Clue to Current State of CMN and Release Date

dalem

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
2,298
Reaction score
62
Location
Columbia Heights, MN
Country
llUnited States
It's my perception, albeit from limited data, that since CMSF was imminent Steve has been pretty much the only Voice of BFC to be found on the main forum. Do Dan or Moon actually post much? MadMatt? Is it the same as before and I just don't know because I'm never there except for the Peng Threads?

-dale
 

thewood

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
12
Location
Boston
Country
llUnited States
No, Moon still comes in tt threaten banning on anyone who stands up a beta tester.
 

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
Also, 2010 is not a release timeframe for CM: Normandy. And before you wisearses say 2011 , I'll say it is definitely going to happen in 2009. Probably a few months later than we wanted, but then again everything is always later than we want. But that's normal since we're a software developer after all.
That's priceless. You really can just add (1) to all the years and get the same thread.
 

NUTTERNAME

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2010
Messages
1,943
Reaction score
37
Location
N
Country
llVietnam
So what? German divisions, particularly FJ but even panzer divisions, can be moved around quickly by rail, and were. The Germans were able to flood Italy with combat troops on short notice at the time of the surrender, and again after Anzio. Even the massive air interdiction that accompanied Overlord didn't stop the Germans from getting a dozen heavy divisions across France and into Normandy over the next month.

The Germans could rail a corps, including new generation PDs, from Germany into Southern France within a week, and probably the Italian Alpini division too. And even sooner, fly down a veteran bomber Geschwader of JU-88s to hammer the vulnerable cargo ships and LSTs trying to feed Patton across the beaches while he struggles to prise Germans out of the ruined ports, a la Saint Lo. In contrast, where's the Allied air cover flying in from? Algiers? This gets ugly.
I doubt most of your points.

If nothing else, WWII amphibious warfare showed that an attacker has the advantage. They can decide where and when to strike and float the big guns, and aircraft carriers, where they are needed. A defender without a strong air force is not going to stop a modern seaborne invasion.

The Germans (French) rail network could and would be crippled at key points making your 'rail a corp' claim impossible. It takes MANY trains to get a Panzer Division transported. If anything, Overlord showed that logistically, the road movement option was the only option and also not a good one either.

I don't see why 'FJ' divisions would get anywhere quicker. they would not drop if that is what you mean. They are just infantry and would need to either walk or find a ride.

The basic tactic of making a landing, cutting off the enmy reinforcement, developing ports and airpower would have been much better than the Anzio or whole Italian ops. I had an Uncle at Anzio. He said it was just nuts.
 

Geordie

CM Moderator
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
2,111
Reaction score
13
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
I doubt most of your points.

If nothing else, WWII amphibious warfare showed that an attacker has the advantage. They can decide where and when to strike and float the big guns, and aircraft carriers, where they are needed. A defender without a strong air force is not going to stop a modern seaborne invasion.

The Germans (French) rail network could and would be crippled at key points making your 'rail a corp' claim impossible. It takes MANY trains to get a Panzer Division transported. If anything, Overlord showed that logistically, the road movement option was the only option and also not a good one either.

I don't see why 'FJ' divisions would get anywhere quicker. they would not drop if that is what you mean. They are just infantry and would need to either walk or find a ride.

The basic tactic of making a landing, cutting off the enmy reinforcement, developing ports and airpower would have been much better than the Anzio or whole Italian ops. I had an Uncle at Anzio. He said it was just nuts.
Mate, if you want to start a new thread about this please feel free to do so. I thought we had gotten this one back on track but you seem determined to drag it back to this topic.

This thread is essentially for CMN and SF delays and release dates.

Cheers
 

Geordie

CM Moderator
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
2,111
Reaction score
13
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
That's priceless. You really can just add (1) to all the years and get the same thread.
I agree, that was my main point in highlighting a year old thread. Nothing seems to have changed in 12 months.

I wonder where the NATO module is at? Elvis, can you throw any light on this at all? Is the NATO module even being worked on?

A year from CMSF Brits is looming and there is no talk of NATO at all except for a snippet on ammo sharing between units. I know Steve admitted that NATO has been ignored in favour of CMA and CMN but I thought it may have still been worked on by a thrid party.
 

Elvis

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
2,918
Reaction score
14
Location
Pennsylvania
Country
llUnited States
I wonder where the NATO module is at? Elvis, can you throw any light on this at all? Is the NATO module even being worked on?
At the risk of bringing a different thread in here and being cryptic at the same time....There is a reason Steve referred to "the current version of the engine" and not CM:N or CMSF in his post.
 

thewood

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
12
Location
Boston
Country
llUnited States
Elvis, I wonder if you forget that we don't see all the things you do. You may assume that foggy comments from Steve have some meaning to the unwashed. Can you, for at least my sake, be more explicit in what you are trying to say.
 

