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

[Cpl Steiner]

Maybe second module will be Britain plus one or more European allies such as Germany or Holland, which is why the third option is way off.

Having said that, lumping British and Germans together in the same module would definitely not go down well in the UK for historical reasons. Think World Cup as much as WWII!

[JohnO]

Originally posted by Sequoia:

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

For CM:SF we have one Module nearly done, another one already well under way, and probably at least one if not two more after.

Module 1: Marines;

Module 2: British?

Module 3: European Allies (Germans, Dutch)?

Module 4: ???

Please, do tell more. </font>

[Sequoia]

Got it from this and other posts:

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Yes, as far as I am concerned we are doing USMC next and after that Brits. They will probably be on their own due to the amount of work. After that a mix of NATO forces as yet to be determined. Based on current military involvement and equipment, the leading contenders are The Netherlands, Germany, and Canada. I'd love to get the Italians and French in at some point, but their equipment is unique and therefore too much to squeeze in with other stuff.

Steve

[hoolaman]

I'd like to know if there are planned to be any additional terrain tiles flavour objects or any significant game function changes in the modules.

I am thinking the answer is NO, but In general I would rather time is spent on interesting terrain for more interesting tactical combat, than more units.

I know how much harder it is to make sure ever unit behaves correctly on a new tile than it is to add "just another tank", but the payoff would be there in game terms.

[JohnO]

Originally posted by Sequoia:

Got it from this and other posts:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Yes, as far as I am concerned we are doing USMC next and after that Brits. They will probably be on their own due to the amount of work. After that a mix of NATO forces as yet to be determined. Based on current military involvement and equipment, the leading contenders are The Netherlands, Germany, and Canada. I'd love to get the Italians and French in at some point, but their equipment is unique and therefore too much to squeeze in with other stuff.

Steve

</font>

[Elmar Bijlsma]

The reason for picking those three is, I assume, that the Krauts, Clogs and Canucks share much kit. From Leo's and PzH2000 to Panzerfausts and C-7. And much of that kit (the AFVs in particular) is rather spiffy too. And it probably helps that the Germans have a good sized chunk of the wargaming market, or so I understand. The reason NL and CDN are in the running at all is because unlike the Germans they have a long track record of showing up on the sharp end of international forces.

[Holman]

Can we assume that the modern scenario won't *always* be against Syria? Fighting in desert terrain, let alone kicking third-world butt in desert terrain, is sure to get old after a couple of installments.

I'm still hoping that Red will expand as Blue expands, leading to Cold War (and post-Cold War) possibilities in European terrain.

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:

The reason NL and CDN are in the running at all is because unlike the Germans they have a long track record of showing up on the sharp end of international forces.

Except of course if you go back a little way, they turned up all right, just played for the other side.

[mikewhol]

Steve,

Is there any support, or should I say; Does Battlefront think that an Arab/Israel conflict for a module commercially viable? I sure would buy it. What do I know, I might be the only one that would.

Mike

[McBane]

I like the "cherry picking" of units, I knwo it sounds munchy, but when doing a say quick battle, I liked in CMBB and CMOO that you could buy what you wanted and then go at it. I guess I dont like setting the quick battle to "armor" and getting all bradlys and infantry, still havnt seen a QB with a M1A1.

sure, I could try the missions available, but I like the randomness, random maps would be neat too:)

Keep up the good work guyz.

[Mord]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

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").

I just peed all over my keyboard...twice!

Now, just mention the possibility of fires starting from explosions and back blasts, better tree damage from explosions and a kill list and I'll lay down and weep...just tell me before I replace my keyboard...I don't wanna short it out a third time. Urine...tears...they both fry electronics.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Just enough time available to me to just reassure people that we are not abandoning the Modern setting. This is all part of the new way we're doing things with CMx2. Instead of putting out one game and having 2 years between it and the next one, we're trying to put out one new game roughly every year and have a steady stream of additional content (Modules) going along in parallel.

Steve

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Well... let's put it this way. All the models for the Marines Module are done and have been done for a while. WW2 Models, terrain, and other things have been under construction for about a month. And yet work on CM:SF has continued uninterrupted

Steve

I think you need to post some screens shots to prove it! You know, For the non believers among us?

