A worthy foe - The difference between CMSF and CMx1's

[Battlefront.com]

We definitely appreciate cool graphical elements. Which should be obvious when you go back and look at CMBB/AK after playing CM:SF for a while. Then look at CMBO, then look at Steel Panthers, then look at Battle Group, then look at Panzer Leader, etc. Clearly we keep moving forward with better and better graphics. The question always is... how much time to we spend on the graphics vs. the game.

We all know, very well, that if we spent as much time (proportionally) on graphics as the RTS/FPS companies do that you guys wouldn't be here talking with us. So we know for sure that the game is what makes CM a viable product. The graphics simply make it even more viable. Which is why we have to be careful about how we spend our resources.

There will be TONS of neat graphical improvements for CM: Normandy and more after that. But right now I don't think detailed vehicle damage will make it in. It's a major investment in time and looking at the calendar here... I don't see how we can fit it in. But we are trying to.

Leto,

Steve: in all the plans for modules, do you foresee at all any chance of doing the 1940 invasion of Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg and France? Now who would not give their left testicle to lumber around in Char B's, Somua's and Belgian T-13's and Renault AMC 35's?? (damned cool AC's)

Yes, the CMx2 approach means we can tackle lesser covered areas if we think there is a market proportional to the effort. Having Dutch and Belgian forces in a 1940 invasion game probably isn't viable because the amount of effort to simulate those forces, for the small window of time they are relevant, is likely in excess of their commercial value. Much like our poor Romanian and Hungarian forces on the Eastern Front (the Italians can come from a North African game, so reuse can make them viable). So my prediction is that a 1940 game between Germany, France, and BEF (British) is definitely a viable product.

Steve

[MarkEzra]

So my prediction is that a 1940 game between Germany, France, and BEF (British) is definitely a viable product.

Steve

This is great news, indeed. Perhaps a Base Game starting with '39 Poland with a Norway and France '40 modules. The troops, weapons and vehicles of these early actions are truly fascinating

[[hirr]Leto]

Yes, the CMx2 approach means we can tackle lesser covered areas if we think there is a market proportional to the effort. Having Dutch and Belgian forces in a 1940 invasion game probably isn't viable because the amount of effort to simulate those forces, for the small window of time they are relevant, is likely in excess of their commercial value. Much like our poor Romanian and Hungarian forces on the Eastern Front (the Italians can come from a North African game, so reuse can make them viable). So my prediction is that a 1940 game between Germany, France, and BEF (British) is definitely a viable product.

Steve

Dagnabbit! Oh well... my dreams of playing Vichy French against Yank North African invaders is dashed!

Perhaps if you had a wealthy benfactor that asked you to design such modules, you would reconsider?

: )

Cheers!

Leto

[sfhand]

Sfhand,

... Ideally every 2-3 years. That timeframe allows us to keep the engine updated to OS and hardware changes as well as the tons of gameplay improvements...

Steve

This is very interesting considering your general outline in this post:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=84156&highlight=the+road+ahead

I've got to ask, given that your current timeline projects that in 2-3 years you will be releasing CM:N2, can I assume that all the other CM:WW2v1 titles will have been released prior to the hypothetical release of CM:N2? (no, I'm not trying to fence you in, I understand that in the real world timelines and schedules are subject to disruptions and changes)

And more to the current topic, any chance of yet another, oh, I don't know, lets say Romanian, development team making a module of exotic units and forces for each title?

And please do feel free to let slip any new info on the space lobster game...

Thanks!

[Battlefront.com]

Mark,

This is great news, indeed. Perhaps a Base Game starting with '39 Poland with a Norway and France '40 modules. The troops, weapons and vehicles of these early actions are truly fascinating

Each force we include requires a certain amount of work. The more less new work that is required, or the more popular the force is, the more viable it is for us. The more new work and the less popular... the opposite marketability Remember also that German 1939 units are not organized, or even equipped, the same as 1940 units. A lot of similarity, but it's definitely a bunch of work. And the Polish 1939 forces are basically a single effort with no leverage for other things. Compared to...

Leto,

Dagnabbit! Oh well... my dreams of playing Vichy French against Yank North African invaders is dashed!

Not really When we do a North Africa game we'd likely do it after the 1940 invasion of the West. This means we'll have most of the early war desert forces in similar forms already. Voices and other things, of course, in no need of change. All we would need to do is add the Yanks in, which is absolutely necessary for any 1942-1943 depiction of North Africa. What we would not likely simulate is Italy's actions in East Africa since the effort would be out of proportion to the commercial interest.

