Fallshirmjager

[James Crowley]

Having checked the list of OOBs and searched this forum, I can find no mention of the 'Green Devils'

Are they not included? If so, the battle for St Lo in which they featured prominently, is also not part of this release, despite being firmly within the time frame allocated to it?

Is this because of their fairly extensive use of flamethrowers, which are also not included?

[scottie]

I think IIRC BF suggested the US didnt engage them (on mass) with the scope of the time scale of the initial CMBN release (or maybe that was the SS they were talking about) ... ether way they will appear in a later module.

[James Crowley]

The SS I can understand - the British took them on, for the most part. But a whole parachute division - the 3rd - was involved in the St Lo battle, so hardly inconsequential.

[mike_the_wino]

What scottie said. They are in but in a later module.

[Sequoia]

Steve has said adding new forces takes much more than simply new graphics for the uniform, at least if you want to do it right. The TO&E has to be researched down to the individual man for multiple battalion types for each new force for example. I don't think any one would have wanted the game postponed for more content at this point. I think I remember Steve saying we'll get the FJs along with the SS in the Commonwealth module. In the Arhem module the TO&E for many unit types will change for Sept '44.

[finalcut]

I seem to remember them saying that as they concentrate on killing bugs and putting the final touches on CM;BN.they are starting to get some people working on the next module,So most likely they are already rolling on some of the new models and such.

[Sergei]

Ideally the first release would be all inclusive (or almost so), but in practise the amount of stuff that is included as such is tremendous, as every button, boot strap and belt buckle has to be carefully tested.

But probably the biggest workload in the initial release are all the vehicles. Most of them are shared by the Brits and the SS, so later on more attention can be given to infantry formations, like Fallschirmjägers.

[Michael Emrys]

The SS I can understand - the British took them on, for the most part. But a whole parachute division - the 3rd - was involved in the St Lo battle, so hardly inconsequential.

The presence of the FJ was also brought up in relation to the Carentan battle, but with the same answer: not gonna happen. I think all the paratroops will come with the Arnhem module and then can then be included in earlier-dated battles. Hang in there.

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

FJ will be in the 1st Module along with the Commonwealth forces.

The philosophy behind how we choose which forces to include is quite simple, actually.

The first question we ask ourselves is "what do we absolutely need for this particular release". Well, for the base game, the content that EVERYBODY will have access to should be the content that is common to pretty much all aspects of the scope of the entire Family (i.e. Normandy in this case). Heer for the Germans, US Army for the Allies. Having Ost and Stomach Battalions, backed up by the 21st Panzer Division, for the base game would leave a LOT to be desired, don't you think?

The next question we ask ourselves is "how do the total forces divide up?". Waffen SS is a clearly different set of units from Heer and Luftwaffe, each of the latter also being different from each other. Commonwealth is also distinctly different from US Army.

Within each of these logical groupings we see how big each is and what its development needs are. To do that we have to look at internal organization and what sort of overlap they have (or don't have) with other forces.

Lastly, we figure out what amount of content is reasonable for a particular release. It has to be enough that people feel they're getting their money's worth, yet not so much that we feel we're giving stuff away.

That's really all there is to it.

Now, from a philosophical standpoint we do not believe the TO&E should be used as a trick to get you guys to buy stuff. Therefore, we tend to do a particular force to the point of "completion" rather than dribble it out over many releases. For example, how happy would you guys be if we put Waffen SS Grenadiers in the base game, SS PzGrens in the 1st Module, SS PzPioneer in the 2nd, and SS PzAufklärung for 3rd? This would mean you are interested in Waffen SS you would need to purchase everything, regardless of your interest in the other stuff. So all Waffen SS stuff will go into the 1st Module, which means we have increased our workload for a particular release more than if we spread it out over several releases.

There are some exceptions to the above, but they are for purely practical reasons. For example, FJ will be in the 1st Module but LW Field Divisions will not be. With the Commonwealth and Waffen SS stuff also slated for 1st Module, it's just too much work to also do the LW Field Divisions. Another exception is something like with CM:SF where later on we decided to add the T-90 to the Syrian forces (a very big reality stretch), so it wasn't part of the basic game.

Clear as mud now?

