Sydney Preview Debrief points and attendee feedback

[gibsonm]

Well the day started well with being locked out of the Forum courtesy of Battlefront’s security software.

However we pressed on without the idea of “live feedback”.

Also a build that was optimised for the Previews wasn’t available for us (too early I guess) so we had to run a stock standard Beta build with all the performance sapping debug code still present.

Four people attended Ben (“Fenris“), Grant (“Bodkin”), Shaun (“Destraex1“) and Yair (“WillLight“) - “Johnsy“ rang and advised an inability the night before.

I gave an overview including a look at a larger intricate map made by George MC the “map maestro“ and then we played a relatively simple TCP/IP game using another prebuilt scenario, two per side.

This generated a few “wow” moments for everyone during the session, esp. during the TCP/IP game which due to time pressures, both sides adopted some “damn the torpedos - full speed ahead” type tactics - with some explosive results.

The guys offered some Feedback points which I’ve conveyed internally but having set the scene I think I should let them give you some “unbiased’ opinions ...

[WillLight]

Here are some of my impressions from the day:

1. The maps look great, the colours are vibrant (and very green), and the maps we looked at were very realistic.

2. The game plays really well. While I'm sure there are still some glitches to be worked out, there was nothing preventing us from playing and having a great time at it (albeit watching our troops being massacred was less great )

3. Normandy is very different to Syria US troops under our command were far more fragile, both in terms of getting hit (no body armour) and in terms of losing morale (not a professional army).

4. Compared to CMSF, there are a million more options of troop types, weapon types, vehicle types, etc. This is gonna provide months of fun (and the modules aren' even there yet). Just seeing the massive list of units in the QB purchase screen or the editor made me feel like I was back in the CMx1 days.

5. QB is now awesome. I can't wait to play it, picking little task forces and organising them. For example, you can pick a tank and put it under command of an infantry platoon. Don't want to get into specifics re map selection, but it is a great improvement over CMSF.

6. Bocage is going to take some getting used to, and adds a whole lot of tactical options to the game.

7. All in all, the game looks great, plays great, and while there is probably a lot of work left to do to get it out (skinning some stuff, missions and campaigns), I have a feeling it will be playable and great from day one.

Thanks very much to Mark for inviting us to his home and spending the time showing us through all the features, answering our questions and giving us our own go at the game. It is greatly appreciated.

[Battlefront.com]

Glad you had a good time! Thanks to Mark for hosting the event Down Under.

WillLight,

Compared to CMSF, there are a million more options of troop types, weapon types, vehicle types, etc. This is gonna provide months of fun (and the modules aren' even there yet). Just seeing the massive list of units in the QB purchase screen or the editor made me feel like I was back in the CMx1 days.

Long, long ago when we announced the new Modular approach people worried that we'd really cut back on the content and people would get bored of the game within a very short period of time. I think CM:SF put those fears to rest for people who have played it. Even with the far narrower range of vehicle models and types, the variety proved to be more than sufficient to keep the game going for years. Obviously the Modules help extend that, but that's their purpose

Now that non-testers have caught a glimpse of the game itself, instead of just the list of stuff on the CM:BN homepage, it's good to see that the variety has caught your eye. From my perspective, as the guy who painstakingly assembled all this TO&E, I know there's a ton of stuff to be excited about.

Steve

[Fenris]

First thing is to thank Mark and his partner for generously allowing us to invade there home, cheers

Most everything was pretty new having only downloaded the CMSF demo and run the training scenerio a couple of days before the preview.

As mentioned we had a guided tour to start which was good as most of it was new to me.

There seems to be larger number of toys, ahem, unit types for us to mess around with than I was expecting. The selection options look nice and juicey and as long as your arm. I'm really looking forward to quick battles, the mix and match options for unit purchase are really nice, escpecially the afore mentioned linking of individual units to another for things like command.

It was all recongisable for a CM1 player just with more options. I don't expect making the transition will be difficult at all. If you're unfamiliar with it do as I read somewhere else on the forum. Grab the CMSF demo to get some time in getting used to the interface, from what I could see it's pretty much the same.

After that we dived into a head to head match. Being realtime and somewhat pressed for time we didn't do nearly as much micro management as I think would be normal. Once it kicked in the action was pretty frantic, buggered if I know how to keep up with everything in realtime!

Still it was good to watch and everything behaved how I hoped and expected. Really like being able to resupply from say a half-track mid battle, need another 'faust for that pesky sherman? Otto, run back the the HT and grab all you can! Awesome. Panzer commander only pops his head out when unbuttoned, headphones and all, great to see. Hans breach this damn hedge. Ja wohl!!.... Boom! And through the pioneers go. Little things but all cool stuff.

It's definitely pretty. Maps are highly detailed with lots of stuff to fight in and around. Individual units are very detailed as well, I can tell I'll spend lots of time in the first few games at view level 1 spinning around everything. In game effects were great too, we chortled heartily everytime one of our Panthers let loose with it's main gun, very statisfying. Artillery was also most gratifying.... Probably because we had lots of it and the booms of falling ordinance raining down on the hapless Ami's was a non stop source of amusement. Dust and smoke were also in abundance adding to the confusion. It was great

I had a few queries that gibsonm was going to pass on but there was nothing major, no show stoppers or major hiccups etc.

