Massive Combat Mission 2 bones here
Posted: 2005-01-22 06:16am
From a thread on battlefront.com:
I think Rune did a good job, but I'll add 2 bits
Why no announcements thus far, especially considering how we've done things in the past? Because we start talking about it you guys will (rightly so) expect a constant dialog and updates from us. We're simply not ready for this yet since CMx2 (i.e. the new engine) is in a state that doesn't offer much for us to show or discuss just yet. That will change shortly, but for now we're keeping quiet.
As for a "Big Announcement"... we're closer to that each day, but we'd really like to get a few more things ready before we do. However, do not confuse a lack of an announcement with a lack of a plan. The plan we've been following, in fact, was nailed down as CMBB development was finishing up. Yup... we've known what CMx2 and its first release would look like before you guys even played CMBB or CMAK. We think very far ahead! In fact, we have plans for the next 3 years of releases. And no, we're not going to tell you what those plans are either
Now, why aren't we spilling the beans? Partly because this sort of thing SHOULD be on a "need to know" basis. We are, after all, a company and it does us no favors to announce stuff to our potential rivals years before we do it. It also gets you guys wound up way too early. Especially if we should switch something around after expectations have been prematurely set. So what you don't know can't hurt!
We understand you guys are all anxious to know, and better yet SEE, what we are doing. The core engine itself is nearly complete and the game design is almost completely hammered out. Things should move rather quickly in the coming months. And when the time is right, you'll be the first people to hear what we have to say and see what we have to show. For now you'll just have to sit and wait a bit longer.
As for a bone... here's a small one:
Rune reminded you guys that we're making the new game code flexible (for us) so we can give you guys more games in a shorter period of time. 6 years of CMx1 development yielded 3 games that were largely the same as each other (same time period, same general theater, same core graphics engine, etc.). 6 years of CMx2 should yield about 8 games with no boundaries on subject matter and fewer limitations on improving the visual/audio elements. The new engine will allow us to do WWII, sci-fi, current, fantasy, Civil War, whatever... and do it without it taking years to release. If one of our releases doesn't float your boat, it is likely that a few months later you'll get something that will.
More importantly, for you guys in particular, is the fact we can do this without compromising game quality. CMx1 gave us 6 years of lessons to incorporate into CMx2... you'd be a fool to think we haven't fully taken advantage of this great opportunity to make CMx2 able to do what CMx1 wasn't.
We're very excited about what CMx2 will do for gaming. Soon we'll be able to show you why.
That's it for now
Not to worry about the "trying to please all people results in pleasing none" danger. We're well aware of it. The fortunate thing is we took this into consideration before we started coding the CMx2 engine.
The great thing about the new engine is that we can "outsource" development to others. For example, one team could be working on Space Lobsters of Doom (love that title ) while I work on CMOWW2B Part XI - Combat Mission Obscure WWII Battle Part 11. And if we find that some subject matter simply won't work with the engine... we can skip it. Tons of other good ideas in the pile so no point in messing around with something that is bound to disapoint everybody (including us).
Charles would simply be there to incorporate specifics to make each have the features it needs. Because the engine is being written with very few assumptions, the code for Space Lobsters might only take a month instead and yet yield a game that feels completely different than CMOWW2B.
In other words... we can delivery many cakes that can all be eaten The tradeoff is that it will still take at least 8-10 months to produce each, though this is partly compensated by the ability to do parallel development. Something completely and utterly impossible with CMx1's engine.
posted January 03, 2005 04:38 PMJanuary 03, 2005 01:38 PM
Hi guys,
I'll toss out a few more things for you.
First, the CMx2 engine is not some sort of universal simulator. Each game that comes from it will require coding, fresh designs, customized UI, etc. We are not doing the sort of "change the data and call it a new game" system that so many other wargame developers have done in the past. Instead, the CMx2 engine is more like a developer's toolbox that will allow us to create games quicker and with less reliance upon Charles than CMx1 ever could.
We are still shooting for a release about this time next year with another to follow about 6-8 months later. When we announce the first title we will also announce the second, but nothing beyond that.
