Its Destraex

Those screenshots are great. But you can still see some uniform items that should be in normandy rather than Italy.

Originally Posted By destraex (27 JUL 2012 6:32am)

Its Destraex

not Destraux

 

Those screenshots are great. But you can still see some uniform items that should be in normandy rather than Italy.

Sorry about that destraex. Fixed.

That was the French pronunciation.

Was anyone else left with the impression from this article that Battlefront are going to develop the game their way and the rest of us can buy it or be damned!?

Andy

Yes I got that impression. The battlefront team are certainly not marketing people.

I kind of like the way they are brutally honest with us. You know exactly what your going to get

and there is no hype. 

They want new customers like any other company, and they did say they care about the current player base. My guess is though

that battlefront have figured out that to move forward they cannot be shackled by the current fan base who 

I have noticed are very traditional wargamers with a penchant to resist all change, even more realistic change. They want to tap into the current generation of potential wargame geeks who have never played a board game in there life and have the urge for uber detail in a real time\WEGO wargame.

At the moment they have captured the few "veterans" in the customer base who can handle the new real time CM series. The rest have stayed back in there caves with CM1 or moved to newer old turn based games. 

Battefront are close to cracking a new market imho. A market that is a new generation sick of simple games like company of heroes and ready to move to the big daddy that is a combat mission game and all that complexity that comes with it. They need terrain graphics and soldier animations to be a little better and the game interface to be a little smoother. Then a huge new player base would move into town. Battlefront would get a huge foot print, perhaps as big as the Warhammer groups.

Can you imagine company of heroes graphics, terrain and animation with combat mission realism and attention to detail.

P.S. Personally I would obviously love to have better AI.

P.S.2 I loved the mkIII model. For some reason that tank just looks sexy to me.

Originally Posted By destraex (28 JUL 2012 7:19pm)

Yes I got that impression. The battlefront team are certainly not marketing people.

To be honest, I'm more concerned about the expensive, drip fed content.  I find it hard to reconcile that, until mid-August anyway, Panzer Command: Ostfront gives me the whole Great Patriotic War for $18 while Battlefront is planning to give me  WW2 a bit at a time, charging around $50 for each installment.

Now I understand that CM2 is, in many ways, superior to PC: O.  It's well ahead graphically and several aspects of WW2 combat are modelled better.

Having played CM2, I can not now go back to the original CM trilogy.  However, I find I'm quite happy playing PC: O.  PC: O is a different way of scratching my tactical WW2 itch.  It's also cheaper and it's available now.

Battlefront's vision of tactical computer gaming is going to require several hundred dollars for the whole of WW2.  This is clearly a high-end option and, while those who buy into it will probably be satisfied with what they get for their money, it is going to be interesting to see how pausable or turn-based 3d tactical wargames evolve in the next few years.

Andy

Cmx2 would truely shine with an operational campaign over layer built in like what cmc was going to do with cmx1.  

iPad posting causing unintentional emoticon...sry.

Originally Posted By AndyBrown (27 JUL 2012 5:46pm)

Was anyone else left with the impression from this article that Battlefront are going to develop the game their way and the rest of us can buy it or be damned!?

 

Andy

 

That's not their attitude at all. If you go their forums and ask questions to Steve about why X feature isn't in the game, they actually take the time to explain their decisions for including and excluding certain featuers. There have been many discussions between BFC and their consumers about improving their products. I personally suggested several features be added to the Scenario designer and all of them are being implemented in the new 2.0 versions. So I know for a fact that the design team is listenting to their users.

However, if someone makes a post about how BFC should be designing their games, especially if it's in a disrespectful manner, then they will usually get an earful from the community. Eventually Moon or Steve usually chime in to set things straight.

Originally Posted By destraex (28 JUL 2012 7:19pm)

 

 

Can you imagine company of heroes graphics, terrain and animation with combat mission realism and attention to detail.

 

 

 

Pure perfection. Graviteam is also doing a good job with Achtung Panzer to get there first.

The Graviteam games are ok, but not even in the same league as CM as far as the total package.

Originally Posted By Pak40 (30 JUL 2012 12:31pm)

Originally Posted By AndyBrown (27 JUL 2012 5:46pm)

Was anyone else left with the impression from this article that Battlefront are going to develop the game their way and the rest of us can buy it or be damned!?

 

Andy

 

 

That's not their attitude at all.