Perhaps if you had a wealthy benfactor that asked you to design such modules, you would reconsider?

As for North Africa, as you described, no reconsideration necessary For Eritrea or Romanians in Russia... yeah, someone would have to show they could do the work and not care about money.

Steve

[Chad Harrison]

It's a major investment in time and looking at the calendar here... I don't see how we can fit it in.

So speaking of that calendar . . .

I hate to kick a dead horse Steve, but I will try one more time:

Is Normandy still looking good for this year?

You were confident earlier in the year that it was. Has that changed with the delay in Brits? This is by no means me looking for an opportunity to whine, I am just curious how things are coming along. As you have said many times before, there have been more growing pains than anticipated, but things are starting to smooth out more.

Keep up the great work and looking forward to both Brits and Normandy!

Chad

[Sequoia]

Mark,

As for North Africa, as you described, no reconsideration necessary For Eritrea or Romanians in Russia... yeah, someone would have to show they could do the work and not care about money.

Steve

Is there NO ONE in Japan that cares about PC wargames or are they all making Pokemon games? Will we ever see the Pacific?

[ASL Veteran]

Is there NO ONE in Japan that cares about PC wargames or are they all making Pokemon games? Will we ever see the Pacific?

I second that!! I would guess that Japanese would take a tremendous amount of work though because virtually all the terrain would be different along with the Japanese obviously. That and the Marines would have to be modeled. Night combat would have to be fully fleshed out much more than it is currently. The Japanese trained constantly for night attacks. I would love to take those big thirteen man Japanese squads out for a spin on Guadalcanal. Maybe take some Japanese tanks in Malaya and overrun a bunch of British Indian troops. Maybe the terrain and building work load would be reduced if someone really does a Vietnam gamette as they would have to make all new PTO terrain for that so it could probably port over. Everyone would want to see Japanese officers brandishing their Samurai Swords of course. I'm sure there would be a call for beach landings too, but it's totally unnecessary to model that for Pacific combat.

Digging even deeper into the realm of the unlikely it would be nice to have Chinese forces modeled as well as Russians for the Nomonhan border battles in 1939 and their later invasion of Manchuria.

[Sequoia]

I'm seriously curious why a country that has shown such leadership in the console game market seems to have no apparent interest in game companies such as Battlefront. Maybe a large portion of the population would rather forget WWII but there must be some in Japan who have an interest in a war in which their country played such a large roll. If only some one there would take an interest we could see a CM Pacific game just like we're going to have a East Front game thanks to a Russian development team.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

We definitely appreciate cool graphical elements. Which should be obvious when you go back and look at CMBB/AK after playing CM:SF for a while. Then look at CMBO, *snip*

Since you brought it up... where did my blastwaves go?!

Steve, not even so much of a graphics issue. It's about the stuff that does nothing for the game except make the player happy. Like the much missed kill stats. It's been two years so I think I can conclude it isn't as high on your mighty list as it is on mine.

And there is a bunch of stuff in that category that just doesn't seem to be forthcoming. Vehicle damage not till CM:N2? Is something as basic as a hole graphic on projectile entry and exit points really put back until then?

Spend a bit of time every now and again pandering to the player instead of the simulation.

[dan/california]

From a consumer perspective what obviously needs to happen is a true merger of BFC and the Theater of War guys. They obviously have some level of relationship already, and I know NOTHING about how complicated it might be to change that relationship along the lines I am suggesting. But a single website selling two games this similar does beg the question. Would everyone one be better off with a single game that had a higher level of resources devoted to it?

Steve is more than welcome to tell that I am full of it, crazy or both. Most people on this board probably already have an opinion.

[ASL Veteran]

Oh yeah, and I can't forget that the Japanese have a proclivity to hang out in cave complexes. I couldn't even imagine how hard something like that would be to make work in CM . My guess is that it couldn't be done. There are a lot of interesting things Japanese soldiers do too - like stick the muzzle of their rifles in their mouths when it looks like the end is near. Banzai charges. No quarter, no prisoners. Stabbing Marines with Samurai Swords. Strapping explosives on a soldier's body and having him run up to take out those pesky US tanks like a human Sagger ATGM. Bamboo fields. Rice paddies. Snipers tied to trees. There are plenty of good campaigns that could be done though without the cave complex beach landing type stuff. Both invasions of the Phillipines. Guadalcanal of course. Burma, Singapore, India. Yeah, I would love to fight in CM as the Japanese. It would be an entirely new gaming experience if done well.

