Future Plans

[Jason Petho]

Someone did say they were brand new games too. Jason said it a few posts up.

Campaign Series Vietnam is a brand new game.

[Crossroads]

ORIGINAL: XLVIIIPzKorp

ORIGINAL: Crossroads

Well that was a fun walk in the memory lane, with the early Talonsoft releases. I had totally forgotten that the first Battelground game was not Gettysburg, but the Battle of Ardennes / Bulge instead!

What a great little game that was for it's time. A Campaign Series Grandparent.

I still have a copy running on my machine for when I'm feeling nostalgic.

Have you played it for a while, do you recall how the phases work out within a players turn there? And what were those phases?

Edit: referring to Phase menu item seen in the screenshot above [:)]

[XLVIIIPzKorp]

ORIGINAL: Crossroads

Have you played it for a while, do you recall how the phases work out within a players turn there? And what were those phases?

Edit: referring to Phase menu item seen in the screenshot above [:)]

Okay if I did this correctly there should be an image from the manual.

There are specifics to certain phases, for example indirect can only fire in prep fire phase, units that prep fire cannot move, etc.

[Jason Petho]

Could you imagine trying to play those phases with a PBEM?

[Crossroads]

Thanks! Interesting, and makes sense how they stuck to black powder era with the rest of the Battlefront series, seems quite complicated in WW2 setting.

Did it have a PBEM mode? How do you play PBEM with those phases, quite a few back-and-forth emails for one turn, four at least?

[Crossroads]

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

Could you imagine trying to play those phases with a PBEM?

[tevans]

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

Someone did say they were brand new games too. Jason said it a few posts up.

Campaign Series Vietnam is a brand new game.

It's a new theater for an existing game. Not a brand new game. You took the Campaign Series and tweaked it, enhanced it, added new graphics, data and scenarios. But you started with something and built on it. That's my point. Painting an old house doesn't make it brand new. I have no problem with the enhancements you're making. In fact I think they're good. My problem is with your claim that you're creating new games when essentially all you're doing is modding an old game. Are you saying that anybody who completely overhauls a game with a mod is essentially creating a new game? CS Vietnam is really just an overhaul of an existing game. You may have changed a lot but most mods do the same thing. I was playing a Vietnam mod for CS 10 or 15 years ago. There's a World War I mod over at the Blitz that I getting ready to try out too. Do you consider those mods new games too?

[RichMunn]

You remind me of the man who told me:

"My grandfather had the same sweeping brush for 50 years.

It had 20 new heads and 15 new handles. He loved that brush."

[Jason Petho]

That's my point.

If everything is new, how can it not be new?

[tevans]

ORIGINAL: Crossroads

It has been explained to you many times. If new code + new lua code engine + new data + new graphics + a new era/war to cover is not a game for you, so be it. For me it sure is.

Every single one of those things is being added to something that already exists. It's not a new engine that's been created from the ground up. That makes it a mod or an overhaul. Not a new game. Everything you listed has been done with modding in one game or another many times. Every single thing. So how is what you're doing different from modding? In my opinion it isn't any different. That doesn't mean that what you're doing is bad. In fact I think a lot of what you're doing is good but I have a problem when you try telling me that it's a brand new game. Improved and enhanced maybe. But not brand new built from the ground up. You guys didn't start with a clean slate. You started with what Tiller created and added to it. Divided Ground to CS Middle East is a good example of that.

If what you're doing is considered making new games then any modder who takes a game and changes it by modding is creating a new game every time they mod. Imagine what Creative Assembly would say about that if somebody actually tried to sell a Total War mod as a new game. Like I said take a look at Scourge of War Gettysburg or Waterloo. New graphics, data, maps, campaigns and battles have all been created for those games. Code has been changed either through scripting or actual code changes to make the AI do certain things. Are those mods considered new games too? They do the same thing you guys are doing. Using Jason's Model T analogy you guys are basically taking a Model T adding parts to it and trying to sell it as a Ferrari. It's still just a Model T even if the parts you add improve upon the original design.

[Jason Petho]

Back in the day, Talonsoft released East Front.

Then they released West Front.

You're suggesting that West Front was just a mod, correct?

[budd]

I'll take a shot.
By your definition a lot of games created, marketed and sold as new games would i guess just be mods. As far as i know Tiller's doesn't create content anymore, his engine is used in Panzer Campaigns, Panzer Battles, are these games just mods, or not because there sold under the Tiller banner. Panzer Battles is created by another dev using a modified Tiller engine but its OK because its sold on the Tiller site? I guess i just don't get why single out these games, namely CSME and CS Vietnam. Basically almost any continuation using the same engine would be a mod by your definition or is it just when a company other than the original creator of the engine does it? AGEOD engine was used by another dev to create games using there engine, are those mods, well they were sold as new games. A lot of games use the same engine for continuation of a style of games or series. They change the graphics, maybe add features to the engine, sounds, ect. they are then sold as new games. I just don't see the difference when compared to the CS games.

