Is CMSF ever going to get Water/Bridges...???

[Charlie901]

First let me say that I'm a total CM fan and BattleFront suporter.

But...

I keep hearing that water/bridges won't be added to the CMX2 series until the WWII game versions...

I will be really dissapionted if this is fact true. I really am enjoying the modern battlefield for a change and really crave the extra tactical element of having Bridge over water, simulating ambushes/battles.

I really want to play some maps where U.S. troops get bogged down by a Syrian ambush, across a bridge, from a town on the other side. Maybe even having the road/bridge minned in between...Drool!!!

This was a recurrent problem for U.S. Troops in Iraq in their initial push to Bagdad (from what I've seen/read) and really want to simulte it in the CMSF game. What better way to funnel an enemy force into an ambush than forcing them to cross a single bridge where your guns/artillery are trained/sighted in.

I know that the terrain can probably be modded to make a steep gully with a narrow dirt road crossing it but it just is'nt the same as an actual long bridge spanning an impassable river.

Please tell me that an upcomming Modual will be able to add this in?

[Dogface]

CMSF? - not from what I remember BF.c saying.

CMx2 WW2 ? - yes it will have it

[Sgt.Rock of Easy Company]

Well, when water comes out in the WW2 modules, will there be an engine update for CMSF to allow water tiles, whether passable or not?

[Schrullenhaft]

The CMx2 WWII titles will definitely have water obstacles/bridges. CMSF in its current incarnation will not have water obstacles/bridges (i.e. - a future patch will not provide the feature).

There has been mild mention in the past that the CMSF engine could possibly be updated to the WWII title's version of the engine, thus providing water obstacles/bridges. But this update wouldn't be a quick, one-day effort however (as far as I know). Charles would still need quite a bit of time to bring the CMSF elements into the new engine. So there's a good chance that this may not happen (i.e. - no free or fee update to the CMSF engine).

BFC/BTS's plans for modern warfare aren't absolutely clear, but the next incarnation of modern combat will be in a temperate zone. Whether that will include the current crop of CMSF units with some additional ones isn't fully known. But that title will definitely have water obstacles/bridges. When it will be worked on, I don't know. It may come after the WWII:Normandy game and some of its modules or after a WWII:Eastern Front main CMx2 title has been completed.

[Battlefront.com]

We are unlikely to add water/bridges to the current CM:SF. As Schrully stated, it is unlikely that this sort of change can be worked into the existing game structures without breaking something or lots of somethings. Retrofitting is always more difficult than starting fresh. From a data storage standpoint starting fresh means making format changes which support new features but break all previously made scenarios.

However, not to worry... soon after the initial Normandy version is out (which is probably closer than people imagine it to be ) we are going to release CM:SF 2. This will have a temperate setting and all of the relevant improvements made for the Normandy version. Plus some new stuff as well! Red Force will be fully modernized and some Blue Force stuff that is still in the planning stages will also be included.

Steve

[Omenowl]

Temperate zone with modern Nato vs. Russian type units would be great. The type of game I always wanted...

[Paper Tiger]

It's Pete Wenman's marsh to water tiles mod but you can effectively have water in CMSF already. And you can make bridges too but of course, they're indestructible.

Close up, it still looks better than CMx1 water.

[Battlefront.com]

heh... yeah, we saw that Mod when he made it and definitely agree it looks way better than CMx1's water (at least the stock type). However, this is something we feel we either need to do "right" the first time out of the gate. That means some transparency and motion. But this isn't where the problem lies, at least primarily.

The major problem is that once we have water people will, rightly so, demand bridges. The problem with that is bridges break all conventional LOS/LOF, AI, and Pathing code. I'm sure I've explained this in better detail before, so forgive the short explanation now:

Currently there is no single Action Spot that can be entered and/or exited in two or more mutually exclusive ways based on the adjacent Action Spots. By this I mean if I am to the west of a square I can either cross over the eastern edge or I can't. There is no situation when I can cross into that square from the west at a different height. In game terms this means there currently is no way I can cross under a bridge without also being able to cross onto it. Obviously that's a big problem since bridges are directional and can only be entered from a specific direction.