So overall count me impressed, happy and looking forward to release.

Cheers

Fenris

[bodkin]

A worthwhile day indeed, great to meet everyone and be able to talk to fellow CM gamers in person.

The game looks amazing, I think my favourite moment was seeing a railway bridge over a river with animated water, it just looked like a diorama some obessive modeller would make and the perfect setting for some WW2 gaming.

The level of detail someone has gone to in the models and textures is very impressive. I'm not yet sold on the idea of having sandbags around the top of foxholes, I think I prefer the pile of dirt look like the've had to dig for their lives rather than the nicely prepared look. Maybe we can have both? If not I'll get used to it pretty quickly.

The QB system seems to be just what many people included myself have been longing for since CMSF was released. It appeared to be pretty flexible and open to the users imagination based on their preferences, and being able to set time limits again was a big sigh of relief. I can see QB's taking up a lot of gaming time.

I think everyone in the room was in agreement that my tactical choices in the H2H match were inspired! WillLight and myself played as the heroic outgunned American defenders of a small town bravely holding back the evil geniuses of Fenris and Destraex1 backed by Panzer Lehr and the Reichs entire reserves of artillery.

Unfortunately I had to leave about 20 mins into the battle leaving WillLight with our men bravely dieing under the tracks of their Panthers whilst running around in blind fits of panic. How did it work out for us Yair?

Thanks again to Mark for his warm hospitality, and patience in answering all our questions.

[scottie]

All the talk of the new QB system sounds positive but are you guys thinking it will be great for 2 player or versus the AI ?

Totally understand the limits of the CMSF QB system , its a constant frustration , but once in battle im curious to know if the generated maps and the AI will be any better that CMSF and CMx1.

Thank you for posting the feedback

Scott

[George MC]

Scottie

The QB maps are not generated but are pre made maps. A lot of work has been done both collating and creating maps for QBs. The AI Plans for the QBs are generic ones but again a lot of work has been done to in creating AI Plans that are more effective. Mind the AI Plans are how the AI attacks/defends/positons itself not how the Tactical AI (i.e. the pixeltruppen dismounts//crews etc) reacts to a threat or terrain. Although again a great deal of effort has gone into the Tac AI and how it behaves. I've certainly noticed that the Tac AI appears to be more 'aware' and behave more realistically in CM:BN.

[Blackcat]

Scottie,

My understanding from the Liverpool preview is that the new QB system will not randomly generate maps but use pre-built ones each of which will have an AI plan. So in theory it should produce better quick battles than CMx1 or CMSF. I haven't a clue about the detail of how it will actually work though.

[Thomm]

All the talk of the new QB system sounds positive but are you guys thinking it will be great for 2 player or versus the AI?

I keep playing an Attack type Quick Battle over and over again. German armor-only formation against US infantry-only defenders. Units auto-selected. Always the same map. And it never gets boring.

On that map, the attacker has to use a bridge across a river. The bridge is in the middle of the river and a road runs into a village from there.

So, every time, the Germans cross the bridge but do not run into the "kill sack" where the road enters the village, but instantly detour to the flanks where they perform a wide hook-like manouvre that brings them into the defenders' flank and, in fact, their rear. From there, they seem to attack from all directions at once! It is stunning! And deadly.

One time when I played the defender in an US vs. US Attack scenario, the attacking AI lost one vehicle less than I did. And it was attacking and had the last tank left. The battle was scored a Draw, but the AI had clearly won. I could hardly believe it.

Best regards,

Thomm

[scottie]

Thank you for the reply George , Blackcat, Thomm. Especially thanks for the clarity on the AI Plans and TacAI , had previously not appreciated the differences. So the PLAN AI must be defined in the QB map file , and the TAC AI is obviously in game.

One question that springs to mind is the number of QB maps available. If auto generation is not available that the number of maps available is important .... enter the BF user community i guess

[George MC]

Hi Scottie

I'd have to check how many QB maps ther are but my off the cuff guess is well over a hundred (currently). I'd have to go and check my game (in work right now) folder for a more accurate number. Maps are all sizes though to could be a small 500m square effort to one several Km square. Yiou can always add your own maps (although you would need to draw up and AI Plan).

Re your confirmation about Plan AI - yup that plan must be defined i.e. created by the scenario author, just as is done by user made scenarios.

TAC AI is in-game. That's how vehicles, guns, infantry etc react to threats. That's coded into the game (By Charles and Phil).

[SlowMotion]

Is the QB map always randomly selected or can player select which map will be used?

[Gryphonne]

Is the QB map always randomly selected or can player select which map will be used?

Players can select the QB map, and there is even a preview

[MarkEzra]

Hi Scottie

I'd have to check how many QB maps there are but my off the cuff guess is well over a hundred (currently).

Re your confirmation about Plan AI - yup that plan must be defined i.e. created by the scenario author, just as is done by user made scenarios.

TAC AI is in-game. That's how vehicles, guns, infantry etc react to threats. That's coded into the game (By Charles and Phil).

