Mord Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 LOL a touchy subject at best but was just wondering, now that the engine is getting to a stablest point...(1.1 sounding great), will the next titles, Normandy and the like, be less prone to the massive amounts of tweaking that CMSF needed? It seems normal if you compare CMBO's amount of patches to CMBB and CMAK...but we will be switching gears here soon. Not to mention I haven't heard Paradox's name in quite some time... Will Normandy be the test title for WWII like one could argue that CMSF was the test for modern? Or will the stability garnered over the last year be able to carry from title to title? will it be easier to back engineer to the older weapons and doctrines now that the labor pains have passed? Or really are we looking at a new frontier even though the engine was built for such things. In reality we've got a lot of new terrain and force types in the pipe. Water, Bridges, Mortar teams, Rain, Fog...all that cool stuff. To tell the truth, it's not really an issue for me either way, more of a curiosity thing about how the engine and outlook will evolve as we go. I was patient with CMSF's development and I'll be patient with the rest. I am just really pumped about all the new info BFC talked about in the Brit Module thread and it's got my head spinning. ...maybe I am just fishing for more info cause I am greedy like that... Mord. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoolaman Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 I think the answer will be yes... and no. I'm probably not telling you anything that you haven't worked out for yourself, but with all the new stuff going into the WW2 game by way of terrain, weather? water, flavour objects, fortifications etc, I'm sure there are going to be plenty of new problems to solve. On the other hand I'm sure there is no way the ww2 game will start from the point that CMSF 1.01 was. Things like the enhanced LOS system, infantry and AFV TacAI behaviour that are now in CMSF but were not at the start seem like they would be common to both titles. I've been thinking about the Paradox connection too. I think BFC will be happy to revert to the "when it's done" philosophy for all their future works. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 Yes, what Hollaman said We always anticipate having to make adjustments, even major ones, post release. That's been true for everything we've ever put out. The core of the game engine is, thankfully, quite solid now. Has been for a long while in our opinion. Not as complete or full featured as people want, still with some bugs in it, but basically the stuff we had initial problems with is largely fine even with v1.08 even. This means we can concentrate on doing things like making the new QB system. Which, I will remind you, will see the light of day for the first time with the first Normandy release. No matter how debugged, tweaked, and tested it is... something like that is bound to have some problems when it is initially released. It's a huge feature set! Hopefully whatever problems it has will be minor. In short, I expect the usual amount of initial problems that our previous (and in fact almost all) games have had. What I do not expect is the sort of combination of technical, gameplay, and feature problems we had with CM:SF's release. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 Let's see if I can get this out of them.... So have you completely ruled out any pre-twentieth century game or is there some slim possibility of one happening if all else goes as planned? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Field Marshal Blücher Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 Let's see if I can get this out of them.... So have you completely ruled out any pre-twentieth century game or is there some slim possibility of one happening if all else goes as planned? Well, the CM engine would IMO be inappropriate for pre-twentieth century games. BFC is working on HistWar: Les Grognards which is set in the Napeoleonic Wars . . . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted August 28, 2008 Author Share Posted August 28, 2008 Thanks Steve, that's about what I figured and was hoping for. LOL yeah, it's rare that any game has ever come out that didn't need some patches...glad to hear they'll most likely just be tweakers and such. Mord. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 There is theoretically nothing preventing CMx2 from doing something pre-20th Century. We made sure of that when we designed the game engine itself. However, there are practical challenges that make going backwards in time more difficult than going forward. First, those bloody horses They require a ton of modeling/animation details, but also need entirely unique TacAI since they are in a sense both vehicles and soldiers, not one or the other like we have now. Second, earlier time periods were far more dependent on formational fighting than the game is set up for. That means adding a lot more TacAI and, inevitably, new user interface to control the use of formations. Third, troop density tends to be higher than it does from WW2 point on. That's a performance issue, though practically speaking by the time we ever were able to get to an earlier time period the technology would likely be fine for it. Therefore, it would be an issue now but not likely in the future. Fourth, we would have to hit the books to simply figure out how to design the features necessary to make it work! That takes time too. I did help out with the design of Civil War Generals 2 quite a bit, but man... that was a long time ago and I used someone else's books for it! The last reason is economics. If you had the option of doing X work to get Y revenue, or X2 work to get Y-Z revenue... which project would you tend to go for? Exactly The problem we have is that we're optimized for the most viable genres of games. Putting a lot of extra work into something that is likely to sell less kinda takes the fun out of it. American Civil War would sell VERY well here in the US, but not as well in Europe. Napoleon warfare would sell VERY well in Europe, but not as well in the US. This is compared to a WW2 or later wargame. So... I won't say that we will never, ever do anything pre-20th Century, however practically speaking that's likely. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted August 28, 2008 Author Share Posted August 28, 2008 I'd rather you guys stick to what you do best, personally. When I think of tactical, 20th century warfare I think Battlefront...when I think Civil War, I think Madminute and That Norb guy's new site, flying I think Il-2 and 1c...I like it like that...not that you guys probably couldn't make a decent game in an another genre, just I like companies that specialize. No one can touch Oleg Maddox in what he does...and nobody comes close to touching BFC in what they do...LOL it's nice to have that! Plus you guy's got the French dude doing his Nap game...so that's taken care of too. Mord. P.S. Check your email when you get a chance...no rush...I know you guys are busy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted August 28, 2008 Share Posted August 28, 2008 19th century wars are no problem at all. If you assume a bit of time travel. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.