Everything in the game, as I have briefly stated, has a big problem with this. LOS/LOF now has to assume that it might be able to look UNDER something but not over it. Trajectories now have a chance of impacting something above or below a given point, depending on the path they travel. The AI has to understand that it can't move into a spot from just any old direction in some cases, but can in other cases and that the outcome radically affects where the unit can go afterwards. Pathing has similar logic problems.

Buildings, as I said, are sort of an exception for the movement aspect at least. You can cross from one building to another in multiple ways depending on height. However, buildings are detached from the rest of the environment. Vehicles, for example, always path around buildings and never through them. Foot units path on the assumption that once in a building it can move to any other building provided there is a door, regardless of direction.

What Charles needs to do is leverage the current building code to create, in a way, special building types that can mimic bridges. There's still a ton more work there, including the issues surrounding graphics (remember the terrain restrictions in CMx1?), so it's not a simple job. Fundamental things must change in order to make this work and that's something we've been deliberately saving for Normandy.

Steve

[Roter Stern]

I'm sorry to say Steve, but it sounds like you guys got yourself cornered with a not very well thought-out shortcut you committed to early in development. In other words it seems that CMx2 did not turn out to be quite as universally-modular as everyone hoped it would - which also explains why you outright confirmed that cross-title support is not even on the list of possibilities.

In a decent modular system the Content should be completely independent from the Game Engine - allowing changes to one to be carried out without any interference to the other. Where as from what was suggested about Normandy is that the changes to the Game Engine would have to be so dramatic, that the Content will be rendered incompatible with any of the previous versions of the Engine. In lament terms - Tigers will not be taking on T-72s.

A little confused and disappointed as of late - and not even specifically due to the lack of "Tiger vs T72" battles, but because of an apparent lack of foresight from this Development.

[Battlefront.com]

The Louch,

'm sorry to say Steve, but it sounds like you guys got yourself cornered with a not very well thought-out shortcut you committed to early in development.

Er... not well thought out? Sure, it was. Very well thought out in fact. We identified water/bridges as a major time sink for a feature that had minimal need to be in the first release. So instead of bumping something that was of more importance, we prioritized water/bridges for the second major release. As it so happens, it didn't disrupt any of our plans in terms of what products we wished to release, so the decision was not only well thought out and solid, but it has no negative impact on what we want to do with the game engine going forward.

I can't emphasize enough that if we did not make such decisions we'd probably be several years away from releasing CM:SF. Therefore, any thinking that we can do everything concurrently, without something having to be sacrificed (like our financial viability ) is a non-starter argument. It's like suggesting that the US should have developed the Abrams in 1943 in order to combat the German's Tiger and simply skipped over all those useless tanks inbetween

In a decent modular system the Content should be completely independent from the Game Engine - allowing changes to one to be carried out without any interference to the other.

This sort of theory doesn't work in real life. Sorry, but that is reality. If you don't like it that's not really relevant.

In reality what one shoots for is backward compatibility of game features. In other words, adding bridges and water should not require rewriting the entire AI, pathing, or LOS/LOF code. Instead it should require adding new functionality to the old. That way previous time invested isn't lost and future development time isn't wasted recovering the old stuff just to accommodate the new. That's why we trashed CMx1's code base... it couldn't do it. CMx2's code base can do it just fine.

Where as from what was suggested about Normandy is that the changes to the Game Engine would have to be so dramatic, that the Content will be rendered incompatible with any of the previous versions of the Engine. In lament terms - Tigers will not be taking on T-72s.

We could make Tigers fight against T-72s. All it would take is retrofitting the older game data to work with whatever the new game data format may be. Technically it is a piece of cake. However, it is extra work which is unavoidable because it is impossible to remain backwards compatible without significant and ever increasing development costs. Or, as with CMx1, with every increasing inflexibility because one doesn't want to break the stuff from 3 years ago because of the new work that would entail to make the previous 3 years of stuff work.

So here we are... firmly grounded in the world where reality always trumps theory. We can theoretically maintain a rolling game engine that always supports what came before it. In reality this costs time and time in turn costs money. We do not see the economic benefit of having T-72s fight against Tigers and then do battle with Space Lobster Traps. If we did then we could simply offer an upgrade and people could pay to do this. For now we're not planning on this because we don't see it being worth the investment.

