New concept for CM:SF setting

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Steve wrote,

“There is no Campaign Editor for CM:SF at all. Not even for us. We're going with text files, so the plan is to document how they are assembled and allow people to make their own.”

This one matters..a lot..

Being a huge fan of all things operational and of mixing up operational /campaign games and live CM play the fact that we will be able to play around in the text files controlling campaigns is a big plus.

All sounds great,

All the best,

Kip.

[Juardis]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

There is no Campaign Editor for CM:SF at all. Not even for us. We're going with text files, so the plan is to document how they are assembled and allow people to make their own.

Steve

Ok, excellent. Then I stick with Syrian w/ minor back story and fictional elements. I want future campaign designers to have access to as many weapons/weps platforms as possible. If you give them the tools, these nuts will create endless hours of fun for the rest of us.

[C'Rogers]

Perhaps, but this is a fairly plausible result if the US were to openly back Israel, militarily, in a war against an Islamic nation...

World War III would kick off in a way that was never predicted.

You know what ... that sounds like a pretty interesting idea for a series of games . Why don't you trash everything else and go with that?

You might never get around to the WWII game but no one really wants that anyway.

Kidding of course.

[Battlefront.com]

Dirtweasel,

Recalling back to the reasons given for doing modern first before returning to WWII, in hindsight, all the warts conceeded, do you regret somewhat not chosing either a WWII setting or perhaps Iran as the Red Force?

Nope, no regrets at all. In fact, we feel the exact opposite. What we're working on now is the bleading edge of military simulation. Even the US military doesn't have something like what we're doing. That all on its own is enough to get me up in the morning for another 12 hour work day. For us WWII is going to be booring by comparison. Not only have we already done it, but there is really nothing new to learn compared to what we're doing now.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

There is a thread somewhere on this Forum that discusses the Campaign system in general terms. Not much has changed from a design standpoint since the thread was made, therefore it is pretty much still relevant.

Steve

[Sequoia]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Sniff sniff. Is that a Defense contract I smell down the road?

[Sgt Joch]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

There is a thread somewhere on this Forum that discusses the Campaign system in general terms. Not much has changed from a design standpoint since the thread was made, therefore it is pretty much still relevant.

Steve

Dynamic/Semi-Dynamic campaigns

I presume this is the thread. The ability for players to create their own semi-dynamic campaigns for CMSF opens up a lot of interesting possibilities.

I assume we will also be able to create campaigns for the Red side, as well as Red v. Red and Blue v. Blue campaigns.

John

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Nope, no regrets at all. In fact, we feel the exact opposite.

Great, I had to ask because reading between the lines one might have jumped to the conclusion the bloom was off the rose.

[Battlefront.com]

Sequoia,

Sniff sniff. Is that a Defense contract I smell down the road?

They've been after us since CMBO. The problem is that the people with the money don't have the imagination. "Yes, yes... it looks good, but what good is it? I mean, we haven't had Sherman tanks in service for 50 years". "Picture it with Abrams instead of Shermans". "OK, but that's still a Sherman". That sort of thing

We're making CM:SF for you guys, but the overlap with military training (not just US based, believe me!) is so blatantly obvious.

Steve

[luderbamsen]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Sequoia,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Sniff sniff. Is that a Defense contract I smell down the road?

They've been after us since CMBO. The problem is that the people with the money don't have the imagination. "Yes, yes... it looks good, but what good is it? I mean, we haven't had Sherman tanks in service for 50 years". "Picture it with Abrams instead of Shermans". "OK, but that's still a Sherman". That sort of thing

We're making CM:SF for you guys, but the overlap with military training (not just US based, believe me!) is so blatantly obvious.

Steve </font>

[MoNuckah]

Syria with Minor Backstory and Fictional Subsection

That works, its flexible, and gets all the goodies in. Many things can be modded or added later as needed.

Just as long as you give us flexible open scenario design and a nice accessable UI to do it with.

Could we model in our own units like Drop Team?

That would be the ultimate.

Thats not much to ask is it? :eek:

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Sequoia,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Sniff sniff. Is that a Defense contract I smell down the road?

They've been after us since CMBO. The problem is that the people with the money don't have the imagination. "Yes, yes... it looks good, but what good is it? I mean, we haven't had Sherman tanks in service for 50 years". "Picture it with Abrams instead of Shermans". "OK, but that's still a Sherman". That sort of thing

We're making CM:SF for you guys, but the overlap with military training (not just US based, believe me!) is so blatantly obvious.

Steve </font>

[FAI]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Sequoia,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Sniff sniff. Is that a Defense contract I smell down the road?

They've been after us since CMBO. The problem is that the people with the money don't have the imagination. "Yes, yes... it looks good, but what good is it? I mean, we haven't had Sherman tanks in service for 50 years". "Picture it with Abrams instead of Shermans". "OK, but that's still a Sherman". That sort of thing

We're making CM:SF for you guys, but the overlap with military training (not just US based, believe me!) is so blatantly obvious.