 

It's a matter of interpretation, and you have chosen the rosiest. Not everyone agrees with your interpretation. Some would suggest your interpretation is, in fact, the minority, including those, like myself, who have actually worked behind the scenes with the development team.

Probably enough said, there, though I can also add there is something to be said for rising above the unreasonable expectations of others and just staying on task, which is what they may also be accused of doing. I also think they have improved their public relations in the last couple of years, from atrocious to mostly passable, with one or two flubs. Given that no one is perfect, I think they rate as well as anyone else in that department now. Their handling of the CM:SF release, including pre-release materials, etc., was about the worst you could imagine, but recent releases have shown much more skill from a PR standpoint. Most importantly, they are meeting their own deadlines - probably the only thing that really matters to gamers. CM:FI was announced for August 2012 and was up for download on the 2nd of the month. If you hit your key dates like that, with bug-free programs, you get much more goodwill and the rest is forgotten if not forgiven.

Anyway, an interesting enough interview, but I think it is time for BFC to make a commitment as to what the future of this thing is really going to look like. This is the only exception to what I just mentioned that I can think of (other than the general tone of the customer relations on their forums, much of which is shaped by their beta testers.)  I can't envision myself pre-ordering any more games without knowing how many modules those games will require to support it. I took a chance on CM:BN two years ago despite the fact there was only a promise of additional modules. (A promise from BFC is generally good, particularly where the flagship is concerned, but not golden, given that CM:C and one or two other projects did turn to vapour, albeit not related to BFC-produced CM projects.)  I kind of figured a Commonwealth module was a no-brainer, and reasoned on my own what the content had to be - British, Canadians, SS, Luftwaffe. At that, the other content was skimpy - no real no unit capabilities or terrain that was earthshaking. There is talk of a "Market-Garden" module, but no real promise of what that will be (are we going to see gliders and airborne troops in the air? Doubtful. Dutch building types? One would imagine. Flame weapons, which should have been in the Normandy set? One would hope so, though the comments in this interview make that ambiguous. And will there be anything else after that? They don't say. And then I think I need to pay again for the 2.0 engine upgrade on top of it, and even if I don't, I certainly will want to just to get the editor updates.

Given that kind of uncertainty, I can't see myself ordering the Italy game, which contains duplicate units for the most part for the period 1944-45, with some notable exceptions (Elefant, etc.), without some sort of understanding of what the module scheme will be in advance - how many modules, how much will the whole theatre cost me by the time they are done? I get the sense they don't even know yet. Which is fair enough, but until they have it sorted out, they won't be getting my money. The CM:FI may have some unusual match-ups with the 1943 era equipment and the Italians, but not enough to grab me this time around.

I have a hard time seeing where the "new" customers will come from that Steve references in the article, if each of the new games has "considerable overlap", as he mentions the Bulge game having with the Normandy game. There would be the same "problem" with a modern NATO game of the type he describes. While a temperate setting would probably be much more appealing than the Shock Force Syrian setting, I think the law of diminishing returns is going to set in quite quickly. If you are interested in Second World War tactical games - or alternately modern conflict simulation - or both - you're probably going to have heard of this series. Wells of "new gamers" for each additional title seem unlikely given that proposition; Sicily '43, Bulge '44, Kursk '43 can't honestly appeal to radically different segments of the game buying public. The question doesn't become which new buyers do you attract with each title, but how many of the "old" buyers are going to give the new title a pass.

Originally Posted By Michael Dorosh (4 AUG 2012 6:57am)

Originally Posted By Pak40 (30 JUL 2012 12:31pm)

Originally Posted By AndyBrown (27 JUL 2012 5:46pm)

Was anyone else left with the impression from this article that Battlefront are going to develop the game their way and the rest of us can buy it or be damned!?

 

Andy

 

 

That's not their attitude at all.

 

 

It's a matter of interpretation, and you have chosen the rosiest. Not everyone agrees with your interpretation. Some would suggest your interpretation is, in fact, the minority, including those, like myself, who have actually worked behind the scenes with the development team.

 

Probably enough said, there, though I can also add there is something to be said for rising above the unreasonable expectations of others and just staying on task, which is what they may also be accused of doing. I also think they have improved their public relations in the last couple of years, from atrocious to mostly passable, with one or two flubs. Given that no one is perfect, I think they rate as well as anyone else in that department now. Their handling of the CM:SF release, including pre-release materials, etc., was about the worst you could imagine, but recent releases have shown much more skill from a PR standpoint. Most importantly, they are meeting their own deadlines - probably the only thing that really matters to gamers. CM:FI was announced for August 2012 and was up for download on the 2nd of the month. If you hit your key dates like that, with bug-free programs, you get much more goodwill and the rest is forgotten if not forgiven.

