How does CM-2 and Modules work?

Geordie

CM Moderator
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
2,111
Reaction score
13
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
A long while ago we were told by BFC that the CM-2 engine would be able to do a lot more than its predecessor. Any kind of game could be hung from the CM-2 bones, fleshed out in no time and published.

Now, when we should be seeing the CMN game coming out this summer (according to BFC original statements) it seems no where near ready?

Can someone who knows about these things answer me this.

If most of the code for CM-2 is there and all they have to add is some terrain and a few new units, then isnt it more akin to a Module than a new game? Surely a Hedge is just a long flat tree? Or a combination of small dense trees? Sureley a Sherman is just an Abrams that has a different shape and armour values?

I thought the whole point of CM-2 was that they could get the games out faster than all that time spent giving us everything? At this rate CMN will take longer than CMBB to AK, possibly even BO to BB. Surely the whole thing is defeating their purpose?
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,326
Reaction score
2,142
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
Now, when we should be seeing the CMN game coming out this summer (according to BFC original statements) it seems no where near ready?
It's not even conceptualized yet. Steve was on the forum this weekend asking the fans about stuff like "how should we do bocage". I don't think it's even in the planning stage.

They may have one of their "surprise" projects in the hopper first. Remember how CM:AK got announced without anyone having a clue what was going on?
 

Redwolf

Member # 3665
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
5,113
Reaction score
44
Location
MA, USA
Country
llUnited States
I think that when we are through with the FoW fortifications mess there is the next Tiger in the bushes waiting, and that is cover and concealment from woods, trees and foliage. I have the feeling that the CMx2 engine so far is overly reliant on actual 3D to determine these factors, and then there'll be a huge outcry when people see that the whole map behaves like it's not much better than open ground. I think that people so far overlooks this because in Syria it's kind of realistic that way.
 

Sirocco

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
255
Reaction score
0
Location
England
Country
ll
I think that when we are through with the FoW fortifications mess there is the next Tiger in the bushes waiting, and that is cover and concealment from woods, trees and foliage. I have the feeling that the CMx2 engine so far is overly reliant on actual 3D to determine these factors, and then there'll be a huge outcry when people see that the whole map behaves like it's not much better than open ground. I think that people so far overlooks this because in Syria it's kind of realistic that way.
I think there are a whole bunch of things that people lived with in CMSF that will just stand out like sore thumbs with CMN.
 

thewood

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
12
Location
Boston
Country
llUnited States
The most glaring thing is the engine vs. module thing. Normandy is an engine, commonwealth is a module. Bulge is an engine, Siegrfried line may be a module. These engines are not backward compatible. It really no different than CMBO to CMAK. No mixing and matching modules. And then there is the timing. Its actually worse than CM1 as far as time between real engines. Its just in CM1, we got all the modules in one.
 

Redwolf

Member # 3665
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
5,113
Reaction score
44
Location
MA, USA
Country
llUnited States
The most glaring thing is the engine vs. module thing. Normandy is an engine, commonwealth is a module. Bulge is an engine, Siegrfried line may be a module. These engines are not backward compatible. It really no different than CMBO to CMAK. No mixing and matching modules. And then there is the timing. Its actually worse than CM1 as far as time between real engines. Its just in CM1, we got all the modules in one.
Bulge will not be a module?

That's kind of uncool. I was hoping to at least get all of ETO 1944 in one bloody package in the end.
 

Geordie

CM Moderator
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
2,111
Reaction score
13
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
No one is answering the question though? I would genuinely like to know from someone who does know about these things, just how the CMx2 mechanics work concerning the base game, Modules and follow on titles.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,326
Reaction score
2,142
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
No one is answering the question though? I would genuinely like to know from someone who does know about these things, just how the CMx2 mechanics work concerning the base game, Modules and follow on titles.
What is the question?
 

Geordie

CM Moderator
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Messages
2,111
Reaction score
13
Location
Scotland
Country
llUnited Kingdom
I thought I stated the question in post 1.

Namely how come if BF said years ago that CMx2 games would be far easier to make because the base game would essentially be the same. That this does not seem to be the case? That instead of just dailing in new values for different weapons CMN seem to be being approached as if from scratch, instead of nearing completion for publication in Summer 2009?

So what ARE they actually doing code and game mechanics/coding wise?
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,326
Reaction score
2,142
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
I thought I stated the question in post 1.

Namely how come if BF said years ago that CMx2 games would be far easier to make because the base game would essentially be the same. That this does not seem to be the case? That instead of just dailing in new values for different weapons CMN seem to be being approached as if from scratch, instead of nearing completion for publication in Summer 2009?

So what ARE they actually doing code and game mechanics/coding wise?
Fixing the broken QB system, for one. They've stated that flat out. And addressing some other issues that the core audience has clearly stated concerns with. They can't proceed with the plan you outline until they have a firm base game everyone is happy with. They don't have that yet.
 

Sirocco

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
255
Reaction score
0
Location
England
Country
ll
More time taken up on more detailed 3D models and textures?

