CMBN pre-order, tentative release date

Mad Russian

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
1,372
Reaction score
188
Location
texas
Country
llUnited States
[hirr]Leto;1372710 said:
Well I NEVER! You just made me drop my parasol and no gentlemen about to pick it up... with me in my corset.

Cheers!

Leto
Yeah, I'm thinking maybe you shouldn't bend over to pick it up either......:OHNO:

Good Hunting.

MR
 

Geordie

CM Moderator
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
2,111
Reaction score
13
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
I have an image in my head of Pete in a corset holding up his steel box for the camera........... Hair in Shirley Temple Curls................... Its not a good image........
 

[hirr]Leto

Varmint Croonie
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
1,124
Reaction score
13
Location
Saskatoon
Country
llCanada
He wants that steel box to keep his tubes of spicy lube in.
Well, the travel lube anyways. I doubt the steelbox can fit a whole mego-sized barrel of MSL.

On a note more closely aligned with the subject of this thread, I also have made my pre-order. I have also made pre-orders for about sixty children in an orphanage in Nigeria as an ongoing demonstration of both my wealth and to enhance the illusion of my philanthropic efforts.

I sure hope they have systems that can handle the new game engine.

Cheers!

Leto

P.S. The RULK avatar still slays me on multiple dimensions... lol...
 

Tanker

Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2004
Messages
702
Reaction score
4
Location
New Hampshire
Country
llUnited States
I keep getting emails from VIPs in Nigeria offering to send me large checks if I will just cash them and send them $500 from the proceeds. Sounds like a good deal and maybe they are helping the orphans.
 

Mad Russian

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
1,372
Reaction score
188
Location
texas
Country
llUnited States
I keep getting emails from VIPs in Nigeria offering to send me large checks if I will just cash them and send them $500 from the proceeds. Sounds like a good deal and maybe they are helping the orphans.
Naw, those are bogus. The ones from Libyan VIP's are the real deals.

Good Hunting.

MR
 

dalem

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
2,298
Reaction score
62
Location
Columbia Heights, MN
Country
llUnited States
What do folks think will be the result if CMN comes out in the next few months and it's boofed? Not as bad as CMSF, say, but still with some major odd behaviors or bugs? Will that matter or do y'all think people will just sign on resignedly for another long slog?

-dale
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
What do folks think will be the result if CMN comes out in the next few months and it's boofed? Not as bad as CMSF, say, but still with some major odd behaviors or bugs? Will that matter or do y'all think people will just sign on resignedly for another long slog?

-dale
I'm reluctant to answer because fellows like Zonso keep popping back in here to poison the atmosphere of the forums by insisting that discussing such questions in a detached manner is somehow "proof" that doing so makes anyone who participates a raving, ranting enemy of The Company.

But then I think - who cares what fellows like Zonso think.

It's a good question that you've posed, dalem.

Before I answer, let me ask you - what will the demo need to do to convince you that the game is not "boofed"? Because everyone's definition of that will differ. BFC stated in 2007 that the game will be different than CM:X1 - though we do see a movement back to including more features from the original series. I'm not convinced - at least, there is no evidence - that there is a master development plan that has survived initial contact. Steve has the order of the modules mapped out, but as far as the engine itself goes, it seems to be a matter of changing things on the fly.

Based on what, I haven't a clue. User feedback seems to be hit or miss, like it always has been. I am guessing things are going on in the beta forums as far as that goes but you can probably extrapolate the atmosphere of acceptance of change back behind closed doors.

If there are major bugs - not talking design features here but actual bugs - I think people will be forgiving of that. I find them unlikely given the development time, but if they occur, I think the fanbase has proven themselves loyal. And it will be a new mix of fans - some CM:SF fans, some old CM:BO fans, and some new ones, so when you say "another long slog", that would only apply to some.

I think the biggest threat will be from those CM:BO fans who never tried CM:SF and aren't aware of the changes to the engine, who may not like some of the ways the game plays. But I have no idea how that will work, not having seen the new game in action myself. I can make educated guesses based on my experience with CM:SF, though. You've done as much as well.

My prediction is that a few of the CM:BO fans will be loud and say 'not for me' but that this will be a tiny minority. Some of the CM:SF guys will have no interest in WWII and not bother. The other CM:SF fans will like the engine improvements and militate for them to be ported to Shock Force - and be disappointed, but probably get over it quickly. The rest of the fanbase will be "new" fans who will vary from mildly enthusiastic to annoyingly fannish Zombat Missionaries, though it will not be the same as the old days. I don't see a lot of ladders springing up, or fan sites, but I think the numbers will be respectable.

