Guest Guest Posted April 12, 2008 Share Posted April 12, 2008 deleted per user request Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luderbamsen Posted April 12, 2008 Share Posted April 12, 2008 Originally posted by Meach: IBCT would be nice too. IBCT? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meach Posted April 12, 2008 Share Posted April 12, 2008 Infantry Brigade Combat Team, Luder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tactical Wargamer Posted April 12, 2008 Share Posted April 12, 2008 Thank You Thank You for the WEGO aspect for MP Games............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted April 12, 2008 Share Posted April 12, 2008 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Introduce a new Quick Battle system Some additional MultiPlayer options Some changes to the UIYay for these statements. However, Im puzzled as to why you keep harping on about "the bad guys" that does not like your design decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipanderson Posted April 12, 2008 Share Posted April 12, 2008 Hi, I think the future is incredibly bright. We all differ but after many years of fun with CMX1 I suddenly found I could no longer cope with Absolute Spotting… never played another game of CMX1. Then after a pause of two or three years along comes CMSF. After a difficult start CMSF and CMX2 generally is now all I had hoped for. CMSF plays smoothly and easily without anything that breaks the immersion. I think of it as CMX1 with more detail. Importantly all the features many missed are now in CMX2 or on the way. The popup orders menu made an enormous difference and improvements to QBs and more choices for human v human play are also in line. Steve says no one can guarantee being able to update previous versions of CMX2 with new features but this may well be the case. We all just have to wait a while. All the features of CMX2 Steve talked about a couple of years ago have come to pass or have been confirmed as on the way in later games. We have a temperate setting for modern warfare on the way, a Normandy game and an Eastern Front game after that. Every box is ticked . However… this may not be the place to lobby.. and CM will always be my favourite as Squad Leader once was, but I would love to see Battlefront try their hand at an operational game. Many operational games have come close, but to my mind none have quite hit the spot the way CM has in tactical gaming/ tactical simulations. By “operational” I do mean the lower end of the operational scale. The western definition of “having the right battalion, in the right place at the right time”. If hexes were there 1 mile or 1 km per hex. Or played over a 1:50,000 topographical map. Battalion manoeuvre units as the default. WEGO or pause-able RT. I can but dream…… Steve I am not asking for any commitment and future versions of CMX2 would be my favourite first anyway…. but have you ever considered having a go at a traditionally scaled operational game? Or does it just not appeal? We all have are likes and dislikes… All the best, Kip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pad152 Posted April 12, 2008 Share Posted April 12, 2008 3. We are not planning on having an overt point system like CMx1. There are "weights" that CMx2 already uses to balance things out. There are other reasons, we think, for poor matchups in the current system. However, remember that any system we have will be arguably wrong. Lord knows we had plenty of people that thought the CMx1 point system was hopelessly fugdged up! Which is why we do not want to get into a point pissing match with people like we did before. No fun for anybody. SteveI hope I'm wrong here, but this makes it sound like Quick Battles in SF/CMX2 games will never be like CM1 games. I still can't consider Shock Force complete without a working QB system similar to CM1 games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grunt_GI Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 Steve and Mark, thanks for the OS X update. It is my personal opinion that the G5 will soon go the way of the Mac dinosaur, so although some folks will get upset, many Mac game developers are going Intel only...just a thought. So, since I have CMSF for my bootcamp, I will chug along and wait for good things to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grunt_GI Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 Steve and Mark, thanks for the OS X update. It is my personal opinion that the G5 will soon go the way of the Mac dinosaur, so although some folks will get upset, many Mac game developers are going Intel only...just a thought. So, since I have CMSF for my bootcamp, I will chug along and wait for good things to come. Looking forward to the Marine module Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted April 13, 2008 Author Share Posted April 13, 2008 Many people, including us, found the original system to have some shortcomings. The CM:SF system addresses some of these problems, but not all and also not including some of the things people want most. So in some ways the current QB system is an improvement, in some ways it isn't. What we need to do is rework what we have with an eye backwards to what we used to have. Not to do a direct copy, but to make sure we have a new system that is better than either CMx1 or CM:SF systems alone. We've acknowledged this for at least 6+ months now, so it shouldn't be a surprise to anybody to hear this. The things that people want most is to be able to cherry pick forces. That's what the new system will allow. There will also be a rarity system (which wasn't necessary for CM:SF) and quite possibly a sort of random map generator. But these things will not be identical to CMx1 and we do not wish to discuss the details at this point. Too early. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted April 13, 2008 Author Share Posted April 13, 2008 IBCTs... quite possibly they will be added in the future. Operational level game... sure, we have thought about it. Especially me, since my primary background is divisional level warfare. If we do go on to make something higher up than CM it will be an entirely different game, not something that is linked in any way to tactical level combat like CM. