things besides CM:SF, so although they have other responsibilities other than testing CM:SF night and day. Which is a good thing because someone has to do the other stuff!

For the day and night testing shifts we have a bunch of volunteer testers who were hand picked from this Forum. They are the ones that kick the tires and tell Charles that something needs more time in the oven You have no idea how much work they put into testing and therefore can't appreciate how much good they do for the game as a whole. Whatever faults people see in the game I can assure you that it isn't because of the testers are failing at their job.

Last, but not least, are the people posting on this Forum. Without public input none of the CM games would be what they are today. Overall the information we gather here is very valuable and worth having to sometimes dig for, even when it's burried under a pile of poo someone deposited It's not easy to handle a gaggle of highly opinionated people who aren't afraid to speak their minds (even when they've misplaced them), but that's an unavoidable part of an online discussion forum. Gotta take the good with the not-so-good. People can agree or disagree with how I handle this... I don't care. It works for us, therefore in the long run it works for everybody.

OK, with that out of the way, onto the outline...

Way back in 2003 we made a long range plan based around what is now called the CMx2 game engine. I can say, without any doubts, that things have gone according to plan and that we are overall pleased with the position we are in now. I know, I know... how can I say that after all the bugs and rancor that came about after its initial release? Well, easy... we take the long view and keep things in perspective. Of all the millions of things that could have gone wrong between 2003 and now, things have gone pretty much according to plan. Obviously things haven't gone perfectly, and we are no more happy about that than you guys are, however that's small potatoes compared to the things that could have gone wrong. Like what? Well, going out of business would have been a bit worse!

Our plan has been partially explained to you before, however in case you've missed it the next thing we will release is the Marines Module for CM:SF. More modules for CM:SF will follow in parallel with development of our next major release (aka "Title"); WW2 Western Front. The initial release will be situated in Normandy between US and German forces with subsequent addons (aka "Modules") introducing additional forces, weapons, vehicles, and some other things. The first Module for the WW2 Western Front game will be focused primarily on Commonwealth Forces, though with German and some American additions as well. We do not have release dates to announce for either the Marines Module or the initial WW2 release, however I can say that the Marines Module is very far along and the WW2 stuff has already been started on. This is the beauty of the CMx2 system... we can do parallel work and still get things done faster than we could for one topic using the CMx1 system.

What we are doing now, behind the scenes, is planning out the specific features that will find their way into the first WW2 title. Will these features make every single one of you reading this happy? Certainly not... that's not possible to do. But will these features make some of you who are currently a sitting on the fence or sitting on the sidelines happy enough to enjoy our next Title? Based on the months of feedback here, definitely. Others will continue to sit there with their arms crossed and tongues sticking out at us. Oh well, can't please everybody

For the most part our plans for the future of CMx2 have not changed since CM:SF was released. However, the emphasis on certain elements has been changed based on user feedback. Briefly, the shorterm priorities for us are:

Introduce a new Quick Battle system - It's been clear to us for quite some time that the existing system has some serious shortcomings in the eyes of many players. Therefore, a new QB system is a very high priority for the next major release. The primary improvements are some form of unit Cherry Picking system and semi-randomly generated maps. Think of this as a bridge between the good features of both CMx1 and CMx2 QB systems.

Features necessary for simulating WW2 ETO - Many of the things people have felt are missing in CM:SF aren't supposed to be there or aren't really all that relevant or necessary to the Syrian setting. Obviously moving to France means that some of these things need to be included. Besides the obvious stuff (temperate terrain/weather and WW2 units) major things to expect are water, bridges, AT guns, on map mortars, infantry riding on tanks, expanded defensive works, and other stuff like that. Obviously TacAI goes right along with this since these things all require new TacAI and/or improved existing TacAI. (note that TacAI is a long term "work in progress" and will never, ever be considered "done").

Features not necessary for simulating WW2 ETO - Some of the things that make contemporary warfare what it is are things which WW2 fans find "not fun". This has caused some to be unhappy with the Syrian setting simply because it isn't WW2, regardless of all other factors. Things like the extremely high lethality, asymmetric forces, the lack of "familiar" equipment, the whiz-bang technological stuff, etc. It should be obvious that this stuff will not come along for the WW2 titles, however it appears that this can get forgotten at times. Consider this a reminder

Some additional MultiPlayer options - I don't want to over comitt us here, but I will say that it is likely that there will be a form of TCP/IP WeGo for the Normandy game. Will it be exactly what WeGoers want? Probably not due to some technical issues and the time we'd need to make sure we could work around them. Therefore we have come up with what we feel is a viable compromise system that shoudl give WeGoers most of what they want. More on that in a couple of months when we get into the coding.

Graphics improvements - We're as unhappy as some of you are about the inconsistent performance of CM:SF's graphics on various systems. As some of you know, we've been frustrated from the start by videocards and their drivers not doing what they should. We have some ideas on how to work around the problems better and also fix some of the oddities that some of you have experienced more than others. Time is limited so some of the graphics glitches people have noted have not been high up on our fix list so far. Besides straight graphics stuff I'm alos thinking about some of the WeGo playback issues.

