Damn straight Battlefield Academy is a great game. 

Originally Posted By JudgeDredd

I'm not particularly against DRM - some of it is a real pita though...I'm just pointing out the possible difference (in clientelle) between mass sell FPS games and limited sell wargames. Just maybe...

BFC got behind the curve by not supporting online co-op play earlier as well. I went to lunch with a friend a couple of weeks ago and got to talking about online gaming. He's not a wargamer by any stretch of the imagination, but it turns out he's a huge Battlefield 3 freak. It's not necessarily the subject matter that appeals as much as the cameraderie, I think, because he's huge into the online play and has regular sessions with friends - it's almost like team sports to them. I work in health care and hear people talk at the office about going to play "paintball" and something about the whole multiplayer, quasi-military thing just seems to appeal to people. They had Call of Duty in the mainstream on The Office for an episode or two. When you've got Rashida Jones playing your product in prime time on national TV, that's pretty good marketing, accidental or not.

Maybe Combat Mission would still be too "serious" to really penetrate the mainstream, but you really guarantee your game is not going to go anywhere by not fixing the TCP/IP gap in the current WEGO, and not looking at getting some kind of online co-op play going. However, given the unique nature of CM - it's not a FPS or simulation like Red Orchestra or Armed Assault, etc. which could be an advantage.

It may be that BFC is wise not to sink investment time into another risky feature that might not pay off in the end anyway, but if I recall correctly, I thought the developers were the ones who suggested that online co-op was something they themselves were mulling as a future possibility. 

Playing CM in real time with larger units would be helped by the ability to have teams of players, without pauses, and be a unique experience among what is currently out there.

I would say Combat Mission, Distant Worlds Shakturi/legends and Shogun 2.  Although in all honesty, I am currently addicted to skyrim.

Skyrim DOES have a Civil War... so it COULD be considered a wargame...

1. CMBN - thank god that their e-licence is the one thing vista doesn't have an issue with, lol.

Meh, that's it for 2011 wargames I've played this year, but it would be #1 even if I had played 20!

The end of last year we seeme dto have alot of big new wragmes to play around with that came out that year aswell as one or two to look forward to. This year has been decidedly quiet. Lets hope we get some surprises next year. We could do with some I feel.

1. Squad battles (Red Victory)...by far for me.

2. Squad battles (Falklands)

3. Campaign Liepzieg

3. Battlefield Academy...for the light hearted fun!

You guys keep mentioning Battlefield Academy but that game was released in 2010?  Or do you mean the expansions?

Also the game is now called Battle Academy.

My vote goes to Shogun 2 and Battleifled 3.

Maybe not all of the following were released in 2011, but they've all been my favorites during the last year......

1- Command Ops: BfTB

Micromanage or macromanage, RT MP capable (with a pause option! i'm looking at you CM:BfN), whipsmart AI. This one has the engine, support, and depth of a true classic game in my mind. Would love to see a 3d map capability (like battle command), and ability for campaign but otherwise this one is my favorite of the year.

2- Unity of Command

Cool new interface, sharp, time-managable scenarios/campaign, challenging AI. Surprise hit of the year in my mind.

3- CMBN

Loss of MP functionality (or at least no gain since CM:SF), somewhat unwiedly UI, poor display of information (too much clicking around) drops this one down for me and makes it somewhat less enjoyable to actually play. However, when it comes to tactical base WWII combat simulation there's nothing else that comes as close to reality. Whether thats much fun to play is a matter of opinion I suppose. The dynamic campaign "Devils Descent" basically highlights the awesomeness of whats in there for me, though.

4- Memoir '44 Online

Maybe some would not consider this a wargame, but its just a lot of damn fun as a 2 person MP game.

5- PC

Love the additional features which provide more "playability" in my opinion that the CMx2 franchise, but just cant seem to get into it.

Hi. My name is Longblade.

Originally Posted By JudgeDredd

Originally Posted By PeterC

Originally Posted By BlondKnight

I wouldnt necessarily call them unscrupulous but theyre no friend to us as gamers.  I dont want to have to upload my elicense to a server in Taiwan, or Uzbekistan, or God knows where prior to me reloading my laptop.  