 

Anyway, an interesting enough interview, but I think it is time for BFC to make a commitment as to what the future of this thing is really going to look like. This is the only exception to what I just mentioned that I can think of (other than the general tone of the customer relations on their forums, much of which is shaped by their beta testers.)  I can't envision myself pre-ordering any more games without knowing how many modules those games will require to support it. I took a chance on CM:BN two years ago despite the fact there was only a promise of additional modules. (A promise from BFC is generally good, particularly where the flagship is concerned, but not golden, given that CM:C and one or two other projects did turn to vapour, albeit not related to BFC-produced CM projects.)  I kind of figured a Commonwealth module was a no-brainer, and reasoned on my own what the content had to be - British, Canadians, SS, Luftwaffe. At that, the other content was skimpy - no real no unit capabilities or terrain that was earthshaking. There is talk of a "Market-Garden" module, but no real promise of what that will be (are we going to see gliders and airborne troops in the air? Doubtful. Dutch building types? One would imagine. Flame weapons, which should have been in the Normandy set? One would hope so, though the comments in this interview make that ambiguous. And will there be anything else after that? They don't say. And then I think I need to pay again for the 2.0 engine upgrade on top of it, and even if I don't, I certainly will want to just to get the editor updates.

 

Given that kind of uncertainty, I can't see myself ordering the Italy game, which contains duplicate units for the most part for the period 1944-45, with some notable exceptions (Elefant, etc.), without some sort of understanding of what the module scheme will be in advance - how many modules, how much will the whole theatre cost me by the time they are done? I get the sense they don't even know yet. Which is fair enough, but until they have it sorted out, they won't be getting my money. The CM:FI may have some unusual match-ups with the 1943 era equipment and the Italians, but not enough to grab me this time around.

 

I have a hard time seeing where the "new" customers will come from that Steve references in the article, if each of the new games has "considerable overlap", as he mentions the Bulge game having with the Normandy game. There would be the same "problem" with a modern NATO game of the type he describes. While a temperate setting would probably be much more appealing than the Shock Force Syrian setting, I think the law of diminishing returns is going to set in quite quickly. If you are interested in Second World War tactical games - or alternately modern conflict simulation - or both - you're probably going to have heard of this series. Wells of "new gamers" for each additional title seem unlikely given that proposition; Sicily '43, Bulge '44, Kursk '43 can't honestly appeal to radically different segments of the game buying public. The question doesn't become which new buyers do you attract with each title, but how many of the "old" buyers are going to give the new title a pass.

 

Jeez - what a load of tosh. The fact remains - your opinion counts for little (as it always has given your obvious bias to criticise them at every opportunity for some percieved slight  in the past.). They are the ones producing and selling the games - you arent - I will take their view over yours any day. So far they seem to know what they are doing. Long may  it continue - whatever faults the moaners see with their product - it is still a country mile ahead of anything else out there with regard to quality and immersion. I frankly see little difference in what BF are doing that what was done with Squad Leader. You conspicuously leave out one group of people - likely a large proportion of the BF customer base. Those who love what they are doing and will buy everything they do. How was the commonwealth content "Skimpy" were you part of the process that created it ?  If it was so "Skimpy" why are they not turning it out more quickly so all us suckers will buy it. To me it was anything but skimpy a new army, new campaigns new scenarios. It is a lot less skimpy than a whole lot of other expansions I have bought.

Originally Posted By DBeves (4 AUG 2012 8:30am)

 

as it always has given your obvious bias to criticise them at every opportunity for some percieved slight  in the past.).

I honestly have no idea what this refers to, but then again, you seem to be the first one to jump into a thread every time I get involved in a conversation here about CM. I'm thinking perhaps you are the one with the bias. I must have said something to you directly on the forums at some point that upset you - perhaps you can get past it, or explain to me what it was by PM or email in order to work out your issue - but constantly harping on me publicly about - whatever this is doesn't seem constructive. Actually, you just look foolish, particularly when I post balanced responses to the articles in order to generate meaningful conversation, and all you come up with is stuff like:

They are the ones producing and selling the games - you arent - I will take their view over yours any day. So far they seem to know what they are doing. Long may  it continue - whatever faults the moaners see with their product - it is still a country mile ahead of anything else out there with regard to quality and immersion. I frankly see little difference in what BF are doing that what was done with Squad Leader.

