CM2:Shock Force

[Leopard]

Hi folks,

look at this : http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=000289

[KG_ThorsHammer]

thanks for the post; not sure I like the forced US only campaign option, but there are also good points. Ill stick with my cmbb for quite a while i think:)

[GJK]

From the threads that I'm reading over there regarding it, I think the "Shock" is from the BFC forum regulars about the subject matter of the next game.

Personally, it doesn't interest me much. As someone said in one of those messages, it lacks history and with no history to relate to it becomes more of a combat sim instead of a traditional wargame - which I think is where BFC wants to go anyways. I guess I'm too old school, having a computer crunch numbers to show me if an Abrams takes out an entrenched T-72 in the desert just doesn't do it for me.

So, I'll stick with CM Classic© and playing board wargames via VASSAL and wait another several months to see what their next release will be.

[KG_Soldier]

My God! they've lost their minds I tell you!

[KG_Jag]

As I said over at Battlefront, I'm less than excited about their first game, but I will check out the demo and keep an open mind.

If the CMx2 engine is truly a quality product, it would make sense for the first release to be a WW II game in a time and place covered by CMBO, CMBB or CMAK. In that way there could be direct A vs. B comparisons of the two engines, even if the scales and some features were a bit different.

I agree that the lack of history and hypothetical nature of this brush war stuff does not have nearly the same appeal for me, regardless of who is fighting. The fact that this also appears to be desert based is less than enticing.

Space Lobsters may have been a better choice.

[KG_Kharkov]

Gag. I have zero excitement for this. Just another wargame even if it has the CMx2 engine. Who wants to fight the Syrians when you can fight the Germans?

I wonder how long before the ETO module gets released. Probably a year at least.

[KG_Swampfox]

@ Jag.... agreed on that, unless nuclear weapons are involved and the whole rotten area can be turned into glass

And make up some drawn butter for the space lobsters

[KG_Koz]

this is certainly a bummer. I can only hope that the second release occurs quickly. Oh well....at least I can continue to postpone upgrading my graphics card!

[KG_Jag]

So far about 7 pages of posts in the "Who's Disappointed" thread over at Battlefront in less than about nine hours.

Houston...I think that you have a problem.

[KG_Soldier]

Watch what you say. We are a reflection of KG as a whole and shouldn't express our opinions publicly if they might hurt BFC's or BTS' staffs' feelings. You could be censored.

[KG_Jag]

157 posts in less than 11 hours. Battlefront can say what they want. They have parted with their core consumers (aka minority segment of their customer base) in selecting their subject for their first--and because it's the first--most important CMx2 game. I really don't care if they are "burned out" with WW II. GM may be "burned out" with makng Chevys. But both are a business and must deliver a product that the customer wants.

Besides there are many other options for the subject of the initial offering other than a made up brush war conflict some two years in the future.

[Leopard]

Gag. I have zero excitement for this. Just another wargame even if it has the CMx2 engine. Who wants to fight the Syrians when you can fight the Germans? The Germans! ;)

Generally, I think is not correct to expect a desert battle like Africa Korps or a modern setting in Iran/Iraq, even if this Alpha Version(!) screen shots look like. Can one of you remember the Alpha screenshots of CMBO?

I wasn't very interested into CM before I played the CMBO Demo, that's 5 years ago now, since that day I have rarely played something different than BO, BB or AK.

The setting is indeed a big surprise and means that I have lost my arse in a bet (ouch...). But I have no problem with it. It's similiar to 'Operation Flashpoint', and this was a great game.

So I just wait for the demo before I make my judgement.

[KG_AGCent]

I for one am in agreement with Scipio. I was hoping for Kharkov (1, 2 or 3) or something along those lines, but the screenies look very nice and thank God for the ability to play Blue on Blue cuz I would have to turn down any game that would force me to play as a terrorist (another LARGE reason I don't do Counter Suck.) The demo ought to be out in a few monthesd. I'll play it to death then buy the retail version and play it to death.

[KG_Kharkov]

I'm very unlikely to buy it because it isn't historically based. If they had picked a historical conflict, I would be interested, but hypothetical conflicts against the Syrians just don't raise my interest level. I'd probably have even gotten excited if it was a hypothetical Red Storm Rising type game -- 80s war against Russia, but this is just boring to me.

Too bad. I hope it works out for them financially. Maybe we'll see a decent historical game with this engine by the end of 06.

