Red Thunder announced!

Weasel · 02-04-2014, 08:41 AM,

(02-04-2014, 04:02 AM)BBrus Wrote: I'm disappointed, to be honest. I was expecting an early war game. A good base for a 40-42 (France, N. Africa) game is already done, yet they choose the eastern front (which is nice) but in 1944.

After a quick read of the TOE, it seems there will be no new vehicles for the axis, either. FT? OK, and eye-candy. I don't think we're getting burning terrain or buildings either.

I brought up France 40 on the BF forum and the response to it by players was very positive, seems like a lot of players would like to see another era besides 44 represented. Can't say I will get the Eastern front game until it drops down in price (way down). Maybe I put a bug in the BF developers ear about France 40 but most likely the next will be Africa...snore.

DB_Zero · 02-04-2014, 02:07 PM,

I'll get Red Thunder, but I would have liked 41-43 covered first. It would be nice to see 37mm door knocker shells bounce off of KV1s and T-34s.

France 1940, Greece, Norway and North Africa would be nice to see and no it won't be a snore. Come on you have the Americans in 42 to beat up on.

I suspect Red Thunder will be Red Meat Grinder.

BBrus · 02-04-2014, 10:22 PM,

(02-04-2014, 04:47 AM)A Canadian Cat Wrote: Hard man to please eh :-)

They chose the first game to be the end of the war for the obvious reason that they already had the majority of the German vehicles. That way we get to the eastern front faster. The game does have a bunch of new Soviet vehicles.

For development reasons it makes good sence to do it this way. Next game will the the year earlier. Now they have half or more of both the German and Soviet vehicles ready to go - just need to add some earlier ones. So we get that game faster. They are planning for incremental improvements to the game.

Don't forget the feature set, AI triggers, some support for fire etc.

You are right the don't have full support for fire yet but it will be there eventually.

I see why they developed the Russian front in '44, but are Soviet units and a few game engine improvements worth $55? It's a nice commercial move, I have to admit, selling an 'expansion' more expensive than some first line grand strategy titles.

France '40 is the 'biggest' forgotten front. Some units are already modelled, Pz III are already in the game, so are Pz II, and a some changes to the existing Mark IV and you have a IV D. Pak 36 done, German infantry done. Add a 38t and PzI and you pretty much have the German TOE done. Some French tanks are already modelled for the CMFI game, too.

It seems BFC chose 1944 for 'tactical balance' purposes, as stated in their website. I think the 'balance' thing should be up to the players and their rules while playing.

**A Canadian Cat** · 02-04-2014, 11:24 PM,

One way to think of their strategy is that as they go earlier and earlier in the east the get closer and closer to 1939-1940. By the time they are done with the first eastern game they will have lots of early German equipment they can leverage into a start of the war game. That's my hope anyway.

As for worth it - well I think so. Given that I play about an hour a day the months of play time I get for $55 makes it totally worth it. But hey if other people don't like that time frame or theater then it might not be worth it for them. Sorry you have to wait for more fun.

enigma6584 · 02-05-2014, 06:32 AM,

(02-04-2014, 10:22 PM)BBrus Wrote: I see why they developed the Russian front in '44, but are Soviet units and a few game engine improvements worth $55? It's a nice commercial move, I have to admit, selling an 'expansion' more expensive than some first line grand strategy titles.

Do you happen to know their (BF's) development costs? What they pay people for programming, artwork, time involved for research, tech equipment like computers, servers etc...? How do you know the $55 isn't the minimum needed to cover those costs? They need to make a profit as well or are you implying they should work for free? You say "a few game engine improvements" like coding is as simple as driving a car. It is not that simple.

(02-04-2014, 10:22 PM)BBrus Wrote: France '40 is the 'biggest' forgotten front. Some units are already modelled, Pz III are already in the game, so are Pz II, and a some changes to the existing Mark IV and you have a IV D. Pak 36 done, German infantry done. Add a 38t and PzI and you pretty much have the German TOE done. Some French tanks are already modelled for the CMFI game, too.

It is not so simple. Putting this all together is a rather large effort, and takes massive attention to detail. There is no plug & play involved.

(02-04-2014, 10:22 PM)BBrus Wrote: It seems BFC chose 1944 for 'tactical balance' purposes, as stated in their website. I think the 'balance' thing should be up to the players and their rules while playing.

They chose it for one primary reason.

Economical. Current game engine is geared, coded for late 43-through 44 dataset. Moving to a theater which continues this gives them a bigger bang for the development buck and allows them to use programming time to add in those features missing and thus improving the game engine. Once this massive work is completed and they have a very stable and feature full game engine, then they will be ready to move game engine to different time frame and use coding time, along with artwork expenses, map making etc. to pull off new TO&Es and make them work properly.

Weasel · 02-05-2014, 09:47 AM,

In other words slap some lipstick on that pig and call it a beauty queen. The problem is they just keep rehashing the same old stuff with a couple of new things thrown in (oh boy, AAA will finally shoot at aircraft, as it should have done from release day 1) and guys jump on the buying wagon. Reminds me of North American automakers, keep making junk but people buy it so why develop better.

Jobu88 · 02-05-2014, 09:13 PM,

Well let's just be happy they have a product they plan to support in the future, unlike the CMx1 games.

BBrus · 02-06-2014, 01:19 AM,

Enigma, you made it look as if I was about to give up CMx2 and burn all my CDs. Helmet Smile

I do know they are a business and their main aim is to make money, and we're potential costumers. I guess they have done their market research and have determined 55 USD is an adequate price (40€). To me, it seems too high for the coming changes and additions. Maybe I'll try the demo and I'll have so much fun moving T-34s around that $55 will seem OK.

Game development is not plug and play nor easy or cheap, but it's not the same to build a KV-2 from scratch than to modify a PzIIIg to make it become a IIIf. Attention to detail is nice but what would be of the CMx2 vehicles if it wasn't for the user made skins.

I honestly don't know how a game engine can be coded for a particular year in WWII. I mean, the 'physics' should be the same, and there's a good bunch of early war equipment in game.

cargol · (This post was last modified: 02-07-2014, 04:10 PM by cargol.)

I admit that 55$ is a bit expensive for a single game but if i think how much money i have saved by not buying other games,as CMx2 is dominating my free(game) time ,it's worth purchasing it.

enigma6584 · 02-06-2014, 07:11 AM,

(02-05-2014, 09:47 AM)Weasel Wrote: In other words slap some lipstick on that pig and call it a beauty queen. The problem is they just keep rehashing the same old stuff with a couple of new things thrown in (oh boy, AAA will finally shoot at aircraft, as it should have done from release day 1) and guys jump on the buying wagon. Reminds me of North American automakers, keep making junk but people buy it so why develop better.

No, they are minimizing costs while improving the depth and sophistication of the code in the game engine. It takes time, it takes man-hours. People have to be paid. What don't you get?