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

[kipanderson]

Hi,

From Steve…

“Having a Modern setting in a temperate environment is one of those conditional "yes" answers.”

This is huge news… well news to me anyway .

What it means is that my much loved “high-intensity warfare between enemies in the same ball park” is a near certainty.

Having said that we may get NATO 2009 against some semi-developing nation in the Balkans … lets hope not… .

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[Sequoia]

They'll fool us all and do North Korea.

[vincere]

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.

Very glad to hear this and your commitment backwards compatability.

[Battlefront.com]

Canada Guy,

Quick answers:

1. All Modules will be purchased through us directly. It doesn't matter which base game you have. The Module requires only that you have a legally installed copy of the game, not that it be a particular flavor.

2. When you add a Module all features it has are added to all the features you already have (including other Modules). From the user's experience it's no different than CMx1 in that regard. All one happy user experience When scenario designers go to make a scenario they select which Modules they want to be required. This allows a designer to make a scenario that does, or doesn't, require a particular Module.

Note that this is only valid within a particular Title. Meaning, you can't purchase a WWII Module and stick it into CM:SF. That would be crazy

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.

Steve

[Sgt Joch]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Meaning, you can't purchase a WWII Module and stick it into CM:SF. That would be crazy

might be fun though...King Tiger v. M1A1 Abrams...

[Canada Guy]

Thanks Steve.

I agree that no matter how you develop the point system, it will never be perfectly accurate. But that is OK with me.

As an example if a PzVI E (Late) is worth 222 points and you code the M4A1 at 141 I am happy with that. The M4A1 could be 130 or 135 or even 150 for all I care. What is important to me at the end of the day is that I can create my force within the alloted points that I have been given and have some sort of perceived balance that I can bring to the gaming table and use.

What will make me happy is the ability to craft the force into what I want and use it against an opponent that is doing the same within set limits (ie points). This is also useful for scenario building but I do not want an open concept where each side just picks whatever the heck they want. Every battle would end up being 50 King Tigers (or 50 E-100s) vs 50 IS-3s.

Any idea of how you would preceed with this or is it either too early to indicate or some thing you want to flesh out first before the jackels attack your ideas? (I am talking to you luderbamsen, you Danish troublemaker you )

[gibsonm]

Any chance we can retain the "real ORBATs" option too?

That way the alleged "points driven, cherry pickers" will be happy as will those of us who want a historic ORBAT.

[grunt_GI]

Apologies, but I did a search on the entire forum and didn't see anything on where Mac fits into the long term plan.

Any bones on where you are in the process of porting CMSF to OS X?

Will there be a simultaneous release of the WW2 version of Mac and PC?

Mark, is there anyway to email an update...my email is in my profile or I can send it to you?

[gibsonm]

Um no it isn't.

I'm asking Steve at the moment and I guess either he will put something here or allow me to email you a draft I've sent him for review (assuming you email me first so I can get your address).

[ April 10, 2008, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: gibsonm ]

[M1A1TC]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

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

Steve

Could you release that list? Are MRAPS or FRAG 5 Humvees on it?

[Battlefront.com]

MacOS support is most likely going to happen before WW2 is released. Charles has taken a quick look at the code already and feels it won't be terribly hard to port it over. The plan is to start as soon as the Normandy Module has been released. Charles can't wait to get back to the Mac as his primary development platform

Having said that, the devil is always in the details. It is possible that a major problem will rear its ugly head and push porting to the Mac off until after WW2's initial release. Not desirable, that's for sure, so we hope this won't happen. No reason to think it will either, just making sure you all understand that until we get into things we won't know everything we need to know.

Another aspect of this is if we can support PPC chips. We think G4 and earlier are simply too old to bother supporting. G5 would be good to support, however there's a fairly small number out there and the time to support them may not be worth it. Therefore, it is quite possible that only Intel based Macs will be supported. Again, we won't know until we get into it.

M1A1TC,

We'll release a list fairly soon. We're still messing around with some of the details even though the basic models are done. The extra upgrades to Humvees is something we are looking into.

Steve

[jeffsmith]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

MacOS support is most likely going to happen before WW2 is released.

The plan is to start as soon as the Normandy Module has been released.