Damn, I am gonna need a hard hat to protect me from all these bones being dropped!

It all sounds great brother! I am PUMPED!!!

Mord.

P.S. Now, about those screenies...

[Wisbech_lad]

Thanks for this state of the nation address. I've been pootling around with CM:SF, never got into it, but 1.07/08 are OK for me now red v red - I'm one of those who just doesn't enjoy the firepower/ spotting of modern blue forces.

Still have philisophical issue with 1:1 modelling, when a team, rather than individual, is the unit of command, but that's water under the bridge now. To WW2 Commonwealth forces (and beyond!)

[Battlefront.com]

A few more quick comments...

I've basically already answered the backwards compatibility thing, be it QB changes or what not. HOPEFULLY we can make whatever relevant things we're doing for the future Titles be applicable to those that came before it. However, this is sooooooo much harder to actually do than it seems. How much harder? We don't have a f'lipp'n clue until we have the future stuff done and then take a look backwards

As for the future CM:SF Modules... #1 (Marines) is nearly reality, #2 (Brits) is certain in concept, #3 and beyond is too soon to get nailed down to. As I've said before, the obvious choice is to put in German equipment because that allows us more flexibility. For example, with the US stuff and that the Canadians are pretty easy to do, as are the Dutch or Danes for that matter. However, we have to balance resources with marketability. Having a "Luxembourg Module", for example, is probably not going to happen. Now... now fellas... please control the sobbing!

Will Modern ever go to a temperate setting? Yes. When and how will we offer a switch of environment? I don't know. What I can say, though, is that we have a development calendar that is designed specifically so we don't have to automatically say "no" to things like this. For sure there are limitations, and timing will always be the main obstacle, but we have the ability to give conditional "yes" answers now to some things. Having a Modern setting in a temperate environment is one of those conditional "yes" answers.

Steve

[luderbamsen]

YankeeDog,

You're right, of course, but let's not open a can of worms here. I'd say let's just assume it would be as reliable as the Sturmtiger or Ferdinand, and otherwise just big, slow and mean.

Fytinghellfish,

If I thought there was even a remote chance of a "WW2-1946" scenario happening, I would have asked for it. Oh, and remind me never to bring you exiting news in person...

Steve,

I suspect you could actually sell a training module to Denmark. AFAIK (but going by memory so don't quote me on it) they implemented Steel Beasts for their tank sim (with mock-up turret).

[ April 10, 2008, 12:59 AM: Message edited by: luderbamsen ]

[Kirq]

I've got a question about Marine module, don't laugh, I'm pretty new here

What exactly is it gona be ? A patch with new uniforms, new squad structures etc some new veicles and maybe one or two new weapons ? Or maybe its gona be payed expansion pack with lots of new content, campaign eqipment etc ?

[TheVulture]

Originally posted by Kirq:

I've got a question about Marine module, don't laugh, I'm pretty new here

What exactly is it gona be ? A patch with new uniforms, new squad structures etc some new veicles and maybe one or two new weapons ? Or maybe its gona be payed expansion pack with lots of new content, campaign eqipment etc ?

Paid expansion - less than the price of the original game. The business model is full price game (CM:SF) with cheaper modules that add in extras, such as new equipment (Steve has been understandably vague about what else might be in a module in terms of new content). Modules expand the game in the same basic setting.

At some point a new game (CM:Normandy) comes out at full price, much the same as CM:SF. This one also gets a series of modules adding in extra equipment, TO&Es etc.

So there are actually three sources of updates: New game (full price, completely new setting), modules (lower price, some new content, expanding on the setting), patches (free, no new content, bug fixes and game tweaks).

[Kirq]

Thanks for quick answer Vulture. What can we expect in Marine Module ? New campaign ? new theatre of war ? New weapons and vehicles ?

[MikoyanPT]

Thanks for the update Steve, good to know about WW2 game and CM:SF modules coming.

Keep on the good work and urry up while the US dolar is cheap !

[handihoc]

Originally posted by pad152:

I still think campaigns have always been the weak link in the CM games. I would like to see a Close Combat style of campaign (realistic or not)!

