Battlefront's CM x 2 Roadmap

[KG_Jag]

This is the thread:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=84156

This is how Battlefront started it:

Hi all,

In another thread someone asked about our plans now that CM:SF Marines is out. This question came up in second thread, and I think even a third one, this week. So I guess I should post my response here and sticky this thread for a while.

Our plan is to release a Module every 3-4 months. This should hold true for the British Module as well, but this is the first Module that we've not done "in-house" so there are some variables. Personally, I think things are going VERY well.

There are many threads on this Forum, some dating back several years, that explain the development philosophy we now have. Here is a very quick overview:

Title Release This is a major release, such as CM:SF and the initial CM:Normandy (name is still a placeholder) game. These are full priced products ($45 most likely) that offers enough game content to warrant that price. Specifics are based vary, but generally speaking shifts in geographical setting, timeframe, major shifts in units, fairly big new features, etc. combine to create a new Title.

Module Something that builds directly off of a Title product. Usually in the form of new units only, but not necessarily limited to that. For example, a game feature may be added because a new vehicle requires some sort of behavior not present in the game up until that point. However, such game features are specific to the needs of that Module.

Family this refers to a Title and its Modules.

Updates, be they bug fixes or improvements, to the game itself are always made to the Title product. This way you will never, ever have a situation where two people are playing different games because of what Modules they do, or do not, own. The fixes/improvements may be more applicable to one Module or another, but that's incidental and not really relevant.

Bug fixes and tweaks to things specific to a Module are released as their own stand-alone patches. For example, if we find that a bit of data is wrong for a Marines only vehicle, then we will release a Marines patch specifically to address that problem. This is necessary because the Modules are separate EXEs with their own data and supporting resources. Again, such fixes/tweaks are specific to Module content and therefore don't affect gameplay in any general sense like patches to the Title do.

Our plan is to make Module releases every 3-4 months, Title releases every 12 or so. Patches are released on an "as needed" basis with no hard cutoff in mind. At some point we'll say "this particular product is no longer supported" just like we eventually did with CMx1 games. However, since the basic code is going to be in use for such a long time it is possible that if someone pulls the rug out from under us that we will be able to offer a fix even if the game is several years old. In other words, if OpenGL 5 in the future breaks something we use now, we'll have to fix the code we're currently working with to use OpenGL 5 correctly. Those changes will hopefully be viable for us to offer previous customers, even if technically speaking their products are not supported. This was simply not possible with CMx1 since the code was not in use by the time various technology changes caused problems.

And this related post from a different thread from a few days ago:

The second [WW2 Title, WW2 Normandy being the first] will pick up where Normandy leaves off and go through the end of the war. Because of the terrain, weather, and equipment changes in the Fall of 1944, what follows is basically an entirely different game from our perspective. Far too much for Modules to handle.

What this means is that after the initial Normandy release is out one group will be busy making Modules for it (British in Normandy, Arnhem, etc.) while the usual suspects start working on the late war stuff. This allows us to not only do the big changeover correctly, but it also gives us the time needed to continue adding major game enhancements to the system as a whole.

One of the major benefits of the new Module system is that we can stop having the grunt work (adding TO&E, models, art, scenarios, campaigns, etc.) compete with improving the game engine itself. From the customers' perspective this is great because there is both a steady flow of new stuff to play as well as a steadily improving game engine all within a fairly compact amount of time compared to CMx1. It also keeps us from burning out trying to do too much all at once, which is great for us but also good for you guys since happy developers are more productive developers.

And now for something new http://www.battlefront.com/community/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

In about 2003 we set up our strategy described above. IIRC we told you guys about it in 2005, and took quite a bit of flak for it. Still do http://www.battlefront.com/community/images/smilies/biggrin.gif Some people simply don't understand that the CMx1 strategy was an unsustainable concept for us and that it had to change. If we were given a choice between doing more CMx1 games, or repeating that strategy, and making no games at all... we'd make no games at all. Yup, it was far more fun for you guys playing them than it was for us to make them. Fortunately, we chose to make CMx2 instead of applying for "real" jobs.

Now that our first Module is out, it is a fair question to ask... "so, how goes the new strategy?". I'm pleased to say that the doom sayers, who predicted before and after CM:SF was released that the new concept would fail, are wrong. It was just wishful thinking on their part http://www.battlefront.com/community/images/smilies/wink.gif The fact is that we sold more Marines Modules in the first 3 days post release than we expected to sell in its lifetime. Yup! And believe me, our sales predictions were not pessimistic. So here's a big thanks to you guys out there for the first tangible vote of confidence that we're headed in the right direction.