[KG_Panzerschreck]

Here is a serious question for you all. Do you have to own Shock Force to be able to play the up and comming WW2 version? :questionm

[KG_Jag]

No--unless they change their minds.

[Full Monty]

I can't see it happening that way either. It would be an act of monumental crassness from BF!

[Leopard]

Here is a serious question for you all. Do you have to own Shock Force to be able to play the up and comming WW2 version? :questionm Defenetly no. CM:SF is a stand-alone product, the next realease will be a stand-alone product, too.

They will release add-ons to some of the stand-alone games, but you don't need CM:SF to play, shall we say, CM:Operation Overlord

[KG_Cloghaun]

No Kent,

There are main game releases and add on modules.

Shock Force is a main game which will have add-on modules in the future.

When the WW2 main game comes out, they will release modules for it.

Example A -

WW2 Main game "Allies 1944"

Module #1 Normandy
Module #2 Falaise Pocket (God I hope!!)
Module #3 The Ruhr Valley

* All units are backwards compatible. So any new infantry units that come out for the "Ruhr Valley" module, you'll be able to use in the "Falaise Pocket" module.

Now if a Civil War Main game comes out, you will not be able to use the "Normandy" module with it.

I'm going to buy Shock Force just to see how the game engine plays. I'm sure it'll be fun for a short while. However I'm obviously not interested in fighting Syrians :sleep: If they were going to do a more modern conflict I think Fulda Gap would've been really interesting. Oh well, while we wait for the WW2 game we'll have CMC!!

[KG_CrimsonTrooper]

However I'm obviously not interested in fighting Syrians :sleep:


WHAT.... you mean you never grew up thinking what it would be like to fight the Syrians? How sheltered are you! My dreams have come true....


Could these idiots have missed the boat that much?

[KG_Soldier]

Honestly, does anyone expect more than five percent of current hard core CMBB/AK players will really play more CMx2 than BB/AK. I'd say over eighty percent will just wait for the WWII version and continue playing as they do now and never even buy CMx2. It seems to me that the new campaign engine will only contribute to the number of people who don't buy CMx2. Of course, I could be wrong. My wife insists it happens okzionly.

[KG_CrimsonTrooper]

okzionly.

Ok Grammar Nazi.... what the hell is that?

[KG_CrimsonTrooper]

cuz I would have to turn down any game that would force me to play as a terrorist (another LARGE reason I don't do Counter Suck.) .

We all know the real reason is because you kept getting PWNED all the time...it had nothing to do with what side you were fighting on.

Honestly, you don't play games where you have to play "The Bad guys"?
WOW, we're total oppsites when it comes to games because I won't play a game that DOESN'T let me play as "The Bad Guys". I think it makes games more fun/realistic because in RL the bad guys don't always lose.

[KG_Jag]

Crimson--allow me to interpret for you: "from time to time."

[KG_Cloghaun]

The word "PWNED" has been entered into the KG rules & regulations book as a banned word. Any KG member using it or other such teenage nonsense will be put on probation until they complete a semester of english grammar 101.

:motz:

[KG_AGCent]

The word "PWNED" has been entered into the KG rules & regulations book as a banned word. Any KG member using it or other such teenage nonsense will be put on probation until they complete a semester of english grammar 101.

:motz:


Amen, Brother!

[KG_Panzerschreck]

The word "PWNED" has been entered into the KG rules & regulations book as a banned word. Any KG member using it or other such teenage nonsense will be put on probation until they complete a semester of english grammar 101.

:motz:
Im quite sick of seeing that "Phrase" as well.

[Leopard]

Sorry, but now I'm curios - what means 'PWNED'???

[KG_AGCent]

It is a "word" used by lazy and uneducated American teenagers. It is supposed to be "owned" but purposely misspelled. To be "owned" is to be of inferior playing ability.

[KG_Jag]

Yesterday I received my 12/05 edition of Computer Games magazine. On pages 28-29, there is an article about CM: Shock Force. It added precious little to the information that we knew about a month ago. In fact the only thing new to me is that a spring 2006 release date was cited.

[KG_Kharkov]

Scipio, here's the "official" meaning of PWN'D in all its various forms -- I too wondered what it was when i first started seeing it in games:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwnd

[KG_AGCent]

The second installment of the CMx2 series will be Europe 44.

[KG_Panzerschreck]

The second installment of the CMx2 series will be Europe 44.

