Market Garden module and the 2.01 patch

[Redwolf]

Well I guess we'll get our updated 2.01 patch with the MG module, and then backported. Maybe even before the end of the year?

Apart from the MG changes indicated and cleaning up some of the technical bugs found in 2.0, any other changes that we already know?

Did they ever publish a unit and vehicle list for the module?

 

[NUTTERNAME]

I don't believe much more than this has been said...and since it was said that it entailed the next year I take the clock to start ticking at June 22, 2012. Moon even claims more for 2013 so it means, to me, these three plus some more.

The Road Ahead
Combat Mission fans have a lot to look forward to in the next year as the CMx2 game engine continues to produce games at an every faster pace. At the moment we have three games in active development and more planned. While we aren't in a position to make detailed announcements right now, we can tell you what the three are about (in no particular order):

1. CM: Battle for Normandy Module 2. This Module picks up where CM:BN and Commonwealth left off... with the September push out of France to the German border. The content centers around Operation Market Garden, though it covers more ground than just that. The game includes a number of new vehicles, formations, and new terrain models/textures. Adding new terrain, a first for any Module so far, ensures that you feel like you're fighting near Germany and not still back at the beacheads.

2. CM: Eastern Front 1. The first of four Eastern Front "families" starts with Operation Bagration (June 1944) and eventually covers through to the end of the war (May 1945). For many tactical warfare enthusiasts, this period is considered the most tactically interesting since both sides were at their peak of their military technology, organization, and experience. The scope and scale of the combat offers plenty of subject matter to explore.

3. CM: Shock Force 2. Our return to modern warfare is long overdue! Given how close Shock Force 1 was at predicting a conventional conflict in Syria, we're a little nervous about choosing a topic this time around. Especially because we've chosen to simulate a full spectrum conventional conflict between NATO and Russia in the Ukraine. This gives players a rich tactical environment to explore with the most advanced militaries the world has ever seen. Having said that, we hope the politicians aren't insane enough to try it for real. Even thought this is great stuff for a game, it's the last thing this world needs in real life.

We have more games planned for 2013, however we are making no formal announcements at this time. These three mini-announcements should be enough to keep you busy for a while.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

Steve said this...

When we moved to the CMx2 engine we said one primary reason was to optimize the backend stuff so we could crank out games quicker. If anybody has been tracking the release dates they will see that we have been progressively shortening development times since the initial CM:SF release. That's the result of us finding bottlenecks and dealing with them effectively.

The last year gives you guys a pretty good look at where we're headed. We released Battle for Normandy, Commonwealth Forces, and Fortress Italy. That's 2 Base Games and 1 Module. In the next year I would expect to see another 3 Base Games and probably 3 Modules.

Steve

 

[Redwolf]

3 *new* base games and only 3 modules total? That would mean not even each base game gets a module since there are already 3 base games, CMBN, CMFI and CMSF, although I guess CMSF is end-of-line but that's still 5 base games in development in 2013.

I mean I see whether this is coming from since ETO, Eastern Front and Modern can't be modules of the same game. But the way that I saw things until now the main focus would have been on pumping out > 3 modules per year and give owners of the/one base game a more steady flow of new toys.

To clarify since working on a module takes less time the time required for 3 games + 3 modules would equal what 2 games + 7 modules?

And then there's all the ports, with Mac, and Android and IOS, and the MacStore thing is separate.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

3 *new* base games and only 3 modules total? That would mean not even each base game gets a module since there are already 3 base games, CMBN, CMFI and CMSF, although I guess CMSF is end-of-line but that's still 5 base games in development in 2013.

I mean I see whether this is coming from since ETO, Eastern Front and Modern can't be modules of the same game. But the way that I saw things until now the main focus would have been on pumping out > 3 modules per year and give owners of the/one base game a more steady flow of new toys.

To clarify since working on a module takes less time the time required for 3 games + 3 modules would equal what 2 games + 7 modules?

And then there's all the ports, with Mac, and Android and IOS, and the MacStore thing is separate.

Considering this was all said 6 months ago, and basically they just cranked out the demo, patches and upgrade, that must mean they will be dropping a bunch of product tomorrow.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

The co-development of modules for two different games runs into a snag with Upgrades. It would seem to me that Upgrades will be a sort of clock-point as far as when development will start on a good module. The current development of MG w/2.0 might not introduce many features. It's release only generates the issue of "Is an Upgrade needed for other families (CMFI) now?" or "Did it's development create fixes that need to be back-ported as a patch for other families?". I doubt CMFI will get an Upgrade for awhile.

Patches seem to be another 'ticking-point' that set a clock schedule. The patches seem to be family-based. So, as more families are rolled out, there then is created an increasing number of patches that must be maintained and distributed etc.

So, for CMFI, is the plan to bash out a CW module before the MG release? Basically at a tech-point no greater than CMFI is at now? In other words, similar to the first CW module for CMBN. Would this even justify the sales if the numbers were lower than CMFI?? If they stick to their 'pricing-guns', I doubt the sales are there for $55+.

