Guest Guest Posted June 23, 2009 Share Posted June 23, 2009 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 It's very straight forward as it was for CMC. Exporting the necessary data is just a matter of identifying what data an external program needs and Charles coding up an export dump file. Then he has to write an import function to take expected data and integrate it into the next scenario. Again, that's straight forward stuff that there's no point in doing until there's someone to do it for. Which is the real challenge. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sivodsi Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 It's very straight forward as it was for CMC. Exporting the necessary data is just a matter of identifying what data an external program needs and Charles coding up an export dump file. Then he has to write an import function to take expected data and integrate it into the next scenario. Again, that's straight forward stuff that there's no point in doing until there's someone to do it for. Which is the real challenge. Steve So you're saying that if some third party with the required ability and professionalism were to step in and say "I'm going to make a campaign layer program for CMX2 called 'CMX2 Campaigns'" it would be a 'real challenge' to do so... but come on, make my day? Sounds like an invitation to me. Anybody out there? Edit to add: Ah! this thread was moved from the S & M D forum... more exposure out here, perhaps? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 Well, it is really a game design question so it's not really a mods thing per se. Correct that if someone put together a proposal for us that we had some faith in we might go forward with it. But mind you we already tried that with CMC and it didn't pan out. Everybody underestimates how much work it is to pull off. Especially people without relevant programming experience. Er, except for us. We do know and that's why we aren't doing it ourselves Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 Even if I like the general idea, please don't let us repeat the CMC desaster! The only somewhat sensefull and simple things that comes to my mind is a) an upgraded CMx2 campaign where the player can decide were to strike next, within some limits of course. an upgraded CMx1 operation with a very large general map which is used only in parts, with persistent damages on the map. And even this sounds surely already much simpler as it might be to do! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hcrof Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 I don't want to sound like I am doing anything in the same league as CMC but I have something similar in the works that doesn't require coding. Right now it is pretty crippled by the very big map bug but I can hope I can announce it and continue work after the release of the Brits module. Like Steve said - it turned into a much bigger project than I anticipated and even if I can finish it I can't implement all of my ideas! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 Even if I like the general idea, please don't let us repeat the CMC desaster! The only somewhat sensefull and simple things that comes to my mind is a) an upgraded CMx2 campaign where the player can decide were to strike next, within some limits of course. an upgraded CMx1 operation with a very large general map which is used only in parts, with persistent damages on the map. And even this sounds surely already much simpler as it might be to do! Which would appear to put the development burden back on BTS / BFC, which they aren't going to do. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 Even with truly first rate programmers you are probably talking at least one or two man years. And that estimate is for people good enough at it to have great many other choices in employment. Most of those choices would be less risky or better paying or both. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Steve can answer for himself, but I would assume that there would be relatively little difference in doing it for CM1 and CM2. ALthough to the extent that you wanted to take into account all of the modern support options for air, arty, medical and so on it might be worse. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Do you want to include an options in the operational level to take out the cell phone system? It would undeniably reduce enemy efficiency in the short term. Is it worth the additional local unhappiness? There are a nearly infinite number of questions like that that you have to at least consciously reject or deal with.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkEzra Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 If I've followed this idea correctly for the last several years, it seems to be a matter of Technical Prowess Big...Potential Bucks Small. So people who've got the prowess don't have the interest. And people who've got the interest don't have the prowess or the money. That about right? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Adam, I was just thinking more or less about the technical difficulties involved in interfacing another program with CMSF. If CMSF has been designed with that possibility in mind, with the frame there... Dan is correct. The problem has never been a technical one on our part. It's very easy (relatively speaking) to export and import data to/from the game. It's just a matter of putting in the time to isolate the variables and deal with an outside source of input. Having a better code base (CMx2) probably makes it easier, but since the import/export thing isn't what's holding back a big meta campaign type feature it's not really relevant. It's kinda like asking if it's easier to get from the front door of the super market to the icecream isle by going down Path A or Path B. The difference is rather small and it isn't really relevant when the desire is to eat the icecream at the top of Mt. Everest In a nutshell... sure, I think it's easier to make an interface with CMx2 than it was for CMx1, but it doesn't matter since 99.98% of the work needed to play something that uses that data has to come after it. