Will upcoming patch require past scenarios to be upgraded?

Discussion in 'Command Ops Series' started by HelmutHerr, Dec 7, 2017.

  1. HelmutHerr

    HelmutHerr Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2017
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello,

    After playing the Core games, I'm anxious to purchase the CO2 Commander Pack and read about the upcoming patch. If I were to make the purchase before the patch is released would the scenarios then need to be upgraded?

    Thanks,
    Matt
     
  2. Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor

    Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor Panther Games Designer

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2014
    Messages:
    2,925
    Likes Received:
    278
  3. HelmutHerr

    HelmutHerr Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2017
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Am i correct in assuming that there will be a cost to upgrade the previous scenarios to accommodate the new patch? If so, it would be great if there was some kind of grace period offered to folks who purchase scenario packs within a limited window before a patch releases. I've been enjoying the free scenarios and had cash in hand to drop on the rest but it doesn't make sense for me to do so now. Just my 2 cents.
     
  4. Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor

    Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor Panther Games Designer

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2014
    Messages:
    2,925
    Likes Received:
    278
    Good point. There will be a small upgrade fee. I have yet to consult with LNL to work out what that will be. The upgrade will include a few new minor features. I'll take up the matter of a grace period with LNL too. Thanks for raising this.
     
  5. panzerpit

    panzerpit Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2014
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    5
    Hi Dave!
    I must have missed something... I know we have to pay for modules. You have also clearly stated that after releasing a new major version of core game engin we will have to purchuse all modules once angain. So... Do you treat upcoming patch as a new release of core engine or is it a new pricing policy and in the future we will have to pay for each patch? I thought new major version of core engine would include an implementation of features required for eastern front scenarios (e.g. Mounted Opps)...
     
  6. Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor

    Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor Panther Games Designer

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2014
    Messages:
    2,925
    Likes Received:
    278
    This is not a minor patch. The changes we have made are significant. Every data file has to be converted. We've spent a lot of time on these changes. As I said they will involve new features. I'm not in the business of doing all this work for nothing. I need to make enough money to continue this development. So yes, there will be a small fee to upgrade all your data. It will be one fee for whatever data you own. It won't be onerous. I have yet to confirm the amount with LNL but I'm thinking in the order of $10. If you don't want it then fine. You won't be required to upgrade.
     
  7. rocketman

    rocketman Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2016
    Messages:
    100
    Likes Received:
    3
    OK then, 10 bucks set aside for you :)
     
  8. GoodGuy

    GoodGuy Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2015
    Messages:
    218
    Likes Received:
    24
    I am guessing mounting/dismounting of troops is not part of the patch?
    How much (in USD) would it cost to hire a programmer to add such a feature?
     
  9. Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor

    Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor Panther Games Designer

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2014
    Messages:
    2,925
    Likes Received:
    278
    Goodguy,

    That's right. It's not part of the patch. The cost depends on what's included. There's a number of prerequisites that need to be done. They are sequential tasking, NAIs and Triggers. I estimate that to do it properly it would take around 40 weeks full-time work for someone who knows the code well. You are not going to give this to a junior programmer. So I would say you're looking at a rate in AUD of around $125 per hour. So that's 40 x 40 x 125 = 200,000 = USD 160,000. You could get it done for less if you were offering them a longer contract. But no matter which way you cut it, it's a lot of money.

    Let's face it, the only way this is going to happen is if we get a contract with the military; some generous angel puts up the money, knowing there's little prospect of getting a good return; or I continue to subsidise everyone's entertainment by not drawing a salary.
     
  10. col.sanders

    col.sanders Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    10
    In My view this is without a doubt the best ww 2 operational game on the market,I will be more than happy to pay for any patch you apply,I really am impressed with your work.It really is an amazing effort.
     
  11. GoodGuy

    GoodGuy Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2015
    Messages:
    218
    Likes Received:
    24
    Is sequential tasking necessary? What are NAIs?
    What about some crowdfunding for a stripped down set of features?
    Did you offer it to the Bundeswehr and British Army?
    What about West Point? The USMC was using a special version of Close Combat at one point, back then, for tactical combat teaching.
     
    #11 GoodGuy, Dec 8, 2017
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2017
  12. Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor

    Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor Panther Games Designer

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2014
    Messages:
    2,925
    Likes Received:
    278
    Yes it is.

    Named Areas of Interest. These are needed for the triggers. Triggers are needed for sequential tasking.