Elvis

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
2,918
Reaction score
14
Location
Pennsylvania
Country
llUnited States
Elvis, I wonder if you forget that we don't see all the things you do. You may assume that foggy comments from Steve have some meaning to the unwashed. Can you, for at least my sake, be more explicit in what you are trying to say.
Sure, the reason Steve said "the current version of the engine" instead of CMSF v1.xx or CM:N is because the comment was about the engine in general not specificly the next installament of CMSF or CM:N.

Or more simply, yes, the Nato module is being worked on.
 

Geordie

CM Moderator
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
2,111
Reaction score
13
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
And the great leap of imagination here is.........

The NATO module will be the next release from BF?

July 2010? A year after the Brit module? Leaving another 6-12 months for the release of either CMN or CMA, or both.

The dissapointing thing for me is that BF always seem to wrap up their major versions with a new module and sell it as if it were part of the game and not just a new patch.

I suppose its a good strategy though as some may think they dont get the updates without the game.

I dont think I will be getting the NATO module, heck I didnt even install the V1.21 patch on my PC, is there a great difference from 1.2 to 1.21?
 

Elvis

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
2,918
Reaction score
14
Location
Pennsylvania
Country
llUnited States
And the great leap of imagination here is.........

The NATO module will be the next release from BF?

July 2010? A year after the Brit module? Leaving another 6-12 months for the release of either CMN or CMA, or both.

The dissapointing thing for me is that BF always seem to wrap up their major versions with a new module and sell it as if it were part of the game and not just a new patch.

I suppose its a good strategy though as some may think they dont get the updates without the game.

I dont think I will be getting the NATO module, heck I didnt even install the V1.21 patch on my PC, is there a great difference from 1.2 to 1.21?
To be candid I don't even remember. I believe it is over 6 months since it was released. There was a palatable difference with v1.20 but I remember v1.21 as more of a housecleaning type of patch. I'll attatch the list anyway in case something jumps out at you:

Combat Mission Shock Force v1.21 features

Soldiers

o Soldiers on rooftops receive better cover.
o Speed difference between Fast and Quick moves is slightly increased.
o Soldiers tire more quickly moving across difficult terrain or in very hot weather.
o Split teams that are in close proximity but on different vehicles will not attempt to join.
o Teams that rejoin will retain the target orders of one of the teams instead of erasing them all.
o Buddy-aid will not pick up heavy weapons from a different Team.

Vehicles

o Passengers manning a vehicle weapon may use it even if the crew has bailed out.
o Top gunner in a Humvee can use a personal weapon if his vehicle-mounted weapon is out of action.
o Vehicles do a better job using alternate crew to replace MG gunners who become casualties.
o Tanks won't waste APFSDS ammo on lightly-armored targets when alternative ammo is available.
o Refinements to vehicle damage from mines.
o Added radio to UAZ vehicle.
o Bradley IFVs and CFVs carry some 40mm grenades for their passengers.
o Vehicles move more smoothly in PBEM and hotseat replay.

Weapons

o Times to set up SPG-9 and most ATGMs are reduced.
o Powerful projectiles like sabot can penetrate trees and be slightly deflected rather than stopped.
o Heavy weapons set up near the edges of buildings won't drop to the ground after an explosion.
o Corrected a small problem where automatic weapons had a pause between the first and second rounds that was slightly longer than it should have been.
o MGs on bipods are a bit more stable than before.
o Corrected a rare instance where ATGMs could fly too low and hit the ground when they should not.

Terrain

o Roads are smoother when traversing rough ground or steep slopes.
o Large rocks (flavor objects) are more of a deterrent to navigate over.
o Flavor objects tilt to fit slopes when necessary.
o Trees are less resistant to damage from heavy artillery.

Artillery

o Updated behavior for artillery/air support time-to-target. Conventional Red formation leaders are now allowed to call in artillery from batteries at battalion level or below (e.g. light mortars).
o Corrected some issues affecting artillery arrival time after target adjustment.
o Corrected the display of artillery mission type in PBEM games.
o Artillery battery and aircraft pilot voices use the correct nationality when they differ from that of the spotter.

User Interface

o Troops may be given simultaneous Hide and Face commands, but changing facing often requires a soldier to change position slightly, during which time he will not be "hiding".
o When acquiring missiles from a vehicle, it is now possible to take the last missile without its reloadable launcher (e.g. Javelin).
o "Scenario Author Test" may be selected as a Skill Mode (1-player only). It will cause all enemy units to be fully displayed to the player, but not additionally "known" to player's troops.

Editor

o AI Plan #0 can be deactivated in the editor provided at least one other plan is active.
o In the map editor, some buttons were shifted from "Flavor Objects #1" to "Flavor Objects #2".
o Corrected some small issues with elevation controls in the editor.

Miscellaneous

o Large saved games that take longer to load do not advance the game clock in the process of loading.
o Corrected a slow framerate problem on the first PBEM turn.
o Small bullets kick up a tiny bit of dirt and dust when they hit ground.
o Computer-player air strikes aim at smaller areas, reducing friendly fire.
o Corrected a problem where some ATGM teams would appear to leave their ATGM launcher temporarily behind when embarking on a vehicle.
o Corrected a problem that caused the turn-based computer player sometimes not to dismount troops fully when instructed by the scenario AI plan.
o Corrected a PBEM synchronization problem caused by saving and reloading the game.

