CM x 2 WW II Eastern Front Tease

[KG_Jag]

Will it by Normandy (plus "x" number of modules in 2008) and then 1944 on the Eastern Front (plus "y" number of modules in 2009)? Maybe--here's Steve today on the Battlefront forum:

"Posted by Battlefront.com (Member # 42) on December 16, 2007 04:38 PM:

Hi Kip,

Sorry, no timeline for anything in terms of dates, only in terms of order. But I can say for sure we are going back to the Eastern Front as soon as we can. Like all our games now, it will initially focus on a fairly small slice of that epic war and then Modules will add more options for people. Currently we're thinking 1944 because that has the most "interesting" stuff for most people.

Yeah, lots and lots of snow here. If you had to go out and shovel it all the time you might be a little less jealous Still, I'm not complaining. This is the first good winter we've had since about 2002. Looks like we'll have our traditional 1m standing snow for the bulk of winter.

Steve"

Link is:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=print_topic;f=52;t=003444

[Palantir]

A WW2 clone of CM:SF at that scale in RT = no purchase from me.

[Redwolf]

My interpretation: the engine is in so bad shape that they know it won't be ready for the initial WW2 release either.

So instead of wasting the attractive Normandy or Bulge theaters that would have wide general appeal they use Bagration or Korsun. Because people who are hardcore enough to be interested in Bagration or Korsun (or know what they are in the first place) will be hardcore enough to find something to do with the game regardless.

[KG_Jag]

Here's a little more from Battlefront, which apparently has not lost sight that WW II is where they will make or break CM x 2 (assuming no military intervention):

"Zemke,

Thanks! There will be mild improvements in game features, but for the short term mostly bug fixes and data tweaks. Significant features will come out with WWII. If all goes well the changes should be backwards compatible with CM:SF."

From Steve's post in the last two minutes of December 17th:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=003429;p=8

Of course this begs the unanswered question of what those changes will be.

[KG_Jag]

Double post deleted.

[MKSheppard]

Ha ah aha, As much as I'd like to have a return to the eastern front; nope, BFC; I ain't biting again.

[Don Maddox]

Here's a little more from Battlefront, which apparently has not lost sight that WW II is where they will make or break CM x 2 (assuming no military intervention):

There we part ways. If I have to sit through yet another WW2 game, I think I'll puke.

[KG_Jag]

As you have pointed out Don, Battlefront is a small company. They know most of the European World War II forces well. It certainly makes sense for them return to that subject. It will clearly reduce the time needed to get the next series of games out the door if they do World War II next.

I and many others are not sick of World War II as the focus of the next set of games. Nevertheless, I would also enjoy Korea, historically driven NATO vs. Warsaw Pact games, the U.S. Civil War and many other topics as well.

Regardless of subject, my degree of interest, or lack thereof, will be driven in at least equal part by what the CM x 2 game engine looks and plays like in phase 2 and (perhaps) beyond.

[Palantir]

If I have to sit through yet another WW2 game, I think I'll puke.
I hope for a modern game with few available / variety of units & maps that are completely bland, boring & hard on the eyes... oh that’s CM:SF isn't it? :paperbag:

Why not do the Pacific for crying out load, or even a WWI mod? :halo:

[Mad Russian]

Significant features will come out with WWII. If all goes well the changes should be backwards compatible with CM:SF."

From Steve's post in the last two minutes of December 17th:


Of course this begs the unanswered question of what those changes will be.

Backward compatible to CMSF? Yeah, that's what I want to see at the moment.

Seems like first the core support is told to shut up and take the "stuff" dished out about CMSF and now here comes WWII...all 300 tiny little modules of it...a slice here and a slice there....

Oh yeah....I love the backwards compatible part to CMSF...did I mention that?

Good Hunting.

MR

[Bertram]

I hope for a modern game with few available / variety of units & maps that are completely bland, boring & hard on the eyes... oh that’s CM:SF isn't it? :paperbag:

Why not do the Pacific for crying out load, or even a WWI mod? :halo:


Well done/improved WWII Europe will continue to sell well but Kerry's right there are plenty of other areas to explore. WWI could focus on the non-trench warfare battles, WWII Pacific as Kerry stated, Korea as mentioned by KG Jag, how about Arab-Israeli conflicts, make believe WWIII following along the lines of the book Team Yankee, or how about another imaginary war where the Soviets control Afghanistan and attempt to roll into Iran????

There are plenty of battlefields to conquer, some repeated, before we're tired of it. Then our kids and grandkids will pick up where we left off.

[British Tommy]

All we can do is sit back and watch what happens next. Just glad my copies of AK and BB are not worn out yet :p

[Redwolf]

All we can do is sit back and watch what happens next. Just glad my copies of AK and BB are not worn out yet :p

Well, they use DirectX 5, so NVidia and ATI will take care of that soon :)

[Speedy]

What is it with '44??

I would much prefer mid '42 and earlier, before all the boring German super tanks.

[The Hooded One]

What is it with '44??

I would much prefer mid '42 and earlier, before all the boring German super tanks.

Having played a lot of CMBB, I've found '44/'45 is the most balanced time period for PBEM games...

[Mad Russian]

Having played a lot of CMBB, I've found '44/'45 is the most balanced time period for PBEM games...

I guess that depends on what you like and who made the scenarios.

I believe that I've made balanced scenarios for 1941-1945. Not just the last 18 months of the war. The balance is not in the years but the designers/playtesters skills at putting the scenario together.

QB's aren't balanced from the beginning so that's not an issue no matter what time frame you're playing.

Good Hunting.

MR

[The Hooded One]

I guess that depends on what you like and who made the scenarios.

I believe that I've made balanced scenarios for 1941-1945. Not just the last 18 months of the war. The balance is not in the years but the designers/playtesters skills at putting the scenario together.

QB's aren't balanced from the beginning so that's not an issue no matter what time frame you're playing.

Good Hunting.

MR

I was referring to QBs, not scenarios. I know there are well-balanced scenarios from other periods, and personally I love playing with early armour, but in terms of QBs 44/45 is still the best, IMHO.

[Mad Russian]

I was referring to QBs, not scenarios. I know there are well-balanced scenarios from other periods, and personally I love playing with early armour, but in terms of QBs 44/45 is still the best, IMHO.

Ah, ok, I missed the part where we were discussing QB's. That I'm not qualified to discuss with you. I have only been in QB land a couple of times. Just enough to know I'm not going back.

The stated ability of scenarios to have balance during any time period alone keeps me from learning all about the QB side of the game.

Enjoy...:cool:

Good Hunting.

MR