Steve </font>

[SteveS]

Originally posted by FAI:

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

Sequoia,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Sniff sniff. Is that a Defense contract I smell down the road?

They've been after us since CMBO. The problem is that the people with the money don't have the imagination. "Yes, yes... it looks good, but what good is it? I mean, we haven't had Sherman tanks in service for 50 years". "Picture it with Abrams instead of Shermans". "OK, but that's still a Sherman". That sort of thing

We're making CM:SF for you guys, but the overlap with military training (not just US based, believe me!) is so blatantly obvious.

Steve </font>

[kipanderson]

Steve,

“We're making CM:SF for you guys, but the overlap with military training (not just US based, believe me!) is so blatantly obvious.”

So it is farms/ranches the size of a county for each of you at BFC…

All the best,

Kip.

[jeffsmith]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

Steve,

“We're making CM:SF for you guys, but the overlap with military training (not just US based, believe me!) is so blatantly obvious.”

So it is farms/ranches the size of a county for each of you at BFC…

All the best,

Kip.

I hear there is talk of changing Aroostook to Grammont

[Battlefront.com]

I hear there is talk of changing Aroostook to Grammont

Ah, if this were only true. I could get all the potatoes I could ever eat free. That would be great!

Steve

[C'Rogers]

Ah, if this were only true. I could get all the potatoes I could ever eat free. That would be great!

If you have to worry about the price of potatoes then BFC really does go long time between paychecks.

[jim crowley]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Dirtweasel,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Recalling back to the reasons given for doing modern first before returning to WWII, in hindsight, all the warts conceeded, do you regret somewhat not chosing either a WWII setting or perhaps Iran as the Red Force?

Nope, no regrets at all. In fact, we feel the exact opposite. What we're working on now is the bleading edge of military simulation. Even the US military doesn't have something like what we're doing. That all on its own is enough to get me up in the morning for another 12 hour work day. For us WWII is going to be booring by comparison. Not only have we already done it, but there is really nothing new to learn compared to what we're doing now.

Steve </font>

[Battlefront.com]

That's why I said "booring by comparison" Right now I am learning something new just about every few hours. It might be a little tidbit, it might be something rather dramatic. All the while I have to take all this information and figure out what it will mean in 2007, then I have to figure out what it means to CM, then I have to figure out how to implement it. This is quite exciting compared to dusting off my books and copying over some data and basically reworking what we've already done (both CMx1 and what we did for CMx2).

Don't get me wrong, I am going to be very happy to get WWII into CMx2. We will also be working on new features that CM:SF won't have. So there will be plenty to motivate us to get up and work each day. But compared to what we are doing now it is definitely not as exciting.

Dirtweasel's question was if we regretted doing contemporary instead of WWII. The answer to that is obviously no for the reasons I just cited. However, would I want to go through this sort of exercise again right after CM:SF? Good God NO! Sometimes too much of a good thing isn't good. And waking up each morning knowing that I the whole world can shift out from under my feet is probably only fun once In that sense, WWII after CM:SF will be a welcomed relief and therefore more likely to be fun to do.

Steve

[jim crowley]

Phew! OK, good to hear. WW2 is still good to go and all is right in the world

If only indirectly, I'm sure there will be a lot of positive spin-off from the lessons learned in constructing CMSF, to CMXWW2. So it won't have been all for nothing

From a unashamed WW2 bigot,

[pad152]

The truth is I never did understand "War with Syria" if you want to pick a bad guy Iran would had made more sense.

US vs Iraq

Duh, no brainer but it might be tuff to play Iraq.

US vs Iran - yes

With a nut case leader anything is possible, none of it good!

Israel vs Syria

Gee, can anyone say Lebanon!

I would like to see the game be more of a Steel Panthers playset. You gen a map and then pick the players. Let the game start with US vs Syria players, then add battlesets for Israel, Iran, Irag, etc. That should keep everyone busy for the next 5 yrs or so!

[pad152]

With the change in concept, I take it we won't CM:SF until somtime in 2007! :confused:

[Battlefront.com]

Pad152,

You really need to read some threads here No change in concept because we always conceived it might change. We set it up to be flexible until about now. So now tht we've nailed things down, there is no time/effort lost. If we changed it in 2 months from now, probably no effect either other than to have the press printing stuff that was no longer accurate. But the game's release would be the same pretty much any way you slice it.

There are reasons why Iraq and Iran were poor choices from a game standpoint, not to mention being worse from a reality standpoint. We have no desire to make a game that few people would buy, so Israel vs. Syria was never even considered.

Steve

[Sequoia]

Why has no one thought of this before? The perfect fictional scenario! A mid-eastern country ruled by genetically enhanced super-humans whose leader is Khan Noonien Singh!