December Normandy Bones

[gibsonm]

Nuclear Fusion Reactors are decades older then that. Not the greatest example of hi-tech that CM:N needs to live up to.

Fission maybe but not Fusion.

In fact I don't think there is a Nuclear Fusion reactor currently in operation (unless he is referring to the "potential" albeit very short lived ones located inside every H bomb).

If we did have Fusion reactors in production most of our energy problems would be gone.

[JonS]

*ahem*

Humanity has had a space station in orbit several decades ago. Nuclear Fusion Reactors are decades older then that. Not the greatest example of hi-tech that CM:N needs to live up to.

hehe. And, ironically, both are older than personal computers

[ASL Veteran]

I seem to recall a post that Steve made a while back where he said that they would try to get TCP/IP We Go into CM:N without movie replay if they could, but from the responses by the beta testers it sounds like that hasn't come to pass. I was left with the impression that getting TCP/IP We Go into CMx2 was on the agenda though. It just might not be with the initial release of CM:N. There would be obvious advantages to that addition from a scenario balancing perspective for BFC at a minimum so it would seem to be in both their interests and ours to add that 'feature'.

[Jonny(FGM)]

In fact I don't think there is a Nuclear Fusion reactor currently in operation

There are a few experimental ones, but they only create fusion for a tiny fraction of a second and even the best one only produces enough energy to match how much it took to get it going in the first place

Anyway waaaaaay OT

Yeah PBEM is a very poor substitute for TCP/IP (i still enjoy pbem though). The main advantage of TCP/IP is speed, sure a big file might take 5 mins to send, but to PBEM it you need to spend 5 minutes uploading it, your opponent time to download, the loading times which can be long, i could go on lol

Personally I feel it's a bit of a cop out, but I can see we won't win this argument, I can live with it

[Jonny(FGM)]

I seem to recall a post that Steve made a while back where he said that they would try to get TCP/IP We Go into CM:N without movie replay if they could

What would be the point? All that does is take the main advantage of WEGO away from you and just leaves you with the disadvantages

[Blackcat]

Well I rather like PBEM, and have no use for TCP. I appreciate the freedom that the asynchronous nature of PBEM gives me to fit multi player into my life, and the ability to play against people in different timezones.

TCP is, for me, still a crap solution ever since it was introduced in CMx1

Something about horses and courses.

You are quite right.

PBEM is nice for playing games by email and works well if one is happy to spend days, weeks or months playing a scenario.

However, if two friends want to sit down with a LAN and have some serious in your face gaming PBEM is a crap solution. TCP/IP WEGO a la CMx1 was a brilliant solution.

[gibsonm]

PBEM is nice for playing games by email ...

You'd hope so.

[Michael Emrys]

Michael Emrys

That looks identical to the shirt I remember as far as colors go. The shape of the splotches may be a little different; my memory is hazy on that detail. But I think the cut of the garment was unchanged. About the color, one decisive detail I notice is that the background color appears to be ochre whereas in later patterns it is either tan or light green. I believe that ochre was also the background color on my shirt.

Roach:

When I was collecting GI 'stuff' in the early 80s there was apparently a commercial range of camo either being produced or, more probably, had been produced (can't remember which - as I said, age is very bad for my memory!) in the US after the war and which was very similar to the WW2 Army pattern so maybe that was what you had?

I am convinced that you are right. I acquired my shirt sometime around 1960 and it seemed to be of recent manufacture, i.e., well after the war was over. It possibly could have been made by the same company that did the wartime work continuing to use the same materials, patterns, and inks as they had during the war.

Michael

[ASL Veteran]

What would be the point? All that does is take the main advantage of WEGO away from you and just leaves you with the disadvantages

It would be an improvement over continuous real time gaming - which incidentally is the only option currently available other than PBEM. I think that if you think in terms of what's available in CMx2 now rather than what was available in CMx1 (or whatever your preferred end state is), then I'm sure you would find TCP/IP We Go without movie playback as a nice addition to CMx2. If I remember correctly the goal would be to include movie playback later, but to include it without movie playback just to get the feature into the game earlier than would be possible if movie playback was added as well. Anyway, I'm sure that if I've made any errors Steve will be along to correct what I've posted.

[Marc Anton]

Oh.. my... goodness. Marc Anton, if you didn't want to come across as a spoiled and lazy drama queen,

Because i am doing some critics here instead of praising every screenshot ? Sorry i am not a fanboy of that sort.

I am a big fan of CM since ever but i wanted to ask some question, tried to discuss.

So if you are unable to give usefull answers ignore the topic, Thanks. (a bit to grownup here for kiddy stuff)

[7thGalaxy]

Because i am doing some critics here instead of praising every screenshot ? Sorry i am not a fanboy of that sort.

I am a big fan of CM since ever but i wanted to ask some question, tried to discuss.

So if you are unable to give usefull answers ignore the topic, Thanks. (a bit to grownup here for kiddy stuff)

Except that you are not sounding 'grown up' you are whining like a kid. And you're not participating in a 'discussion' or providing any useful answers. All you have done is thrown your toys out of the pram because they don't have WEGO TCP/IP.