Scottie:A QB Map has two very distinct authors. The Map Designer and the Game coder.

From my end: I believe Players will be pleasantly surprised by both the quantity and quality of QB Maps. There are NEW developments in QB AI pathing design for CMBN under testing presently. These may prove very satisfying for us lonely gamers.

From the Coding End: Charles and Phil have made great strides in AI response.

So QB's are on an upward path. But it's CM so there's always more to want and more to do.

PS...Somebody mentioned a bad QB map. Most likely I found the dead map.. it was an unfished duplicate I added by mistake. All QB Maps used in the preview should be considered first generation maps. I'm working with third generation for the game release. I will do all I can to ensure that each map is totally functional. But if a player finds one that isn't, that's my mistake and my mistake only...Please report it so I can fix it.

[gibsonm]

PS...Somebody mentioned a bad QB map.

Yes we found one during the “tour” before the game with those nice “AFV proof” ridges / stone terraces in the midst of a slope.

I’m now trying to remember which one it was.

[Battlefront.com]

I can confirm that MarkEzra is a god, or at least a deity of significant note.

Steve

[scottie]

Thank you again for the reply chaps, the QB systems really does sounds like its come on leaps and bounds. Happy testing.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

+1 for what MarkEzra brings to the table for maps, and who knows what else, under the hood.

[WillLight]

Just my two cents on QBs. There was a huge contrast between QBs from CMx1 and the first versions of CMSF.

1. There were issues with exactly which plan got selected when you chose a red attacker initially.

2. The maps weren't that great, nor were there many of them.

3. The AI plans were a bit rubbish too.

4. Force selection was very bad, especially for small forces.

Now, that definitely put people off QBs, I know it put me off them too. For a long while I considered them broken and that was that. But throughout the patch cycle, some issues were fixed, some were improved, and #2 and #3 were addressed beautifully when Mark and other people started putting together map packs which had more maps (making random be, well, more random), better looking maps, and far better AI plans (which eventually made it into the official releases, hence earning Mark his God-like status ). Just as missions and campaigns improved as the designers learned the editor's abilities and limitations so did QBs. All that was left was the unit selection and the whole missing aspect of picking and points and that whole game within a game. Well, now CMBN has that in spades and I see no aspect in which CMx1 QBs are superior to CMBN ones. In my opinion, always getting a hand crafted map, with AI plans that match it, is a far superior experience to a randomly generated CMx1 map with flags and a simplistic strategic AI. After seeing the QB interface, I am very very much looking forward to CMBN, and to all you guys who gave up on QBs in CMSF, I'd say QBs are back baby, in as big a way as is humanly possible

Well, maybe that was three cents...

[umlaut]

I´d like to bring up a minor point of irritation/confusion here:

It seems to me that every tester involved in designing this wonderful new game we´re all waiting impatiently for bears the title "CMSF beta tester".

Shouldn´t that be: "CMBN beta tester" (or: "CMBN and CMSF beta tester" if that is the case)?

I´ve been assuming you would change the titles yourselves once the title "CMBN" was officially annonced - so I haven´t mentioned it before. I do mention it now because to me it is sometimes rather confusing that I don´t know whether the poster entitled "CMSF beta tester" is in fact precisely that. Or whether he is actually involved in testing CMBN but just carries an outdated title.

It matters to me because the title will tell how much weight the words of the poster carries when it comes to describing CMBN.

[Erik Springelkamp]

I´d like to bring up a minor point of irritation/confusion here:

It seems to me that every tester involved in designing this wonderful new game we´re all waiting impatiently for bears the title "CMSF beta tester".

Shouldn´t that be: "CMBN beta tester" (or: "CMBN and CMSF beta tester" if that is the case)?

"CMSF beta tester" proves that they were there when it mattered, and not just joined opportunistically for a popular hit :-)

[MarkEzra]

Yes we found one during the “tour” before the game with those nice “AFV proof” ridges / stone terraces in the midst of a slope.

I’m now trying to remember which one it was.

Don't worry about any of those maps, Gibby...they're ALL obsolete

[Moon]

"CMSF beta tester" proves that they were there when it mattered, and not just joined opportunistically for a popular hit :-)

Most CMBN testers are also CMSF testers. The earlier title seems to take precedence, automatically.

[theFightingSeabee]

Many beta testers, like me, still have "Senior Member" tags. I've been on since British Forces. I don't mind, I definitely haven't earned the title as much as a bunch of these guys. Some of them put in literally fulltime hours (or much more) working on this game. Just a few that pop into my head are animals... probably shouldn't start naming names, but a lot of these guys are a huge part of the game. It really is a labor of love for these guys.

[umlaut]

I think you may be missing my point. Perhaps I wasn´t clear enough before. What I meant is:

When someone with the title/tag "CMSF beta tester" is writing in this forum about CMBN I have no way of telling if he is actually a CMBN tester that has first hand knowledge of the game - or if he is "just" someone who used to test CMSF and thus haven´t played CMBN at all.

Obviously the words of the former carry more weight that those of the latter. This is why I would like to know.

Isn´t it possible to have the tag say "CMBN beta tester" or both: "CMSF and CMBN beta tester"?