A little confused and disappointed as of late - and not even specifically due to the lack of "Tiger vs T72" battles, but because of an apparent lack of foresight from this Development.

Again, foresight has nothing to do with this decision. There is absolutely nothing we would do differently now because the decisions we made were the right ones done for the right reasons. Whether you understand that or not is ultimately not a concern for us. I don't understand quantum physics, but I'm glad someone does! You should think along the same lines

Steve

[Cpl Steiner]

I would just like to say, I wouldn't mind having all existing scenarios broken to get bridges and water into CM:SF. I would still think it was worth it. The community would probably rewrite all the existing scenarios and produce loads of new scenarios in no time anyway. If an upgrade was made available which very clearly warned the user that it would delete all existing scenarios/campaigns if installed, users could decide for themselves if they wanted it.

[Charlie901]

Wow...

This is depressing news indeed!

It seems like the new CM(SF)X2 series has devolved into the TOW 2 fiasco... (i.e. In order to put soldiers into buildings you have to buy a new and improved game in a different/smaller theater, with fewer units rather than expanding on the original title).

I was really hoping (beyond hope I guess) that we could get water/bridges via another paid for add-on for this series, in this theater, with the current units. I'm not interested in buying a whole seperate CM Modern warfare game with different units/theater to get bridges/water as I'm planning on concentrating on the WWII series and moduals when it becomes availible.

Instead, as I understand it I will have to buy the New Improved "CM:SFx2 Build 2" series modern battle game to get bridges and water.

I guess I was wrong in my initial impression that the CMSF series could be continued with added features/moduals without being dropped altogether, ala CMx1.

What's the point of adding onto CM:SF and selling additional moduals if the Devs have already decided to move forward from CM:SF cause it's too hard to retrofit water and bridges; so a newer better game build is on the horizon (with another Marines Modual I suspect). Unless you consider CM:SF a purchasable "Alfa Build" this makes no sense.

Maybe, I should skip the "Marines Modual" and wait for the new Modern Warfare CM:SF game engine that allows water and bridges?

... or maybe I should have skipped CM:SF altogether since a much more complete and obviously better game, simulating Modern Warfare, is on the Horizon.

I really can't see how this makes good business sense and encourages customer loyalty?

Again, I strongly support BattleFront and thoroughly enjoy their products but am extremely disappointed with the non-backward compatability of the water/bridges and feel it will definately shorten the life of this particular title.

[Cambronne]

Let go the water,it can(more or less)be simulated by the marsh.But what about snow...?

And I'm especcialy interested in CM:Normandy;will it have snow?(you know,in october it's not unlikely to snow).

PS:and will "Normandy" get AA assets able to down airplanes like in CMBB?

Thanks!

[Scipio]

What I do not understand is, why should old scenarios don't work with a new engine that supports water/bridges? A typical map doesn't use all existing terrain types, too, so what's the problem if a new engine supports a new terrain that's not on the old map?

I have to agree - to some degree - with The Louch. CMx2 is not half as modular as I expected - and Steve, it is not just theory that a new engine can handle perfectly old datas. I have proofed it with the 'Campaign Series' from late great Talonsoft, and I'm not even a profesional programer! The CS games were of course a different piece of cake with relativ simple 2D maps - but the basic concept of a map is always the same - you have tiles with a specific look and attribute(s), maybe even with several layers of content.

The CS maps were in basic text format. Unit data were all in the same format anyway, only the scenario files needed a little decrytion, but it was not really an effort.

If the CM maps/scenarios wouldn't be hardcoded and/or encrypted, even me or another smart-ass could try to make an import tool, even for CMx1 -> CMx2. By the way, I never understood why the scenarios/maps are hardcoded at all. Once they are part of PBEM file, ok, different story. Yes, I know the argument of 'if sombody knows the raw data, he can in theory recreate the encryption method and decode PBEM files'. But seriously, in all the last 8 years I have never heard of a hacked PBEM file. I doubt that it's impossile, I just think wargame PBEM files are not a potential goal for crackers. If some poor soul really needs to cheat H2H games, it would make more sense to manipulate the unit datas...

But I know, all my ideas require efforts and time, and Charles ain't up to it, and I will never been told how to decode/encode maps *sight*.