Steve

These are Mutually Negating events

(Can't have a Normandy Module without WWII can we ?)

So I will wager you meant the Marine Module

[Battlefront.com]

Er... yes, you're wager was well placed I meant we'll start as soon as the Marines Module has been released.

Steve

[Omenowl]

Hey Steve,

Purely as a lark would it be possible if you have both the WW2 version and CMSF if you could have the two forces fight each other?

I would be happy if you could get a Mac OSX version so I don't have to use visa to play on my macbook pro.

[Battlefront.com]

Without extra work, no... the CM:SF stuff and the WW2 stuff couldn't be played against each other. The data structures aren't going to be the same, so that nixes things right there. But sure... we could recode all the models and TO&E, not optimize anything out, and make specific code to handle things like what an RPG-29 would do against a PzIV with skirt armor. Meaning, no matter how generalized the engine is, Charles still has to code up specific stuff to account for new situations. Obviously we don't have the time for that sort of stuff, as fun as it might be

Steve

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[luderbamsen]

Originally posted by Canada Guy:

Thanks Steve.

I agree that no matter how you develop the point system, it will never be perfectly accurate. But that is OK with me.

As an example if a PzVI E (Late) is worth 222 points and you code the M4A1 at 141 I am happy with that. The M4A1 could be 130 or 135 or even 150 for all I care. What is important to me at the end of the day is that I can create my force within the alloted points that I have been given and have some sort of perceived balance that I can bring to the gaming table and use.

What will make me happy is the ability to craft the force into what I want and use it against an opponent that is doing the same within set limits (ie points). This is also useful for scenario building but I do not want an open concept where each side just picks whatever the heck they want. Every battle would end up being 50 King Tigers (or 50 E-100s) vs 50 IS-3s.

Any idea of how you would preceed with this or is it either too early to indicate or some thing you want to flesh out first before the jackels attack your ideas? (I am talking to you luderbamsen, you Danish troublemaker you )

Troublemaker? Moi? :cool:

I've never used the points system for anything but a rough estimate of balance. It didn't stop me from pitting a mixed Tiger II/Jagdtiger/Panther/Jagdpanther company against a 1941 Soviet tank regiment... ...or accidentally wipe out my own infantry with the Sturmtigers I used in Stalingrad (killed the unbuttoned Sturmtiger commanders too...)

Besides, I'm a patient man. I could wait for the E-100 to appear in the Brit WW2 module. In fact, it would nicely balance the Tortoise: Imagine doing a Operation Goodwood scenaro, and then do it again but replace one or two ordinary tanks with the Tortoise, just to see what difference it would have made. Just like you could give Wittman an E-100 for Villers-Bocage or use it at Capriqet...

[Scipio]

Here are a few things from my wishlist:

a) Unit details with kill stats.

that damaged/destroyed vehicels LOOK damaged/destroyed. The only advantage of ToW.

c) a more detailed 'End of Battle' screen. Seriously, the given informations are currently so abstract that they are nearly senseless, at least for my simple mind.

[Huntarr]

Originally posted by Sequoia:

They'll fool us all and do North Korea.

Did someone say Korean invasion?

[Taki]

S! and Thx for that Great Statement Steve. BFC is still my most loved Game Developer. If you get the New QB Feature and a WeGo WW2 thing done ill definatly will buy the Game again.

[Kilroy Lurking]

Battlefront...

As someone lurking in the wings waiting for the Mac version (of CM:SF) to arrive I hope that I am right in assuming that once the initial cross-coding or whatever has been accomplished all subsequent modules/derivatives will have Mac versions released simultaneously with the PC version; right?

David

[The Warrior]

Battlefront.

I know it's to late for the Marine module but would it be possable to add the M-113 in the future?

[Meach]

IBCT would be nice too.

[Omenowl]

Thanks for the response Steve. It was a joke, but it would have been interesting to see WW2 vs. Modern weapons.

China vs. Taiwan would be cool. A lot of us equipment vs. chinese/russian equipment. Perhaps Russians vs. Georgia or the Ukraine.

[Aacooper]

Modern vs WW2 would be more interesting to wait for and think about than play. If the US vs Syria scenarios are unbalanced, send Strykers against squads with bolt-action rifles.