Brits followed by Nato question

[Wodin]

With the release of these two modules is that the end for CMSF?

If so don't you think the game is allied heavy with the same old Syrian opposition? No chance of a different enemy to take on?

[Meach]

My concern is that with the new modules adding lovely content to CMSF but hamstrung by the same old unsatisfying QB system will lead to frustration.

After NATO module from, what I gather from Steve's posts, that is the end of CMSF till CMSF2:Temperate which will feature top of the range weapon systems for both sides.

[19Kyle72]

I have to agree with Wodin on this one.

My own till-now unexpressed hope is that with the NATO release, we'll see an escalation and broadening of forces on all sides. That is, not only are we go to see a major uptick in the variety of Blue forces, but also a major expanding in the variety of Red forces; think Russia's direct involvement, and/or Russia deciding to finally sell Syria its equipment without downgrading it first.

Russia, China, whomever, it'd be nice to be able to play scenarios which just aren't about asymmetric warfare, but also where the equipment and units on the battlefield are more equalized. I don't want to have to wait till CMx2 Normandy to experience this again (and don't throw stones at me here, but I'm just about sick of WWII based games, there's so damned many of them now; my son, who is 10 months old, just finished programming one himself, silly kid, he made the Tigers PURPLE with green swirls!).

Who knows, maybe this is a severely deluded fantasy I'm having and not merely an expression of Hope, but maybe Battlefront is secretly planning on folding in the type of escalation we're desiring for. Imagine the level of surprise we'd have as a community as we'd start playing the NATO campaign, and it starts out as everyone is expecting, more asymmetric warfare. But within the next several encounters, the battlefield starts to look, and more importantly, BEHAVE a "little" bit differently. By mission four or five, we're getting pounded by top of the line Red units from a variety of countries.

AND we could still have asymmetric encounters, such as getting ambushed in the hills by hit and run tactics by local insurgents and up ahead the brand new mainline tanks are already positioned to receive our nipped-at Blue forces.

Yeah! I think I just figured out Battlefront's sneaky yet brilliant plan, right guys?

Uh...right...guys?

Er, um, why am I only hearing crickets for a response?

[Battlefront.com]

Remember, Modules do not radically alter either the scope or the setting of the Family it is supporting. So absolutely no way will there be Chinese forces in the NATO Module because that would, in effect, be an entirely different game.

CM:SF will continue to use the CM:SF game engine, with significant improvements integrated along the way (as you guys have already seen over the past year and a half). CM:SF had a lot more improvements rolled into it than originally planned, which is one reason why the Module development has been slower than we would like. Adding major new features is just not viable for a number of reasons.

CM:SF 2 will have a temperate setting with top of the line Red forces fighting top of the line Blue forces. The game engine will be an improved version of the Normandy code, which means all the improvements which have gone into Normandy AND MORE will be in CM:SF 2. We will start making CM:SF 2 as soon as Normandy is out the door. Development time should be reasonable since we will have a lot of the basics in hand to get started with.

Steve

[19Kyle72]

Steve,

Is there any chance of asymmetrical warfare making an appearance in the Normandy title or in the "Top of the Line Blue v. Top of the Line Red" modern arms game?

The reason why I ask is pretty simple, historically accurate, and, if you have the code already, why not use it?

Generally, most history books way oversimplify things into Group 1 versus Group 2, but, with just a little bit of digging around, the truth is almost always much more like, Group 1, with the assistance of Group 1a (partisans/insurgents) versus Group 2 with assistance from Group 2a (partisans/insurgents). The level of complexity and richness that this could give the next two titles is pretty much limitless.

Civilian/infrastructure losses for one side could gain insurgents for one group while bumping up the number of partisans for the other, or both.

Perhaps if we can't get the Top of the Line stuff in either of the remaining two modules for CMSF, we can, at least, get some of CMSF asymmetrical guts into the next generation releases.

Any chances of this occurring?

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Steve,

Is there any chance of asymmetrical warfare making an appearance in the Normandy title or in the "Top of the Line Blue v. Top of the Line Red" modern arms game?

The reason why I ask is pretty simple, historically accurate, and, if you have the code already, why not use it?

Generally, most history books way oversimplify things into Group 1 versus Group 2, but, with just a little bit of digging around, the truth is almost always much more like, Group 1, with the assistance of Group 1a (partisans/insurgents) versus Group 2 with assistance from Group 2a (partisans/insurgents). The level of complexity and richness that this could give the next two titles is pretty much limitless.

Civilian/infrastructure losses for one side could gain insurgents for one group while bumping up the number of partisans for the other, or both.

Perhaps if we can't get the Top of the Line stuff in either of the remaining two modules for CMSF, we can, at least, get some of CMSF asymmetrical guts into the next generation releases.

Any chances of this occurring?