Some changes to the UI - Any game developer will tell you that designing a UI that makes a majority of gamers at least moderately happy is a tough task. Many have forgotten that CMx1's UI was generally frowned upon when first experienced. Complaints generally only died down when people got used to how it worked. CMx2's UI has also taken a lot of punches and, with some patched improvements, people have also gotten used to it. However, it is my sense that there is more resignation than acceptance than we would like when compared to CMx1. So it's not quite back to the drawing board, but we are are exploring ways to improve what we have.

There are lots of finer points than this, so please don't think that if you don't see something mentioned on this list that we aren't going to address it in the short term. I can't speak much to the details yet at this point anyway, so this is more or less a heads up about the general direction rather a written in stone list of specific features and what we intend on doing with them.

In conclusion... we know why we are here, we are happy with the overall position we're in, and we're looking forward to continuing on for years to come. Having faith is an option, but a total lack of faith is unhealthy. People need to figure this out for themselves because all we can do is keep blazing the trail that we are on. There is no turning back even if we wanted to. And we don't want to

Now, a special message for those of you who have so far "rejected" the new game system for one or another reason. I know for sure a lot of you will be quite happy with the WW2 game when it comes out, if for no other reason than it is WW2 and not modern Syria. Others will be less sure, but at least find it more enjoyable than CM:SF. However, it is certaint hat some of you will find nothing good in what I've said here and continue to be extremely hostile towards CMx2 just like many Steel Panthers and Close Combat guys were towards CMx1. I'm sure the latter group of people have something better to do with their time, so my hope is that they realize this so everybody can be a lot happier for it.

Thanks,

Steve

P.S. Support for CM:SF has not ended. It continues in parallel with Marines and WW2 development as it has for the last 2 months already.

[dima]

Steve, where do Triggers for Mission Editor fall into?

[gibsonm]

Well I’d guess they are part of a “list of highly detailed descriptions of feature changes“ as opposed to a “more philosophical answer“ as per his first paragraph.

[ChrisND]

This is all well and dandy, but will there be E-100s in it??!!

[Battlefront.com]

Dima, gibsonm is correct. That's a level of detail I don't want to get into at this point. It's too early since Charles and I are still hashing out the specifics and prioritizing them. I can say that AI Triggers are on the list.

Normal Dude,

This is all well and dandy, but will there be E-100s in it??!!

Initially, no. Read into that what you will

Steve

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Normal Dude,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />This is all well and dandy, but will there be E-100s in it??!!

Initially, no. Read into that what you will

Steve </font>Will this be in the same module as the Bren tripod?

[Itael]

Thanks for the infomation Steve!

After reading your post I feel a bit frustrated because it feels that CMSF is now something that will soon be forgotten and since WW2 is becoming the main focus I fear that all the improvements planned for WW2 won't make it to CMSF.

Personally I prefer the current modern warfare setting more than WW2.

Can you please assure me and others who share my interest that you won't forget CMSF and continue to improve it after you go WW2?

With that said, I would like to see key features like water, bridges, on map mortar teams as well as other cool stuff that will be in WW2 make it to CMSF eventually.

I don't want to see CMSF end up as the guinea pig for it's big shiny 'brother' that is the new WW2 game.

Thanks.

Itai

[ April 08, 2008, 10:42 PM: Message edited by: Itael ]

[Huntarr]

I share that concern also Itael. I am all about the post Vietnam era to current issue battles. WW2 is interesting but sooo been done near to death, this has been a much needed break. I am bolstered by the fact BFC’s said that modules are retro patchable.

[PanzerMike]

Much to look forward too. Great stuff. You don't talk about the timetable for all this glorious new stuff. I understand you won't go in too much detail, but how about a very rough estimate? Like, will the ww2 game be out this year or next year?

I really, really like the prospect of returning to Normandy with the new engine (by the way, I return to Normandy on vacation almost every year on a campsite at Omaha beach). Yes it has been done before, but not with a great engine like this. Sure customer here! Oh, and I will buy the marines module too, just too keep me (and you)happy in the meanwhile

[yapma]

I am glad to hear the UI is going to be updated. Something should be done to personalize and distinguish the squads, and make it more apparent how one squad differs from another.

[aka_tom_w]

At one point there was some discussion of a Mac OS X native version on the horizon... (sorry to mention it)

Just wondering?

:confused:

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

At one point there was some discussion of a Mac OS X native version on the horizon... (sorry to mention it)

Just wondering?

:confused:

Tom,

Yes there was / is. you are just looking in the wrong place.

Also I’m pretty sure that this is another “detail” issue not covered by this “strategic” outline.

If you want some NDA type detail, email me.

[ April 09, 2008, 12:36 AM: Message edited by: gibsonm ]

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by Itael:

Thanks for the infomation Steve!

After reading your post I feel a bit frustrated because it feels that CMSF is now something that will soon be forgotten and since WW2 is becoming the main focus I fear that all the improvements planned for WW2 won't make it to CMSF.