[note. The following two paragraphs were added on 10.7.08]The CMx2 game engine is not a monolithic product with a set of features that basically remain unchanged over the life of the engine itself. That was the way we did things with CMx1 and it was, largely, out of necessity because the code was difficult to work with. Instead, CMx2 is designed to evolve over time. Features we don't have time for today might show up tomorrow. Stuff that people aren't as thrilled about now will possibly be changed later. Things that people see as having great potential will be expanded upon, while features that don't seem to get people's hearts beating will not be expanded upon. So on and so forth.

The point is the game engine is an ever evolving platform for our wargaming hobby. It will never, ever have everything you guys want to see in it, but it will continue to have more than any other game company is willing (or even capable of) providing. Some will be unhappy with specific decisions we make, others will be overjoyed about the very same ones. The first rule of wargaming design work is to realize that you can't make everybody happy, therefore someone is always going to be upset. Focus on the wrong group and that will be the last game you make. Fortunately, we get to make that decision since it's our butts on the line http://www.battlefront.com/community/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

As you can hopefully see from the above posts, we're really just starting the CMx2 strategy. By this time next year things will really be in full swing. A little behind schedule (we spent about 1 year longer making CM:SF than anticipated, 2 years if you include the patches up through v1.10), but time is on our side now. The ever evolving CMx2 game engine will keep on going, evolving and improving as we go instead of stagnating and perishing like the old inflexible and difficult to use CMx1 code.

Thanks again for your feedback and dedication!

Steve

[KG_Jag]

From Battlefront's post #26 later in the thread:

Thanks guys!

To answer the main question about the splitting up of the Western Front. There are several reasons for this:

1. TO&E. Around the Fall and early Winter all forces in Europe underwent significant tweaking, especially the Germans. These changes varied from rather small stuff to rather large things, such as the German's late war formations which had major compromises due to shortages.

2. Equipment. Most vehicles that were still in use by the late war period in the exact same form as they were in Normandy, others were completely new. Some were fairly minor variants, such as adding armor to a Sherman or Panther, others were brand new, like M36 Jackson or M24 Chaffee. To a lesser extent this is also true for some non-vehicular weapons, such as the Panzerfaust 100 and of course the more exotic stuff towards the end of the war (like the Pak44).

3. Weather. Winter weather effects and graphics are, of course, a completely different thing from Summer and Fall. Spring is similar to Fall for the most part, though there are some differences. Textures for vehicles also need to be different, so even when we reuse the same models we have to at least change the textures.

4. Architecture. Buildings encountered along the border of Germany, and on either side, are very different than the ones found in Normandy. These things involve not only new textures, but new models AND likely new coding (though probably not much).

5. New game features. New Titles mean we have to put in new game features. If we don't make any new Titles, then you don't get any new game features. Simple equation http://www.battlefront.com/community/images/smilies/wink.gif So it makes sense to us that by the time 12 months post Normandy rolls around you guys will want some new game features to play with. The logical place to do that is with this Title.

6. New "in the box" battles and Campaign. These would go into a Module, of course, but will also go into a Title.

In the end it is no one single thing, rather it is a combination of everything. What you basically get is more content than you would with a Module, by far, plus new game features. So you can think of it as a $25 Module with $20 worth of new features and graphics that we wouldn't put into a Module.

Hope that helps!

Steve

Link to page where post appears:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=84156&page=3

[KG_Jag]

More Battlefront posts from page four of the thread:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=84156&page=4

One of the best things about our strategy is that it is not dependent upon every customer buying every single Module. In fact, we definitely expect people to be choosy. That would suck for everybody if we didn't offer many things to choose from, hence why we're determined to not let that happen http://www.battlefront.com/community/images/smilies/wink.gif If Modern isn't your cup of tea, or the thought of British tanks in Normandy bores you to tears, no problemo. Just sit back and wait for something that gets you excited.

I should have added that we will release a Demo for each Title and each Module. We're a little behind on doing that for Marines, but we will get to it very soon. This is still a learning process for us in terms of how to juggle the various needs of a Module.