 

That's it? Lots of games have DRM including Company of Heroes and Grand Theft Auto but you don't see the outraged fury directed at those companies as you see with BFC. It seems Is it something specific to the wargaoming community? The persopnalities of the moderators on their forums? They have a banned poster/best tester who's a Don Quixote-ish crusade dumping on their products at any available review site. I find it a most curious phenomenon.

Perhaps it's because wargamers are (mostly) nice people  with a knowledge that ripping off the developers will kill the love of their life - and therefore feel agrieved that they are treated like theives by being made to "jump through the proverbial hoops" to get a game to work...

That's interesting and a little ironic. When BFC, then BTS, came on the scene in '98 or '99 their manisfesto was to make games gamers wanted and that included no copy protection at the time. However, (war) gamers decided they would rather download Combat Mission and other games Battlefront published from pirate sites and torrents and the like instead of buying and supporting the developer. As always it is the honest, paying customer who then has to jump through the hoops as you say. C'est la vie.

As far as I can see, BFC is still making games gamers want, no one really touches them in simulating tactical combat imo, and they still have a thriving community who put out some pretty impressive work in support. That's no mean feat in this day and age of 'flavor of the week' games. They aren't the only ones doing so, but like PeterC I find the anti-BFCers to be a very curious phenomenon.

 I am impressed that more than a few listed Shogun II in their top 5. Good to see a TW title have some staying power with people.

I haven't played many wargames this year, but I did play and enjoyed Panzer Corps. I will have to make that one my number one for the year. Might try Unity of Command before the year runs out though.

 but like PeterC I find the anti-BFCers to be a very curious phenomenon.

Steve's mouth, fingers and just general overall arrogant: [Having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.] attitude have a lot to do with it besides the DRM scheme they use and charging $5.00 for a patch.

Steve once made a statement that if this one particular member could show him just one publisher that supported their games for free for 8 years he would eat that forum page. Well, of course several names came up and proof that there were publishers who did this and Steve banned the forum member. This came about when the $5 charge to update CMBB & CMAK EACH to be Vista compatible and/or high end graphic cards compatible was implemented. Many questioned it and still do today.

I am impressed that more than a few listed Shogun II in their top 5. Good to see a TW title have some staying power with people.

It's the 1st one in many years that has a decent AI and is challenging to play. The AI will literally walk all over you if you don't prepare well. It's like Medieval Total War I where just when you think you've got it licked here comes a challenge out of nowhere.

Originally Posted By Zonso

Originally Posted By JudgeDredd

Originally Posted By PeterC

Originally Posted By BlondKnight

I wouldnt necessarily call them unscrupulous but theyre no friend to us as gamers.  I dont want to have to upload my elicense to a server in Taiwan, or Uzbekistan, or God knows where prior to me reloading my laptop.  

 

That's it? Lots of games have DRM including Company of Heroes and Grand Theft Auto but you don't see the outraged fury directed at those companies as you see with BFC. It seems Is it something specific to the wargaoming community? The persopnalities of the moderators on their forums? They have a banned poster/best tester who's a Don Quixote-ish crusade dumping on their products at any available review site. I find it a most curious phenomenon.

Perhaps it's because wargamers are (mostly) nice people  with a knowledge that ripping off the developers will kill the love of their life - and therefore feel agrieved that they are treated like theives by being made to "jump through the proverbial hoops" to get a game to work...

 

 

 

That's interesting and a little ironic. When BFC, then BTS, came on the scene in '98 or '99 their manisfesto was to make games gamers wanted and that included no copy protection at the time. However, (war) gamers decided they would rather download Combat Mission and other games Battlefront published from pirate sites and torrents and the like instead of buying and supporting the developer. As always it is the honest, paying customer who then has to jump through the hoops as you say. C'est la vie.

 

As far as I can see, BFC is still making games gamers want, no one really touches them in simulating tactical combat imo, and they still have a thriving community who put out some pretty impressive work in support. That's no mean feat in this day and age of 'flavor of the week' games. They aren't the only ones doing so, but like PeterC I find the anti-BFCers to be a very curious phenomenon.

Well - as with all things pirate - no one really knows who illegally downloads...nor do they know what group download. Even if (and it's a MASSIVE IF) any company had figures on what was downloaded illegally - pinning that to a certain group or even trying to identify certain groups would be futile and result in mish mash nonsense.