[Chad Harrison]

Oh yeah, and I can't forget that the Japanese have a proclivity to hang out in cave complexes. I couldn't even imagine how hard something like that would be to make work in CM . My guess is that it couldn't be done. There are a lot of interesting things Japanese soldiers do too - like stick the muzzle of their rifles in their mouths when it looks like the end is near. Banzai charges. No quarter, no prisoners. Stabbing Marines with Samurai Swords. Strapping explosives on a soldier's body and having him run up to take out those pesky US tanks like a human Sagger ATGM. Bamboo fields. Rice paddies. Snipers tied to trees. There are plenty of good campaigns that could be done though without the cave complex beach landing type stuff. Both invasions of the Phillipines. Guadalcanal of course. Burma, Singapore, India. Yeah, I would love to fight in CM as the Japanese. It would be an entirely new gaming experience if done well.

I am also with you on this. Back in the days of CMx1 I had made a list of all the places in the Pacific that would fit into CM's scope: in other words, the battle went beyond the beach.

There's tons! As you pointed out there is Malaya, Burma, China, Philippines (1941) and India . . .

Not to mention Tulagi (would make a great campaign!), Guadacanal, Munda, Bougainville, Cape Gloucuster, Owen Stanley, all of New Guinea for that matter, Aleutians, Tarawa once they got off the beach, Saipan, Tinian, Guam, Peleliu, Leyete and Phillipines again, Iwo and ofcourse Okinawa. Not to mention throwing in a 'what-if' module of Operation Downfall.

But . . .

Even across that list you have *huge* changes in TO&E, terrain, tactics, climate and so on. It would not just be a single family of games. It would requite multiple families of games with multiples modules. The Marines in August of 1942 on Tulagi and Guadacanal were worlds different than those on Tarawa in November of 1943, let alone Iwo/Okinawa early 1945.

I would love to see CM go to the Pacific, but I am not holding my breath.

Perhaps . . . just limit it to something more simple, lets say Operation Cartwheel? That was limit the insane amount of new things to add.

[Paper Tiger]

does anyone know who this guy is and why he's acting a little strange?

Both my wife and I are quite sick with the flu just now so you could put it down to medication and chronic lack of sleep. Indonesian flu medication is very potent stuff and my wife keeps us both up half the night with her coughing. So, I do actually have quite a good excuse.

What's yours?

[JonS]

There's tons! As you pointed out there is Malaya, Burma, China, Philippines (1941) and India . . .

Not to mention Tulagi (would make a great campaign!), Guadacanal, Munda, Bougainville, Cape Gloucuster, Owen Stanley, all of New Guinea for that matter, Aleutians, Tarawa once they got off the beach, Saipan, Tinian, Guam, Peleliu, Leyete and Phillipines again, Iwo and ofcourse Okinawa. Not to mention throwing in a 'what-if' module of Operation Downfall.

Sure, those are all places where there was ground fighting, but *I* think a significant portion of them could be discarded, since they are all repetitions on a theme of attack-a-heavily-dug-in-and-essentially-immobile-defence. Once you've done one - or a dozen - of those ...

So, for me, that rules out North Coast of New Guinea, Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Peleliu, Saipan-Tinian-Guam (IIRC), and a bunch of the other island hoping battles. Or maybe not 'rules them out', but I just don't perceive any significant difference between them, in terms of forces involved, tactical challenge, or tactical problem to be solved. From 1943 onwards there simply wasn't a lot of manoover - especially at the tactical or operational level - in the Pacific. And gaming tactical manoover is the raison d'être of CM.

1942 is different, and so is Phillipines Redux. And China-Burma-India, but that'd be begging for the module to be named "The Forgotten Wargame".

Jon

BTW - was there any actual fighting in the Aleuts? I thought it was an unopposed landing, an unnoticed withdrawal, followed by another unopposed occupation?

[[hirr]Leto]

Sure, those are all places where there was ground fighting, but *I* think a significant portion of them could be discarded, since they are all repetitions on a theme of attack-a-heavily-dug-in-and-essentially-immobile-defence. Once you've done one - or a dozen - of those ...

I agree, there would be a very setpiece form to many of the battles in these contexts. Just watched a history channel production of "Generals" where they recounted the Japanese conquest of Malaysia and Singapore against the British. While the Jap's utilized some very basic tanks to the advantage of their bicycle mounted army of infantry, the British had none. This does not lend to the freewheeling meeting engagement type scenarios where both sides have armor and assets that are highly mobile as on the eastern or western front.