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bodkin Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 How would you get the balance right for this sort of strategy level game in an asymetrical war? At present scenario designers make excuses why air power or arty is unrealistically sparse in some battles to give the battle more balance. However if your presumably controlling the entire forces available in the campaign theatre it would mean being able to bring overwhelming firepower down on the Syrians through combined forces or am I reading this wrong. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 Which would appear to put the development burden back on BTS / BFC, which they aren't going to do.That's right, but it seems to me that it's easier for BFC to upgrade some already existing features as to develop a new program from scratch to add a stratic layer. It's relativ easy to work with external data to do things like 'compose a force' or 'move force from A to B'. Even me with my, shall we say, selective programming abilities could do this, if I would have the time and energy. Worst of all seems to me to develop a stratic AI to a degree that it's a challenge for a human opponent. Even BFC has it's problems with that in the CM games - and they do have more than a decate of programming and development experience. May I remind that CMSF has nearly no (if any) stratic AI, so the scenario designer must create an AI plan?! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Combatintman Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 How would you get the balance right for this sort of strategy level game in an asymetrical war? At present scenario designers make excuses why air power or arty is unrealistically sparse in some battles to give the battle more balance. However if your presumably controlling the entire forces available in the campaign theatre it would mean being able to bring overwhelming firepower down on the Syrians through combined forces or am I reading this wrong. Without picking deeply into the mechanics, getting the balance right will be an issue against conventional forces. I think it would possible to do a COIN ops campaign with some sort of CMC interface because even though there is the ability for Blue to overmatch, by weighting friendly force casualties and the impact of collateral damage and tardiness in rebuilding infrastructure as key elements in the campaign construct it would throw up interesting possibilities. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hcrof Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 How would you get the balance right for this sort of strategy level game in an asymetrical war? Red v Red anyone? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 You'd have to balance things in the same manner that real life does. Reduce the visibility of the insurgent forces to the conventional forces, add in a propaganda element so that excessive force or casualties from the conventional forces gain advantage and recruits for the unconventional forces. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 Scipio, That's right, but it seems to me that it's easier for BFC to upgrade some already existing features as to develop a new program from scratch to add a stratic layer. This is true. However, we aren't going to do either because there's no way we can afford the time for it. So the only option is for someone else writes a completely new, stand alone, program. We've had this discussion dozens of times over the past 10 years and it always boils down to the same basic problem. And that is there is no practical way for us to code a game within a game. Therefore, as I've said many times, the only way this will happen is if we have a viable business plan proposed to us. Anything short of that is simply of no practical value to any of us. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 Scipio, This is true. However, we aren't going to do either because there's no way we can afford the time for it. So the only option is for someone else writes a completely new, stand alone, program. We've had this discussion dozens of times over the past 10 years and it always boils down to the same basic problem. And that is there is no practical way for us to code a game within a game. Therefore, as I've said many times, the only way this will happen is if we have a viable business plan proposed to us. Anything short of that is simply of no practical value to any of us. SteveYep, agreed. That's why I didn't asked for a full stratic layer added, even if the idea itself is appealing, and would be happy with an enhanced campaign system and/or CMx1 operation system, which provided some attraction, too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 In that case, we will improve the campaign over time. That was always our intention It's worth it to us to think long term with CMx2 because we know it will be around with us for many years to come, unlike CMx1 where even before we finished CMBB we knew we would toss the code out and start over. When you know this you find yourself less motivated to think long term Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenris Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Well if a campaign layer was made that could span modules so you can play over a greater window of time there'd be a greater impetus for us to buy those extra modules as they're released... Hint, WW2, hint -F 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Just out of curiosity, what were the biggest technical problems that killed the CMC project? Does somebody know? 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.