New module - Combat Mission:Afghanistan?!

[Sergei]

honestly, i would mind haveing no campain if that means half a year less developement time. to hold the game back several month just for the campain is not justified in my opinion.

the campains we have are good and nice an all that but if we could have the same product with some more single scenarios, without campain, but several month earlier i would take that instead.

Now you're just making figures up. Campaign or no campaign, implementing and testing all intended features and ironing out any bugs that crop up in them takes time. Creating and testing content to utilize those features is concurrent and is no greater delay to the process than eg. writing a manual for the game.

[panzermartin]

Yep..Just release the campaign as a patch afterwards. Personally I can't stand playing single player anymore in ANY game, when multiplayer can offer 10x times more excitment. We only need an online lobby to get ppl out of the basements

[Pandur]

Now you're just making figures up.

sure i make that up but you cant tell me on the other hand that the game takes as long with or without campain. thats simply impossible. we know work on scenarios and campain can start as soon as the TOE is finished, and that means finished as every change in TOE kills the work done on scenarios and campains.

so that does tell me that the game is finished when they start makeing the campain and scenarios. now creating scenarios and testing them is much easier then creating a full campain, means it takes longer. 2 month 3 month 6 month...hell i cant know and yes i made that up but its fact that you cant ditch out a campain in a week.

and CM:Afghanistan serves currently as example. it should be done but a bug in a camapin scenario croped up wich means fixing, re-compileing, testing yadda yadda, possibly a month delay becouse of a campain scenario bug.

Yep..Just release the campaign as a patch afterwards.

that is a radical idea, but i would take it

btw. Ali-Baba are you waithing for TCP/ip wego as dire as i do?

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I see no reason why BFC should cater to the impatient at the cost of release versions not having the amount of features it should have. Reviewers (and I suspect many gamers) typically give a game one shot, and that's in the weeks surrounding the release. Including major features after that time-window will impact the reviews negatively. You can't review what isn't there yet.

The development of the game and the campaign runs parallel. While some things would be redone as some feature got added/adjusted, it mostly meant tweaking the campaign mission being made, a relatively minor task compared to the mammoth task that is involved in creating a good scenario from scratch.

Only beginning the campaign as the game is done will set that feature back for months. Whereas dealing with a last minute campaign FUBAR (if there even is one) would like take a week or two extra when done parallel.

Besides, BFC are never quite done developing the core engine. So there isn't even ever a time where Charles can lean back and say "Finished!" and set the scenario designers to work.

[Pandur]

well i was just saying...and if they ditch the campain compleatly, then nothing is missing for review.

and sure it would have actually pretty large benefits. they could pump out games and modules faster, probably be one game ahead already and this means more revenue/income or same income in shorter time. now who doesnt want this?

anyways that will never happen i guess so...

[panzermartin]

that is a radical idea, but i would take it

btw. Ali-Baba are you waithing for TCP/ip wego as dire as i do?

Yes I do. If not WeGO, at least a real time pausing hybrid. Something that can blend the depth of wego and the adrenaline of RT.

[Pandur]

i am still not convinced that RTwP in multiplayer is doable in a way it is fun. this would be a waste of time, better focus on TCP/ip wego in my view.

[panzermartin]

Well think of a wego, with a paused planning phase but with the ability to interfere when the action starts. Large scale combined moves would be possible but you would be able to fine tune things on the go. If a rolling replay of some secs would be possible, then it would be a dream mode.

Right now, online RT is 1/10 of the fun CMx1 TCP/IP was because all of the depth and fun of watching little details is lost.

WeGO TCP/IP is better from nothing though. It is just that I can't go back to those 5 hours TCP/IP sessions. If nothing serious is happening you should be able to skip and play in pure RT and save some social life :-)

[Pandur]

It is just that I can't go back to those 5 hours TCP/IP sessions.

i can and i am in dire need for some marathon TCP/ip sessions.