Where did you get this info from?

[Palantir]

I'm certainly going to wait for the WW2 version.

Btw- my son is one of those who use that "banned word" but he still says "owned" & seems to be the one doing all the owning.

[KG_Jag]

Word was that at least the demo for SF would be released in the spring of 2006. While there are still 16 spring days left, it appears that once again Battlefront is behind on their own schedule. Despite several posts at their forum asking them the release date for both the demo and SF game, Battlefront has said nothing, at least nothing that I can find.

Here's a thread from the CMBB forum that talks about the release dates and captures the tepid enthusiasm by the long term CM players about SF:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=011459 (http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=011459)

Meanwhile the SF portion of the Battlefront web site continues its reputation for "mature" posts and deep thinking by many who bring their can of spray paint to post their "thoughts".

A question was asked about what WWII topic the second release under the CMx2 engine will cover. This is the October 8, 2005 answer from Battlefront:

"We won't be talking much about this project until after CM:SF is released for the simple reason that we can not afford to be distracted by something we aren't actively working on yet. What I can tell you is that the setting for the main title will be WWII set in western ETO 1944-45 time frame. Like CM:SF the player will be in command of a task force based around US forces. Follow up Modules will cover other Allied forces and settings within the same WWII western ETO setting."

It can be seen here:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=000289 (http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=000289)

[KG_Soldier]

Thank goodness for CMAk and CMBB!

[KG_Panzerschreck]

So we have pretty much seen the end of ever commanding German and Russian troops?

[KG_Jag]

No--but we have no time table with regard to when, or in what form/time of the war we will first see them again.

[KG_Panzerschreck]

Ive said it before and ill say it again, they have ruined this game.

[KG_Soldier]

No Kent, CMBB and CMAK are just fine.

[KG_Jag]

Here's the latest from Steve at Battlefront:

Posted by: Battlefront .com6/30/2006Martin has been bugging me to write something for this new blog thingy we have going. I guess I gotta do what he says. He is German after all (or Polish, he can't make up his mind!). Plus, the new pattern of June Monsoons that we have here in the Northeast US (you soccer moms out there, keep using those SUVs to buy a quart of milk!) has ruled out lazing in the sun all day like we game designers are prone to doing.
It's why games are always late, doncha know! Speaking of that, I'll move onto the topic at hand; Combat Mission: Shock Force development update.
Many of you out there have been with us long enough to know that we have a hard time getting anything out of the oven until we're 110% happy with the way it looks, smells, and tastes. Or something like that. Well, considering this is the game engine we plan on using for 5 or more games, this is not the time to change our ways. The side effect of this is things taking a lot longer than we imagined or would like. But the good news is we're just about at Beta. Probably 2 weeks more.
What does Beta mean for you all? Not much, other than I'll probably post some screenshots of some sort in the middle of July. I wanted to do it in the middle of June, but thanks to ATI's well known attention to detail when it comes to their drivers, that wasn't possible.
Charles has a video card that works and Dan and I have ATI cards. In order to get CM working well enough with smoke and dynamic lighting on my computer, Charles had to also acquire an ATI card so he could experience the broken graphics for himself. He did that this week (it involved buying a new system) and spent 2 full days working around ATI's brilliant "features" contained in the driver. He's almost done, then he can move on to finishing off the user interface work and bingo... I can take some shots for you guys.
The in-game art is still pretty rough at this point. Since this is a new game engine we've been spending all our time making sure everything works right before going ahead and doing a bunch of art. Back in my previous life of corporate game development they never understood this.
3 artists would crank out a small mountain of artwork only to have it thrown out a couple of weeks later when the development team figured out things weren't going to work that way after all. While it would be nice to have the money to burn on wasted efforts like this, we don't so we have to be smarter about how we do things. That means the game looks like an early Alpha even though it is nearing Beta, as opposed to the corporate games that look like Beta but are in fact early Alpha.
The dirty secret is we both ship based on what we call the game. You can figure out what that means on your own :-)
Well, I guess that about does it for my first Blogfront entry. Hope you found it entertaining. If you also find it enlightening, so much the better. For me, I'm just glad to get that German (or Polish) guy off my back. Hint to all you budding entrepreneurs out there... if you are a slacker by nature, don't hire a German (or apparently Polish) guy to run your company. Instead, go for someone who is happiest to let things be. Like an Australian. Dan (aka KwazyDog) NEVER bugs me for anything. Hmmm... maybe it is time for a management reshuffle at Battlefront? Hmmmm....
Steve