In short; I think the release is going to go well, and the new game will get a good reception from a pretty mixed cross-section. And if there are still bugs, I think BFC will get a pass.
 
Last edited:

British Tommy

Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2004
Messages
737
Reaction score
9
Location
mission control, UK
Country
ll
What do folks think will be the result if CMN comes out in the next few months and it's boofed? Not as bad as CMSF, say, but still with some major odd behaviors or bugs? Will that matter or do y'all think people will just sign on resignedly for another long slog?

-dale
Award yourself two gold stars for that question :)

I think most players would accept a few bugs or even one or two big ones. Why? because they have been waiting so long for BF to bring out another WW2 game. But I believe that BF knows it has to get this right on release so I doubt very much any one will find a major bug, just little niggly ones that can be squished with a patch (or two!).
 

Quellist

Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
202
Reaction score
7
Location
Nowhere
Country
llCuba
What do folks think will be the result if CMN comes out in the next few months and it's boofed? Not as bad as CMSF, say, but still with some major odd behaviors or bugs? Will that matter or do y'all think people will just sign on resignedly for another long slog?

-dale
I don't think that will happen, except perhaps for AI and individual soldier behavior, and those will be boofed to some extent, even if they work as intended, by the limits of modern hardware and where the state of the art AI is at.

My main concern is their business model, I'm not sure that they can strike that fine balance of keeping customers interested in modules, while not making them feel like they are being milked. And they seem to have a rather large team, while gearing towards a smaller (than for CMBO at least) customer base.
 

[hirr]Leto

Varmint Croonie
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
1,124
Reaction score
13
Location
Saskatoon
Country
llCanada
The key aspect of the discussion is and always shall be, the business model. If your business model is targeted at putting together an exceptionally pretty, click mad, explosive, well scripted single player play alone module system: you need the game to respond to the desires of a much larger group of wargamers than a smaller group of competitive head to head grognards. This means that replayability, QB's and "fun factor" involved with competitive aspects of the game will not be a driving focus of the design. I suspect this is exactly the type of design that was well documented in CMSF: do the campaign single player, and then on to the next module and then the next... sell sell sell.

For those of us who actually play the game for a fun factor that is sustained from competitive wargaming (which I believe is a very small but vocal minority) and deadened by over simulation, one may end up a bit disappointed.

I think you have to realize that WE are not the ones that BFC are waiting for... to order the game that is... its the reticent majority of constricted time computer game players that seek instant gratification and couldn't be arsed to wait for an opponents pbem.

If you can come to terms with the facts above, I think you will be ok.

This does not mean there will be competitive wargaming and ladders popping up... there just may be... but the feel and outcome of this new paradigm of competitive wargaming may not be of a similar flavor as the old CMx1 series.

At the end of the day, these guys want to make money. Second place to this is game design philosophy (the game that we wanted to build). But lest not be fooled, there will never be a concession by anyone from BFC that the above two ranked factors are anything but switched around to reflect the exact opposite of what I have stated.

Cheers!

Leto
 
Last edited:

Redwolf

Member # 3665
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
5,113
Reaction score
43
Location
MA, USA
Country
llUnited States
What do folks think will be the result if CMN comes out in the next few months and it's boofed? Not as bad as CMSF, say, but still with some major odd behaviors or bugs? Will that matter or do y'all think people will just sign on resignedly for another long slog?
The things I am concerned about wouldn't be fixed in patches, so if it's not it then I go play something else. I'm not very emotional about it. For sure I won't go try to go to their forum and discuss it, I had my taste for this year already.
 

Geordie

CM Moderator
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
2,111
Reaction score
13
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
[hirr]Leto;1378007 said:
The key aspect of the discussion is and always shall be, the business model. If your business model is targeted at putting together an exceptionally pretty, click mad, explosive, well scripted single player play alone module system: you need the game to respond to the desires of a much larger group of wargamers than a smaller group of competitive head to head grognards. This means that replayability, QB's and "fun factor" involved with competitive aspects of the game will not be a driving focus of the design. I suspect this is exactly the type of design that was well documented in CMSF: do the campaign single player, and then on to the next module and then the next... sell sell sell.

For those of us who actually play the game for a fun factor that is sustained from competitive wargaming (which I believe is a very small but vocal minority) and deadened by over simulation, one may end up a bit disappointed.