Another point, what about dev's that just license other people's engines, are all those games mods? Unreal engine, Unity, what ever engine ID is selling, i mean there just building on someone else's engine. however you want to categorize games or mods is up to you, it just appears that your not really applying your definition equally and are singling these games out for some reason.

Thanks for the discussion

[Warhorse]

Someone change the record, it just keeps repeating over and over, reminds me of Dumnorix....[>:]

[tevans]

ORIGINAL: Warhorse

Someone change the record, it just keeps repeating over and over, reminds me of Dumnorix....[>:]

If you don't like the conversation, don't read it. Nobody forces you.

[Warhorse]

Yeah, not going to anymore... Ahh, the joy of being able to block!!

[tevans]

ORIGINAL: budd

I'll take a shot.
By your definition a lot of games created, marketed and sold as new games would i guess just be mods. As far as i know Tiller's doesn't create content anymore, his engine is used in Panzer Campaigns, Panzer Battles, are these games just mods, or not because there sold under the Tiller banner. Panzer Battles is created by another dev using a modified Tiller engine but its OK because its sold on the Tiller site? I guess i just don't get why single out these games, namely CSME and CS Vietnam. Basically almost any continuation using the same engine would be a mod by your definition or is it just when a company other than the original creator of the engine does it? AGEOD engine was used by another dev to create games using there engine, are those mods, well they were sold as new games. A lot of games use the same engine for continuation of a style of games or series. They change the graphics, maybe add features to the engine, sounds, ect. they are then sold as new games. I just don't see the difference when compared to the CS games.

Another point, what about dev's that just license other people's engines, are all those games mods? Unreal engine, Unity, what ever engine ID is selling, i mean there just building on someone else's engine. however you want to categorize games or mods is up to you, it just appears that your not really applying your definition equally and are singling these games out for some reason.

Thanks for the discussion

No there's a difference. The difference is a developer created that game engine and reused it. That's how we got from West Front to East Front. Tiller does it with every one of his series ie. Panzer Campaigns, Squad Battles etc. People buying from Tiller know that. They know that the rules for each series are pretty much going to be the same. They know the look and feel of each game is going to be the same. All because the same engine is used. That's not what's happening here. These guys are taking somebody else's work and adding to it then claiming they've created a new game. Even if all they keep is just one line of Tiller's code it still makes what they're doing nothing more than modding.

By Jason's own admission they're still using some of Tiller's original base code. That makes everything they're doing the same as modding. They're modifying and changing an existing game. They aren't building anything from the ground up or creating anything from scratch. Yet they claim to be creating new games. How are they new? They may have enhanced and added features but it's still the same game. CS Vietnam isn't going to change so drastically that it won't play like a Campaign Series game.

One other thing too. I'm not just singling out these guys working on the Campaign Series. I feel the same way about the TOAW series too and said so when TOAW III was released. Norm Koger created that game and engine. He tweaked and refined the game over the years. Somebody else added to Koger's work and then claimed TOAW III was a brand new game. Since then they've went on to create TOAW IV too. No doubt they changed and added things to the original game system that made it better. That doesn't mean they created a new game. They had something to work with by using Koger's work just the same as these guys did starting with Tiller's work. You can't change or modify code if it isn't there and Jason said in a previous post that's what they're doing even though they kept some of Tiller's base code.

[tevans]

ORIGINAL: Warhorse

Yeah, not going to anymore... Ahh, the joy of being able to block!!

Good for you. You added nothing to conversation and blocked because you didn't like it. Why not just not read it?

[tevans]

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

Back in the day, Talonsoft released East Front.

Then they released West Front.

You're suggesting that West Front was just a mod, correct?

Wrong. West Front and East Front were created by the same developer. That developer created the game engine. Most developers will use the same game engine to create more than one game with it. That's a lot different than what you're doing. You're taking somebody else's work then changing and adding to it and calling it a new game. Modders do what you're doing. They change graphics, data and code. They add new scenarios and campaigns. How is what you're doing any different. What you're doing doesn't make you a developer. It just means that you're a talented modder.

[tevans]

ORIGINAL: RichMunn


You remind me of the man who told me:

"My grandfather had the same sweeping brush for 50 years.

It had 20 new heads and 15 new handles. He loved that brush."

Isn't that pretty much what's happening with the Campaign Series? Slapping some new graphics, data and code into it and calling it a new game. New brush handles and brush heads represent the graphics, code and data. I got a better one for you putting paint on a old house doesn't make it a brand new house. Just a nicer looking house. The house is this case was Tiller's original design. The paint represents everything being changed through addition or subtraction to the game.

[Warhorse]

And can't wait till the day my Korean War MOD is made into a bonifide DLC for Vietnam, This game is gonna rock, so much new comment, appreciate all you folks following the progress of M/S devel on this!