CMSF British manual

[Moon]

Yes, you are missing that you want to sell a new module with new engine features along with new content. The patch is, obviously, 'just' a spin-off of this development.

Correct, has there been any doubt about that?

Steve said it was "always the plan" to improve CMSF in the patches. Get out more Moon!

Right, and there are nine major improvements listed in the manual (in addition to dozens of smaller things not listed there). That puts us well ahead of your average game developer/publisher. I still do not understand the "disappointment". Sounds more like the usual whining based on unreasonable expectations to me

[Cpl Steiner]

In fact, I'm reading 3 Para about the titular unit in Helmland Province in 2006, and they said that they all found the SA80 to be a reliable and effective weapon.

I've just started this book and have two more on the Brits in Afghanistan lined up. There is going to be a flood of Helmand scenarios when the module comes out!

[Thomm]

Sounds more like the usual whining based on unreasonable expectations to me

Since you are apparently unable to make a post without an insult, I shall bite.

Here is my personal list of improvements that I would like to see implemented:

• Gun elevation limits
  
• Peeking/shooting around corners
  
• Targetable smoke for infantry
  
• Limit shooters per window
  
• LOS across sharp terrain edges
  
• Better burning vehicles effects
  
• Improved/fixed quick battle selection
  
• Improved editor UI (flavor objects, in particular)
  

None of those seem unreasonable to me and none of them are listed in the addendum. I just made note of this.

Best regards,

Thomm

[ChrisND]

Since you are apparently unable to make a post without an insult, I shall bite.

Here is my personal list of improvements that I would like to see implemented:

• Gun elevation limits
  
• Peeking/shooting around corners
  
• Targetable smoke for infantry
  
• Limit shooters per window
  
• LOS across sharp terrain edges
  
• Better burning vehicles effects
  
• Improved/fixed quick battle selection
  
• Improved editor UI (flavor objects, in particular)
  

None of those seem unreasonable to me and none of them are listed in the addendum. I just made note of this.

Best regards,

Thomm

Ooh, can I make a list of pet peeves and demand it gets addressed too? This'll be fun! You guys better hop to it!

I thought you read these forums more often. It has been made abundantly clear that modules are only minor changes that focus on new gear, and that Titles are where major changes/feature additions are done.

[Battlefront.com]

Adam,

Steve said it was "always the plan" to improve CMSF in the patches.

Er, we did. What Steve also said is that those improvements would be modest and limited, not wide ranging. And that's because...

Thomm,

Yes, you are missing that you want to sell a new module with new engine features along with new content.

No, we want to sell the content and give away the game engine improvements. Which is what we're doing Take your pick...

No further free patches for CM:SF at all, but larger improvements in the purchasable Modules

OR

Free patches for CM:SF, but the enhancements are modest in scope

Besides the brand new features, which have been detailed in the manual, there are dozens of tweaks, bug fixes, and other lesser improvements which you guys get for free. And it's for free.

Steve

[Holman]

One thing that excites me, too, is that new content always gets the scenario makers moving.

The module will come with its own new scenarios, of course, but one of the great things about CM has always been the user-generated free content. I feel sure that access to British equipment will inspire excellent new work from some really talented scenario designers.

In the long haul, you get much more gaming than you paid for.

[Scipio]

Well well, enough of whining and bashing and grumbling.

What the hell are you waiting for?

Release this god damn module NOW!?

[Battlefront.com]

Thomm,

None of those seem unreasonable to me and none of them are listed in the addendum

Correct, because if we didn't release a game until everybody's pet peeve list was in the Addendum we wouldn't be releasing a game until probably just after the world runs out of energy to power the computers needed to run it

Personal feature requests lists are a dime a dozen on this Forum. It's not only unreasonable, but counter productive to expect that we're capable of implementing them all even if given several years, not to mention several months. The alternative, which is to implement a single person's pet peeve list, is rather egotistical and probably not something that the rest of the players would be too happy with. Even if those requests were "reasonable".

Normal Dude,

Ooh, can I make a list of pet peeves and demand it gets addressed too? This'll be fun! You guys better hop to it!

Please don't

I thought you read these forums more often. It has been made abundantly clear that modules are only minor changes that focus on new gear, and that Titles are where major changes/feature additions are done.

Yes, Thomm definitely knows this. So does Adam. So does anybody who has been on this forum for more than a few weeks over the past 5 years. It's the only strategy that we can pursue which is grounded in reality, which is why after 5 years the strategy hasn't changed one iota. And never will. And here's why, using Thomm's list as an example:

Gun elevation limits

Several months of work. We've already decided we'll probably NEVER do this. CMx1 didn't have it and somehow people managed to survive.