Well think of a wego, with a paused planning phase but with the ability to interfere when the action starts. Large scale combined moves would be possible but you would be able to fine tune things on the go. If a rolling replay of some secs would be possible, then it would be a dream mode.

i dont see how that should work...the nature of RT is that it is runing no matter what. so if there would be a rolling replay you would not have time to watch it, simple as that, as while you watch the replay something else happens that you miss, then you need to look that up again and so on.

well in the end we have to see if BFC thinks up a mode that is something like you said but i dont think many people will use it. i mean RT multiplayer is non existent i think...al AARs and stuff are made in WEGO.

i played several RT multiplayer battles but its horrible, no enjoyment at all.

[Blackcat]

It is just that I can't go back to those 5 hours TCP/IP sessions.

I would love to be able to go back to those long TCP/IP sessions.

As for five hours, a mere trifle. My wargaming oppo and I would play on a LAN sitting opposite ends of the dining table and play for twelve or fifteen hours at a stretch. Some of the CMSF scenarios would need that long to do them justice and get the full enjoyment.

I very much regret Battlefront's decision to go after the click-fest market. I can understand their reasons but, for those of us richer in years who want to enjoy a wargame and savour the pleasure when our plans come to fruition and curse and scream when they fail (by watching the action multiple times from multiple angles at different zooms), real time just doesn't cut the mustard. How can you enjoy a good gloat when your opponent was looking elsewhere and didn't even see your cunningly set-up ambush come off?

In the last few weeks I have played several very good sceanrios where I have had about a hundred units on the board. Can anyone properly plan, organise and control such a host in realtime? I know I can't. And how can you enjoy a scenario when there are things happening on the other flank that you cannot see and may never even know about?

When CMBO was first released Battlefront made WEGO a big selling point. If the system was the best way forward then what changed to make make it such a bad idea now?

Sorry, got on my hobby-horse there. I do apologise.

Each to their own, I just hope Battlefront will bring back TCP/IP for WEGO in Normandy.

[Pandur]

i remember steve saying he can contol up to battalion size in realtime...but i wonder what contol means for him

probably he is lassoing a company at a time and sending them somewhere ala C&C.

i cant contol more then a platoon in RT, more then that is chaos whe i compare it to my WEGO play.

EDIT:

i not only remember it but i found it, heres the quote;

I play only RealTime and I have no problems controlling at least two companies, sometimes as much as a battalion (depending on objectives). I rarely pause.

this man is a muti tasking brute of RT player. i wonder how he does it...probably he also uses the weird new way of issueing orders

[panzermartin]

Btw I didn't say I didnt enjoy those long TCP/IP WeGo sessions. These were the best pc gaming moments of my whole life

[Sergei]

sure i make that up but you cant tell me on the other hand that the game takes as long with or without campain.

You can't tell me what I can tell you. Sorry buddy, but you've got it all wrong.

[Pandur]

i dont see the point... .

you try to convice me indirectly that makeing a campain does not take additional time as compared to the same game without campain? thats impossible.

now you make me curious, how do you imagine the guys makeing the campain?

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Like I said earlier, the campaign is not put together by those that do the programming. So it's a relatively marginal difference between including it or not.

I get the strong impression that you do not value campaigns in the first place so wouldn't accept any delay whatsoever. But there are plenty who do enjoy them very much. I think the inconvenience of you waiting a few weeks is far outstripped by the value it adds to those that do like the campaigns.

PS

Big kudos to those that put the scenarios and campaigns together. I don't think many people know that it's a labour of love done by volunteers.

[GSX]

But, and correct me if Im wrong here, the campaign cant be started until the game is done. So a completed game is held up until a campaign is worked through its design and tested.

Can the campaign designers work on a campaign before the game is complete? Or modules for that matter?

My question is, why have a campaign when it seems to add a few months to a complete game, especially when the campaigns dont feel like Im on a campaign but rather a series of unconnected or semi connected scenarios.

Of course, I remain to be corrected here as I dont really know anything that I havent read here about timelines etc.

[Mord]

Well, I imagine it's a double edged sword along with everything else about war gaming. If they don't put it in the first thing people will do is bitch there's no campaign system, so on and so forth...really you can't win on these things. I guess it amounts to what you like or feel is worth waiting for.

Mord.