That being said, there are some true diehard grognards that love that era and theatre of war... I played Campaign Series Rising Sun from Talonsoft for many years, and always felt that it had a very different feel to it, and the best scenarios often had a mixture of mobile forces on both sides. So I could not rule out that this type of module wouldn't be doable or extremely fun for all CM'rs...

Cheers!

Leto

[Battlefront.com]

Years and years and years ago (when 286s ruled the Earth ) I went to a conference and attended a talk about how Japanese view gaming. It was presented by some game publishers who worked over there and had learned the hard way that their culture is not setup for "free thinking games". They are highly competitive and want sure ways to win, then discover them (even by cheating) to one-up their compatriots. The games aren't necessarily brain dead, rather they are puzzle orientated vs. problem orientated. Or put another way, they want games with more-or-less linear solutions to very specific goals with very specific rewards, as opposed to games where the paths aren't clearly established nor are the goals nor are the rewards. Wargames are just about the exact opposite of what the market apparently wants.

Based on what we've seen come out from the Japanese markets over the years... I'd say that is probably about right.

Elmar,

Steve, not even so much of a graphics issue. It's about the stuff that does nothing for the game except make the player happy.

Right, which is exactly what I just said These things take time and effort to do and if we spend all of our time putting in things which are superfluous, just to keep people happy, they would become unhappy because the gameplay wouldn't be there. There has to be a balance and that balance will be different depending on perspective.

Like the much missed kill stats. It's been two years so I think I can conclude it isn't as high on your mighty list as it is on mine.

Nope, it's extremely high up. But it isn't the sort of feature we can cram into the existing UI. It will be in Normandy along with other improvements which I'm sure you'll enjoy.

And there is a bunch of stuff in that category that just doesn't seem to be forthcoming.

Nothing could be further from the truth. And you should actually know better since you're privy to insider information. Specifically a thread (on the old Beta Board, apparently) where I outlined proposed UI changes for CM: Normandy for you guys to give feedback on. You might remember there was a bit of an outcry from a bunch of testers about a particular bit of "fluff" (along the lines of what you're talking about) which I defended. That feature, Kill Stats, and several other things are absolutely going in CM: Normandy. Hopefully in about a month, if all goes well with some things that are ahead of it on the schedule.

Vehicle damage not till CM:N2? Is something as basic as a hole graphic on projectile entry and exit points really put back until then?

I didn't say anything about a cheesy damage decal. I was talking about actual damage to the model, like pieces being ripped off specific to context sensitive hits. This is an extremely "expensive" thing for us to add in terms of development time because it basically means we have to double the number of models in the game and have Charles code the logic to dynamically swap out damaged parts for non-damaged parts. It's still on the development calendar for Normandy (which in and of itself disproves your theory that we don't care about these things since our list is quite narrow at this point), but looking at how much time we have to play with I doubt it will make it.

Plus, I didn't say it would take until CM: Normandy 2. I just said I wasn't sure we would have enough time to get it into CM: Normandy 1. There are MANY products slated to be released between those two games. I expect that if it doesn't get into Normandy 1 then it will get into the Bulge or whichever is the next game after Normandy 1.

We can't snap our fingers and make everything happen at once. Magic is a skill we haven't developed yet

Spend a bit of time every now and again pandering to the player instead of the simulation.

We do, even if your personal pet feature isn't one of them. For example, I'd say overhauling QBs to make them "more gamey" is tons more important to the vast majority of CM gamers than having a graphical blotch on a vehicle which shows a hit. Not to mention that the QB overhaul feature is probably the single biggest piece of CM: Normandy's development time. Call me crazy, but I think we have our priorities in order just fine

As I've said many, many times before... the possible list of features to include is probably 10 years long. That means that in any given year at most 10% of what people have suggested so far will make it in. Which of course means 90% in any given year won't get put in. If we're being held to an impossible standard (i.e. this is my list and I want it all in) we're in a no-win situation.

Steve

[dan/california]

Release the Brits and I absolutely promise to go two weeks without one stupid suggestion, really, I promise.

[Battlefront.com]

Regarding "fluff" I'm of the opinion that the best ones are those which are coupled with simulation elements. This not only makes the game "cooler" (from a gamey perspective) but also makes the simulation aspects possible, or at the very least more apparent. We spent a huge amount of CMx2's development time on this sort of stuff, which I think people may take for granted. Here are some examples off the top of my head:

1. Buildings - the different sizes, orientations, facades, entry ways, window configurations, balcony stuff, etc. make for a much richer visual environment AND richer tactical environment.