[KG_Jag]

For what it's worth, here's an edited version of the internal BF discussion of the subject:

"Posted by: Battlefront .com8/18/2006

Here is a hotly debated topic from a recent internal discussion about [B]Combat Mission Shock Force. It has to do with the use of civilian (looking) suicide cars or trucks.
The following snippets are comments from various people involved in the internal discussion we had over the course of a few days, reposted here in loose chronological order and with only a few edits.
The names of the participants have been edited out to protect the innocent ;-) (some you will no doubt recognize sooner or later, but with some you will most likely be wrong if you try to guess who it is), but each new post is marked with an > for easier readability.
Since the entire post is super-long, I am going to post this in several parts over the next few days.
Here goes... Part 1... Suicidal
>
One question I have about CMSF is with regards to suicide cars/trucks. Apparently, in Baghdad, these were used a LOT. Toyota pickups, Chevy Cavaliers and taxis, packed with explosives, were used in huge numbers to try and ram US vehicles and positions and then explode. They proved a constant threat and while they were usually taken out before they got within 100 meters of any US forces, they did cause some casulities when they exploded and wrecked or when secondary explosions cooked off. So, we going to model these? If they used them in Iraq, I am sure they would use them in Syria....
>
This opens up a can of worms, as does anything that is camouflaged as civilian.
The reason they work in real life (and often do not, mind you) is that they blend into normal traffic and there is no way to tell that the vehicle is any different than hundreds of others around it. If the suicide driver knows what he is doing, the first hint people will have that the car is a guided bomb is when it detonates. In CM:SF if we have Toyotas loaded with explosives driving around they will never get close to US forces because everybody will target them and blow the crap out of 'em prior to getting into range.
So how can we have suicide car bombers when we don't have civilian cars? I don't see it as being possible to do. I can't even see how we can abstract it.
>
The only way the suicide vehicles work in real life is when they masquerade as a civilian vehicle. Without civilian traffic (and just think of the AI that will be needed for that!) the tactic can NOT work in the game. Well, not in a way that anybody will buy.
>
There is NO question that having civilians in CM:SF would be massively awesome. The problem is there is no way to shortcut it, therefore it can't go in.
Now, onto my idea of how to get some of the civilian disguise element into the game...
The most important thing to simulate is intel gathering. The location and makeup of US forces is generally known long before they get to wherever they are going. Some guy on the street with a cell phone or looking out the window with a hardline phone or radio is all they need. The proposal to simulate this in CM:SF is to give the Syrians special single man "Spies". These guys are either static or mobile and simply spot like all other units. The trick is they are invisible to the US player under most MOUT circumstances. But the closer the US units get to the Spies, the more open the terrain, the greater the chance that the US forces will figure out that the guy is a Spy. This is determined behind the scenes. If the US does figure it out the Spy becomes visible and is fair game to shoot at.
What this means is that a Spy in the second story, stationary, has a very good chance of going undetected as US forces roll on by the window. However, if the Spy is walking around following the US forces there is a decent chance someone is going to notice and pop him one. Likewise, a Spy hiding out in date tree grove will likely have no less chance of being seen than a single man combat unit.
This is pretty elegant and is, on the whole, easy to simulate because it involves very few special rules and practically no AI (in fact, Static Spies require no AI at all). I want to extend this to IED Teams, and Bombers.
We COULD try to extend this to civilian cars, both as transport and as bomb platforms. The rules would be identical to the Spies, so in theory it shouldn't take much to get them into the game. However, in the past when I've thought about this I felt that the visual abstractions would not sit well with people. Not seeing a single guy can be rationalized even by skeptics, but a Toyota pickup coming right for you? Much harder for people to swallow for sure. But perhaps we can give it a try and see what the testers say.
>
Off-topic: Is the US player (and Syrian for that matter) going to receive some sort of penalty if they destroy every building in sight, depending on the scenario? In a way this could help abstractly model the fact that doing so is likely going to cause civilian casualties.
>
Yes. It's currently in the plan for the Victory Conditions setting (i.e. what % of buildings can be whacked before hurting the score). We are also allowing for certain buildings to be flagged as "no kills", meaning you aren't allowed to damage them. Ministry buildings, Mosques, or what have you can be specifically flagged if desired.

...to be continued"