Over time we will take the Modules and bundle them in with the base game or with each other. We've already done this with CM:SF and Marines. Over time the pricing will drop somewhat, though not the way the cutthroat retailers do it. As many of you might remember, there was one British retailer that was selling CM:SF at the wholesale price before we had even released the game! We still don't know how they can make out on doing that, but that's their standard MO. It is so much fun being involved with retail where you're product is like a new car... worth less than you paid for it before the ink is even dry on the contract. Grr!!

On that point, retail is not something we've completely written off. We had great success with it in the past, including a simultaneous release of CMAK. But things are changing for the worse in retail. Publishers are paying less for product and yet demanding more from them. That is in part because retail is even less interested in keeping full price point than they were before, which is really hard for us to believe. Today only a few products manage to stay away from the bargain bin for even a small amount of time by wargame standards. Our games are strong for years, but retail measures strength in weeks. Not good.

Back to the specific question about what vehicles we might throw into WW2 Modules... too early to get specific, however I will say that YES... the Module system was very much designed so that we can afford to offer wacky stuff. We've always heard from people "damn, I'd pay all kinds of money to play around with a Maus or an E-100!". Well, although we have made no specific selections for any WW2 release outside of the initial Normandy game, I can say that you guys will get your wish in at least a general way (i.e. wacky stuff).

Oh, and remember this. It's so important that I should have put it in the initial comments, so I'm going to edit it in:

The CMx2 game engine is not a monolithic product with a set of features that basically remain unchanged over the life of the engine itself. That was the way we did things with CMx1 and it was, largely, out of necessity because the code was difficult to work with. Instead, CMx2 is designed to evolve over time. Features we don't have time for today might show up tomorrow. Stuff that people aren't as thrilled about now will possibly be changed later. Things that people see as having great potential will be expanded upon, while features that don't seem to get people's hearts beating will stay as they are. So on and so forth.

The point is the game engine is an ever evolving platform for our wargaming hobby. It will never, ever have everything you guys want to see in it, but it will continue to have more than any other game company is willing (or even capable of) providing. Some will be unhappy with specific decisions we make, others will be overjoyed about the very same ones. The first rule of wargaming design work is to realize that you can't make everybody happy, therefore someone is always going to be upset. Focus on the wrong group and that will be the last game you make. Fortunately, we get to make that decision since it's our butts on the line http://www.battlefront.com/community/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

Steve

[KG_Jag]

Battlefront's posts on page 6 of the thread:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=84156&page=6

CMx2 will head East after the 2nd Western Front Title. The first Eastern Front Title will be centered around Bagration. How much the Modules will expand upon that is unknown at this point. Too early to say. What will happen after Bagration is also not known because it is too far down the road, though it will likely be a second Eastern Front Title.

Wrath of Dagon,

We have no plans to make a large scale "meta campaign" system for CMx2. It's too much work for too little payback. Don't get me wrong, we fully understand and appreciate why some people want this, but from a development standpoint it is outside of our scope. CMx2 is a TACTICAL wargame. We could easily put another 10 years into improving just the tactical elements, so a major shift to operational is not desirable from our perspective.

Smaragdadler,

CMx1 had a full range of weather and weather related effects, such as varying densities of snow and rain. The same will be true for CMx2. Appropriate weather effects are added as we go along.

It's too early to commit to specific stuff going into any one particular Module or Title. I can only repeat what I said above... the new strategy does not preclude us from adding any specific thing. Therefore, theoretically even super rare things like Vampire and what not could be included at some point.

Elmar is correct when he says:

Quote:
Because they'd have to sell it at a cheap price. I don't think it's financially worthwhile for BFC to have Charles work on something that takes development time away from the real money spinners.
It is impossible to just "open the code" to someone. It needs a lot of explanation and work on our part to get anything to a practical state. We don't see this as a wise use of our resources. At least not in the near future. A far better use of resources would be doing something like CoPlay since it also changes the entire game BUT it is within the tactical paradigm CM is designed for.

HOWEVER... let me clarify something.

I took the original question to mean a "meta-campaign" where multiple people are playing tactical battles within the context of a much larger scale conflict. Much the way CMC is set up to do. This is the sort of thing we don't feel we have time to do and that it is outside of our intended scope.

An improved, and greatly expanded, campaign system within the tactical game system... that's definitely something we're going to do. Much like how Normandy will introduce a much improved/enhanced Quick Battle system, at some point (probably right after) we'll apply the same focused development on the Campaign system within CMx2. This has always been our plan.