2. 1:1 Soldiers - probably the thing we have spent the single most amount of time on. It makes the game feel so much more alive and visceral, yet at the same time it increases the fidelity of the simulation by a huge margin.

3. Support Voices - when calling in for artillery or air, the voice feedback the player gets is definitely more engaging than a bit of text or a blip of an icon. At the same time it gives the player substantial information about the status of incoming support without having to check the Support UI.

4. Realistic sound effects - not only do we have a huge array of sounds tailored to individual weapons and blast effects, but we also have the sound behave according to the physics of acoustics (to the degree we can). It's not only cool to see a muzzle flash and then hear the cannon roar, it's also something which gives you some feedback about the relative distance that enemy gun is at without having to check the Target Command or zoom up to a higher level.

5. Asymmetrical and varied Victory Conditions - battles are infinitely more interesting now that scenario designers can make battles tailored to specific tactical situations. It's also nerve racking to be in the middle of a battle and not being exactly sure if you're doing OK or not because the victory conditions don't boil down to "who has the flags". From a simulation standpoint this makes the tactical environment vastly more realistic and intricate than would otherwise be possible using a simplified flag type system.

Of course there are many more things than that, a whole host of them quite subtle. But here are some things that CMx2 has that are complete fluff

1. Soldier animations - sure, we need to have a few to make the Humans functional. But look at how many CMx1 had. IIRC they had 5 (crawling, running, walking, shooting and getting hit). CMx2 has many more and we're adding to that list as we can. Vaulting over walls, for example, is in v1.20. Does it improve the simulation? Not one tiny bit. Does it make the game more enjoyable? Yup! Same with weapons being tailored to the soldier's model and animations instead of generic "one animation fits all" approach we had in CMx1.

2. Vehicle suspensions - there's no simulation reason for us to have realistic vehicle suspensions, even though people constantly complained about CMx1's static/flat treatment. There's no reason we have to show vehicles rocking when they shoot, stop, take a tight turn, etc. But it's cool

3. Vehicle variations - boxes of ammo, food, rolls of camo netting, dented fenders, bent anti-AT bars, etc. give each vehicle a little bit of personality different from the vehicle next to it of the same type. It took time and effort to put this stuff in and it doesn't do a single thing for the simulation. But generic looking vehicles was one of the big complaints of CMx1, so we put it in because it adds value to the game environment in other ways.

4. Flavor Objects - whether there's an ATM on a wall or an air conditioner on the roof matters very little to the sim (sometimes not at all), but it makes the game environment richer aesthetically. That's a good thing for sure. More of this stuff will go in as time goes on.

5. Dynamic lighting - who here has played night battles and ooed and awed over a vehicle cooking off or a building lighting up as it's hit by tracer rounds? Who here thinks this matters even a little bit to the simulation? Exactly.

And this list can go on for a few posts since there are so many graphical elements, in particular, that are in CMx2 that are pure fluff. Fluff is designed to keep players "happy" with the game as a game while sometimes, as often as we can, also enhancing the simulation. Or for those who care more about the simulation, they can see this as necessary visual elements resulting from enhancements to the game's serious elements. Either way it's a win-win for everybody as long as we keep in mind that without a good sim at the core people will have more reasons to play multi-million Dollar RTS games.

Like many people who have played CM:SF quite a bit have said, going back and looking at CMx1 is a reminder about how much the overall environment has progressed. Better still, it keeps on progressing. CM: Normandy will be the first side by side comparison possible (vs. CMBO, of course), and we're confident that any complaining about us spending too much time on the sim and not enough on the stuff around it will be drowned out by the oos and awes.

Steve

[Elmar Bijlsma]

We can't snap our fingers and make everything happen at once. Magic is a skill we haven't developed yet

Never asked for magic Steve. But I just thought I should mention that at least so far, the slight of hand isn't doing it for me.

I really don't think I've ever been particularly demanding, except for that one thing and even in that my doggedness was at least two parts comedy to one part seriousness.

Nonetheless, two years down the line too many features I loved in old titles , especially so called fluff, are still on the 'one day, some day' list. Just thought I'd mention it.

[bodkin]

One thing I'd like to see is a graphics update for explosions, I know it sounds superficial and gamey but at the moment we have one set of bmp's for every explosion type whether it be an arty round or tank blowing up. It would at least be nice to have a different set of bmp's for arty so that it gave the impression of earth, rock and debris erupting with a bit of black /grey smoke mixed in.