[Marc Anton]

Ok forget it guys ..... fanboys .... nothing more to say. Lets look forward to release and hopefully a good game.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Look, nothing to do with fanboy-ism.

I'm pretty critical at times too. And not always as dignified and reasonable as I might wish in hindsight, either.

But your post consist of 100% hyperbole and drama. That might perhaps work on a World of Warcraft forum, but here you will get called on it. As a direct result of you post someone started a thread concerned that turn based multi-player was going to get removed altogether. Since that isn't at all the case, you might want to consider if your style of posting made a positive contribution to this forum.

If you had just been a bit more accurate and reasonable, I would've kept my mouth shut. Oh hell, I might have supported you on a call for the return of online turn based gameplay. So please dial down the dramatics. If not for me, then for yourself.

[c3k]

You are quite right.

PBEM is nice for playing games by email and works well if one is happy to spend days, weeks or months playing a scenario.

However, if two friends want to sit down with a LAN and have some serious in your face gaming PBEM is a crap solution. TCP/IP WEGO a la CMx1 was a brilliant solution.

Yeah, what he said. I have a nice LAN at home. TCP/IP WEGO was great for that. I mean, GREAT. PBEM on a LAN? Uh, you're kidding, right? That's akin to suggesting your print out your movement coordinates and walk the printout over to the other computer to log them in manually. Gigabyte speed NIC's, Cat6 wiring, intelligent switches; speed, baby, speed. I want my orders to show on the screen BEFORE I press the key...

I have used the TCP/IP function playing WeGo on the Internet to entice a friend to buy into ALL the CMx1 products. After playing LAN WEGO at my house, he wanted to do that from his house against me.

We set it up so each player only had a 1 minute planning period. Fast, fun, but NOT a clickfest.

PBEM has its place. Tourney play, across timezones, fractured playing time, etc. But TCP/IP WeGo is far better. TCP/IP Realtime is too much of a clickfest, for me. Especially for company sized battles or more. YMMV.

CM:N has been delayed quite a bit beyond the expectations here on the forum, realistic or not. If BF.C delays for 6 months to fix CM:N due to, say, a problem modelling Panther sights or armor, would you be screaming that it just needs to get out the door? Or, would you sigh, in understandable frustration, and then rationalize that BF.C has usually surpassed our expectations, so the wait will be worth it. If you're willing to wait for an issue like that, why not wait for TCP/IP WeGo?

Right now, despite the gorgeous screenshots in this thread, we unwashed masses really have no idea why CM:N wasn't released many months ago (if not a year and a half ago).

From October 28th, 200_8_!

"Eh... OK. We'll delay the launch of Normandy for this, but not for the new QB system. We gots our prioriteez straits, yessereebob

Seriously, any number of features could be improved significantly. It's always been true, and always will be true. Can't go running around with our heads cut off every time one is identified or we'd never release anything ever.

I'd like to improve the UI for handling file management. Should be possible without pushing CM: Normandy until 2011

Steve"

Pulling from the last part:"...Should be possible without pushing CM: Normandy until 2011 ..." Does anyone think it will be released (in a form acceptable to BF.C) in the next 12 days?

From December 22nd, 200_9_ (a year ago)

"... The last bone is an update on where we are right now with the game as a whole. We currently have one major game element remaining to code. Namely the new Quick Battle system. It's designed and should go into production in January. There's still a lot of things which have to be added, tweaked, and fixed... but we have 30 active testers working to help us with all of that now. Their initial reactions to hunting tanks in the bocage has been very positive (understatement!)..."

Now, there's NOTHING in ANY statement from ANYONE at BF.C which promises a release date. All of our expectations for a release date have been based on groundless forum speculation. Having said that, what is the problem with having a fanbase request features in a yet to be released product? No one out here in forum-land knows why CM:N hasn't been released yet. Heck, we don't even know if there have been any unexpected delays. This could be part of BF.C's expected schedule. Shrug.

If CM:N is "delayed" until June 7th, 2011 due to AI issues, is that acceptable?

If CM:N is "delayed" until June 7th, 2011 due to marketing, is that acceptable?

If CM:N is "delayed" until June 7th, 2011 due to TCP/IP WeGo, is that acceptable?

If CM:N is "delayed" until June 7th, 2011 due to UNKNOWN issues, is that acceptable?

Shrug. A lot of hopes, and not enough patience. I'm just glad that a salient part of my current life is wondering about the release of a computer game. That's a pretty good place to be.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

Ken

[panzermartin]

Is a pausing online RT in the works btw? I dont care much about replay but its a shame you cant plan a coordinated move in CMx2 online anymore and only be able to move one unit at a time.

[futon river crossing]

PBEM is the only way I play CMSF The majority of my opponents are located abroad anyway - and I don't have large chunks of spare time for TCIP. I don't feel old fashioned playing this way - it suits me well

Re the "DELAY" - Steve certainly gave the impression that the game was nearly finished towards the end of 2009/early 2010 - here we are a year later! Let's hope that year was put to good use

[Erwin]

If CM:N is "delayed" until June 7th, 2011 due to AI issues, is that acceptable?

If CM:N is "delayed" until June 7th, 2011 due to marketing, is that acceptable?