Steve

[Destraex1]

Nice Steve. Crystal for me actually.

We get the SS and the FJ where they were deployed most.... against the commonwealth.

Thats going to be a cracker of a module.

But in the base game its vanilla US and German. Which is no mean feat in and of itself.

[Uedel]

Well, if u dont bring in FJ and Waffen SS in the First Module then.............

ohh damit i dont care, stop Posting here and go finish this damn game

nuff said

[Wiggum]

By the way...

Its Fallschirmjäger not Fallshirmjager !

[Battlefront.com]

And it must be remembered, for those of you unfamiliar with CM:SF, that once you have the content you can use it in any way you wish. This means after purchasing the 1st Module you will be able to fight battles between US Army and the new German forces found in the 1st Module (FJ and Waffen SS). Likewise, you can play Commonwealth vs. standard Heer infantry found in the base game.

Oh, and another practical reason to not spread a particular force (such as Waffen SS) over several releases is this... think about how f'n frustrating that would be for QBs! "I want to have a SS PzPioneer Platoon, but my opponent doesn't have Module 3 that has it, so that means I can't use one for this game!".

As we've said all along, the Module concept's primary purpose is to make things manageable from a development standpoint, not as a marketing ploy to force players into buying things they find marginal value in. Therefore, we are always very concerned about the practical implications of our unit choices on the player's experience.

Steve

[Sergei]

And it must be remembered, for those of you unfamiliar with CM:SF, that once you have the content you can use it in any way you wish. This means after purchasing the 1st Module you will be able to fight battles between US Army and the new German forces found in the 1st Module (FJ and Waffen SS). Likewise, you can play Commonwealth vs. standard Heer infantry found in the base game.

And you can even pit the Wehrmacht against the SS, or Yanks against the Limeys, or Yanks and Landsers against the fearsome SS-British tag team... well, it's doubtful if anyone would try that, but it is doable.

Just like in CMSF you can put together a mother of all battles with US Army, US Marines, Brits, Germans, Dutch, Canadians and of course Syrian Army and unconventional forces split evenly between the two sides.

[Sequoia]

All this again makes me wonder how they're going to handle the Market-Garden Module if one does not have the Commonwealth Module. No Brits or SS in Market-Garden? How would that be? It almost makes the Commonwelth module a must buy, though I suppose one could be content with the actions of the 82nd and 101st along with the possibility of gaming Patton's Loraine campaign.

[Erwin]

"And you can even pit the Wehrmacht against the SS, or Yanks against the Limeys, or Yanks and Landsers against the fearsome SS-British tag team... well, it's doubtful if anyone would try that, but it is doable.

Just like in CMSF you can put together a mother of all battles with US Army, US Marines, Brits, Germans, Dutch, Canadians and of course Syrian Army and unconventional forces split evenly between the two sides."

And all this after so much fighting to make CM2 more "realistic." Not sure what the point was if this is what players look forward to... <sigh>

[ChrisND]

"And you can even pit the Wehrmacht against the SS, or Yanks against the Limeys, or Yanks and Landsers against the fearsome SS-British tag team... well, it's doubtful if anyone would try that, but it is doable.

Just like in CMSF you can put together a mother of all battles with US Army, US Marines, Brits, Germans, Dutch, Canadians and of course Syrian Army and unconventional forces split evenly between the two sides."

And all this after so much fighting to make CM2 more "realistic." Not sure what the point was if this is what players look forward to... <sigh>

So.... we should lock out all but historical force match-ups because you don't like them? No one is making you play them.

[Lt Belenko]

And you can even pit the Wehrmacht against the SS, or Yanks against the Limeys, or Yanks and Landsers against the fearsome SS-British tag team... well, it's doubtful if anyone would try that, but it is doable.....

A little known fact: The Yanks nearly went to battle against the Brits when Patton insulted Monty for failing to close the Falaise gap.

...Well it coulda happened if they both upgraded CMBN to module 2.

[gunnersman]

And all this after so much fighting to make CM2 more "realistic." Not sure what the point was if this is what players look forward to... <sigh>

Some folks love the "what ifs?".