While it is true that we don't have any direct competition, we do have competition. We also can not assume that there isn't someone we don't know about looking to copy us. That is one reason we're keeping tight lipped.
The other reason is that it doesn't do anybody any good to talk about stuff that may or may not happen three years from now. That's a long time away and much can change between now and then. All you guys should care about is that in three years time there will be more stuff to play with, and if you aren't crazy about it that something more will be coming soon after.
Oh, and the new graphics capabilities of CMx2 is on par, if not superior to, anything you guys have played thus far or are likely to in the next year. It's amazing what can be done with a fresh slate, radically more powerful hardware, and years of experience
Steve
Some more quick thoughts...
I'm not surprised nobody has risen to the challenge of toppling CM's standing. The teams that have more resources and good talent are run by big companies that have long ago written off our niche. The others tend to be focused on easier things to do. No slight on those guys, just a reflection that we're a hard act to follow.
Kip, there will be a much more involved campaign system. I won't say more than that, but the focus of the game is far more campaign oriented than Quick Battle or stand alone scenario (those options are of course still available). This is part of the evolution aspect of CM. We spent so much time getting the battle stuff right in CMx1 that we had to economize the campaign design. This time 'round we don't have to.
ASHBERY76 , those models are WAY more detailed than they need to be for a game. Having said that, CMx2's models will look far closer to those than to CMx1 models. In theory we COULD put in something that huge, but I don't think anybody would be too happy with the results.
GPIG, hehe... Finding Nemo 3 - Nemo Goes To War! I love it Seriously, the graphics capabilities of CMx2's engine are on a par with the best we've seen from games in development these days. We feel it beats games already released. So yeah, it will be pretty darn good. And when we start to expand our titles post CMx2's first release, perhaps we'll need to talk. I mean, if you aren't too busy making the underware renders for The Incredibles 2, perhaps we can use your services
We are also mindful of hardware demands. Current systems should be able to handle it OK. Stuff from before might have problems. Anything as old as my creaky G4 400GH or a 1GH Pentium will likely be in trouble. The good news is that with Game #2 following Game #1 so quickly one system upgrade should be good for at least 2 games, if not 3, since the core game technology won't be changing within that timeframe.
I need to wope off some of the campaign drool that is hitting the keyboards. CMx2 will not, at least at first, have some sort of "meta-campaign" system. By that I meean something that would allow multiple people to do campaigns and have their results somehow matter. I am also not talking about campaigns where larger issues, which take place outside of the battle, somehow have an affect on the next tactical battle. Maybe someday, but not with the first release and perhaps not even with the second.
Instead the campaign will be somewhere inbetween a meta-campaign and CMx1's Operations. It will also be more focused and far more "story" oriented (i.e. giving meaning to the battles you fight instead of just fighting). More on this at a later date. Just didn't want you guys having your imagining going wild and then being disapointed when we outline how it works.
Yes we can do pre-gunpowder type environments. Might take a little more work in some respects, but in other ways it will be easier (no vehicles ).
Graphics will be as good if not better than the best of the 1st Person Shooters out there. We don't know of any likely wargame that can match even what CMAK looked like One game was mentioned in this thread, but we too aren't sure when (or if) it will be released. It also appears to be less of a wargame, as you guys would define it, and more RTS.
As for WeGo systems... don't forget TacOps Early Grigsby games also had WeGo. But like Jon said, there have been few and far inbetween since then. I can guess why this is for more mass market type wargames, but never understood it for ones which are designed to be realistic.
Cavarly has certainly not been rulled out for some future development. In fact, I don't think it is possible to do either fantasy or historical settings pre-gunpowder without cavalry. By "vehicles" I mean VEHICLES
Future development projects will not be a mod like experience. It will be very involved and require quite a bit of core resources (like Charles' brain). We'll therefore only be able to handle a very finite amount of overlap of products, even if we have unique development teams for all the rest of the work.
The key difference between CMx1 and CMx2, in terms of making new products, is the new engine's more open architecture. Fairly small changes could have taken days for Charles to program, but with CMx2 perhaps only hours. This means instead of spending 1-2 years of solid programming to develop ONE title he can spend the same time making several. How many and how fast will be dependent on the subject matter.