[theFightingSeabee]

I understand Steve's points. I am currently developing drug dispensing software for clinic use. It's taken me two weeks to be able to change the price during a sale. This seems like an easy task, but doing so caused so many problems that it really was like a huge logic puzzle. Make one small change and it makes another thing not work. Change that to work and you've got another problem. It's a domino effect. Changing the original structure of my program could have been done but it might have taken a month to do. And all of this just to change the price of a drug during a sale and record the change.

So I fully understand what Steve is talking about. As a business, they have to utilize their time in a way that doesn't crash the business. They need to weigh the value of bridges vs. the value of moving forward and noting lessons learned, all while keeping us happy with update patches and new modules.

[Lethaface]

Hehe, sounds familiar.

Working with an internet business myself and being in between the business case and programmers myself, I do some coding when it has to be done.

I must say though, that our new Object oriented package code and new Database design eliminates virtually all those nasty problems

However, rehauling our whole code base was a MAJOR, MAJOR thing and it offcourse didn't bring in any extra sales (directly at least). While adding new features it is necessary to constant re-evaluate class design because its easy to let them become procedural and inter dependant again. Best thing is that web applications dont need to be installed, so a change can be online 1 minute from original dev checkout

And if overhauling the system means that you wont be gaining any income for another * years, well, better start flipping burgers

[Jason1980]

I personally feel I got my moneys worth when I purchased CMSF. It's not an expensive game. I have played it for hundreds of hours. When compared to other forms of entertainment, like going to the movies or out to night clubs or amusement parks. It's a bargain. So CMSF doesn't have water. I knew that when I played the demo, before I purchased the game. It's still a great game. I look forward to the new titles, and the good news is they will have water.

[medlinke]

I agree with Steiner...

The community will deal with it.

There are other issues too...like knocked out vehicles not being able to be moved which would render bridges impassible, etc.

I can certainly appreciate the complexity from an AI pathing standpoint, etc. But it smacks of "that's too hard we'll just not do it."

Certainly you've read many accounts of how insurgents take advantage of natural obstacles to gain the upper hand. Bridges are one of the singularly most effective places to stage those kinds of hit & run battles, particularly ones near towns. So it's not like there isn't documentation out there supporting the inclusion of bridges over water, ditches, etc. as core strategic elements for outnumbered forces. Even though the argument is that it would have cost more time to implement than it would given players enjoyment...I think clearly you're getting first hand responses on the contrary.

[dan/california]

But would you want to wait six more weeks for the Marines module to just get bridges?

Especially when several scenario designers have proved that you can do pretty good ones now with a little work.

George Mc's Cry havoc comes immediately to mind.

[cabal23]

"Er... not well thought out? Sure, it was. Very well thought out in fact. We identified water/bridges as a major time sink for a feature that had minimal need to be in the first release."

Not being pciky and I know it's been talked to death but how can you the element that cover most of the earth not be a feature that is considered? I agree the marsh tiles with the water mod work fine. But I can't imagine sitting at a table discussing my future game that is built on designing landscapes for war and saying, "Water isn't important, that is such a secondary item." Maybe I am crazy about all those water posts I have read. It sounds like to me it is the number one gripe with this game is water and the second is bridges. I agree Rome wasn't built in a day and BF must understand that the majority of people are going to support their game regardless of their maybe sometime odd choices.. But I am still stuck on how water and bridges would have pushed this game out years. I understand how coding and programming works, and that staement just stumps me. I am sure you guys did your best. Just a wonky choice of statements to make though. I mean really YEARS? BUT...............the final is answer is still no. I get it. I still love the game and maybe that's why we are in this predicament we all love the game despite it's obvious flaws we will keep playing.

[Charlie901]

But would you want to wait six more weeks for the Marines module to just get bridges?

Especially when several scenario designers have proved that you can do pretty good ones now with a little work.

George Mc's Cry havoc comes immediately to mind.

Yes I would wait...

Especially, given the fact that the new Maries Module is an add-on for a game build that is already outdated and going to be replaced with a newer version (that can simulate water/bridges) with it's own add-on modules.

I just don't see the point in continuing to spend my money on Modules for a non upgradable game that has it's replacement being worked on...

It's like running out to purchase an add-on for TOW 1 when TOW 2 is just around the corner with advancements that can't be retro fitted to the original TOW game.