    This is the stripped set of features and I don't see crowd funding putting up this type of money. Hey, I could be wrong. But show me a wargame that that can muster more than a few people willing to fund it.

    I haven't approached the German's or Brits directly, but both will be aware of Command Ops. I've made presentations to NATO. I've been putting forward proposals to the Australian and US military for years now. Most fall on deaf ears. To date, I would have to say that there are very few senior officers in the military that know what an AI can and cannot do and even fewer who can trust an AI. You need senior officers because they can approve funding. So it's an uphill battle. But I keep plugging away, praying that one day, one of them will have the foresight, the insight and the courage to champion it through the labyrinth that is the military. But I'm not getting any younger.
     
  13. GoodGuy

    GoodGuy Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2015
    Messages:
    218
    Likes Received:
    24
    Understood.
    Well, you never know. But you won't get 6 figures, that's right, there are not enough bells and whistles (3D) in there for the youngsters.


    I wouldn't be surprised if the Brits would be aware, but I doubt that the Germans are aware of it, especially with the restructuring of the ordnance departments after the G36 scandal. If you'd like help contacting the ordnance office (Bundesamt für Ausrüstung, Informationstechnik und Nutzung der Bundeswehr), let me know. Also, the EU just agreed on strengthening and expanding the EDA (European Defense Agency), as the full NATO committment of the US isn't a self-seller anymore. Therefor, the EU is trying to get less dependent on NATO during the next few years, starting with a European rapid deployment force (it will easily take a decade until such force will be ready), so they will need training facilities for officers, imho.

    You could also approach India's and China's military, no?
     
  14. Rosseau

    Rosseau Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2015
    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    6
    After spending hundreds of dollars beginning with AA:HttR, what's another $10? I just wish it got here quicker than two years. But so do you, I am sure! I will buy the next module and the patch.

    However, I do assume that those who have the base game and all the current modules can continue to play without the update?
     
  15. Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor

    Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor Panther Games Designer

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2014
    Messages:
    2,925
    Likes Received:
    278
    Correct.
     
  16. john connor

    john connor Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2014
    Messages:
    1,916
    Likes Received:
    102
    'Let's face it, the only way this is going to happen is if we get a contract with the military; some generous angel puts up the money, knowing there's little prospect of getting a good return; or I continue to subsidise everyone's entertainment by not drawing a salary.'

    A depressing prognosis. Means we're probably never going to get mounted ops, I guess. At least, not if it requires all those complicated prerequisites. But if this is the prognosis, I wonder can there really not be some quick and dirty solution which does not involve NAIs and seq Tasking? That would be better than nothing, surely? It would mean that dismounting and mounting would always have to be done manually - not part of a sequence of moves/orders. I think it would even be ok if using it meant losing entirely the heavy weapons on the mounts for the duration of the dismount (converting a mobile counter to an infantry counter). It would be harder to cater for soldiers riding on tanks, perhaps? I'm not sure. Not if you accepted it all had to be done manually, perhaps. But mostly what I would feel the need of in current scenarios is the ability to send dismounted mobile infantry a short distance through terrain (or across water) that has a 0% mobile rating. It's not everything that a full mounted ops code would address, but it would be something very useful. Other far inferior games model this in one way or another. Even having different classes for tanks and carriers/trucks would help pretend we had something like mounted ops, because then you could just change the map values to let troop carriers only across certain terrain classes (albeit at a heavily penalised rate). Just thinking....
     
    #16 john connor, Dec 10, 2017
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2017
  17. GoodGuy

    GoodGuy Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2015
    Messages:
    218
    Likes Received:
    24
    Very interesting thoughts. Actually what you discuss is pretty much along the line I had in mind, when the new movement classes were introduced in COTA. Thing is, Dave is a perfectionist (that's what I think, at least). If I am right, then he doesn't like makeshift solutions for something that could be perfectly fleshed out, otherwise. While his perfectionism makes the game so awesome, it may also be the reason for never seeing dismounted ops, and that's what I am scared of, here.
    The introduction of 1 more class and a function that enables motorized INF units to switch to that new class ("motorized Inf on foot") when on the attack (and only when using the attack order), would probably do it already. The infantry would be able to enter woods or unfavorable terrain, while it is abstracted that the transport vehicles are parked somewhere. The time to reorg and start the attack could be seen as dismounting and getting their weapons ready.
    A routine in the code could then block the trucks so that they can't get destroyed/deducted during engagements, as motorized INF didn't bring their trucks to the battle. If then a move order is given (to get out of the woods) a check routine could check the underlying terrain (oh heck, woods!) and another routine could then use the attack code (with the "right" to move as foot unit in woods) to pick the nearest road, attack that point (the time needed for completion would simulate that the inf unit gets its shyte together, picks up weapons and ammo), and switch back to the wheeled class/mode again, once the road network has been reached.