So whilst I understand what you are saying, there is no proof that BF games were downloaded illegally (for sure they were - with everything - if it's free give it a go - but numbers of illegal downloads would be a wet finger in the air), no definitive numbers and no identifiable group. Companies like BF listen to scare mongering by companies who pretend they know and throw figures around and wait for the money to roll in...and, as you correctly stated, it's the paying customer who jumps through the preverbial.

DRM companies have an agenda...and it's sod all to do with reality

My five submissions:

1. Panzer Command Ostfront

2. Battle Academy: Market Garden

3. Tiger Unleashed

4. Commander – Europe at War Grand Strategy 2.0

5. Unity of Command

(sorry but no CM:BN, apart from graphics I dislike it...)

oh my, the good old battlefront discussions! a great wargame in itself! even though it uses the old yougoigo system. but at last they have made it multiplayer! i still dont buy it, it is too gamey for my taste.

The WEGO apsect is the major plus for me in CMBN. Plus you have RT is you want. Thats what I love options to suit both sides of the camp. I do ebleieve some more work is needed in the WEGO area.

Originally Posted By Wolverine101

 the $5 charge to update CMBB & CMAK EACH to be Vista compatible and/or high end graphic cards compatible was implemented. Many questioned it and still do today.

 

 

 

To be fair. The game did not need this patch for the specs listed for the game they purchased. It is a patch to upgrade to an operating system the game was not sold as being compatible with. The stronger beef along these lines is the $1 charge for the patch that people who purchased the Paradox version of CMSF. The "not for free patch" for them is for a game that meets the system requirements when they purchased the product. CMAK/CMBB do not need another patch when played on the system requirements they were sold as being compatible with.

Originally Posted By Zonso

Combat Mission Battle for Normandy for me hands down (...)

+1 !

Which reminds me, I haven't bought CMBN yet.  Waiting for a combo pack.

Probably not the place to ask but I'm curious why Wodin was banned.  Is it because he had two accounts?  Tigers Unleashed issue?

It's been a good year for me. In no specific order:

1) Unity of Command: one of the best surprises this year

2) Panzer Command: great game...

3) Hegemony Gold (love Greek history, see below)

4) HPS Greek Wars (fantastico!)

5) HPS Roman Civil War

6) Time of Fury: didn't have much time to play it yet but i already enjoyed Storm over the Pacific and Time of Wrath (for the netbook).

7) Battle Academy and addons: i love good cartoons, turn-based games and a challenge.

9) Distant Worlds: Legends...a great game gets better.

Originally Posted By ElvisCos

Originally Posted By Wolverine101

 the $5 charge to update CMBB & CMAK EACH to be Vista compatible and/or high end graphic cards compatible was implemented. Many questioned it and still do today.

 

 

 

 

To be fair. The game did not need this patch for the specs listed for the game they purchased. It is a patch to upgrade to an operating system the game was not sold as being compatible with. The stronger beef along these lines is the $1 charge for the patch that people who purchased the Paradox version of CMSF. The "not for free patch" for them is for a game that meets the system requirements when they purchased the product. CMAK/CMBB do not need another patch when played on the system requirements they were sold as being compatible with.

And to be fair according to ghostryder if they had programmed the game(s) "correctly" to start with there never would have needed to be a patch for Vista OS and Win7. So, the fail was in their corner to begin with.

Oh and just to be more fair Sid Meier et al came back and reprogrammed Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri to be able to work on WinXP for FREE along with Sid Meier's Civil War Series games.

The makers of the WWII Campaign series came back and reprogrammed that series to also work on WinXP for FREE.

There have been several others also that came back and made their games playable on WinXP that were Win95/95 created for FREE.

So, with that in mind I see no reason Battlefront should charge for those patches for CMBB and CMAK to work on Vista. Especially $5 EACH. Just greedy bassturds and goat milkers.

Originally Posted By Wolverine101

Especially $5 EACH. Just greedy bassturds and goat milkers.

Hee hee. Not a lot of milk from those goats would be my guess.

Best game of last year were this:

1. Combat Misssion Battle for Normandy

2. Battlefield Academy Market Garden

3. Panzercorps

4. Battles for the Bulge

5. Unity of Command

Biggest loser is Panzer Command patch. Game is 100% ripoff of CM1. This is what Microsoft did to Wordperfect, Quickbooks and others. Shame on pretender with lousy clone and BF hater on forum.