For example, trying to make a cavlary based game would involve a lot of new elements compared to making a new game in the same theater of operations as the previous game. We will, to some extent, try to do development in such a way that we work towards certain concepts that are difficult to do in one bite. For example...
Let us say that we want to make a game based on a Lord of the Rings type setting. Well, there is a LOT of stuff to cover for such a thing, including horse cavalry, formations of hand to hand combat troops, magic, siege weapons, castles, etc. That's a lot to cover in one title! It could therefore take a fairly long time to make. But if we made a Mideval game first you guys would have something to play in much less time and yet we'd be probably 1/2 way towards a fantasy type setting. In that way gamers get two games in the same period of time instead of just one.
Hope that makes sense
Trust me, when the time comes to branch out you guys will be the first to know if we need help. Now is too early for such thinking. While we might be thinking years down the road, we're only acting on things that are directly necessary for completing CMx2's engine.
Steve
I'm really not here to introduce new information, but I will remind people of stuff we've already said will be in CMx2 Specifically, 1:1 man representation and terrain graphics which are based on much smaller "tile" sizes.
Significantly smaller tile size was simply not possible back when CM was originally coded. Tile size is the root cause for pretty much all the "shortcomings" noted about the graphical representations over the past 5 years. With the new system (which basically doesn't use tiles at all) all sorts of things have changed. However, because CMx2 games won't contain hand crafted scenarios (like other games, especially FPS types) there will still be a bit of generic feel to individual objects. The only way to avoid that is to eliminate Quick Battles and the Editor, which I am sure you guys don't want
We are looking into ways of allowing people to add customized skins for objects on a scenario by scenairo basis. It won't allow for customized building shapes. Too early to say if this will happen or not as it is still on the "if we have time" list.
And a reminder that we are not talking about having some sort of über campaign system for CMx2. It will be more along the lines of CMx1 Operations but with a lot more control over the battles in the Campaign and the inclusion of "story" driven elements to give meaning to battles. Those of you who are hoping for some sort of "take my Battalion from Normandy to Berlin" or "simulate the entire Battle of Stalingrad" are going to be disapointed if that is what you think we are doing. Almost all the reasons we had for not doing this in CMx1 are still valid for CMx2. What has changed is our ability to make a more "propper" campaign system as many had requested as opposed to the more "on the fly" type system used for CMx1's Operations.
c3k, Hehe... boy, and that email was only typed at just after midnight. I'm usually still fresh as a daisy at that time. Guess not
No, there will be no "on the fly" Campaigns in CMx2.
The concept for CMx2's Campaign system is not entirely unique. Very few things are However, there are other things that are more important than originality. Implementation is the key to success. A poor game design implmented excellently will likely be better than an excellent design poorly executed. We're shooting for a very good design implemented very well. The resulting game should therefore offer a better experience, in total, than most other games you've ever played. At least that is what we are planning on
There are no planned hard limitations on how many scenarios (which includes maps) a campaign can contain.
Beating the Spotting Borg into the ground is still a primary design goal. I'd say on a feature by feature basis it is still #1 priority. Everything flows through this feature in one way or another, so we had better do a good job of it. Fortunately, thanks to nearly 6 years of experience with CMx1, we have a very good idea how to do this. As Tom pointed out, there are a lot of old posts to look back over to get an idea about the direction we're headed in.
Some more quick follow ups...
Campaign interface for the end user has not been determined. We won't know for sure until the game is very nearly complete, so don't ask The complexity of the "behind the scenes" stuff might preclude user made campaigns. At least for the first release. We don't see this as a problem if it should happen since most games do not ship with this ability and yet few complain. Well, provided the game itself is good and the campaign/s shipped with the product are fun Plus there will always be user made scenarios and Quick Battles to play with, so it isn't like we're talking about shipping something that the user can't be creative with.
1:1 representation does not mean an increase in micromanagement. In fact, increased micromanagement makes it harder to reduce the Borg issues.
I've made my feelings about Command Level games consistently and clearly ever since becoming the mouthpiece for CM. It is a type of simulation we wish nothing to do with. So any concerns about us going in that direction are needless.
