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

[Holman]

Thanks for the update, Steve! I think it's good that you BTS guys are a presence on the board again. (Read: don't disappear too often...)

I'd love to know what future modules are planned for the modern (CMSF) version of the engine. Can we hope for a move to NATO/Warsaw Pact conflicts some time in the future?

[Hammer-n-Sickle]

All I ask is for more dramatic armor and vehicle hits. This just hasn't bee the case since CMBB. They are especially weak in TOW. I want to see some tanks exploding with turrets flying in the air

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by Hammer-n-Sickle:

All I ask is for more dramatic armor and vehicle hits. This just hasn't bee the case since CMBB. They are especially weak in TOW. I want to see some tanks exploding with turrets flying in the air

And the engine block for that matter!

[gibsonm]

Is it worth making this a “sticky” until the next edition?

That way people should be able to readily see where the project is going.

[Darkmath]

While I like the retroactive improvements for previous modules idea, I have some concerns about the development strategy (just my humble opinion, so I hope I may be wrong)

Are you going to hire extra 3D modeller/ scenario designer?

I'm affraid that a parallel development is too much for a small company like BFC ; as you don't concentrate on a single title, the quality of both titles might be lower than expected.

Also, a few requests for the next titles :

-hand to hand combat(abstracted will be enough for me)

-prisoners

-Collision model

-Bring back CMBO's 14 inch battleship gun!

[ April 09, 2008, 09:39 AM: Message edited by: Darkmath ]

[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.

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. That's a lot of stuff

As for retrofitting the changes backwards. I've had a couple of discussions here about that in the recent past. We are probably going to run into technical problems, which means we can't just spit out a new EXE and have no extra work. The reason we suspect that it won't be so easy is that we probably will need to recode all the models and rework the TO&E to conform to changes we plan on making for the first WW2 game.

If this were the CMx1 codebase we'd tell you guys that there's nothing more we can do for you because the work would be huge. However, this is CMx2 so it's a different story So while we don't know exactly what, or how, we will keep the Modern setting up-to-date with future engine changes, I can assure you that we do intend to figure a way that works for both you guys and us as well. More info on that probably as the first WW2 release is nearing completion.

Steve

[Meach]

Will the QB improvements get ported to CMSF? The cherry picking etc etc?

[Battlefront.com]

OK, time for a second quick response

Darkmath,

While I like the retroactive improvements for previous modules idea, I have some concerns about the development strategy (just my humble opinion, so I hope I may be wrong)

Are you going to hire extra 3D modeller/ scenario designer?

I'm affraid that a parallel development is too much for a small company like BFC ; as you don't concentrate on a single title, the quality of both titles might be lower than expected.

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

That's the beauty of the new code. We can do a HELL of a lot more in the same time that it would have taken us to do a lot less with CMx1. Partly because things like it taking 3 people, many attempts too, at getting a single model into CMx1. Now it takes mostly one with a little time being spent by a second. This allows the models to be far more rich and complex and yet still be easier to put into the game. That's not an accident

As for increasing the headcount making stuff so we won't run into bottlenecks. That is also possible with the CMx2 engine and was also part of the plan from the start. So yes, do expect that you'll get introduced to some new faces behind the work sooner rather than later.

Some think we're floundering and lost in a sea of confusion because CM:SF's release wasn't completely smooth or what they wanted. They see doom in everything and some have even pronounced us a dead company walking. I can assure you that nothing could be further from the truth. A small wrinkle in a very solid 10 (or so) year plan doesn't phase us. We've had worse problems and survived just fine, so don't let the Negative Nancys fool you.

Steve

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Great to hear all this.

I think myself very lucky because the direction of travel of CM has been spot on what I hoped for. The same scope and scale as CMX1 just more detail there. 1:1 representation was a huge challenge and Battlefront has pulled it off wonderfully.

The future for CM fans is bright. On top of more modules for CMSF and Normandy there is the tantalizing prospect of and return to the Eastern Front as the third game. Things do not get any better… .

Congratulations all round….

All the best,

Kip.

PS as forums are very much about lobbying… the “big” feature I wish for to make it in to CMSF rather than a later game is artillery delivered smoke. The realism of CMSF does take a hit without it… now… where are my books on the Korsun Pocket ’44 .

[pad152]

Will the short comings of Quick Battles and OOB (ability to purchase units without deleting 90% of the crap you don't want) in CMSF every be addressed?

[pad152]

Campaigns, 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)!

[Sequoia]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

OK, time for a second quick response

All the models for the Marines Module are done and have been done for a while.

So when can we expect a Marine Module vehicle list?

[flamingknives]

Or a units/equipment list. There's got to be a SMAW, but how about 155mm with excalibur?

That's a point, actually, do we get guided artillery like GMLRS or Excalibur?

[handihoc]

Did the E-100 ever get past the production line? From what I've seen, no.

[Scipio]

Originally posted by pad152:

Campaigns, 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 would prefer if something like CMC will once be an integrated part of CM2x!!! How about that, Steve? Ain't this a philosophic question??

[Cpl Steiner]

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.

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by handihoc:

Did the E-100 ever get past the production line? From what I've seen, no.

Nope. They never even built a single complete one; they got a chassis finished, but never finished a turret.

As fun as stuff like this is to include as a hypothetical, that's the difficulty with including them in a realistic wargame. The E-100 as it existed on the blueprints was extremely impractical. It would have weighed some 130t -- that's twice the weight of a modern Abrams MBT!!

My guess is that it would have gone through substantial revision before final production. So, in order to include it in the game, you have to make an educated guess as to what it might have looked if, say, the was went into 1946 and the Nazis actually managed to finish it.

My guess is, the final version would have been nowhere near as exciting as people would like to think; it would have to have been substantially "dumbed down" considerably to actually work as anything more than a very expensive pillbox.

As designed, likely it would have been able to crawl along for maybe a few hundred meters on very flat, firm ground only before breaking its drivetrain.

Cheers,

YD

[JohnO]

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]

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>

[Flanker15]

Originally posted by pad152:

Will the short comings of Quick Battles and OOB (ability to purchase units without deleting 90% of the crap you don't want) in CMSF every be addressed?

I also want to know if those QB improvements are going to be put into all CMx2 games aswell not just "WW2 game"?

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by JohnO:

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

Module 1: Marines;

Module 2: British?

Module 3: European Allies (Germans, Dutch)?

Module 4: ???

Correct on the first one, ok on the second one but the third one is way off and haven't a clue what the fourth one would be </font>

[hellfish]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</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>

[Holman]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

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

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

Module 1: Marines;

Module 2: British?

Module 3: European Allies (Germans, Dutch)?

Module 4: ???

Correct on the first one, ok on the second one but the third one is way off and haven't a clue what the fourth one would be </font>

[gibsonm]

We use some stuff from the UK, but generally “all over” (including our own).

I don’t think its likely to see a “real” ADF mod unless we (the ADF) spend some money.

There are some basically US mods wearing DPCU but they aren’t realistic, or even close in terms of personal weapons, rank structure, Section structure, load bearing gear, equipments, etc. (“clothes don’t necessarily maketh the man”)

[flamingknives]

Who uses British Gear?

Oman has Challenger 2s, Kuwait have Warriors, assorted countries have CVR(T) and landrovers. No-one has FV430s, especially the new ones. Jordan has Challenger 1s, but the UK doesn't any more.

Not really anyone with a real expeditionary capability.