    That would be sufficient. No fancy sequential tasking, no auto-something-luxury thing, "just" a class switch (I am not a programmer, so whatever routine or object class would be needed). Dave mentioned in 2011 (over at Matrix), during a discussion about the East Front game, the following, though:

    So, I guess it's quite some work, not sure if such makeshift solution would be feasable (or satisfying for Dave). But I am convinced that the players would be happy.
    Personally, I don't need a luxury version of dismounted ops, and I think many other players wouldn't need it either. I just wish for something that lets me enter woods with INF, light woods with tanks. No need for sequential tasking if you just implement the ability to enter woods, and aside from real dismounted ops.

    I still play HTTR here and there, as I can tweak the maps, giving Wood terrain very low movement modifiers, so that it takes tanks hrs and hrs to cross woods. This way, I can still access woods in HTTR, but with halfway realistic speeds (tanks had to use tracks and small paths, they had to avoid very soft terrain in woods, and they could get stuck, etc.), and motorized Inf gets the same effect: Their movement is like movement of foot units (or even worse), in such modified woods.
    In "my" HTTR woods, tanks move either with the same speed or even a tick slower than infantry (would have to check, can't remember atm) in dense woods, as well as all wheeled units.

    For the Battle of the Bulge, the initial German operational plan orded tank units to move at night and on particular pre-defined roads (which was one reason for the various traffic jams), only. Despite the very flexible leadership during early stages of the war, Model/Rundstedt then indeed tried to detail each and everything, due to their fear that Allied tactical bombers could trash their tanks. Some units then actually waited followed these orders (when the weather cleared up, and when Allied Air Power kicked in again) in light and dense woods (frozen ground), near road networks, until nightfall and then redeployed or dashed forward. In the game, you have to park your tank groups in the open, basically.

    The introduction of wheeled and foot (and horse-drawn? is that an independent class, or just a tweaked foot class?) classes made some aspects more realistic, but they reduce the realism when it comes to motorized INF units and to the players (in)ability to flank through or defend in woods, or to rush in with wheeled units in an attempt to confine groups of stragglers.
    Such mot. units are then just destined to wait at the edges of the woods, praying that the enemy comes out and presents himself on a silver plate.

    @ Dave: is such a stripped "dismount-simulator"-makeshift solution feasable, and how much work would that involve?

    [​IMG]
     
    #17 GoodGuy, Dec 10, 2017
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2017
  18. Tzar007

    Tzar007 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2017
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    3
    I just bought the Commander Pack 2 on Steam yesterday (that's all 7 modules at 181$ Canadian dollars), so I do hope there will be some grace period for very recent buyers.

    Mind you, 10$ isn't the end of the world and I very much wish this game to eventually get to the Eastern front theater so if I need to pay a little more to keep Dave and team well paid, i'll gladly do.
     
  19. john connor

    john connor Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2014
    Messages:
    1,916
    Likes Received:
    102
    'Mind you, 10$ isn't the end of the world and I very much wish this game to eventually get to the Eastern front theater so if I need to pay a little more to keep Dave and team well paid, i'll gladly do.'

    Good buy, as it is, I think, Tzar007. However, I doubt we could say Dave is 'well paid' from sales of this game, sadly. It's a specialist game in a niche market. A niche within a niche, they say. And to get to the East Front it seems we would need to raise around $120,000, from what Dave has said above, as EF requires mounted ops and mounted ops requires that much coding.....But, like you, I live in hope....
     
  20. Tzar007

    Tzar007 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2017
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    3
    I agree, I said "well paid", but I guess "barely paid" is probably closer to reality. But I've never been reluctant to pay for well done games, I bought HTTR in 2004, bought COTA, BFTB and now Command Ops 2 without regrets. It is such a unique wargaming experience, it's even surprising to me how few, if any, use the same philosophy of not forcing the player to micromanage hundreds of units over hexes.
     
    Bie likes this.

Share This Page