No idea what that was supposed to mean.

You conspicuously leave out one group of people - likely a large proportion of the BF customer base. Those who love what they are doing and will buy everything they do.

You lost me. Left them out of what, exactly? My post was an explanation of why I didn't pre-order CM:FI and why I thought, from a personal standpoint, perhaps it was time for BFC to provide some clarity regarding the schedule for future games and modules, and how my personal, future purchasing decisions would be predicated on that. I also suggested that the audience for these future games would probably have a fair degree of overlap.

I don't know what your comment is in response to, in other words. It sounds like you're ranting at this point.

How was the commonwealth content "Skimpy" were you part of the process that created it ?

I think you meant to write two different sentences there, and I'm not sure what the second has to do with the first? The second part seems irrelevant, but the first one is worth our time. I meant that the module mostly contained new units, about half of which were reskinned German Army units (infantry in different clothes, tanks and trucks in different paint schemes, and the Canadians were just British in different colours as well - note that the Canadians have a number of vehicles they never used historically - ever - including the Bedford truck and Loyd Carrier, while they are missing vehicles they did use, such as the Canadian Military Pattern truck, Windsor and T16 carriers which were used exclusively in their Support Companies). There were no interesting new terrain types, weapons (anti-aircraft guns, AVsRE, flame weapons, "funnies", and all the engineering goodies such as the Crab tank, etc. the Commonwealth were famous for and used to great advantage), unit capabilities, etc. There were some new orders and a small patch that changed the executable. Overall, I call that skimpy.

If it was so "Skimpy" why are they not turning it out more quickly so all us suckers will buy it. To me it was anything but skimpy a new army, new campaigns new scenarios. It is a lot less skimpy than a whole lot of other expansions I have bought.

Everything is relative, isn't it. And you used the "suckers" label, not me.

I am the last person to say CM doesn't have it's ardent fans. I would say you're pretty good proof of that.

Michael. You are involved in some way with a competitors game are you not? One that came out slightly before Battlefronts CMBN game?

You were also banned from the Battlefront forums were you not?

I for one am glad there are some opponents to the combat mission fan base. Its good to know good old fashion competition exists.

Originally Posted By Michael Dorosh (4 AUG 2012 6:57am)

Originally Posted By Pak40 (30 JUL 2012 12:31pm)

Originally Posted By AndyBrown (27 JUL 2012 5:46pm)

Was anyone else left with the impression from this article that Battlefront are going to develop the game their way and the rest of us can buy it or be damned!?

 

Andy

 

 

That's not their attitude at all.

 

 

It's a matter of interpretation, and you have chosen the rosiest. Not everyone agrees with your interpretation. Some would suggest your interpretation is, in fact, the minority, including those, like myself, who have actually worked behind the scenes with the development team.

 

Probably enough said, there, though I can also add there is something to be said for rising above the unreasonable expectations of others and just staying on task, which is what they may also be accused of doing. I also think they have improved their public relations in the last couple of years, from atrocious to mostly passable, with one or two flubs. Given that no one is perfect, I think they rate as well as anyone else in that department now. Their handling of the CM:SF release, including pre-release materials, etc., was about the worst you could imagine, but recent releases have shown much more skill from a PR standpoint. Most importantly, they are meeting their own deadlines - probably the only thing that really matters to gamers. CM:FI was announced for August 2012 and was up for download on the 2nd of the month. If you hit your key dates like that, with bug-free programs, you get much more goodwill and the rest is forgotten if not forgiven.

 

Anyway, an interesting enough interview, but I think it is time for BFC to make a commitment as to what the future of this thing is really going to look like. This is the only exception to what I just mentioned that I can think of (other than the general tone of the customer relations on their forums, much of which is shaped by their beta testers.)  I can't envision myself pre-ordering any more games without knowing how many modules those games will require to support it. I took a chance on CM:BN two years ago despite the fact there was only a promise of additional modules. (A promise from BFC is generally good, particularly where the flagship is concerned, but not golden, given that CM:C and one or two other projects did turn to vapour, albeit not related to BFC-produced CM projects.)  I kind of figured a Commonwealth module was a no-brainer, and reasoned on my own what the content had to be - British, Canadians, SS, Luftwaffe. At that, the other content was skimpy - no real no unit capabilities or terrain that was earthshaking. There is talk of a "Market-Garden" module, but no real promise of what that will be (are we going to see gliders and airborne troops in the air? Doubtful. Dutch building types? One would imagine. Flame weapons, which should have been in the Normandy set? One would hope so, though the comments in this interview make that ambiguous. And will there be anything else after that? They don't say. And then I think I need to pay again for the 2.0 engine upgrade on top of it, and even if I don't, I certainly will want to just to get the editor updates.