[panzermartin]

I think the comparison with the japanese view of gaming is quite interesting. While I'm a fan of the more open approach of CM than the more strict, black and white rules of those games I still think CMx2 should try to borrow some more "gamey" elements than going full simulation, which while it is an awesome experience of open ended and free gaming, it still makes a 2 player competitive game a bit blurry and hard to balance. CMx1 with its more bold, abstracted rules (1 +1patch of woods = NoLOS) was more limited in possible results but in the end it didnt matter because the average human brain pays more attention to substance (simpler calculations) than a myriad of subdivisions that ultimately are more of a cosmetic addition. RealTime makes this even more evident, making it an almost mission impossible task to go down with your tank and judge its LOS through a series of trees, or make sure all the squad men are in cover or proper firing positions. The games seeks an almost first person shooter resolution of 3D battlefield which while awesome in small unit action it becomes cumbersome as scale goes up. In order to counter this a lot of AI and user interface help cues would be needed to make the game a bit more user friendly. The action spot highlight, the flashing causalty icon are all steps in the right direction but I expect to see quite a few more gameplay aids coming as the series expand.

[Scipio]

I would also like to see a WWII Pacific War game!

...

5. Asymmetrical and varied Victory Conditions - battles are infinitely more interesting now that scenario designers can make battles tailored to specific tactical situations. It's also nerve racking to be in the middle of a battle and not being exactly sure if you're doing OK or not because the victory conditions don't boil down to "who has the flags". From a simulation standpoint this makes the tactical environment vastly more realistic and intricate than would otherwise be possible using a simplified flag type system. ...

Steve

The extended victory conditions are surely great, but a sad fact is that we now often go into the battle with only a vague idea about the goal - what is 100% a scenario design problem; but also with only a vague guess about the reasons for the end result. The result screen is in my opion much to simple to analyse the reasons for the result, or what could have done better, what is only partialy a scenario design problem. As an example are casualty thresholds. Okay, the result screen tells me if I have reach it or not - but this information is floating into vacuum. What is the preset treshold? What does it mean when I compare it with the casualty numbers in men and material?

One thing I'd like to see is a graphics update for explosions, I know it sounds superficial and gamey but at the moment we have one set of bmp's for every explosion type whether it be an arty round or tank blowing up. It would at least be nice to have a different set of bmp's for arty so that it gave the impression of earth, rock and debris erupting with a bit of black /grey smoke mixed in.

I second that! Some more varity would be very welcome. It surely makes a difference if a shell explodes in the air or on the ground, or if it's a vehicel that explodes.

[Thomm]

First of all graphical improvements, I would like to see a new 'burning vehicle' effect! Since the game is about blowing stuff up, I think that would be time well invested!

Second, better than having no stats at all because of UI, it would be to dump the kill stats (and perhaps even detailed kill information - who, which weapon, how, range, ...) into a text file. I suspect that is not possible, though, because it is not memorized internally (there is obviously no need to at present).

Just imagine how detailed (1:1, so to speak) kill information would make Grogs drool all over the world ...

Best regards,

Thomm

[Chad Harrison]

Alright, alright. I will quit bugging you about it Steve. It's amazing, even on an internet forum where it is harder to get a read on how someone is feeling or reacting to what you are asking, I get the impression that I need to stop asking. You see if we were standing face to face and I kept bugging you about it, you would probably give me the same look my wife gives me whenever I bring up getting a new computer

Like many people who have played CM:SF quite a bit have said, going back and looking at CMx1 is a reminder about how much the overall environment has progressed. Better still, it keeps on progressing. CM: Normandy will be the first side by side comparison possible (vs. CMBO, of course), and we're confident that any complaining about us spending too much time on the sim and not enough on the stuff around it will be drowned out by the oos and awes.

Steve

I was just playing CM:SF last night after playing CM:BB recently and this could not be more true. CMx2 is leaps and bounds beyond CMx1. No doubt about it. The BFC team has worked wonders with the system from both a technical and gameplay standpoint. Sure there are little things I miss (such as the kill stats), but those are small beans compared to the many things that we gained. Which is why I never bring up those small things and never participated in all those threads after CM:SF's release. Which would I rather have: 1 to 1 or kill stats? Hmmmmmm . . .

When CM:Normandy hits, I already know that it will be well beyond CM:BO in every level. Till then, I am still playing and still enjoying CM:SF and greatly looking forward to Brits.

Keep up the great work BFC.

Chad