Please, BFC! I would not like to have to go back two games in the family just to play some asymmetrical modern warfare (which I'm actually more interested in than symmetrical modern).

[orwell]

While I'd love to see some top red forces in CMSF, my big concern is, will those of us who prefer modern over WWII get to experience the new QC system before CM:SF2 comes out?

[Field Marshal Blücher]

While I'd love to see some top red forces in CMSF, my big concern is, will those of us who prefer modern over WWII get to experience the new QC system before CM:SF2 comes out?

Nope. Steve has made several posts to this effect.

[birdstrike]

I wonder what actually will be retrofitted to CMSF. QB system is out, water is out, but how about some additional generic building types or flavor objects?

[mike_the_wino]

I wonder what actually will be retrofitted to CMSF. QB system is out, water is out, but how about some additional generic building types or flavor objects?

Wasn't there some mention of a bridging[b/] module to link CM:N1 and CM:N2? Or was this a forum member throwing out ideas?

As I know freaking nothing about programming or computer systems, it seems like a simple task to do the same for CM:SF and CM:NATO......right?

[Kodiakwdj]

What is CM: Normandy?? I dont see any reference to it on the website. I gather it is a WWII game, a remake of the original?? Is it due out soon so we can hope to get CMSF2 someday in the relatively near future?? Like a couple of years??

[Piecekeeper]

Its a ww2 game based on the CM2 engine...probably out this year.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Wasn't there some mention of a bridging[b/] module to link CM:N1 and CM:N2? Or was this a forum member throwing out ideas?

As I know freaking nothing about programming or computer systems, it seems like a simple task to do the same for CM:SF and CM:NATO......right?

There was mention of this, but it was just a forum member throwing out ideas, and Steve rapidly said, "NOOO!"

I think he mentioned that there were extreme difficulties involved, although you are probably correct that if the technology existed to bridge CM:N1 and CM:N2, then it probably would also be fairly easy to bridge CM:SF1 and CM:SF2.

[mike_the_wino]

There was mention of this, but it was just a forum member throwing out ideas, and Steve rapidly said, "NOOO!"

A similiar response was also uttered very soon after the CM:SF release in terms of the QB force selection....but that stance has since been re-visited. Perhaps the team will see the wisdom in such an idea, assign a dollar value to said work, assign an appropriate product type (module vs. game equil.) and then assess the likely number of sales of such a product to determine if such a viable option in terms of return on investment.

[sfhand]

A similiar response was also uttered very soon after the CM:SF release in terms of the QB force selection....but that stance has since been re-visited. Perhaps the team will see the wisdom in such an idea, assign a dollar value to said work, assign an appropriate product type (module vs. game equil.) and then assess the likely number of sales of such a product to determine if such a viable option in terms of return on investment.

Not speaking for Steve, of course, but my interpretation of his comments on this is that their considerations are broader than making money. I would hazard to guess that "bridging patches/modules" are viewed as slowing the evolution of the game. That said, I would certainly love to see "bridging patches/modules" for simliar families, but I'm not holding my breath.

[mike_the_wino]

sfhand, very important consideration. Would we, the customer, be willing to wait longer for each family to allow BFC the time to complete a 'bridging patch/ module".

My vote would be "No" unless the work could be done in parallel with new game development.....but that's just because I would much rather be done with the whole desert thing and get into CM:Temperate (or whatever it's being called). That being said, if I could then import all the work/ units from the CM:SF family into a CM:Temperate......hhhhhhmmmm, that would be pretty sweet!

[sfhand]

sfhand, very important consideration. Would we, the customer, be willing to wait longer for each family to allow BFC the time to complete a 'bridging patch/ module".

My vote would be "No" unless the work could be done in parallel with new game development.....but that's just because I would much rather be done with the whole desert thing and get into CM:Temperate (or whatever it's being called). That being said, if I could then import all the work/ units from the CM:SF family into a CM:Temperate......hhhhhhmmmm, that would be pretty sweet!

I agree (not that that will do you any good...), even though I'd rather be able to join ww2 families than CMSF 1+2 since my guess is that most if not all blue units in CMSF will also be in CMSF2. But the potential ww2 era battle for Berlin between US and Russian forces has always appealed to me.

[Sequoia]

I agree (not that that will do you any good...), even though I'd rather be able to join ww2 families than CMSF 1+2 since my guess is that most if not all blue units in CMSF will also be in CMSF2. But the potential ww2 era battle for Berlin between US and Russian forces has always appealed to me.

Well it may be a long long way down the road, but after the Normandy to the Rhineland game and after the Bulge to End of the War game and After CMSF 2 and after the East Front Bagration game, I could see a East Front Fall 44 to the end of the war game that has as a module or two the Western Allies so one could play Red Star/White Star battles. The work will all have already been done for the Bulge game.