The problem for us, as developers, is that you guys what a huge amount of features and to have each one, individually, be the best that it can be. This is simply impossible for us to do all in one go. We've been clear about that for years now. Therefore, with each major CMx2 release we will focus the bulk of our attention on a specific piece, or two, of the game and bring it to the next higher level. Or better yet, move it a few levels higher up at once. As I said, for CM: Normandy the focus is on the temperate environment and Quick Battles. For the next Title we'll focus on something else, then something else for the Title after that, etc.

This is what I mean about an ever evolving game engine. Eventually you will get the game that does most everything and does it equally well in all parts. The great thing about our strategy is you'll get opportunities to play for the next 5 years instead of sitting around and waiting for the "final" version. Or, if you are one of the few that thinks this is one long pay-to-play beta test... no problem. Don't buy anything we make in the next 5 years, then buy the "final" version when we announce it. Problem solved, everybody's happy. Or at least everybody should be happy http://www.battlefront.com/community/images/smilies/wink.gif

Steve

[KG_Jag]

Two relevant posts on page seven:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=84156&page=7

Wrath of Dagon,


Quote:
Actually all I meant was a single player op-level campaign map. I have no interest in on-line. So are there any campaign improvements planned along those lines?
Absolutely! The current campaign system is much better than the one in CMx1, which actually didn't have a campaign system per se. We always rejected that term, in fact, since Operations (as we called them) were definitely not Campaigns. But to say that the Campaign system we have now is the best that it can be, forever more, is definitely not something we've ever said. It's a decent campaign system, but there is room for improvement.

Keep in mind that whatever we do for a campaign system it will definitely not make everybody equally happy. Campaigns are one of those things which can go down several different, and distinct, philosophical paths. These paths are generally incompatible with each other. Since we will never have the time to make several fully fleshed out campaign systems, by definition whatever we do choose will not appeal to some group. It's just the way things go. Therefore, what we have to do is identify the best system we can make that is true to the game's philosophy, our time budget, and which will satisfy the largest chunk of our customer base and do that. Those people who don't like it will just have to suck it up and deal with it because we never have been, and never will be, capable of making everybody equally happy. It's a fools' game that we don't play.

Meach,

While we have already, and will continue, to work some improvements into CM:SF that are earmarked for Normandy, such features will always be made available to the entire customer base through a general patch. However, at this point in time we are basically done expanding the basic capabilities of CM:SF, so there won't be much new functionality added to it over the next year. Tweaks and fixes, yes, but not new stuff.

Malaspina,

Quote:
Any plans for a Pacific Theater Title?
Not specifically, however unlike CMx1 it is a possibility. We do feel the game engine can handle the PTO without radical overhaul, so it could be viable to make a PTO product. For CMx1 it was way too much work for too few sales.

However, as with ANY idea of what to do with the game engine... we have limited time and therefore we must choose what we do very carefully. I can say that at present there are no plans for PTO over the next couple of years. We wouldn't mind that changing, however at present we don't see how it is possible that we can.

Steve

[KG_Jag]

Battlefront on page eight:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=84156&page=8

Flamethrowers are planned. They might not be the most important weapon to simulate from a historical use standpoint, then again neither is half the German stuff we're obligated to include http://www.battlefront.com/community/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

Desert... yes, I think at some point. However, I don't know when. The optimal time to do it would be around the same time as a 1942/1943 Eastern Front game since there is a lot of equipment overlap.

M1TC, do you mean "motion capture"?

Motion capture studio time is mucho expensive. It's also difficult to do in one pass as mistakes/omissions will likely be made during the first pass.

We have no plans to any early war stuff, but then again we aren't ruling it out. It's just not on our immediate horizon.

Steve

[KG_Jag]

Page nine:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=84156&page=9

There will definitely not be a return to the CMx1 Operations. The whole problem with "campaigns" is the vast array of possible designs and the fact that people generally only like one or two types. This means that no matter what design we go with there will be people upset with our choice. Operations were generally not well received by the full CMx1 customer base. That is why in 2001 or so we decided that we were going to abandon the concept. It simply was too much work to get it functional for too few people. Now that CMx2's Campaign system is out for people to kick around, we know we made the right decision.