While there might be more restrictions and consequences surrounding command and control, it will not be so extreme that suddenly you find yourself only able to control your command truck and a field kitchen simply because Pvt Pyle dropped the radio (ggaaaaaaw-aaaaaaaaawly!)
I've participated in a lot of long discussions about the topics of waypoints and delays before, especially when discussing changes we were making for CMBB. Truth is that the lowest units in CMx1 have faster response times than their realistic counterparts. This is the #1 reason CMx1 battles are faster and more brutal than most WWII battles. Part of this is due to Borg issues, some C&C, some simply because of the player's God perspective. It's a very tough nut to crack and still have a game worth playing.
Our thinking is that the more we reduce certainty, the more we increase the natural reasons for command delays. In reverse, the more sure the player is of something the less he will hesitate. Currently, in CMx1, the combo of Borg and God's Eye (two related, but not exactly the same concepts) meant we had to come up with more artificial means of restricting unit movements/actions, such as C&C delays tied to waypoints. CMx2 will have a ton more uncertainty due to a greatly reduced Borg problem, even if the God perspective remains an issue. But we have ideas on how to reduce the God's Eye influence too, though not to the point of removing player control (see earlier comments).
In other words, we are planning on attacking these problems in a more fundamental way. Or put another way, attacking the cause and not the symptoms. Coming up with isolated rules for this or that system is the lesser, though easier, way of doing things. It is also more limited and brittle. Combining fundamental approaches with innovative rules to tighten outlier problems is the best combo. CMx1 has that in spades already, though I suspect many of you now take them for granted simply beacuse you've been playing CM for so long.
I remember having these same kinds of discussions 6 years ago with the ASL fanatics. They were all about coming up with rules instead of coming up with paradigm shifts. When we outlined big conceptual shifts people, even non-ASL folks, had a hard time grasping how they would change more than simple rules. Similar discussions happened when we proposed more modest shifts for CMBB. In the many discussions of Relative Spotting a few years ago I found the same thing. I expect that as we get into discussing CMx2 in more detail the same thing will happen again. Then after getting your hands on the game I'll see a lot of "oooooooooh! Now I get it!" posts as I did after each CMx1 release
I think Rune did a good job, but I'll add 2 bits
Why no announcements thus far, especially considering how we've done things in the past? Because we start talking about it you guys will (rightly so) expect a constant dialog and updates from us. We're simply not ready for this yet since CMx2 (i.e. the new engine) is in a state that doesn't offer much for us to show or discuss just yet. That will change shortly, but for now we're keeping quiet.
As for a "Big Announcement"... we're closer to that each day, but we'd really like to get a few more things ready before we do. However, do not confuse a lack of an announcement with a lack of a plan. The plan we've been following, in fact, was nailed down as CMBB development was finishing up. Yup... we've known what CMx2 and its first release would look like before you guys even played CMBB or CMAK. We think very far ahead! In fact, we have plans for the next 3 years of releases. And no, we're not going to tell you what those plans are either
Now, why aren't we spilling the beans? Partly because this sort of thing SHOULD be on a "need to know" basis. We are, after all, a company and it does us no favors to announce stuff to our potential rivals years before we do it. It also gets you guys wound up way too early. Especially if we should switch something around after expectations have been prematurely set. So what you don't know can't hurt!
We understand you guys are all anxious to know, and better yet SEE, what we are doing. The core engine itself is nearly complete and the game design is almost completely hammered out. Things should move rather quickly in the coming months. And when the time is right, you'll be the first people to hear what we have to say and see what we have to show. For now you'll just have to sit and wait a bit longer.
As for a bone... here's a small one:
Rune reminded you guys that we're making the new game code flexible (for us) so we can give you guys more games in a shorter period of time. 6 years of CMx1 development yielded 3 games that were largely the same as each other (same time period, same general theater, same core graphics engine, etc.). 6 years of CMx2 should yield about 8 games with no boundaries on subject matter and fewer limitations on improving the visual/audio elements. The new engine will allow us to do WWII, sci-fi, current, fantasy, Civil War, whatever... and do it without it taking years to release. If one of our releases doesn't float your boat, it is likely that a few months later you'll get something that will.