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 Steve, It's good that you are listening to us about the QB system as I think without improvement a lot of players won't bother with the game. I know from my personal experience that when I first got CM:BO I played pretty much exclusively QBs for months. It's the only way to get a different game every time you play, i.e. some element of surprise when playing the AI. Scenarios just don't do it as well, even with several AI plans - which take so long to do by the way that scenario designers are tempted to just have the one basic plan. I know Dorosh said something a while back about maps becoming maybe "geomorphic" like in "Squad Leader". That would suit me perfectly - i.e. lots of small maps that slot together to create one big one in lots of various ways. Sounds like a good plan to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handihoc Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: The things that people want most is to be able to cherry pick forces. Steve And to have a full, dynamic, branching campaign as well as individual battles! :cool: Please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: we do not wish to discuss the details at this point. Too early.I would suggest early is the best time to discuss it, rather than wait until it's set in stone, a la the CMSF QB's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipanderson Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 Hi, “I know Dorosh said something a while back about maps becoming maybe "geomorphic" like in "Squad Leader". That would suit me perfectly - i.e. lots of small maps that slot together to create one big one in lots of various ways. Sounds like a good plan to me.” I had not heard that one before… but I too think it sounds good. The map editor is one of the glories of CMX2… is flexibility is shocking… but with the flexibility comes hard work. Tweaking existing maps can totally change them to the extent that they are unrecognizable… which of course is the aim when making a new map. Copy and paste in the map editor would be my first wish, but geomorphic/Squad Leader style sounds good too if easier to implement. All the best, Kip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOG Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 Battlefront Are you planning to include some kind of higher level command elements in WWII or CMSF? I'm thinking about something like Close Combat Invasion Normandy or the planned Combat Mission Campaigns. It would definitely make playing campaign game more fun and would grately improve replayability of the game. Tomek Górecki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOG Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 And another thing. Will scavenging weapons from fallen comrades and enemies be possible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meach Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 You can already scavenge from comrades. Pulling weapons from enemies is a no-no as far as BFC are concerned. It makes sense to me tho in the heat of battle it's better to fire a stolen AKM than to heave rocks when your gone Winchester. Yes, yes, I have heard it all before about how Abdul might not clean his rifle and it's possibly booby trapped...yawn. I would take my chances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 Originally posted by TOG: And another thing. Will scavenging weapons from fallen comrades and enemies be possible? Why? Are you somehow supposed to know how to use them? I didn't know that the US had an exchange programme to teach Syrians how to use Javelin for instance? Or do you want the replicate that ToW rubbish where a Soviet infantryman mysteriously can jump in a German tank and instantly know how every system on the vehicle works? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meach Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 I think there is a difference between a Syrian using a picked up M4 and a Javelin. Not all equipment has to be lootable. Lighten up, Gibby. You take it all so serious BFC could easily program which weapons could and should be lifted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zemke Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 The TCIP/WEGO news made my day! Thank You very much. It there anyway to make the files smaller for easier PBEM play? I don't know the technical details, but right now the file size is a major inhibitor of PBEM games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 Originally posted by Meach: I think there is a difference between a Syrian using a picked up M4 and a Javelin. Not all equipment has to be lootable. Lighten up, Gibby. You take it all so serious BFC could easily program which weapons could and should be lifted. That's because its meant to be an accurate simulation not some "beer and pretzels" junk. Oh and I'll pass on the "don't take it too seriously" comment to the other guys trying to fix stuff. Pathfinding not quite there, oh don't worry "don't take it too seriously". I'm a firm believer in doing it "properly" or we just pack it in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zemke Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 Oh and please, please make the manuel easier to read. The current CMSF manual is very hard to read for anyone over the age of 45. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 Originally posted by Zemke: Oh and please, please make the manuel easier to read. The current CMSF manual is very hard to read for anyone over the age of 45. Sorry can you be a little clearer. Are you referring to fine print and perhaps some readability issue (i.e. visual) or are you referring to the level of it (in that it might have terms that a "younger" person would understand but might cause difficulty for a more "experienced" reader? I've had a mate ask me to write something for demo scenarios that translates the jargon and tries to make it super clear how to do things- is that what you mean or the more simple issue of typeface, size, colour of backgrounds, etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meach Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 Originally posted by gibsonm: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Meach: I think there is a difference between a Syrian using a picked up M4 and a Javelin. Not all equipment has to be lootable. Lighten up, Gibby. You take it all so serious BFC could easily program which weapons could and should be lifted. That's because its meant to be an accurate simulation not some "beer and pretzels" junk. Oh and I'll pass on the "don't take it too seriously" comment to the other guys trying to fix stuff. Pathfinding not quite there, oh don't worry "don't take it too seriously". I'm a firm believer in doing it "properly" or we just pack it in. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts