The road ahead... a recap

[Battlefront.com]

Seiner14,

May i remind you, that CMSF was released 7/2007? So that makes already 15 months waiting for the next title-release!

Actually, CM:SF was actually released in August and the Marines Module in September. But regardless, as I said earlier we are a bit behind schedule, though not nearly as much as you may think

The other Modules for CM:SF are on schedule, and there has been a ton of work done on CM: Normandy already. Much of it artwork, granted, but that was something we feared would become a bottleneck anyway (so the extra time assures us it won't be). From a programming standpoint, more than a few things added to v1.10 were put in because they are also on the Normandy development schedule. Meaning, not all of the past few months post v1.08 has been spent on Marines Module programming needs.

To address British Tommy's points, via Normal Dude's post:

don't think we will be seeing the sort of problems in Normandy that we saw in Shock Force, the reason being is that the major bugs have already been worked out through the patches. Battlefront isn't starting the code/engine/whatever from scratch to build Normandy; they are using the same code/engine/whatever that was made for Shock Force. Evolution, not revolution, as Steve has said before.

Very well stated. I can not emphasize this enough, since some people apparently still don't get it...

CMx2 was always, and I mean ALWAYS, designed to be an ever evolving game engine. This is because it is impossible to give you guys everything you want at one time. CMBB took 5 years to make, cumulatively, and the gripe and wish lists for that game were still enormous. We understood the reality problem between customer expectations and what we can deliver at one time and built CMx2 around that. It's a full featured game, by any SANE and reasonable definition, already. It will only get better as we go along because we planned on it working that way.

So far the sales of CM:SF have been great. Despite the initial problems it continues to sell well, no doubt a combo of us having fixed so many problems and that there isn't anything else out there like it. The Marines Module has exceeded our expectations, no doubt for the same reasons.

I can understand people being disappointed with the initial state of the game's release, as well as fundamental changes we have made from CMx1, but from a Big Picture standpoint it was a very minor bump in the road. This is a very difficult business we are in and we are well aware of that since we've been doing it since about 1992 or so. So instead of panicking like the people on Wall Street are, we keep a steady hand on the tiller and keep going with our strategy. Why? Because it is already a proven success. I know some of you don't see it that way, but that's not relevant. It's only relevant that we do since we're the only ones with all the facts at our disposal. We've got a long history of beating the odds and proving our doomsayers wrong the last 10 years, and we look forward to do that again for the next 10. Fools who say otherwise are just that

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Oh, I missed this one from British Tommy,

Since when has BF been put under pressure from Paradox? I can't see Steve and the team losing sleep over it if they were.

heh... you're literally quite wrong here! On the last weekend of development I slept a grand total of 4 hours in 3 days IIRC. One stretch of work was 26 hours straight. So yes, we were under pressure and did lose sleep to make a deadline. It's not something we're going to do again. We now see that simultaneous releases aren't a good idea for us. It worked for CMAK, but that was because the game was largely done before we even started it. Contracts are based on estimates and the more work there is to do the more likely those estimates will be wrong. We thought we built in enough time for the unknown, but we now realize that we'll likely never be able to guess right. So lesson learned

I can't find any other war games which are in the same class as BF's.

With all the love and support shown to us by our "loyal fans", it is amazing to think that nobody else wants to jump right in and try to one up us

Seriously though, wargame development is a great way for a game developer to take a large fortune and turn it into a small one. It takes a special, dedicated mindset to put in as much work as we do for such comparatively little return (when risk is factored in). If CM:SF had flopped we would probably kept going, but in a very different way and with a lot less enthusiasm. We would be trying to cobble together a "CMx3 game engine", for example, and rushing out a WW2 release. But CM:SF and its first Module are a success and verify that we've got the right tools in hand. Rough edges? Sure, there are still some. But tearing down a whole building because there's a door in the wrong place or not enough closet space is something only a fool would do. We may be stupid enough to make wargames, but we are no fools

Steve

[Sequoia]

So once you're online and have been very forthcoming lately ....

Any hints as to what the third non WWII subject might be? You once mentioned only two of the first five titles would be WWII.

[SlowMotion]

Or info about the British module: will it contain only British units or are there going to be additions for the red side as well?

[Scipio]

... Our plan is to release a Module every 3-4 months. This should hold true for the British Module as well, but this is the first Module that we've not done "in-house" so there are some variables. Personally, I think things are going VERY well. ...

Steve

What means 'the first module not done in-house'? Sounds to me like it is done by a third party, but maybe I translate it wrong!?

[Gryphon]

Hey BFC,

Will we have individual turret/vehicle numbers this time around? This was one of the things that was sadly missing in CM1. It would give the vehicles more character imho, especially when you move round core units in the campaign.

Also, when are we going to see the first model screenshots? You guys had shown some CMSF models well before the game was out, so I was hoping we could get a preview of some of the equipment.

Will Normandy's models also possess even more detail and polygons?

And what about some of the animations, the hunt animation for soldiers currently looks a little odd.. will we see something were the soldiers move slower perhaps with their weapons ironsighted, and of course the weapons not held in SWAT fashion

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Please continue to develop the RT mode of play. I've been on board for CMSF and the Marines module from the very beginning, and I've never played ten minutes of either in WEGO mode. In fact, I don't even know how to.

There are a lot of "squeaky-wheels that are really negative about RT, but they don't necessarily represent the majority of folks who have purchased these two products. Some game engines are fine for IGOUGO, or WEGO, but this one really shines RT.

Thanks and good luck with the future development of the CM2!

[Scipio]

Please continue to develop the RT mode of play. I've been on board for CMSF and the Marines module from the very beginning, and I've never played ten minutes of either in WEGO mode. In fact, I don't even know how to.

There are a lot of "squeaky-wheels that are really negative about RT, but they don't necessarily represent the majority of folks who have purchased these two products. Some game engines are fine for IGOUGO, or WEGO, but this one really shines RT.

Thanks and good luck with the future development of the CM2!

I disagree. WEGO is the only real way of playing CMSF, preferably as PBEM! :cool:

[Rocky Balboa]

I'll have to agree with Scipio ..... I've tried both RT and WEGO .... There are still too many strange pathing issues for me to take RT seriously. RT (IMHO) requires to much micromanagement, and is only enjoyable for me when playing small engagements of Platoon size or smaller. WEGO is my preference when playing battles at Company Level or higher. There is a place for both play styles and I hope BFG continues to support both in the future.

I'm very interested in how BFG might handle or implement RT Co-Op play.

[Hertston]

I'm not really that interested in a Britt only module however, if you guys could include a couple of kick A#@ campaigns (1 US Army, and 1 Marine) as well as maybe a few more Army or Marine Toys; It might just give the US only guys enough incentive to purchase .... hint ... hint ..

No thanks. Maybe the "US only guys" should broaden their horizons a little?

I have a different perspective AS a Brit of course, but if I'm buying a Brit module WTF do I want US army and USM campaigns for? It's just cheating those who do want and will be paying full whack for a Brit module (which I'm delighted to see we will get, following the success of 'Marines'; I did have no doubts at one point). Likewise with anything else; should we ever see an Israeli module for example (hint... hint...) I'd want Israeli campaigns not US army or USM campaigns.

Quite apart from which, I thought modules were supposed to be independent, anyway? You couldn't include a USM campaign as it assumes the player will have that module as well.

[Rocky Balboa]

No need to take offense Hertston old man ..... just learn a little bit about marketing and you'll understand why I made the comment that I did. You'll get your Brit module that much is clear and I wouldn't begin to try and convince BFG to do otherwise.

Hey Steve, how about you guys including a combined US Army / British campaign in the next module. The Brits can mop up after the Grunts lay waste to the country side ...... While your at it, include a couple of Blue on Blue scenarios and it might just be worth $35.00 in US coin just to spank a few royal bottoms..

We can agree on one thing though, We both would like to see an IDF module .....

[Battlefront.com]

Some quick responses...

We've already said that after we do the Western Front (first two Families) we are moving to the Eastern Front, starting with the Bagration time period. We are also, as stated before, continuing on with the contemporary warfare in parallel with WW2.

More info on the British Module will be coming along in the near future. No details at the moment. Same thing for Normandy.

The British Module is being done in large part "out of house" (aka a 3rd Party). This was one of the intentions of the CMx2 engine design. It allows us to keep release times much shorter than they would otherwise be. Much, much shorter in fact.

CMx2 was made with RealTime and WeGo Modes because we know that some people want to play one way or the other. I continue to get a big chuckle out of WeGo people insisting that CM:SF is "unplayable" in RT Mode without stopping the clock every 5 seconds. Just because someone sucks at something doesn't mean it's broken

We understand very well that a large number of WeGoers will never, ever, in a billion years want to play RealTime. We also know that the large numbers of people that have discovered the benefits of playing RealTime, and prefer it to WeGo, don't want to go back to a WeGo only environment. Since there is absolutely no rational reason for us to drop one or the other methods of play, both will be supported far into the future.

Each Module is indeed "stand alone". Therefore, the Campaign will not include any units that are not available in the base game and/or the Module. For example, in the British Module there may be a battle with Brits and a Stryker Rifle Platoon fighting alongside each other, but there wouldn't be one with Brits and a Marines Rifle Platoon since that would mandate the Marines Module.