Custom coding to get the new models and textures to fit existing game code?

It's all a bit of a mystery if this was meant to simplify things.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,326
Reaction score
2,142
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
More time taken up on more detailed 3D models and textures?

Custom coding to get the new models and textures to fit existing game code?

It's all a bit of a mystery if this was meant to simplify things.
It's no mystery. Once they have a base game everyone can live with, think about it. It should be simple to take a Normandy 1944 game and do an Italy 1944 game with the same basic units. Whether anyone would pay for such a limited scope game, hard to say. I think they would.

You would throw in some units that aren't yet in the game - German Elefant tanks, say, and some new rules - say mountain climbing, and have the American campaign be a 1945 10th Mountain Division campaign. Or the Nisei units. Or the negro division. It's a cheap hook to get people to buy it. You code up some Asian faces, but you've already got most of it in the can from your Normandy game - StuGs and U.S. infantry, etc. All you need are Italian houses, some new artwork for the interface, and a handful of new units and scenarios.

Going from CM:SF to CM:N is the long leap. And they are still fixing the initial release - QBs, etc.
 

thewood

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
12
Location
Boston
Country
llUnited States
But BFC claimed initially that CMSF to Normandy would be quick, so assumptions to how much effort any of this is going to take is out the window. All we have at this point is history.
 

Redwolf

Member # 3665
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
5,113
Reaction score
44
Location
MA, USA
Country
llUnited States
I think that somebody will find that the current terrain feature suitability for cover and concealment will turn out sucky in the extreme.

"Somebody" is hopefully them in the past, fixing it up now, and not us after release.
 

thewood

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
12
Location
Boston
Country
llUnited States
I still don't undertand cover/concealment. Steve says there is abstraction, but Moon and beta testers always say WYSIWYG. I have never seen any one explain it definitively.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,326
Reaction score
2,142
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
But BFC claimed initially that CMSF to Normandy would be quick
Can you prove that? I don't recall any promises that the World War II title was going to be out in 2008, but I stand to be corrected.
 

thewood

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
2,594
Reaction score
12
Location
Boston
Country
llUnited States
It was before CMSF was release and right after Syria was announced. There was a lot of discussion about how long for Normandy. I'm not going to search it, but Steve claimed 3 months for the first module in CMSF and less than a year for WW2. It was heavily qualified as just an estimate. I kind of remember someone in the same thread saying how if they couldn't do that, it wouldn't be economically feasible to continue with CM2. I think the line of thought was that it would take half the time to create a new game than CMBO to CMBB.
 

Redwolf

Member # 3665
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
5,113
Reaction score
44
Location
MA, USA
Country
llUnited States
I still don't undertand cover/concealment. Steve says there is abstraction, but Moon and beta testers always say WYSIWYG. I have never seen any one explain it definitively.
I have never been able to focus my attention on CM:SF long enough to run tests.

But I am afraid that spotting is 3D based which will not work at all for real vegetation.

Small arms versus Infantry firepower and casualties is definitely abstracted somewhat.
 

Redwolf

Member # 3665
Joined
Sep 2, 2002
Messages
5,113
Reaction score
44
Location
MA, USA
Country
llUnited States
It was before CMSF was release and right after Syria was announced. There was a lot of discussion about how long for Normandy. I'm not going to search it, but Steve claimed 3 months for the first module in CMSF and less than a year for WW2. It was heavily qualified as just an estimate. I kind of remember someone in the same thread saying how if they couldn't do that, it wouldn't be economically feasible to continue with CM2. I think the line of thought was that it would take half the time to create a new game than CMBO to CMBB.
CM:SF is only two months old. If they do Normandy by Christmas they would be right on time.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,326
Reaction score
2,142
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
It was before CMSF was release and right after Syria was announced. There was a lot of discussion about how long for Normandy. I'm not going to search it, but Steve claimed 3 months for the first module in CMSF and less than a year for WW2. It was heavily qualified as just an estimate. I kind of remember someone in the same thread saying how if they couldn't do that, it wouldn't be economically feasible to continue with CM2. I think the line of thought was that it would take half the time to create a new game than CMBO to CMBB.
I'm inclined to give a bit of leeway - the game was so poorly conceptualized that if - big if - they can get it under control, and I mean get Quick Battles working the way the fans want, etc., they may be able to get this ship back on course.

But if they drop any more major stinkbombs of the kind that hit the airwaves when CM:SF came out ("oh, by the way guys, we're dropping PBEM support"), I think all bets are off...

I still think it is too bad they trashed the Operations concept but I also know it is not on the table to "fix" it, and ditto the likelihood of bringing back random maps, though Steve has made noises about bringing something similar back with map tiles. I put that down to loose talk. If it happens, great. But he's all but promised a fix for QBs, so I'd be inclined to hold him to that.

But maybes he's just stalling for time, and you're right - this is just more excuses. I don't know. Me, I'm generous on this one. Once the core game engine is stable and solid I'll hold them to their promises of a regular schedule, but it is still a bit early for that, in my opinion.
 
Top