I think you have to realize that WE are not the ones that BFC are waiting for... to order the game that is... its the reticent majority of constricted time computer game players that seek instant gratification and couldn't be arsed to wait for an opponents pbem.

If you can come to terms with the facts above, I think you will be ok.

This does not mean there will be competitive wargaming and ladders popping up... there just may be... but the feel and outcome of this new paradigm of competitive wargaming may not be of a similar flavor as the old CMx1 series.

At the end of the day, these guys want to make money. Second place to this is game design philosophy (the game that we wanted to build). But lest not be fooled, there will never be a concession by anyone from BFC that the above two ranked factors are anything but switched around to reflect the exact opposite of what I have stated.

Cheers!

Leto
I think hes right and If you read what BF say and have been saying all along CM games are played mostly single player. Heck I play mostly single player and I used to be a hugely prolific PBEM player (had 50 games on the go at the same time once).

I actually like the RT play. CMSF was probably the wrong setting for H2H play but Id like to try CMBN in RT.

I think the game will be well received for what it is, a ww2 game, not an uber simulator, just a game. They should sell it as such and forget about the fancy ballistics hype, because I think the game is good enough that it doesnt need that.
 

dalem

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
2,298
Reaction score
62
Location
Columbia Heights, MN
Country
llUnited States
I think hes right and If you read what BF say and have been saying all along CM games are played mostly single player.
Yes, but like most of the things they say, I don't believe them. And if they really believed it they wouldn't have designed a game engine that is inherently crippled for solo play.

-dale
 

Mad Russian

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
1,372
Reaction score
188
Location
texas
Country
llUnited States
I think they do believe it and from what I've seen with HSG scenario downloads it's the most often played mode.

I think guys would like to play H2H more often but for whatever reason don't.

Good Hunting.

MR
 

Quellist

Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
202
Reaction score
7
Location
Nowhere
Country
llCuba
[hirr]Leto;1378007 said:
The key aspect of the discussion is and always shall be, the business model.
...
I completely agree. I just think that that business model is somewhat flawed. I think that the vocal minority really helps with spreading the word. And I don't think that the single player, episodic content, crowd is big enough to support a 5-7 employee dev team. And with a more technical 1-1 engine they are going to need to spend more time with engine issues rather than concentrating on, big bang for the buck, game play mechanics and issues.

And I believe that they are being seduced by the "80/20" rule:

A lot of software developers are seduced by the old "80/20" rule. It seems to make a lot of sense: 80% of the people use 20% of the features. So you convince yourself that you only need to implement 20% of the features, and you can still sell 80% as many copies.

Unfortunately, it's never the same 20%. Everybody uses a different set of features.

Quoted from: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000020.html

p.s Currently not completely sober, for whatever that is worth d.s
 

Elvis

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
2,918
Reaction score
14
Location
Pennsylvania
Country
llUnited States
I completely agree. I just think that that business model is somewhat flawed. I think that the vocal minority really helps with spreading the word. And I don't think that the single player, episodic content, crowd is big enough to support a 5-7 employee dev team. And with a more technical 1-1 engine they are going to need to spend more time with engine issues rather than concentrating on, big bang for the buck, game play mechanics and issues.

And I believe that they are being seduced by the "80/20" rule:

A lot of software developers are seduced by the old "80/20" rule. It seems to make a lot of sense: 80% of the people use 20% of the features. So you convince yourself that you only need to implement 20% of the features, and you can still sell 80% as many copies.

Unfortunately, it's never the same 20%. Everybody uses a different set of features.

Quoted from: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000020.html
I actually believe that the opposite may be true. From criticism I have seen here and other sites, it seems they have tried to give too many features and maybe spread themselves thin in the process. Whether or not I agree with that assessment, that is one I have seen trotted out plenty. It is one of Drososh's bigger concepts. That they have tried to appeal to too many different types of players in too many ways to the point of not having a true focus. Too use your quote as a base...they are trying to hit too many different 20%'s.

p.s Currently not completely sober, for whatever that is worth d.s
Righteous!!!!

Yes, but like most of the things they say, I don't believe them. And if they really believed it they wouldn't have designed a game engine that is inherently crippled for solo play.

-dale
I agree and don't believe what they say either. Like you, I am convinced they know that they truly believe that the game is mostly played multiplayer and that is why they intentionally crippled solo play (although I'm stil trying to figure out in what way they crippled solo play...I trust you that they did..even though I don't know how...)
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
I actually believe that the opposite may be true. From criticism I have seen here and other sites, it seems they have tried to give too many features and maybe spread themselves thin in the process. Whether or not I agree with that assessment, that is one I have seen trotted out plenty. It is one of Drososh's bigger concepts. That they have tried to appeal to too many different types of players in too many ways to the point of not having a true focus. Too use your quote as a base...they are trying to hit too many different 20%'s.