Peeking/shooting around corners

Possibly happen sometime, but it's a feature which is fraught with TacAI problems which will likely take weeks of testing/tweaking to get right. Since we don't think the problem is sufficient to warrant that sort of effort, at least now with so many other things to do, we aren't going to distract ourselves with it.

Targetable smoke for infantry

We changed the TacAI behavior in v1.20 so that this is largely not necessary without adding yet another Command to the menu.

Limit shooters per window

TacAI issue that we don't feel is important enough to pursue. Our time is better spent on other features which will yield a better net result for the player.

LOS across sharp terrain edges

Major tweaks in v1.20.

Better burning vehicles effects

The system we have in mind is comprehensive with other vehicle/weapons damage related effects in mind. Too big to do possibly even for Normandy. Minor changes aren't deemed a good use of our time compared to things like...

Improved/fixed quick battle selection

Several months of man hours to do anything other than an unsatisfactory hack to the existing system. We've said now for almost 2 years this will be a major item for Normandy and that's exactly what the plan still is.

Improved editor UI (flavor objects, in particular)

We could spend, literally, 2 years implementing nothing but Editor improvements that were suggested by the original Beta Testers before v1.0 even got out into public hands. Since then I'd say about another 1 year's worth of suggestions have been added. Which improvements should we be emphasizing and which game elements should get tossed aside to make room in the schedule for them?

Overall I'd say that if we started on this list now we might have it done sometime in 2013. And this is just one list off the top of one person's head on one afternoon of griping

Steve

[ChrisND]

Normal Dude,

Please don't

You don't even know. Ever read Calvin and Hobbes, where Calvin sends a Christmas wish list to Santa that requires an index? That would be my list.

[Thomm]

Ooh, can I make a list of pet peeves and demand it gets addressed too? This'll be fun! You guys better hop to it!

Not that it matters, but I did not make any demands but tried to justify that I was a little bit disappointed that I did not find any of the items that are important to me on the list of improvements.

Shall I apologize to you for having an opinion of my own? I will, just tell me so!!!

Steve,

Thanks for the information!

Best regards,

Thomm

[MikeyD]

...that modules are only minor changes...

This expressed attitude is a 'pet peeve' of mine. 'Only minor changes'?

What about those fifty hand-crafted scenarios, many of which do a creditable job of reproducing actual map locations? Some scenarios even include map coordinate numbers so you can check on the real-world locations on Google Earth! Some people don't seem to comprehend the amount of organizational work alone that went into crafting a believable campaign. There were serious debates about whether Blue force should take the M1 multilane highway into Damascus rather than the narrower Route 5, which has the advantage of not being overlooked by foothills to the west. This stuff was not just thrown together. A very large amount of effort is put into each module. Its is not just new uniform skins.

[ChrisND]

This expressed attitude is a 'pet peeve' of mine. 'Only minor changes'?

... to the game engine. Which would be a separate effort from the campaign/scenario content.

[Other Means]

I think, even as a dirty, stinking, free-loading scenario snaffler, that improvements to the editor would make the biggest long term contribution to the game.

Not only do they give the community the tools to make the game interesting they can be used across all the families of games.

[Other Means]

And tracer bounce. Otherwise I double my fees :mad:

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, the effort into those scenarios and the campaign is massive (as anybody who has tested for us knows!). The amount of time and effort put into the vehicle models, TO&E, voices, etc. is also massive. Testing all of that stuff together to make sure it works correctly... ah... massive

It's like anything, really. If there isn't a strong interest in the content then it doesn't matter how much, or how little, work has gone into it. IIRC the last version of Grand Theft Auto cost $50,000,000 to make and probably involved several hundred people in direct development. I know I'm not running out to buy it

Steve

[dan/california]

Wouldn't some types of editor improvements be among the easiest things to farm out?s It is a separate executable isn't it?

[Elmar Bijlsma]

And tracer bounce. Otherwise I double my fees :mad:

Pfah! Who'd want that that kind of fluff?

[Alan8325]

I just looked over the British Forces manual and noticed that although the Scimitar and Spartan vehicles are equipped with slat cages their protection against HEAT is still red "X" across the board. Strykers have yellow protection with slat cages. Is the slat cage on Scimitar and Spartan just for show?

[Battlefront.com]

The Editor is an integrated part of CM and is therefore not stand-alone. Improving it over time is definitely on the agenda, but we will always treat the Editor with less attention that those who use it want. The reason why is the Editor is a development black hole. It was with CMx1 as well. We could spend YEARS, and I do mean that, working on nothing but the Editor. That would make for a kick ass Editor for a game nobody cares about playing So while I do agree that some improvements to the Editor have the potential for big returns, compared to something like a new Quick Battle system or tanks dynamically shredding into pieces depending on how they are hit... well, I think I know which feature would win a popularity contest.