I'm with you there. Though not entirely successful (largely, I believe, through insufficient playtesting and planning) the CC strategic turns followed by individual scenario play-offs were a stroke of genius. They really added another dimension to a great game series, which is now of course way out-of-date.

CMx1 and x2 are superior in most respects, particularly now, several years on, but, yes, I miss the strategic map and the open choices it offered. It would be really fantastic if CMWW2 could incorporate something similar.

I know there are coding/AI issues involved which in the past made it very difficult - probably the same holds true now, certainly given the long time development of CMC - but that don't stop me hoping and possibly even offering bribes and sweeteners if BF think they could bring it off.

[ April 10, 2008, 07:04 AM: Message edited by: handihoc ]

[luderbamsen]

Originally posted by Kirq:

Thanks for quick answer Vulture. What can we expect in Marine Module ? New campaign ? new theatre of war ? New weapons and vehicles ?

Hi Kirq

I think you will find CM games very... ...NORG... ...well, sort of anyway...

AFAIK, the Marine Module will be US Marine gear on one side and additional equipment for the Syrians, probably some new terrain modules as well.

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Kirq:

Thanks for quick answer Vulture. What can we expect in Marine Module ? New campaign ? new theatre of war ? New weapons and vehicles ?

New units, definitely. Full Marine TOE with 13-man squads, LAVs, AAVs, etc. On the Syrian side, I believe BFC has already confirmed Syrian Airborne formations, T-90, BMP-3, and Milan.

As for new campaign, I haven't seen BFC directly confirm this, but I would assume so.

As for new Theatre of War, it's still set in Syria, but on the Strategic Map included with the Deluxe set, a Marine TF is clearly marked as coming in from the Med., landing on the Northern Syrian coast. The terrain in that area is radically different than the Desert terrain in Eastern Syria. So any scenarios/campaigns in the Marine module should have a very different feel. It actually wouldn't surprise me if they expand the terrain types a bit to better represent this kind of terrain.

Cheers,

YD

[Kirq]

Hi luderbamsen,

Thanks for answer. Do we know from BFS forums ? Whats Your nick there cause I can't find Your curren nick amongst BFS forums members.

But I must say that "msen" part of Your nick and Your location sounds familiar to me

@YankeeDog - It sounds great !

PS. Please forgive me this oftopic .

[ April 10, 2008, 06:27 AM: Message edited by: Kirq ]

[luderbamsen]

Originally posted by Kirq:

Hi luderbamsen,

Thanks for answer. Do we know from BFS forums ? Whats Your nick there cause I can't find Your curren nick amongst BFS forums members.

But I must say that "msen" part of Your nick and Your location sounds familiar to me

You'd be right about that I just prefer to keep my separate identities, well, separate

With games like these, we should have plenty of gaming to keep us occupied for years. I think you'll find this forum to have plenty of helpful CM veterans able and willing to answer any questions you might have. Though some of them are a bit, for lack of a better word, stark raving mad, but that's all part of the charm of this place.

[Canada Guy]

Battlefront,

Great job on the roadmap. I b&%ch and complain a lot about CMSF but still think it is a great game compared to what is on offer to the dedicated wargamer that seems to occupy these boards.

I have 3 questions;

1. How will the different retail versions affect the purchase of modules? I am thinking more in terms of my purchase of the Paradox game product and its compatibility with the modules. Will I have to continue to buy all my modules from Paradox if I bought the main game from them or will I be able to buy directly from you for the add on modules (and vice-versa)?

2. I may have asked this before but in my old age have forgotten the answer. How compatible will the terrain tiles (or other elements) be between games? Will the gamer that has bought both, be able to add temperate tiles to the CMSF environment? Or will the TacAI prevent the effective use of these new terrain types? It would be nice to include the more fortified positions that we will see in WW2 added to the SF games. Give the Blue force a better run for their money.

3. Will the quick battle system include some form of a point system? Apparently, it caused much debate in CMx1 and do not want to cause that type of debate in CMx2 but it would be nice if we are to have a more balanced red vs blue QB system. My T-62 vs M1A1 battles have been a little one sided.

[Meach]

Please, Sir? Can we have some screenshots?