Personally I prefer the current modern warfare setting more than WW2.

Can you please assure me and others who share my interest that you won't forget CMSF and continue to improve it after you go WW2?

With that said, I would like to see key features like water, bridges, on map mortar teams as well as other cool stuff that will be in WW2 make it to CMSF eventually.

I don't want to see CMSF end up as the guinea pig for it's big shiny 'brother' that is the new WW2 game.

Thanks.

Itai

I think

“More modules for CM:SF will follow in parallel with development of our next major release (aka "Title"); WW2 Western Front.“

Indicates that features introduced for the Second World War modules (water, etc.) will be “retrofitted” to the modern era modules too.

[The Warrior]

Hey BF. Good to hear. Looking forward to the Marines module as well as other NATO nations modules too. I can hardly wait to see Brits in the desert. I agree with the other guys about water and bridges added to CMSF in the future. I think it would bring more to an already great game and please keep up the support for it.

As for the WW2 game. I plan on buying it just one request. Please, please have M-26s in this one.

Keep up the great work and thanks.

[Thomm]

The post above is/was post number 100000 for this forum!!!!

Best regards,

Thomm

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

Good post and pretty much just updates us on what we knew, still good to have it.

With regards to the UI, as you know I have my own ideas about that but as it's a major change I think it might be something to let the forum have a good discussion of.

I am sure you know who wouldn't get a consensus and some will condemn anything that isn't their answer but I think their is a lot of good ideas out there.

Personally, as a Mac user I favour it being as stripped down as possible more head up like a fighter than a Jumbo cockpit with dials and switches everywhere.

I am also more for balancing Fire/Cover/Movement than individual commands but I suspect that's a non starter as for most people "run" or "cover" is just far more intuitive and user friendly , which is really what you want from a UI.

Peter.

[Martin Krejcirik]

I have no problem with the UI, modern stuff, or QB. I'd like to see an improvement to morale modelling (currently all individual soldiers fight like little Rambos, no matter what happens around them) and better Air support interface (not modelling which is good).

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by Martin Krejcirik:

I have no problem with the UI, modern stuff, or QB. I'd like to see an improvement to morale modelling (currently all individual soldiers fight like little Rambos, no matter what happens around them).

Have you tried 1.08 yet?

Morale was “adjusted” a fair bit in this release.

From the Patch Notes:

* Soldiers with low experience and/or low motivation are more likely to rout away. Rout symbols (the ! mark) also last longer.

[z1812]

Hi All,

Thanks for the information. The future looks interesting. I am enjoying CMSF and also will be waiting for the Marine Module not to mention CMx2 Normandy.

I like playing TCP now and again and have had continual problems with connection and play.

PBEM is also a nice option but the large files make it less convenient and accessable than in CMx1.

How will Battlefront deal with the problems of transfering such large amounts of information so that multiplayer can reach its full potential?

Regards John

[orwell]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

Indicates that features introduced for the Second World War modules (water, etc.) will be “retrofitted” to the modern era modules too. </font>

I realize this is a rather broad question, but are there any estimates to how far the 'retrofitting' will go? I'd be interested in seeing improvements and updates beyond minor features to extend to stuff such as the revised QB system and updated TacAI. Is this a viable posibility for the future, or far too early to speculate on as I suspect? I've gotten the impression it would be relatively easy to add it in considering the module structure of the game, but perhaps this reaches a lot further than most modules do. I found the modern/post WWII era much more interesting myself.

[Sirocco]

I'm glad to hear that both the interface and QB's will be improved. What has disappointed me, and I think quite a few other posters here, has been the absolute resistance to continued observations of problems with these very features. The end result has been a poisoned atmoshphere which has made it difficult at times to even offer constructive criticism. And without a genuine back and forth that valued input is gone. I hope that we can draw a line under all that now and move forward in a more positive tone.

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by orwell:

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />“More modules for CM:SF will follow in parallel with development of our next major release (aka "Title"); WW2 Western Front.“

Indicates that features introduced for the Second World War modules (water, etc.) will be “retrofitted” to the modern era modules too. </font>

[Martin Krejcirik]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

Have you tried 1.08 yet?

Morale was “adjusted” a fair bit in this release.

Yeah, just yesterday I had seen my Syrian squad nearly wiped out by an insurgent tank (heh ) , last man picked up an RPG and killed the tank. All the time the squad sat there, taking casualties and waiting to be killed. Not sure what the motivation setting was, maybe high, but it is still odd. I'd like to see units rout and run away more.

[gibsonm]

Well as the notes say:

* Soldiers with low experience and/or low motivation are more likely to rout away.

Maybe select non fanatics.

I’m sure if you re-run the scenario with low morale conscripts you will have the “desired” (from your point of view anyway) result.

[luderbamsen]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Normal Dude,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />This is all well and dandy, but will there be E-100s in it??!!

Initially, no. Read into that what you will

Steve [/QB]</font>