Near-term improvements to the Editor will likely be those which also give a boost to the gameplay, not things which are only functional within the Editor itself.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Alan8325,

I just looked over the British Forces manual and noticed that although the Scimitar and Spartan vehicles are equipped with slat cages their protection against HEAT is still red "X" across the board. Strykers have yellow protection with slat cages. Is the slat cage on Scimitar and Spartan just for show?

Stuff like this on vehicles is never for show

The top line is against ATGMs, not HEAT. In reality both families of vehicles are defenseless against something like an AT-14, but against more marginal hits the Strykers are slightly superior due to better base armor than the CVR(T) vehicles. Remember, the CVR(T)s were designed over 30 years ago and are currently slated to be replaced. The UK MoD, however, has been farting around with the replacement program due to budget problems. A year or two they finally got around to selecting a design and a contractor, but they recently released the contractor because the program is not being funded. In fact, there is quite a bit of furor over the continued delays in upgrading equipment going on right now.

Steve

[dan/california]

Is there anything short of an Abrams/ Challenger/Merkava that is?

For that matter even they don't exactly shrug them off. Its active defenses or smoking wreckage where the very latest ATGMs are concerned, pretty much across the board.

[Alan8325]

Alan8325,

Stuff like this on vehicles is never for show

The top line is against ATGMs, not HEAT. In reality both families of vehicles are defenseless against something like an AT-14, but against more marginal hits the Strykers are slightly superior due to better base armor than the CVR(T) vehicles. Remember, the CVR(T)s were designed over 30 years ago and are currently slated to be replaced. The UK MoD, however, has been farting around with the replacement program due to budget problems. A year or two they finally got around to selecting a design and a contractor, but they recently released the contractor because the program is not being funded. In fact, there is quite a bit of furor over the continued delays in upgrading equipment going on right now.

Steve

Ah I see. I thought ATGMs and HEAT cannon rounds were one and the same in method of penetration and this was the top line, and then the line right below it was large KE. So the second line is large KE and HEAT I guess. Shows how much I know!

Is there anything short of an Abrams/ Challenger/Merkava that is?

For that matter even they don't exactly shrug them off. Its active defenses or smoking wreckage where the very latest ATGMs are concerned, pretty much across the board.

Are there any active defense systems in service yet? I've heard a little about the Trophy system developed in Isreal and that the U.S. is considering developing some kind of equivalent. Russia has something called Drozd, which has been around since the 80's, and something more recent called Arena-E. I'm not familiar with the capabilities of any of these and am too tired to look them up right now, but I haven't seen or heard any evidence of these systems being used, even the older ones like Drozd, so maybe they aren't effective yet.

[Battlefront.com]

Nope, from the sides every tank in the world is pretty much vulnerable to a direct hit form an AT-14. Just like pretty much all tanks in the world are vulnerable to Javelin from the top. We are definitely in a period where offensive weapons have gone way beyond the ability of defenses to cope with them. This is a normal cycle that's been repeated several times since modern mechanized warfare.

Personally, I think the current situation is most comparable with Allied tanks running into German tank hunters armed with the larger type Panzerfausts (especially the Pzfst 100). At the time it was pretty much a sure bet that if your tank was hit with one of those things you'd be out of action in some way shape or form. All you could do was keep the enemy infantry out of range. Or hope the shooter missed Similar to going up against something like an RPG-29 today.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Alan8325,

Ah I see. I thought ATGMs and HEAT cannon rounds were one and the same in method of penetration and this was the top line, and then the line right below it was large KE. So the second line is large KE and HEAT I guess. Shows how much I know!

Well, to be fair to yourself the system is by necessity very simplified because the range of threats, and the capability of each, is so varied. However, you are correct that the threats in the Defenses Report are:

1. AT missiles

2. Large Caliber

3. Medium Caliber

4. Small Caliber

Again, it's pretty rough if you're trying to guess how well a vehicle will do against a particular threat. However, it's primary function is to give yourself a feel for how well defended vehicles are compared to each other.

Steve

[MikeyD]

About Scimitar/Spartan and the big red X. Remember, Stryker also has a spall liner, ceramic armor tiles, extenally mounted gas tanks, *secret* stuff, and they try to not stow ammo internally. Scimitar/Spartan can't claim any of that.

If you're playing Red against the Brits I advise you invest in a few extra heavy machineguns. Some people have always complained about the "uber" Americans rolling over all in their path. Those people should enjoy playing with Scimitars and plain-Jane FV432 APCs then!