More importantly, for you guys in particular, is the fact we can do this without compromising game quality. CMx1 gave us 6 years of lessons to incorporate into CMx2... you'd be a fool to think we haven't fully taken advantage of this great opportunity to make CMx2 able to do what CMx1 wasn't.
We're very excited about what CMx2 will do for gaming. Soon we'll be able to show you why.
That's it for now
Not to worry about the "trying to please all people results in pleasing none" danger. We're well aware of it. The fortunate thing is we took this into consideration before we started coding the CMx2 engine.
The great thing about the new engine is that we can "outsource" development to others. For example, one team could be working on Space Lobsters of Doom (love that title ) while I work on CMOWW2B Part XI - Combat Mission Obscure WWII Battle Part 11. And if we find that some subject matter simply won't work with the engine... we can skip it. Tons of other good ideas in the pile so no point in messing around with something that is bound to disapoint everybody (including us).
Charles would simply be there to incorporate specifics to make each have the features it needs. Because the engine is being written with very few assumptions, the code for Space Lobsters might only take a month instead and yet yield a game that feels completely different than CMOWW2B.
In other words... we can delivery many cakes that can all be eaten The tradeoff is that it will still take at least 8-10 months to produce each, though this is partly compensated by the ability to do parallel development. Something completely and utterly impossible with CMx1's engine.
posted January 03, 2005 04:38 PMJanuary 03, 2005 01:38 PM
Hi guys,
I'll toss out a few more things for you.
First, the CMx2 engine is not some sort of universal simulator. Each game that comes from it will require coding, fresh designs, customized UI, etc. We are not doing the sort of "change the data and call it a new game" system that so many other wargame developers have done in the past. Instead, the CMx2 engine is more like a developer's toolbox that will allow us to create games quicker and with less reliance upon Charles than CMx1 ever could.
We are still shooting for a release about this time next year with another to follow about 6-8 months later. When we announce the first title we will also announce the second, but nothing beyond that.
While it is true that we don't have any direct competition, we do have competition. We also can not assume that there isn't someone we don't know about looking to copy us. That is one reason we're keeping tight lipped.
The other reason is that it doesn't do anybody any good to talk about stuff that may or may not happen three years from now. That's a long time away and much can change between now and then. All you guys should care about is that in three years time there will be more stuff to play with, and if you aren't crazy about it that something more will be coming soon after.
Oh, and the new graphics capabilities of CMx2 is on par, if not superior to, anything you guys have played thus far or are likely to in the next year. It's amazing what can be done with a fresh slate, radically more powerful hardware, and years of experience
Steve
Some more quick thoughts...
I'm not surprised nobody has risen to the challenge of toppling CM's standing. The teams that have more resources and good talent are run by big companies that have long ago written off our niche. The others tend to be focused on easier things to do. No slight on those guys, just a reflection that we're a hard act to follow.
Kip, there will be a much more involved campaign system. I won't say more than that, but the focus of the game is far more campaign oriented than Quick Battle or stand alone scenario (those options are of course still available). This is part of the evolution aspect of CM. We spent so much time getting the battle stuff right in CMx1 that we had to economize the campaign design. This time 'round we don't have to.
ASHBERY76 , those models are WAY more detailed than they need to be for a game. Having said that, CMx2's models will look far closer to those than to CMx1 models. In theory we COULD put in something that huge, but I don't think anybody would be too happy with the results.
GPIG, hehe... Finding Nemo 3 - Nemo Goes To War! I love it Seriously, the graphics capabilities of CMx2's engine are on a par with the best we've seen from games in development these days. We feel it beats games already released. So yeah, it will be pretty darn good. And when we start to expand our titles post CMx2's first release, perhaps we'll need to talk. I mean, if you aren't too busy making the underware renders for The Incredibles 2, perhaps we can use your services
We are also mindful of hardware demands. Current systems should be able to handle it OK. Stuff from before might have problems. Anything as old as my creaky G4 400GH or a 1GH Pentium will likely be in trouble. The good news is that with Game #2 following Game #1 so quickly one system upgrade should be good for at least 2 games, if not 3, since the core game technology won't be changing within that timeframe.