Once a Module is out people can do with it whatever they want. This means someone can make a joint Brit/Marines/Army Campaign if they want to. Obviously it means only people with the base game, Brit and Marines Modules can play it. That's not a problem.

Steve

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Some quick responses...

Just because someone sucks at something doesn't mean it's broken

Steve

I honestly don't think of folks who reject RT as being essentially inferior gamers in any sense, whatsoever. The fact of the matter is I'm pretty damned old, and I know that some of you younger guys would probably outshine me in the "click and twitch" competition.

But, that's really not what it's all about. Rather, I find the confusion and chaos of RT so compelling, as a computer-wargamer, as to be absolutely indispensable. I compensate for my inability to control everything before me with absolute precision by being more conservative in my tactics than some of you who might be playing WEGO.

My maneuver takes place in segments during which teams are parceled out with this task or that. I move the different teams within the element, assign them other orders, and then move on to the next group. Things do get away from me in the larger scenarios, but I'm utterly sincere in suggesting that I take no quibble with the effect. That's as it shoud be.

I have to admit that I sucked at it pretty hard when the game first came out, but I've improved immensely and can't imagine playing the game in any other mode. In that regard, I guess I've got a head-start on a lot of you guys. Then again, I've always been the adventurous sort. ;-)

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[Battlefront.com]

PoE,

I honestly don't think of folks who reject RT as being essentially inferior gamers in any sense, whatsoever.

I don't either What I said is that they declare RT "broken" or "unplayable" because they suck at RT, not because they suck at wargames in general.

Now, if they put in the effort to learn how to use it, as you have (three cheers for the old coot! ) they might become the best RT player of us all. But that's just it... they take a sniff of it, declare it inferior to WeGo (and that is, basically, what they are saying) and then go back to WeGo where things are comfortable for them.

Let me be VERY clear here so even the thinnest skinned of you understands our position We do not see either WeGo or RealTime as the better way to play CMx2. That's up to the individual player to decided, which is exactly the way we want it to be. We only raise a stink when people insist that the other way of playing doesn't work at all simply because it doesn't work for them. That's akin to saying "I tried golf one time and I couldn't make par, therefore it's fair to conclude golf is unplayable". If nobody could get the wee little ball in the far away hole within the strokes required, then there might be a case to make. Otherwise, don't insist that Tiger Woods is a loser who should instead be playing a "better" sport like hockey

Steve

[MeatEtr]

Otherwise, don't insist that Tiger Woods is a loser who should instead be playing a "better" sport like hockey

Steve

But Steve, hockey is a far superior sport and if Tiger was a real man he would be a hockey player. But then again with all the money he's made playing golf he could just buy a NHL team or two.

P.S. Go Wings!

[salwon]

I think of RT play as WEGO where I get to decide the turn lengths by pausing. Sometimes a turn is 5 minutes, sometimes it's 5 seconds. Either way no "twitching" is necessary

[Battlefront.com]

Exactly The fact remains that people are playing RT and loving it. They are playing, enjoying, and winning the same scenarios as the WeGoers, so the argument that it is impossible to play RT is demonstrably false. So too are the arguments that tactics don't apply to RT play. It's the same game code, the same scenarios, and the same everything else. The only difference is which method of control appeals to one player vs. another.

Steve

[Rocky Balboa]

Steve,

Glad to hear you guys will be supporting both styles of play. For me personally, I'm not against RT at all. I have played and enjoyed several RT titles COH (Company of Heroes), WIC (World in Conflict) being the most recent.

Why then do I prefer WEGO in CMSF? At first I thought it must be pathing issues which in the beginning were numerous but have been greatly reduced with the latest patches. You are correct in saying that its the same game (RT vs WEGO). To be honest I really haven't played RT very much since 1.07 so I may give it another try.

I will say that CMSF is more a simulation than a game and while playing RT I do miss being able to replay the action. Sometimes I will get right down to ground level to see things from the soldiers perspective and I find myself replaying from several different angles. To me the graphic enhancements with CMx2 are just too good not to replay.

[Smaragdadler]

I would like to see a more visual distinction between order phase and playback in WEGO. (just the text label in different colors or something in this way...)

[panzermartin]

WEGO's Replay is the only thing I miss. Pausable RT is planned for TCP/IP too so there will be even less to miss in Normandy. Of course Pausable RT in TCP/IP means games will last longer and a savegame option should not be overlooked. Now, if we could have that "Whole Battle Replay" option one day, I would be extremely happy

[sfhand]

Okay, after a long post was lost because my account timed out I'm keeping this short...

I don't play RT and have no problem with RT.