[Battlefront.com]

Guys,

Since the days of yor, gamers have never, ever understood the concept that everything added requires time and time is always working against us. I kid you not that when Charles and I put together the first preliminary list of suggestions from you guys and testers for CM:Normandy the task list extended us out THREE YEARS. And that isn't include the hundreds of suggestions that weren't even figured in.

Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, eats into our schedule. Therefore, we have to be picky about what we do and do not do. The problem is everybody has their own personal concept of what should be at the top of the list. If we asked 10,000 of you for your top 10 feature improvement list for CM I bet there is at least 10 years worth of ideas to be found in there because there would be so little overlap.

The thing is even though customers never have, and never will, understand real world limitations of game development, we do. We have to because we're the ones that have to actually do the work. Except for customers who have been in similar situations there is very little understanding here on this Forum or any other game forum. It's about as solid a rule as Death and Taxes

The other truism is that uninformed customers always second guess everything we do. Everything we do right could be done better, everything not included should have been included, things included could have been done with out, etc. It's maddening and the primary reason most game developers want as much to do with their customer base as most of us want a sexually transmitted disease. Be thankful we're dumb enough to buck the trend

Now, as to water/bridges...

But I can't imagine sitting at a table discussing my future game that is built on designing landscapes for war and saying, "Water isn't important, that is such a secondary item."

For a country with very little flowing water, no it isn't very important. Not when compared to the bazillion other things that we had to get into the game within a reasonable timeframe. Even then development took 1 year longer than we had planned, and that was with no water and bridges.

Maybe I am crazy about all those water posts I have read. It sounds like to me it is the number one gripe with this game is water and the second is bridges.

No, it doesn't even come close to being a primary gripe. If I had a magical couple of weeks to put in something that wasn't in CM:SF's initial release water/bridges wouldn't even make the top 20. So even post release I still rank it very, very low on the list of priorities because of customer feedback. What would be number one? Quick Battles... hands down.

As for the notion of a rolling upgrade... well, that would be nice but it isn't going to happen. I really don't care if people understand the technical limitations involved, I really don't care if that ignorance causes people to think that we're incompetent. Make a complex simulation from scratch, then try to support it for years on end without major difficulties. If you can do that then I'll print out this entire thread and eat it page by page. Until that time, however, it's just typical customer hot air that has no meaning in any real sense of the word.

As for the decision to buy Modules for a "deadend" system... if someone wants to wait a year or more to get Marines in the CM:SF 2 setting... that is fine. I don't have a problem with that.

From our perspective we deliver more game for $45 than anybody else out there, including features released for free after purchase. The $25 Modules extend that experience for very little money compared to the content provided. We're very comfortable with the value we are delivering and will not again undervalue our products as we did with CMx1.

What we are improving on, though, is delivery time between Modules. This release of the Marines Module was a one time delay due to time spent taking care of the existing customers instead of chasing down new ones.

Steve

[Sgt Joch]

Steve,

Not that I mean to contradict the Bossman in public , but if we are going to release the British module and maybe a NATO module for CMSF...and then or more or less in parallel, release a US/German west Normandy game, followed by a Canadian/British east Normandy module followed by, maybe, a Bulge module...and then we release a Operation Bagration Game (with mine rollers)...arent we looking at possibly two or more likely three or even four years before CMSF2 sees the light of day?

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Longer, you forgot about SLoD.

[missinginreality]

In response to Steve's lengthy post above; many many times over I have read similar discourses from BF and over and over what I keep feeling is a great sense of gratitiude and respect for a team of developers that not only make great games but also have the patience to explain over and over again what it takes to make those great games, how cost-effective they are [don't want to say cheap] and also, ontop of all that, take the time to listen and respond to their customers on an ongoing and proactive basis. I don't know where Steve and Martin get their patience buckets filled from but mine would've run dry a long time ago.

That BF takes care to see to the needs of "existing customers rather than chasing down new ones" fills me with the big love for BF; there's not many companies out there with that kind of integrity and commitment to their players than BF and it's sad that the moans and gripes on the forum outweigh the "bloody well done chaps".

So for what it's worth, Steve and Martin,from a very happy existing customer, bloody well done.