Further Releases of CMx2 engine

[Hawk66]

The following is partly discussed in other threads but I've thought it is a good idea to create a nown thread so that everyone has a clear picture (including me ;-)):

@Battlefront: Could you roughly outline the release plan for the CMx2 series for the next years. I do not mean dates but the sequence of the releases.

Is that right, that you create the 'Normandy' version and new modules for CM SF in parallel and then later CM SF 2?

If this is so: What I do not understand then, why there will be new modules for CM SF because they would obviously lack the features of the WWII version (improved Quick Battle generator, probably AI stuff etc.) since this is part of the game engine itself. So, that would mean, we have to wait 2-3 years for the next major engine update regarding modern combat?

Wouldn't it make sense to create a CM SF2 first and then create modules for it since then the game engine would be more mature?

Thanks for clarification.

[cabal23]

Once CMx2 is finished are you considering a CMx3 or are you going to actually be making expansions for it? The whole lack of backwards compatibility still confuses me. Will we be able to build desert environment in CMx2?

[Marwek77 aka Red Reporter]

Maybe i miss it but battlefront has mentioned something like CMSF 2?

I think the problem is that battlefornt team is smaller than the ideas they have. I think you build quite loyal customers, but i really dont like your way of communication with us

Anyway i stay loyal

[c3k]

Hmmm;

CMBO/BB/AK=CMx1

CMSF=CMx2

Will CM:Normandy (whatever)=CMx3 or CMx2.5?

Will the posited CMSF_2_=CMx3 or CMx4?

Do any of the anticipated revisions seem to take away from current or previous revisions?

I understand the game/module concept. As much fun as dropping a few T-72Turms into the midst of Kursk appeals to part of me, I can see how isolating the games from each other makes development better. Yet, if the there are recognized shortcomings of the engine, as is implicit in speaking about CMSF2, why not UPDATE the original?

Thanks,

Ken

[flamingknives]

The X1 and X2 refer to the base engine. CM:Normandy will be based on the CMX2 engine.

Whatever comes after that will likely be CMX2 as well, but there may be differences between them in a similar manner to the differences between the CMX1 titles.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Judging by the business acumen displayed by some in this thread, I think we are in the presence of American bankers.

[MarkEzra]

Judging by the business acumen displayed by some in this thread, I think we are in the presence of American bankers.

dammit, Elmar...that hurts!...LOL..

[c3k]

Cool, I'll wait for my government bail out... Oh, I guess I only get taxpayer money if I bribe the right politicians. Err, I mean LOBBY the right politician. (Oh and for the bankers themselves, they've made excellent decisions. Look at how rich they got. They got theirs...screw everyone else.)

Back to CM:

I thought Steve mentioned an update to CMSF which would be incompatible with the current version. Vaporware obviously, but reflects at least the musings of a member of BF.C. If CMx2 is the base engine and CMSF2 is incompatible with CMSF(original), I am too feeble to grasp how they are the same engine.

Obviously the more BF.C successfully charges the better off their business will be. That doesn't mean I wouldn't LIKE the CMSF2 code changes to be released as a patch.

Thanks,

Ken

[MikeyD]

Let's remember what we're all asking for for WWII. Rain, snow, water, bridges, flairs, visible aircraft, boats, working wristwatches for troops (I'm pushing for that one) and I could go on and on. If they manage to shoe-horn a third of the stuff we're wishing for into a WWII engine it would be very tempting for them to eventually plop their already-perfected CMSF units into that marvelous new environment. They'd rerelease it as CMSF2 or something to keep the product fresh. But you couldn't possibly expect the old maps and commands to apply to what may be a totally reworked game engine. Adding water alone would probably make all previously built maps obsolete. The march of progress and all that. But that's not exactly an immediate concern. The way the world's going, looking that far ahead may be as productive as worrying about what to wear for Lehman Brothers next company party.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I'm sorry for that snarky comment. I'd been trawling a dozen forums just to see if someone would say something financially unsound.

Exactly C3K. Us wanting something isn't enough. BFC have to be able to get a good return for investment. Three quarters of the "Why don't BFC do X" thread can be answered by considering what BFC would want, instead of just the customer.

Vapourware? That's typically used to describe a product in the works for so long that it's existence is deemed mythical. CMSF2 is hardly vapourware as it's a recently announced idea for a game, to be worked on at some point in the future. CMSF and CMSF2 use the same base code, ergo same engine. (CMx2) That CMSF and CMSF2 aren't on speaking terms is neither here nor there. CMSF2 will probably add things to gameplay that CMSF wouldn't know what to do with. It would truly suck if CMSF were compatible, because that would mean the CMx2 engine hadn't evolved much over time. And that was the whole idea of CMx2, to have an engine capable of change so it could over time evolve in to something better, unlike CMx1, which was pretty nearly more of the same each new release.