I need to wope off some of the campaign drool that is hitting the keyboards. CMx2 will not, at least at first, have some sort of "meta-campaign" system. By that I meean something that would allow multiple people to do campaigns and have their results somehow matter. I am also not talking about campaigns where larger issues, which take place outside of the battle, somehow have an affect on the next tactical battle. Maybe someday, but not with the first release and perhaps not even with the second.
Instead the campaign will be somewhere inbetween a meta-campaign and CMx1's Operations. It will also be more focused and far more "story" oriented (i.e. giving meaning to the battles you fight instead of just fighting). More on this at a later date. Just didn't want you guys having your imagining going wild and then being disapointed when we outline how it works.
Yes we can do pre-gunpowder type environments. Might take a little more work in some respects, but in other ways it will be easier (no vehicles ).
Graphics will be as good if not better than the best of the 1st Person Shooters out there. We don't know of any likely wargame that can match even what CMAK looked like One game was mentioned in this thread, but we too aren't sure when (or if) it will be released. It also appears to be less of a wargame, as you guys would define it, and more RTS.
As for WeGo systems... don't forget TacOps Early Grigsby games also had WeGo. But like Jon said, there have been few and far inbetween since then. I can guess why this is for more mass market type wargames, but never understood it for ones which are designed to be realistic.
Cavarly has certainly not been rulled out for some future development. In fact, I don't think it is possible to do either fantasy or historical settings pre-gunpowder without cavalry. By "vehicles" I mean VEHICLES
Future development projects will not be a mod like experience. It will be very involved and require quite a bit of core resources (like Charles' brain). We'll therefore only be able to handle a very finite amount of overlap of products, even if we have unique development teams for all the rest of the work.
The key difference between CMx1 and CMx2, in terms of making new products, is the new engine's more open architecture. Fairly small changes could have taken days for Charles to program, but with CMx2 perhaps only hours. This means instead of spending 1-2 years of solid programming to develop ONE title he can spend the same time making several. How many and how fast will be dependent on the subject matter.
For example, trying to make a cavlary based game would involve a lot of new elements compared to making a new game in the same theater of operations as the previous game. We will, to some extent, try to do development in such a way that we work towards certain concepts that are difficult to do in one bite. For example...
Let us say that we want to make a game based on a Lord of the Rings type setting. Well, there is a LOT of stuff to cover for such a thing, including horse cavalry, formations of hand to hand combat troops, magic, siege weapons, castles, etc. That's a lot to cover in one title! It could therefore take a fairly long time to make. But if we made a Mideval game first you guys would have something to play in much less time and yet we'd be probably 1/2 way towards a fantasy type setting. In that way gamers get two games in the same period of time instead of just one.
Hope that makes sense
Trust me, when the time comes to branch out you guys will be the first to know if we need help. Now is too early for such thinking. While we might be thinking years down the road, we're only acting on things that are directly necessary for completing CMx2's engine.
Steve
I'm really not here to introduce new information, but I will remind people of stuff we've already said will be in CMx2 Specifically, 1:1 man representation and terrain graphics which are based on much smaller "tile" sizes.
Significantly smaller tile size was simply not possible back when CM was originally coded. Tile size is the root cause for pretty much all the "shortcomings" noted about the graphical representations over the past 5 years. With the new system (which basically doesn't use tiles at all) all sorts of things have changed. However, because CMx2 games won't contain hand crafted scenarios (like other games, especially FPS types) there will still be a bit of generic feel to individual objects. The only way to avoid that is to eliminate Quick Battles and the Editor, which I am sure you guys don't want
We are looking into ways of allowing people to add customized skins for objects on a scenario by scenairo basis. It won't allow for customized building shapes. Too early to say if this will happen or not as it is still on the "if we have time" list.
And a reminder that we are not talking about having some sort of über campaign system for CMx2. It will be more along the lines of CMx1 Operations but with a lot more control over the battles in the Campaign and the inclusion of "story" driven elements to give meaning to battles. Those of you who are hoping for some sort of "take my Battalion from Normandy to Berlin" or "simulate the entire Battle of Stalingrad" are going to be disapointed if that is what you think we are doing. Almost all the reasons we had for not doing this in CMx1 are still valid for CMx2. What has changed is our ability to make a more "propper" campaign system as many had requested as opposed to the more "on the fly" type system used for CMx1's Operations.
c3k, Hehe... boy, and that email was only typed at just after midnight. I'm usually still fresh as a daisy at that time. Guess not
No, there will be no "on the fly" Campaigns in CMx2.