[souldierz]

I'm keeping an eye out for this Russian-Afghanistan version.Its got my attention and chances are i might pick it up if it becomes available.This is a good game system and it would be good to see it expand to show off other conflicts as well as other armies while constantly improving itself.It will also be interesting to see how the missions are and maps and also how the briefings are laid out.Russian tactics I'm sure without a doubt are different then the western tactics because of different gear and so on so it would be very interesting to see what the load out and squad setups are and how to use them tactically.Should be fun.

[Pandur]

I get the strong impression that you do not value campaigns in the first place so wouldn't accept any delay whatsoever.

yes thats partly right, i liked the CMx1 "operations" though...pushing the fronts, fighthing several battles on one and the same map.

if CMx2 campains would go hand in hand with game developement and dont add time on top of it and even delay it, i wouldnt mind em too but if it is like it is, the game held back to finish the campain, i dont "need" it.

but things are like they are, some like it some dont...so heck lets have a campain and lets wait for it a little longer or quiet a bit longer, nothing to do about it.

PS.: a whole different thing would be a dynamic campain with a "strategic" map to move counters around and generateing the tactical battles out of the encounters one has in the strategic map. i galdly would wait for this, but a string of single missions called campain...well...

[MikeyD]

correct me if Im wrong here, the campaign cant be started until the game is done.

Not quite correct. For a module, the maps, Red force AI instructions, map art, and a dozen other things can all be done well ahead of time while waiting on the TO&E. After the TO&E is firmed-up game engine work and scenarios/module construction can proceed concurrently. You of course can't build scenarios of any sort without the TO&E because the TO&E provides the core units. It would be like trying to play tennis without any tennis balls.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

But, and correct me if Im wrong here, the campaign cant be started until the game is done.

Not at all. In my campaign-creation experience, a good 90% (if not more!) of the work involved is in making the maps, which, since they're basing things off of the current CM:SF engine, they could have essentially done since the project got started. If they change the TO&E, it's a relatively quick process to update the units and do a playthrough or two to make sure that the balance remains intact.

[GSX]

Not quite correct. For a module, the maps, Red force AI instructions, map art, and a dozen other things can all be done well ahead of time while waiting on the TO&E. After the TO&E is firmed-up game engine work and scenarios/module construction can proceed concurrently. You of course can't build scenarios of any sort without the TO&E because the TO&E provides the core units. It would be like trying to play tennis without any tennis balls.

Ah thanks for that info. Then I presume the CMN campaign cant have anything done to it until the games done? I did understand from the boards here that one of the reasons for the delays with the brits and marines was campaign testing and re-testing. Even on release wasnt the Marines campaign broken?

Im just not a big fan of the current campaign system, it just doesnt feel like a campaign at all. Maybe it will be different for Normandy.

[Lethaface]

Ah thanks for that info. Then I presume the CMN campaign cant have anything done to it until the games done? I did understand from the boards here that one of the reasons for the delays with the brits and marines was campaign testing and re-testing. Even on release wasnt the Marines campaign broken? [...]

I think you are missing the work on maps and general stuff. Of course they can already plan out the missions, write scenarios and (given they already have the editor) create maps.

Then they have to wait until the game is finished to implement the forces and scenarios, followed by testing, adjusting, testing, adjusting [...]

Since:

- the game has to be tested with or without campaign

- single scenario's are to be created using generally the same requirements as the campaign

I reckon that the following:

- time to implement the campaign core forces

- the extra time it takes to test campaign results (apart from normal scenario results)

are rather negligible.

Or would you rather play the game without any scenario's shipped?

I can imagine some people would. Personally I would rather wait and "have" content.

EDIT: It might be true that campaign missons are less easy to cut out if they remain buggy, as opposed to single missions. That would be one extra reason that campaigns could take longer to tweak then general single scenarios.

And obviously a massive dynamic campaign on a vast, pre-build, 'true-to-world' map and realistic positioned forces would be 'AWESOME!!'

I feel that somehow BF.C needs some major cloning startrek technology to pull that one of, unfortunately.

[Mord]

So, any new news on the title? I am interested to see what they did with the various infantry models. The Russian site is unchanged...can't read it anyway...but I was hoping they'd put some pics up or something.

Mord.

[Pandur]

hehe, probably another little quirk in a campain mission that adds another month on top.