Hawkmek,

that's pretty much what seems to be the release schedule. CM:Normandy then CMSF2, with modules of the previous title released around the next. Though where this leaves Space Lobsters of Doom is uncertain.

I'm not sure why you don't understand why modules are being released. Firstly: *ka-ching* and secondly: Why the hell not? I'm dying to get my hands on some Brits. Just because the next title will be better, why not "make do" with what we've got. In ten years time CM will be even better, so why not stop releasing games until then? That essentially is what you are saying.

[Hawk66]

Hawkmek,

that's pretty much what seems to be the release schedule. CM:Normandy then CMSF2, with modules of the previous title released around the next. Though where this leaves Space Lobsters of Doom is uncertain.

I'm not sure why you don't understand why modules are being released. Firstly: *ka-ching* and secondly: Why the hell not? I'm dying to get my hands on some Brits. Just because the next title will be better, why not "make do" with what we've got. In ten years time CM will be even better, so why not stop releasing games until then? That essentially is what you are saying.

Surely I understand the cash issue, lol.

Regarding your second objection: Since the development resources seems to be very limited (1 core developer?) I would prefer that the engine gets more mature before releasing new modules. Just my personal opinion.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Modules and new games demand different resources from BFC. New titles require extensive programming, new modules relatively little. So the skinners and modellers are kept busy on modules while programming progresses on the next title.

It's a little bit more complex then that, but as a rough guide it's adequate, I reckon.

[Battlefront.com]

Some clarifications...

A game engine is a bunch of code that may improve over time, but from release to release the changes aren't radical. Best example I can think of is Bungie's FPS products.

The first FPS game they made was Pathways Into Darkness. Then they made Marathon 1 and Marathon 2, followed by some games I can't quite recall. Halo or somefink like that? Yes, that's it Halo 1, 2, and 3 have all been released.

When you look at the three "families" of games you can absolutely see similarities between them. It is highly probable that code was shared between the releases as well. But Marathon 1 and 2 look pretty much the same when compared to each other versus compared to the other games. Halo 1, 2, and 3 also look very similar to each other, and not at all like Marathon 1 and 2 or Pathways. So on and so forth. And it isn't just the look/setting I'm talking about, I'm talking about features, platforms, etc.

From an outsider's perspective, it's clear that what we see here are "engines". There's the Pathways engine, the Marathon engine, and the Halo engine. Again, there are tons of differences between each of the releases, but the core of the game code is most likely the same (though I can't say for sure since looks can sometimes be deceiving).

Anyway, that's how we view things. CMx1 engine covers CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK. Just because there were massive changes between CMBO and CMBB doesn't mean they were different engines. If changes are the thing you think about, then each release is basically an "engine", which is just silly CM:SF is the first release of the CMx2 engine, the 1944 France "family" (with Normandy being the Title product) is the second. Whether another WW2 "family" will come out ahead of CM:SF 2 or not is unknown at this point, but both will be based on the same code we're currently using and therefore they will also be CMx2 based.

The Modules for CM:SF are independent of the game's core code, though of course here and there we've had to make code changes to support weapons/units specific to the Marines. But essentially they aren't changing the core of the game and therefore are riding on top of whatever the game engine is that the products are based around.

Will we at some point make a CMx3 game engine? I hope not The need to put aside all previous code and start in on a mostly new game engine would mean that our evolutionary approach with CMx2's code is a failure. It may happen that we find some technical reason (major OS or hardware change or something else outside of our control) will force us to drop the CMx2 code and start fresh, but right now I don't see that happening.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Hawk66,

Regarding your second objection: Since the development resources seems to be very limited (1 core developer?) I would prefer that the engine gets more mature before releasing new modules.

Elmar already stated why this is not a good idea for anybody. For you guys it means sitting around with nothing new to play for long periods of time. You, the customer, have a choice under our current system. If you would rather wait for the game engine to be more mature, you have that ability. Simply don't purchase anything for a few years and you'll be all set For the rest of our audience, which I am sure is the vast majority, they can opt into playing an ever improving game system on a regular basis.

Back to Bungie... I don't see why anybody should have skipped Halo 1 or 2 because 3 is more "mature". As stated already, that mentality is a fool's game because each successive release is SUPPOSED to be more "mature" than the previous one. Therefore, by definition if someone wants to wait for the next best thing, then one could wait for an eternity. My current Intel Mac blows the doors off of the Atari 800 (my first computer), but I don't regret the enjoyment I had with that inferior and immature system so many years ago

Steve

[cabal23]

What I am hearing is CMSF current version will not be supported any longer once the new version comes out right? So with the new engine will we be able to do deserts and the things we are doing now? If not why not just make the old engine open source and let people mod at will?