I agree and don't believe what they say either. Like you, I am convinced they know that they truly believe that the game is mostly played multiplayer and that is why they intentionally crippled solo play (although I'm stil trying to figure out in what way they crippled solo play...I trust you that they did..even though I don't know how...)
I believe dalem is referring to the scripted AI rather than the "dynamic" AI.

My criticism/observation of the lack of focus is I think beginning to soften. I meant it with regards to CM:SF, particularly on release - the introduction of RT seemed a little crass. Understandable from a business point of view - a large untapped market, after all - but crass given the focus of company-level tactics.

We see now that there are more features coming in, but I think they are starting to get more of a - I don't know if the word is focus, but of course, I have no insight into the internal discussions. You would be better placed to know, though not of course to comment due to NDA. The focus I sense is simply a return to the roots, and we saw that even with CM:SF. We called it "back-pedalling" on this forum in our less generous language. Another interpretation would be a deliberate focus to return the game to a more "CMX1" flavour and feel. Perhaps you can comment on that aspect for us.
 

Elvis

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
2,918
Reaction score
14
Location
Pennsylvania
Country
llUnited States
I believe dalem is referring to the scripted AI rather than the "dynamic" AI.
Oh. Well, I've had far more engaging solo play with that crippled system then I had with the CMx1 model in each of the 3 CMx2 games I've played. Especially when playing solo as a defender. If he has had less satisfying experiences then I have then I suppose it is a matter of "to each their own".



My criticism/observation of the lack of focus is I think beginning to soften. I meant it with regards to CM:SF, particularly on release - the introduction of RT seemed a little crass. Understandable from a business point of view - a large untapped market, after all - but crass given the focus of company-level tactics.

We see now that there are more features coming in, but I think they are starting to get more of a - I don't know if the word is focus, but of course, I have no insight into the internal discussions. You would be better placed to know, though not of course to comment due to NDA. The focus I sense is simply a return to the roots, and we saw that even with CM:SF. We called it "back-pedalling" on this forum in our less generous language. Another interpretation would be a deliberate focus to return the game to a more "CMX1" flavour and feel. Perhaps you can comment on that aspect for us.
I feel most comfortable with my NDA speaking to this....

As I see it two things come into play for most changes. One is the proverbial "to do list" that has been spoken about by Steve in all of Combat Mission history and the other part part would be theater. I'm sure there are examples outside of those things that someone will remind me of but most changes in the game engine seem to fall into one of those two categories. I'll give you a coupla/few examples... I had little problem with the lack of FOW trenches in CMSF and even CM:A because in my mind (whether or not it is accurate or not) the technology exists to have the kind of recon that would give either side information about dug in defenses before an attack was always plausible to me. However, that same plausibility didn't fly for me with WW2 era. For that time period it becomes MUCH more important to have FOW for defenses.

On the "to do list" there always seems to be something and Steve often makes remarks about things that "didn't make it in but hopefully they will". Some of the features we are seeing the return of are "to do list" items that have made it into the game. There are are still plenty of things that haven't, like flamethrowers, whose inclusion in the first title aren't necessary so they can be put aside for a bit so other things can be added.

Of course there is the 3rd kind. The one that there was no intention of having in the CMx2 engine but have been added. The blue bar and revised QB unit selection are the 2 biggest examples of those that come to mind. These are the ones added because of demand and/or convenience. QB force selection was clearly one added because player request and a total rethinking of the initial idea. And the blue bar was the result of fixing a totally separate bug and making it easy to implement (people can deny that all they want but what played out behind closed doors is exactly what was explained later in public).

From what I have seen there have been very few of these third type additions. Almost every feature addition falls into the first 2 categories. I don't feel that is talking out of school because it is what was talked about in private for a very long time and then eventually talked about in public. Hell, there are things on that list that have been discussed that haven't been asked for publicly...yet. I'll retell a great example of that that I always associate with you. Ammo bearers. I remember you discussing here that for WW2 the can't do resupply in the same way that they do it in CMSF because the resupply vehicles were not close enough to the battle zones, or something like that. And that what should really be modeled is some type of ammo bearer to resupply. When reading that it had already been implemented in CMBN. I have seen tons of these types of things occur over the past few years.
 
Top