The concept for CMx2's Campaign system is not entirely unique. Very few things are However, there are other things that are more important than originality. Implementation is the key to success. A poor game design implmented excellently will likely be better than an excellent design poorly executed. We're shooting for a very good design implemented very well. The resulting game should therefore offer a better experience, in total, than most other games you've ever played. At least that is what we are planning on
There are no planned hard limitations on how many scenarios (which includes maps) a campaign can contain.
Beating the Spotting Borg into the ground is still a primary design goal. I'd say on a feature by feature basis it is still #1 priority. Everything flows through this feature in one way or another, so we had better do a good job of it. Fortunately, thanks to nearly 6 years of experience with CMx1, we have a very good idea how to do this. As Tom pointed out, there are a lot of old posts to look back over to get an idea about the direction we're headed in.
Some more quick follow ups...
Campaign interface for the end user has not been determined. We won't know for sure until the game is very nearly complete, so don't ask The complexity of the "behind the scenes" stuff might preclude user made campaigns. At least for the first release. We don't see this as a problem if it should happen since most games do not ship with this ability and yet few complain. Well, provided the game itself is good and the campaign/s shipped with the product are fun Plus there will always be user made scenarios and Quick Battles to play with, so it isn't like we're talking about shipping something that the user can't be creative with.
1:1 representation does not mean an increase in micromanagement. In fact, increased micromanagement makes it harder to reduce the Borg issues.
I've made my feelings about Command Level games consistently and clearly ever since becoming the mouthpiece for CM. It is a type of simulation we wish nothing to do with. So any concerns about us going in that direction are needless.
While there might be more restrictions and consequences surrounding command and control, it will not be so extreme that suddenly you find yourself only able to control your command truck and a field kitchen simply because Pvt Pyle dropped the radio (ggaaaaaaw-aaaaaaaaawly!)
I've participated in a lot of long discussions about the topics of waypoints and delays before, especially when discussing changes we were making for CMBB. Truth is that the lowest units in CMx1 have faster response times than their realistic counterparts. This is the #1 reason CMx1 battles are faster and more brutal than most WWII battles. Part of this is due to Borg issues, some C&C, some simply because of the player's God perspective. It's a very tough nut to crack and still have a game worth playing.
Our thinking is that the more we reduce certainty, the more we increase the natural reasons for command delays. In reverse, the more sure the player is of something the less he will hesitate. Currently, in CMx1, the combo of Borg and God's Eye (two related, but not exactly the same concepts) meant we had to come up with more artificial means of restricting unit movements/actions, such as C&C delays tied to waypoints. CMx2 will have a ton more uncertainty due to a greatly reduced Borg problem, even if the God perspective remains an issue. But we have ideas on how to reduce the God's Eye influence too, though not to the point of removing player control (see earlier comments).
In other words, we are planning on attacking these problems in a more fundamental way. Or put another way, attacking the cause and not the symptoms. Coming up with isolated rules for this or that system is the lesser, though easier, way of doing things. It is also more limited and brittle. Combining fundamental approaches with innovative rules to tighten outlier problems is the best combo. CMx1 has that in spades already, though I suspect many of you now take them for granted simply beacuse you've been playing CM for so long.
I remember having these same kinds of discussions 6 years ago with the ASL fanatics. They were all about coming up with rules instead of coming up with paradigm shifts. When we outlined big conceptual shifts people, even non-ASL folks, had a hard time grasping how they would change more than simple rules. Similar discussions happened when we proposed more modest shifts for CMBB. In the many discussions of Relative Spotting a few years ago I found the same thing. I expect that as we get into discussing CMx2 in more detail the same thing will happen again. Then after getting your hands on the game I'll see a lot of "oooooooooh! Now I get it!" posts as I did after each CMx1 release