[Elmar Bijlsma]

cabal23, you are very unclear. What do you mean, unsupported? They'll not go patching it forever, no.

As I understand it, CMSF2 would simulate modern combat in a temperate climate. Want a sim that does desert warfare, there's this neat little game that does that. It's called CMSF.

Not the opensource chesnut again. I don't see why BFC would want to compete with an open source version of their own engine. And in anticipation of "It worked for Valve", I will pre-emptively point out that's an entirely different and colossal market. Only CMx1 might not actually compete with new CM products. But what's in in for BFC? I doubt it will generate enough sales to make it worth their effort of getting CMx1 ready for open source. And all the work that would go in to that won't go into CMx2 products.

People may wonder why I argue the BFC side of things. Well, it's not because I'm a beta tester lackey. It's because I love the Combat Mission franchise, and if BFC can't get a return on investment, they'll go bust and we'll never see a new CM.

[Battlefront.com]

Like any game out there, whatever is being sold now will cease being supported at some time. The reason is that at some point new sales basically dry up so that all you're doing is giving away things for free to people who already own the game. We are still actively supporting CM:SF almost a year after the game is out and will continue to do so for some period beyond the last Module for CM:SF. But between then and now we're not going to spend much energy introducing new features. Version 1.10 is basically it when it comes to that.

The "give things away for free so Battlefront can go out of business" argument has been made so many times it makes my head spin

One thing is Modders can never compete with a company that can put several million bucks into a project. Or at least not concurrently. I don't have gobs of respect for massive game developer budgets in terms of the quality of GAME, but I do in terms of the quality of things like artwork, models, animations, sound effects, music, map building, scenario design, etc. Therefore, the big development houses will always have an advantage over customer modded stuff. We have no such luxury.

Steve

[cabal23]

It is completely feasible to include desert environments or any environment for that matter, It is a simple matter of creating tiles and flavor objects. What is unclear about that? Basically they have created a sandbox game. Everything is there, so why this desire to just create temperate climates. I can't understand why they wouldn't include desert tiles or tiles to meet any environment. Maybe that is where I am many others are confused. Fine don't open up the source. Then create a few more tiles to match any region want to play in. It certainly sounds like it can be accomplished with what is coming in the WWII version of what we are to see in the future. I don't think it is unrealistic to include the tile to create any environment. If they want to create expansion packs for armies or tiles, fine. Just don't tell me in a few months it will be replaced by a new engine and we are starting again from scratch. It is all there, so why not let us have the option to use it.

[cabal23]

Like any game out there, whatever is being sold now will cease being supported at some time. The reason is that at some point new sales basically dry up so that all you're doing is giving away things for free to people who already own the game. We are still actively supporting CM:SF almost a year after the game is out and will continue to do so for some period beyond the last Module for CM:SF. But between then and now we're not going to spend much energy introducing new features. Version 1.10 is basically it when it comes to that.

The "give things away for free so Battlefront can go out of business" argument has been made so many times it makes my head spin

One thing is Modders can never compete with a company that can put several million bucks into a project. Or at least not concurrently. I don't have gobs of respect for massive game developer budgets in terms of the quality of GAME, but I do in terms of the quality of things like artwork, models, animations, sound effects, music, map building, scenario design, etc. Therefore, the big development houses will always have an advantage over customer modded stuff. We have no such luxury.

Steve

Yeah because this community lacks proficient modders??No one is asking the company to give things away, just create a broader environment to play in. Certainly not impossible. You realize you are the only company doing something like this. Why not make it an open environment with the option to mod and create scenarios like we want? I feel your argument about the game feeling "empty" if such a game is created, is such a cop out for what is possible with the engine. Many people have voiced the idea of a game with an open environment. I can't see why that isn't economically feasible? We aren't asking you to build Rome, just include tiles to match the environments we find here on Earth and include a few armies to have fun with. Maybe I am way off base, but from what I have seen in the posts on this forum, that is the general consensus. Not sure where this silent majority came along and decided Syria would be a great place to have a game and never include a sandbox concept to the game. If you can create desert you can create grass and European settings.

Maybe I missed something? What say you?

[Canada Guy]

I guess this does bring up a question.

When you release the WW2 game, will we also get the terrain that is in CMSF? Meaning that if it does not break any code, can we expect each game Family to build on the previous family. I do not expect ever to see water in CMSF but it would be nice to have desert terrain (as a QB or DIY option) in CM: Normandy.

Eventually we would have something close to CMBB or CMAK in 3-4 years when we have desert, temperate, winter...

I guess this could open up another revenue stream for you guys. Lets say 4 years down the road (as an example) you introduce the CM: Barbarossa family. You have new terrain and in each module you could introduce some new equipment. When all modules have been completed, you could create an expansion set with no new rules, no new units other than what has gone before in previous families. i.e. Desert terrain, already created vehicles from CM:Normandy and CM:Bagration. You would then have created a mini-CMAK with very little effort modeling and coding.