If CM:N is "delayed" until June 7th, 2011 due to TCP/IP WeGo, is that acceptable?

If CM:N is "delayed" until June 7th, 2011 due to UNKNOWN issues, is that acceptable?

Absolutely yes it is... if one has confidence that BFC will use the time to make the game better. Some of us still remember the godawful howling and whining when CMSF was first released "early" with bugs.

[c3k]

My point being that we don't know when CM:N is scheduled to be released.

We don't know if it is being delayed.

We don't know what is causing any putative delay.

We don't know if BF.C is accepting forum-based feature requests.

It doesn't matter if we find it "acceptable". BF.C will release it when BF.C determines it will be released.

Ken

[undercovergeek]

be nice to be told the truth though eh?

[jeffsmith]

Just because BFC is more forthcoming with information about their products

than the majority of companies of any type

Does not mean they can or should provide us with every bit of information

requested of them

[gibsonm]

be nice to be told the truth though eh?

I suspect (and I have no official basis for this) that Steve has told the truth (as it was when he typed whatever he has typed).

If on a given day he thinks its X weeks away he probably said that in good faith. Unfortunately that can't prevent a major issue emerging a week later that totally disrupts that timeline.

As I see if he has two options (both of which result in "damned if you do, damned if you don't" outcomes).

Option 1: The Conservative. This results in answers like "it will be ready when its ready" which just ends up with people clamouring for more answers / details.

Option 2: The Optimistic. This results in occaisional bones and screenshots and irregular updates (as and when something major happens).

This also results in people clamouring for more (just review this thread for additional questions about this or that) and if his announcement isn't correct to the day, then people start complaining about that too.

Both cases result in people trying to provide answers here, rather than testing / developing which makes not achieving "deadlines" a self fulfilling prophecy.

Either way it seems "no win" and I'm just thankful I'm not trying to satisfy these incessant requests.

[Lethaface]

Its like the sirens a young child can produce, when it demands something disallowed. The best approach is to ignore it.

Edit to throw my own best approach:

Actually I do like both RT and PBEM. Unfortunately I don't really have time for RT. WEGONLINE would be another welcome feature. I bet it sucks for CMx1 players (not one of them) that their favorite feature isn't around anymore. It also sucks that my purchasing power has dropped since the years of the introduction of the euro. Get over it and try to be constructive. Being constructive can include criticism. For example: 'My game experience is suboptimal because of the lack of feature X'. Any further negative conclusions are unproductive. Think of how you would like to receive criticism regarding your professional functioning. Drop a prozac. Chill out

[Battlefront.com]

My, I missed some fun Quick batch of responses:

1. A reminder that we haven't "removed" anything from CMx2. We have not "added" everything that we want into the game system, but we have added more than we ever thought possible when we first conceived of CMBO and finished CMAK. So in terms of net effect, we're way ahead of CMx1 in terms of features. Not a complete subset of desirable CMx1 features are yet in CMx2, but they will get in eventually.

2. We very much had what we call the TCP WeGo Compromise solution on the list for CM: Normandy. Unfortunately, it had to be cut due to the critical game features (temperate environment, bridges, QB revamp, etc.) taking longer than expected. Cuts happen all the time. Since Multiplayer is played by only a subset of our customer base, other things came ahead. It's the same reason TCP/IP was cut from the original CMBO release.

3. I can say that the TCP WeGo Compromise is going to happen. I just can not say specifically when.

4. I also can't say specifically when CM: Normandy is going to ship. However, I can say that we now have a solid target date for wrapping things up. For the last year and a half it's only been a moving goal because we still had too many unknowns. The list of unknowns is rather short now and few of them have any red warning flags stuck to them

5. An exact date won't be announced, but when we open up for Preorders that will be a pretty good indication that release is roughly 4-8 weeks later. The variable time mostly has to do with production issues that may crop up at the last minute. Usually they don't, but sometimes they do.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

If on a given day he thinks its X weeks away he probably said that in good faith. Unfortunately that can't prevent a major issue emerging a week later that totally disrupts that timeline.

Well put Gibsonm.

The opposite of Truth is called a Lie. A Lie is saying something you know is untrue. If someone says something that he thinks is true, at the time he says it, then it can't be a lie. Whether it is accurate or not is a totally different issue. And for sure our predictions of when ANY of our games will be ready for shipping is more often than not inaccurate. Welcome to the games industry's most common trait

Steve

[c3k]

Oh, and don't forget you're releasing a game to one of the pickiest bunch of grognards to ever pore over a game! ANY detail found to be erroneous, however insubstantial, will be the cause of angst ridden posts. Or poked fun at. A background wav file of a birdsong from a bird not native to that area? Yeah, that was spotted! So, Steve, you KNOW however much we're going to love this next game (and we will), you just KNOW that there will be posts on Day 1 griping about something.

Git your thickskin suit ready! Er, I mean the "thicker"skin suit.

You're going to be the proud papa, and we're gonna love the baby that CM:N will be almost as much as you're gonna love it, but we're the ones who'll ask, upon seeing the newborn in your arms, "So, when are you going to get his nose fixed?"

Ken