For me, one who didn't know the first thing about wargaming when I bought CM:BO, the effort I had to put into learning to play effectively was worth it because I found the gameplay to be compelling. CM:BB and CM:AK each raised the bar in terms of what was required of me in order to find the gameplay compelling. This has also been true of CM:SF, however...

SF was released, as we all know, in pretty poor condition. I've basically set it on the back burner and waited patiently for BF to fix it, which they've done to a large degree. I'm now able to play the game the way I prefer to play it (PBEM) and have confidence that my efforts to learn the UI as well as the capabilities of the equipment won't be wasted. This is no small undertaking for me - my being blessed with a small intellect and no knowledge of military strategy makes the time investment a large consideration...

For me, one who prefers larger battles, the time investment could be drastically reduced with the introduction of moveable (and insertable) waypoints. It's true I think tweaking the tacai is important (to resolve path finding issues), and probably more so in rt, I'd like to see the waypoint issue addressed. So what about it Steve, are you guy going to show us a little waypoint love in the CM:SF family of games? Regardles of the answer, it would be nice to know.

(and how do I get the forum to quit logging me out while I type?)

[Battlefront.com]

Thankfully, the WeGoers who screamed at us to get rid of RealTime (this call started long before CM:SF was out, which says something ) have largely quieted down. Some have even admitted that RT is their primary method of play! So the occasional person who still tries to claim that there is something inherently wrong with RT can be ignored since it is obviously an emotional position rather than a rational one.

I agree that RT in CMx2 isn't the perfect way to play, just as I also agree that WeGo isn't either. Each has its pros and cons, but for the most part it is a difference in comfortability. I am comfortable playing both, but RT is better for me. And yes I hit Pause, but like stated already... sometimes I don't hit pause for 5 or 10 minutes. And when I do, it might only be for 15 seconds and then I don't pause for another couple of minutes. The result is that I can usually play a 45 minute battle in under an hour. The same game in WeGo would probably take me twice that, if not more, and yet I doubt the end result would be much different.

But one thing I miss, as do all RealTime players, is the Replay aspect of WeGo. Sometimes you miss something, sometimes you just want to relive some cool moment again. As much as I miss it, and I think the other RT players will say the same, the visceral rush that comes from the more chaotic (and realistic) nature of RT is worth the sacrifice of the Replay. Close Combat 2 didn't have a reply, but it also wasn't nearly as visceral or large in scope as CMx2, so I think that's why I didn't miss it back then.

Be assured that we very much want to give RT Mode some sort of Replay functionality. The only one I think is viable is to have a "rolling x second replay" feature. That would mean that at any point you could pause and go back x seconds and not a second more. I have no idea how many seconds is viable, but I would guess 10-30 is what we're talking about. I've also no idea when we might be able to get this in.

As for WeGo, where Waypoint stuff is far more important than it is for RT, we're planning on making improvements there in the very near future.

So yup, we intend on continuing to improve both WeGo and RT Modes as we go on.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

sfhand,

I have no idea why you might be getting logged out while you type. Perhaps your browser is blocking the forum cookie that keeps you logged in?

Steve

[istari]

Steve -

As a longtime Combat Mission player who's just immersing into CMSF, I'm thrilled to hear that you're planning on adding Replay to RT mode.

At first, I couldn't stand RT, but as I'm playing more and more, I can see the benefits in certain situations. However, for me the biggest draw of CM was the drama of the action, being able to jump right down to an individual soldiers view as that Tiger appeared around a corner or a Nebelwerfer barrage came whistling down.

So even though I can see where RT has possibilities, I'm sticking with WEGO for the Replay ability. If RT can add Replay, then I think we'll have the best of both worlds!

As for the specific feature, I'd suggest that you do it like TiVo, where the DVR is maintaining a running buffer of several minutes, but the viewer can "rewind" in 15 sec increments. Now several minutes may be too much data in the new CMx2 engine, but the key point is to be able to go back several "clicks" in small increments - maybe it's 5 second clicks x 6 or 10 sec clicks x 3, etc. But sometimes I just want to go back 5-10 seconds, other times I'd want 30 sec.

My 0.02,

Chris

[Battlefront.com]

istari,

Thanks! I'm always glad to hear even minded opinions like this. I'm not sure why "each to his own" has been such a hard concept for people to adopt. Very frustrating and completely counter productive when I come upon it.

Yeah, the TiVo concept is exactly what we will try to do at some point. I doubt for the initial Normandy release since our schedule is already packed. But definitely this is a major thing we want to get into the game engine. And for you WeGoers out there... such a thing does not mean we will drop WeGo. As I've said, there is absolutely no reason for us to do that.

Steve