[Paper Tiger]

Dear God

reading some of this really does make me shake my head and wonder if some of you realise that BFC are in this to make money. They are developing a game engine that is capable of simulating 20th-21st century combat at a tactical level and so you can expect them to release a WW2 Normandy game that simulates WW2 combat between US troops and the Germans in Normandy only. Then, we have to buy the Commonwealth forces and get some cool new German gear. Then, we get CM Bagration with Russian stuff v the current state of German stuff already available from CM Normandy. Just because CMSF is set in the desert and it's the same game engine doesn't mean that BFC will give us WW2 desert combat for free with Normandy. Nah, if enough of us want that, then they'll make a seperate game or module out of it and we, the customers, will have to buy all these goodies from BFC so that they'll get a (hopefully) huge return on the investment of the time of their lives in this project. That's bloody good business sense.

[Battlefront.com]

cabal23,

The problem is you do not realize these two comments are diametrically opposed to each other:

No one is asking the company to give things away, just create a broader environment to play in.

Why not make it an open environment with the option to mod and create scenarios like we want?

Giving you the ability to do whatever you want means we are now in competition with free software. That is a death spiral for someone of our size. I've been over this a million times before and, unfortunately, I have not found that I'm listened to. All I get back is "if you give it away for free you'll make more money because people will like you more". It doesn't make economic sense. I'm always reminded of this Saturday Night Live spoof commercial.

Look guys, I've had this debate a million times before. There's no chance that we haven't thought about this as much as you. There's no chance that we know less about how to make, or lose, money in this business than you. We're very innovative, creative risk taking people. Otherwise we would NOT have been the first onto the Internet only, we would NOT be making wargames. So the fact that we say that opening up the game engine is akin to a death sentence for us, you should listen and listen carefully. We've been in business much longer than most wargame companies, so obviously we have some clue what is going on here. I don't expect you to necessarily understand why, but you should at least respect the fact that we most likely know more about this than you do. I'm not being snippy here, just pointing out that our opinion arguably has more weight than anybody else not in our exact position.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Thank you Paper Tiger

CanadaGuy, the following answers your question as well as further highlighting why the concept of a fully open environment is suicide for us:

It is true that the current desert terrain can be leveraged in future games at a reduced development cost to us. But without desert appropriate units, models, and textures... it doesn't mean much. Sure, we could give the terrain away and people could mod the 2D textures to have desert Panthers and Pershings... sure enough, but what's the point in that? Without Matildas, PzIII, early war TO&E, anti-tank rifles, and other stuff you really don't have a WWII in the desert, do you? So there is really no point going through any effort to put out desert terrain for WWII without also putting out the units, complete with 3D and 2D art and sound effects, that people expect for that environment. Yeah, yeah, yeah... I know... "open up the game and allow people to put them in for themselves" is the likely response from some people. But then explain to me how we are supposed to make any money off of the desert theater? And what do we do when people mod the Eastern Front to some extent before we get it out the door? Don't you think that will affect our sales somewhat? And who is going to pay us what it will take to make the environment open enough to use in the first place?

We have never said we're making a "sandbox" game engine. In fact, we've said the opposite. What we are making is a bunch of separate products released over a prolonged period of time. Some are major releases, others are additions to them. But under no circumstances are we working towards one big environment where everything we have ever done will be supported along with everything that we do. It's as technically difficult to do as it is costly.

I've said this before, so I guess it's OK to repeat it. No single title that we release is likely to make it worth staying in business. We aren't getting rich off of this. Therefore, we can not afford the risk of diminishing our future revenue by giving away things which we have already developed and yet not had fully repaid. It reminds me of people arguing that as soon as a drug company develops a drug that it should go generic. Great way to ensure we have no new drugs on the market

Steve

[cabal23]

I just figured since the game depends on scenario designers and modders to keep it alive, it pretty much is a sand box game. I mean people aren't playing it for the missions that it shipped with (although there are some great ones). They continue to play because of the awesome community of people that take the time to make scenarios and campaigns. People have already pushed the boundaries of what this game can do as far as creativity, game play, sounds, everything has been improved upon by the community. Not a bad deal for you guys. I just think you could sell a ton more games if you changed direction and became more flexible with what is offered. More games equal more money. But I guess until I am rich enough to develop my own game I am just going to have to settle for what we have. Thanks for what you do.

[Spindry69]

In regard to the progression of future CM 2 WW2 releases on the Eastern front. Can anyone else see the merit if they were released in historical order? I think it would give a better sense of history and if nothing else the early war tanks in Barbarossa would make a nice contrast following on from CM 2 Normandy.