While CMx2's campaign system can use some improvements (nothing we've ever made escapes that statement), generally the new system has been received far better than the old one. This is not surprising to us at all, since that's why we chose the current CMx2 format over the old CMx1 format. So instead of frittering away our valuable time making very minor improvements (we were past the point of diminishing returns on Operations from a programming standpoint) to a system that wasn't very popular, we are instead spending less time and making larger improvements on a system that is far more popular.

One thing we will eventually put into the game is "persistent damage" between battles. It's a non-trivial thing to do and it really has limited applications, but we do understand why some people want to see it. Therefore, it's on the list but not very high up. Plenty of other good stuff is ahead of it.

We recognize the desirability of watching the whole game as one long movie. For RealTime this is definitely not practical without a second computer hooked up as a recording device. The amount of disk interaction is just too prone to causing stuttering due to the demands of the game plus disk IO.

For WeGo it is more practical since the data is generated and stored to disk before the actual action starts. However, having one uninterrupted, continuous playback of a battle is a big departure from what goes on right now. The way things are the 60 seconds worth of action is loaded in one chunk, not streamed. From a programming standpoint the two are very different, with streaming being much more complicated and prone to error.

What this means is that we would LOVE to do it, but we don't know when it will be practical to tackle. In theory it is possible, it's just not necessarily practical.

Steve

[Palantir]

This is still with the "RT" system that you have to stop every 5 seconds to give good orders to your troops & not make it a click fest?

[KG_Jag]

What follows are my initial thoughts, having concentrated on what Steve posted (and what he did not):

1. Battlefront's brand (read CM x 1) brought them a great many sales of CMSF in the first days of its release. After that--my guess is that sales tanked due to the legend of problems and deficiencies, all of which have been discussed in great detail on these boards and on many others.

2. Battlefront is two years behind in its business plan. It is a year behind what it expected to put out after CMSF was released.

3. The game engine will not essentially change. So the CM x 1 fans who prefer WEGO and large games will probably not see much improvement in these areas beyond the current state of CMSF.

4. Creating the various terrain and weather involved in the summer and fall of 1944 will be a major undertaking from what we have seen in CMSF. So I don't expect to see much new in Normandy except some yet unspecified changes in QB's.

5. Once we move away from each Title Release, there will be a further and continuing fracturing of the gaming community. Battlefront agrees that each person will own a differing array (if any) of modules for each title game.

6. In the CM x 2 WW2 world, the first Family developed will essentially, as a package, cover the same subject matter as CMBO. The second Family is unknown, but will remain on the "Western" Front. My guess is a period of the war in Italy. The third family will turn to the Eastern Front late in the war and start with Bagration. The five year plan does not include any PTO games.

7. My magic 8 ball tells me to expect to see the release of Normandy in late 2009. An optimistic forecast for the release of the following WW2 title games is 1 1/4 to 1 1/2 years after the one before it. This assumes no major problems with the Title games and the third party modules that requires Charles to pull away from what he is slated to do.

8. I and most others are glad to hear that each Title and module is supposed to have a demo--hopefully issued contemporaneously or before the release of the title/module to which it pertains. Like most others in the CM x 1 community, Battlefront will not get my money until I can play the demo. If the demo doesn't work properly or fails to engage my interest, there will be no sale.

9. My current level of interest in the WW 2 CM x 2 is higher than for the Marines, which I don't plan to buy, but much lower than it was for each of the CM x 1 titles.

10. I hope the Cm x 2 are great games of the type I enjoy playing. However, after the CMSF release debacle, I am more than a little skeptical and cautious. I was born in Missouri and they will have to show me before I spend another nickle.

[Palantir]

No matter how cool they say something is I just won't play or buy a click-fest tactical game, so I still didn't see anything that would prompt me to buy it.

[KG_Soldier]

I don't know, CCIII wasn't so much a click-fest. I think, however, there will be no way to keep up with really big battles.

[Palantir]

Can you imagine trying to play RT on just a 1x1 km map with 5-10,000 pts to control?
Jack that up to a 2x2 km map and forget it. Which is why they only give you those tiny CMx2 maps to "battle" on.

They can just forget about me buying a "new" CM even WW2 in RT or a "fake WeGo" system. If you HAVE to physically pause the game every 5 seconds to get in any real tactical control what’s the point? Just make the dang thing WeGo, they you can put in larger maps.

As it sounds & stands every CMx2 (WW2) battle will be on a football-field sized map. Just think- for only $50 you too can soon be recreating the Battle of Kursk with 5 tanks for that clump of trees.