Marines Module Only

o US Marines sometimes have M203 grenade launchers instead of M32, especially at lower Equipment Quality settings.
o Added US Marine Mk11 sniper rifle (equivalent to Army M110).
o The US Marine sergeant in the scout team wears infantry gear, not vehicle crew gear.

British Module Only

o Jackal GMG (aka grenade launcher) can now be found in the Fire Support Section of the British Infantry Rifle Company, when the equipment rating is good (otherwise they get a WMIK).
o Loader on Challenger 2 Enhanced will not reload the top-deck MG unless ordered to unbutton.
o Warrior has slower (hand-cranked) gun elevation.
o Gunner in LMTV will use his personal night-vision gear when appropriate.
o LMTV carries more passenger weapons and ammunition.
o British Engineer Troop has 3 TUM ST vehicles, not 6.
o Corrected a problem with a US IBCT soldier carrying a British rifle.
 

Geordie

CM Moderator
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
2,111
Reaction score
13
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Hmm, maybe Ill download the patch on my vista machine and give it a try, and yes, I said Vista! Some of those changes seem like they might make a small difference to the game. And heres me thinking it was all only about bullets kicking up dust!
 

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
How did it go?

o "Scenario Author Test" may be selected as a Skill Mode (1-player only). It will cause all enemy units to be fully displayed to the player, but not additionally "known" to player's troops.
I keep meaning to try this; I used to do this in CMX1 by selecting No Fog of War on the understanding it was the same thing. A time compression option or 0 Player option would be a logical next step - though you would need a really good Tac AI and/or sensible unit orders for the latter to work.
 

dalem

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
2,298
Reaction score
62
Location
Columbia Heights, MN
Country
llUnited States
Just to clarify:

CMBO released 7/00 (I thought it was 2001...)

CMBB released 9/02 ( 2 years and I can understand why with absolutely huge number of units)

CMAK released 12/03 (a pretty short time considering the number of units again)

So we have 3 years and 5 months total between all CM1 releases.
And then 4+ years til CMx2, going to be at least 3 years between CMSF and the next game assuming it comes out at all, more likely 4 years if at all. And CMSF is the game with the lowest replayability factor.

Nice work there.

-dale
 

Geordie

CM Moderator
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
2,111
Reaction score
13
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
And then 4+ years til CMx2, going to be at least 3 years between CMSF and the next game assuming it comes out at all, more likely 4 years if at all. And CMSF is the game with the lowest replayability factor.

Nice work there.

-dale
Just curious, did you mean four years before cmn or the next version of cm?
 

dalem

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
2,298
Reaction score
62
Location
Columbia Heights, MN
Country
llUnited States
Just curious, did you mean four years before cmn or the next version of cm?
Actually neither. I meant 4 years (really 3.5) between AK and SF based on your dates.

Oh wait, you mean the second sentence, right? I meant that 2011 at the earliest if I'm wrong and there is a CMN.

-dale
 
Last edited:

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 am thinking the state of CM:N and the release date may not be related.

If I was BF:C and I was counting on CM:A to make money for me, and had CM:N ready to go - but had bugfixes holding back Afghanistan - would I release Normandy?

It would be a tough call.

In an ideal world, I would have wanted to release Afghanistan in January 2009, with a Normandy release on June 6, 2009, to maximize the revenue stream.

I am wondering now if perhaps the delay on Normandy isn't related more to bugs associated with Afghanistan - once Normandy is released, ditto NATO, who would possibly shell out money to play a game set in Afghanistan in 1980 pitting tribesmen with Lee Enfields against hapless Russian conscripts? As a novelty to tide one over while waiting for the big show to start in Normandy, sure, it might make some sense. But once you've taken your marquee franchise back to the bread and butter, how much money can you reasonably expect to make from novelty games?
 

Redwolf

Member # 3665
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
5,113
Reaction score
43
Location
MA, USA
Country
llUnited States
I don't think they count on selling CM:A to Western Audiences in significant numbers either way.
 

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 don't think they count on selling CM:A to Western Audiences in significant numbers either way.
We had a firearms and surplus store in town that I worked at as a summer job briefly. There was some "community buzz" when the only full time employee of the boss left to form his own store. I stayed on friendly terms with both fellows. But the running joke in the military/firearms/surplus communities was "how do they stay in business"? The increasingly draconian gun control laws, lack of interest in militaria, growing ability to simply buy what you want on ebay, etc. made one wonder. One kind of has to ask - why is BFC in business, at times, when they keep fronting projects like T-72 and CM:A with limited appeal.

The answer, of course, to the gun shop question was that both owners' businesses were accused - usually but not always tongue-in-cheek - of being mere fronts for RCMP operations.
 
Top