 

Given that kind of uncertainty, I can't see myself ordering the Italy game, which contains duplicate units for the most part for the period 1944-45, with some notable exceptions (Elefant, etc.), without some sort of understanding of what the module scheme will be in advance - how many modules, how much will the whole theatre cost me by the time they are done? I get the sense they don't even know yet. Which is fair enough, but until they have it sorted out, they won't be getting my money. The CM:FI may have some unusual match-ups with the 1943 era equipment and the Italians, but not enough to grab me this time around.

 

I have a hard time seeing where the "new" customers will come from that Steve references in the article, if each of the new games has "considerable overlap", as he mentions the Bulge game having with the Normandy game. There would be the same "problem" with a modern NATO game of the type he describes. While a temperate setting would probably be much more appealing than the Shock Force Syrian setting, I think the law of diminishing returns is going to set in quite quickly. If you are interested in Second World War tactical games - or alternately modern conflict simulation - or both - you're probably going to have heard of this series. Wells of "new gamers" for each additional title seem unlikely given that proposition; Sicily '43, Bulge '44, Kursk '43 can't honestly appeal to radically different segments of the game buying public. The question doesn't become which new buyers do you attract with each title, but how many of the "old" buyers are going to give the new title a pass.

 

Most of your post makes perfect sense to me, but in a positive light. I love the fact that so much attention is being lavished on modules.

I love the fact that they are retro-fitting new features.

I think that most game expansions do not come close to including so much content. 

What kind of returns do you think a community want from a gaming community that keeps buying ww2 games with the same content?

I for one will probably end up buying them all and considering myself lucky this game even exists with so much content and so many improvements being retro-fitted to previous titles where possible. Other games DO NOT do this, battlefront will do it because they are fans of their own games.

Sure you will probably have to pay to get flamethrowers into normandy when the "code" is eventually developed. Same as any corporate would pay for the next version of their accounting software. IT IS NOT a patch to fix bugs. But to add new features.

Personally I think if they thought they had one title to release they would probably put the lot in. But it would not be done properly and it would probably just look stupid. I think they want to do a good job with flame effects and perhaps burning men, houses etc. Who knows we may even see upgraded damage effects at that time.

I strongly disagree that most ww2 gamers have heard of combat mission. Most gamers that are "potential" war gamers that I speak to have not. In fact I spoke to a new friend of a friend just last week and introduced him to it. He is younger than me by 5yrs or so and a big total war fan. Plays FPS like RO2, company of heroes etc and is just maturing into games like CMBN. But had no idea it existed and will have to be taught the ins and outs of realistic war simulations.

Originally Posted By destraex (4 AUG 2012 11:53pm)

Michael. You are involved in some way with a competitors game are you not?

No.

One that came out slightly before Battlefronts CMBN game?

Again, no.

I for one am glad there are some opponents to the combat mission fan base. Its good to know good old fashion competition exists.

Huh?

I nominated CM:BN for the Charles S. Roberts awards. The winners were announced today.

http://www.alanemrich.com/CSR_pages/results.php?theYear=2011

CM:BN was named "Best 20th Century Era - Modern Computer Wargame"

By the way - out of all the "combat mission fan base" as you call them, no one bothered to nominate it. I was the one that put it on the list.

So explain to me what you're talking about.

By the way, if you're referring to Matrix and Panzer Command - they're not competitors. Anyone interested in Second World War tactical combat - a niche within a niche - is more likely than not going to at the least try both CM:BN and PzC, if not buy both games. They are sufficiently unlike each other now to appeal to the same audience. The developers - of either game - have never suggested there is any competition between the two, and no reasonable person would interpret it that way either.

The community is healthiest when people enjoy offerings from all developers and publishers and feel free to weigh their relative merits with an open mind in a frank and intelligent manner. I don't know why you keep trying to foster a "me-against-you" attitude here; I'm honestly not interested. I'll continue to enjoy offerings from all publishers.

Incidentally, if you haven't tried them yet, I have several scenarios for CM:BN uploaded at the BFC repository that have been well received. Always looking for constructive feedback.