[Elmar Bijlsma]

And all this after so much fighting to make CM2 more "realistic." Not sure what the point was if this is what players look forward to... <sigh>

You are making way too much of it.

It's pretty rare that it gets used, sometimes as a fudge stand in for something not include with the game. Or sometimes it is a goofball scenario that is just mean to be a bit of fun and which, as has been mentioned, you aren't forced to play in the first place. Great possibilities for tournament play too.

And all that at virtually no extra development cost? Yes please thank you!

[finalcut]

In what module do we get English Longbowmen and French Heavy Cavalry.I can't wait to recreate the Battle of Agincourt.

[Battlefront.com]

All this again makes me wonder how they're going to handle the Market-Garden Module if one does not have the Commonwealth Module. No Brits or SS in Market-Garden? How would that be? It almost makes the Commonwelth module a must buy, though I suppose one could be content with the actions of the 82nd and 101st along with the possibility of gaming Patton's Loraine campaign.

Modules never require the purchase of another Module. We will see how things shake out for the Market Garden (2nd) Module, but we're pretty sure we can introduce enough new things to make it worth purchasing. One thing we're going to do, which we haven't done so far, is change the terrain options (graphically at a minimum). We want to make sure that Nijmegen feels like Nijmegen, not Villers Bocage

3rd Module is going to be our first "Mish Mosh Module" where we just put in whatever seems cool and not worry about it all fitting into a specific setting.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

And all this after so much fighting to make CM2 more "realistic." Not sure what the point was if this is what players look forward to... <sigh>

Oh good lord. So what you're saying is one line of code and some recolored icons is a sign of the apocalypse of unrealistic gaming to come? Pardon me if I dismiss your concerns as curmudgeony grog nonsense

The feature was much requested back in the CMx1 days. Since the game was so unbelievably hardcoded internally, it wasn't really possible to do. So we didn't divert any resources to make it happen. However, when we set about making CMx2 we purposefully coded the game engine to not care one iota about what was on which side. It wasn't hard to do and we did it probably 6 years ago, so if we went off the tracks in a crazy train we did it long ago.

As others have said, there are some really GOOD reasons to have this sort of option available. In CM:SF quite a few players opted to play Red on Red to simulate conflicts like those between Iran and Iraq or what not. Others payed Red on Red to have a less lethal, but fun, game experience. Others played Blue on Blue to explore which forces had what advantages over each other due to either organizational or equipment differences. You know, answer the age old question of which nation has the best tank in the world. That sort of thing.

And my god... some people actually had FUN doing this. Shame on us, I suppose, for making a game that offers the possibility of a broader definition of fun without side effects.

Now, the other issue that was mentioned are people interested in competitive tournament play. If I had to guess this is the single strongest, unified lobby for same vs. same play. The reason? Because you remove the variables of equipment and organization out of the equation. Competitive players whine all the time about how this or that thing was unfair and how they only got beat because the other guy had soldiers with better looking uniforms or tanks with double exhaust pipes instead of single. Having the forces be physically the same, and maps mirrored so terrain is identical for each end of the map, completely eliminates all the whining potential. Now it's really a contest of who can play a better game (like Chess).

Now, if this sort of same side play had a net negative effect on the rest of the game, or the game community around it, then there would be a potential point of complaint. But that's not the case, so there's NOTHING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT.

Rant over

Steve

[Sequoia]

Modules never require the purchase of another Module. We will see how things shake out for the Market Garden (2nd) Module, but we're pretty sure we can introduce enough new things to make it worth purchasing. One thing we're going to do, which we haven't done so far, is change the terrain options (graphically at a minimum). We want to make sure that Nijmegen feels like Nijmegen, not Villers Bocage

3rd Module is going to be our first "Mish Mosh Module" where we just put in whatever seems cool and not worry about it all fitting into a specific setting.

Steve

I think a campaign based on the 82nd culminating on the seizure of the Nijmegen Bridge would be awesome. You would probably need assualt boats to satisfy everyone however. I know you said you wouldn't do assualt boats again but maybe if this were to be the case you would change your minds.

[mjkerner]

Steve, the 2nd module will be M-G? I thought that was 3rd or 4th, with the Commonwealth module 2nd. Or did I miss a change from/misunderstand earlier plans?