BF is now stating that Upgrades will be about a yearly thing. I take that to mean they will try and back-port the EF 3.0 technology to both the CMBN and CMFI families. But will Upgrades be a general piece of software or family specific? Again, it seems that as the series goes on, there is appearing to be greater work on the back-end than designed.

My general impression is that the 'new-features' will start to trail off and the game will be the same actors in different costumes. People will start to pick and choose as far as purchasing Base games and hold off more as time goes on.

The modern game development would seem to be a separate branch of product. That is, will it develop fixes and Upgrades that can be used anywhere in the WWII game?

 

[Redwolf]

Normally it is a good thing to have one piece of code doing everything. It's a lot of work, but a huge advantage over porting changes back and forth.

I just don't quite see how the CMSF code fits in there. I can't imagine it is the same codebase as WW2.

 

[Geordie]

Every time they upgrade a game to a new version I assume I will have to upgrade every game I own. So in future if I had say five games, SF2, FI, CMBN, E Front and Bulge; I would then have to spend a further $50 on upgrading all titles?

seems like a food scheme to get as much revenue as possible from a small audience. I'd rather pay a subscription to be honest.

 

[Redwolf]

Every time they upgrade a game to a new version I assume I will have to upgrade every game I own. So in future if I had say five games, SF2, FI, CMBN, E Front and Bulge; I would then have to spend a further $50 on upgrading all titles?

seems like a food scheme to get as much revenue as possible from a small audience. I'd rather pay a subscription to be honest.

No, they will not backport things forever. I have hopes that they keep all WW2 in the same codebase til the end of the whole CMx2 thing.

But modern has no chance for that, I figure. I interpret the fact that they update the CMSF code to 2.x or 3.x as a sign that there is a real modern game coming, but I don't think that a 5.x code version will see a port to the 2007 game CMSF.

 

[slm]

They mentioned recently that something buggy was found. Something to do with infantry movement - a soldier or two first running towards a waypoint, then returning their starting point and then restarting the whole movement.
We might get some kind of quick fix quite soon.
Don't know what it will be called, but probably clearly before MG module.

 

[Geordie]

They mentioned recently that something buggy was found. Something to do with infantry movement - a soldier or two first running towards a waypoint, then returning their starting point and then restarting the whole movement.
We might get some kind of quick fix quite soon.
Don't know what it will be called, but probably clearly before MG module.

thats been a bug since day one. Soldiers often get to their destination unscathed only to run back where they came from, I don't remember it in CMSF though.

 

[slm]

thats been a bug since day one. Soldiers often get to their destination unscathed only to run back where they came from, I don't remember it in CMSF though.

It was already in CMSF - frustrating enough that I still remember it even though I haven't played CMSF in a long while.
But more common in CMBN. Maybe they have now figured out what the problem is.
In situations where timing is important that bug has cost many virtual lives.

 

[slm]

"We have fixed the QB PMEM problem as far as we can tell. v2.01 will come out soon and tidy up that and some other loose ends."

 

[NUTTERNAME]

I suppose something that will NOT be fixed or featured is the elevation and depression issue as far as AFV and other weapons being limited to firing at tall buildings, etc. This was clearly said recently (Maybe in the 75mmIG thread).

From photographic evidence, there are certainly 3 and 4 story buildings around the Arnhem bridge.

http://www.hill107.net/battle-of-arnhem-resources/archive-photos/

Furthermore, there is an issue in regards to AFV being on the bridge and firing down.

But, this is typical of BF's handling of issues. In the recent case of the machinegun modeling, BF pontificates about it's 'combined arms design' philosophy and the intricate interplay of weapons systems and gameplay and other BS. But gun elevation/depression? Nope, ain't gonna do it. Obviously it doesn't come into this combined arms design parameters sphere of thought. So, I suppose StuGs will be able to roll up right next to 4 story buildings and blast off the top floor?

So, will MG and the 2.01 patch create more problems than it solves? How will it handle the 'Ping-Pong' table surface of those long bridges? It should be interesting.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mdtmoqLHWk1qz9tkeo1_500.jpg

 

[Redwolf]

I was always against implementing max gun depression. While there would be some realism gain (in particular T-34s realistically) it would create a nightmare to find firing positions, especially hulldown ones. The player would be unable to, in an unrealistic manner, and the AI would be hopeless.

I think limiting max gun elevation with a flat max would do more good than harm, though. At least there's no city blasting that way.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

I was always against implementing max gun depression. While there would be some realism gain (in particular T-34s realistically) it would create a nightmare to find firing positions, especially hulldown ones. The player would be unable to, in an unrealistic manner, and the AI would be hopeless.

I think limiting max gun elevation with a flat max would do more good than harm, though. At least there's no city blasting that way.

I disagree. Even though I am, again, not sure what you are saying...but I am pretty sure I disagree.

The game needs to have fidelity in the z-axis. Steve 'rails' against ping-pong tables yet likes his clunkiness in the vertical dimension.

There are, of course, abstractions that might address these issues but the anal-retentive-slippery-slopes must be adhered to.