Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
frozen

Bagration

Recommended Posts

As I take a break from Kursk, and move on, I found a book on Bagration 1944 ("The destruction of Army Group Center").

Commited to the fighting around Byelorussia, the PT-34 mineroller tank (116th Separate Engineering Tank Regiment). Can't seem to find it in CMBB??

If I'm correct, and this is not in the game, please add this to the Stu.G. III w/skirts for July 43 (South) request for correction.

I haven't a clue whether BF reads any of this *stuff*, so maybe the community can advise on any success with suggestions or requests efforts, otherwise I'll save the finger exercising??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If what you say is accurate, that is too bad. As a programmer my experience has been when a project is no longer supported through improvements, updates, patches, you’re basically saying to the customer, "Hey we stopped caring, and so should you. If you want something better, buy our new product." What I've found is that while this doesn't get rid of customers immediately, it puts them into a state of mind of constantly being on the lookout for a new vendor (and product). Count me lookn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by frozen:

If what you say is accurate, that is too bad. As a programmer my experience has been when a project is no longer supported through improvements, updates, patches, you’re basically saying to the customer, "Hey we stopped caring, and so should you. If you want something better, buy our new product." What I've found is that while this doesn't get rid of customers immediately, it puts them into a state of mind of constantly being on the lookout for a new vendor (and product). Count me lookn.

Every project has to at some point reach a level of completion that is acceptable to both customer and company. This level may not be acceptable for everyone, but then again show me anything that is acceptable for everyone.

CMBB reached that level a while back. Not a perfect product, what is, but clearly acceptable to both parties. The game is solid, and the list of vehicles and unit formations number into the hundreds for both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They face two problems:

a) Keeping customers happy by improving existing games, thus making it more likely the customer might buy again from them.

B) Creating new products the customer can buy.

They can only concentrate on one of them. anything they shift to a) will be missed in B) and vice versa.

If they concentrate on a), they will make little money.

If they concetrate on B) they might loose some potential costumers, but can finish the next engine much earlier. Thus having an edge at the competition, thus gaining some more costumers.

Add to a) that most of the things they could add are only reqeusted by a minority (I don't care if there are PT34s or whether some StuG gets some skirt) or are rejected by others (I want to reduce the effectiveness of allied guns in CMAK and increase it in CMBB. Others might have different opinions).... or need the new engine. So anything they invest in a) will not yield too much return. To the contrary the less they divert on a) the faster they can achieve B) and thus make people on this forum happy.

So I guess they decided to go for B) with support limited to this forum. I don't like it, but I'd do the same. After all their resources regarding the amount of programmers are rather limited.

Gruß

Joachim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that all projects have a acceptable support lifespan, and that too many cooks in the kitchen and nothing gets done, so you take some people's suggestions and others ignore.

Joachim, I have no idea if the game represents effectiveness of the weapons accurately, I leave that to the designers, I don't have the expertise or the research materials to comment. For others, like yourself, I could see this as a point of contention if you had knowledge that supported outcomes not being represented in the game. For me its about units, that information I can find in OoBs and other sources (CMBB has a lot units I know). I just was noting things I was finding as I explored the game, not knowing if anyone cared or not. With this knowledge obviously I won't be bothering anyone with minor notes.

My view on support is, if your still selling the game, you should be actively supporting it. No if, ands, or buts. Selling without support is a method developed by accountants to increase return on investment, and represents a lack of integrity in conducting business for the buyers of CMBO and CMBB (hell Microsoft just stopped supporting Win98). At a minimum you should list those games as "not supported".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by frozen:

My view on support is, if your still selling the game, you should be actively supporting it. No if, ands, or buts. Selling without support is a method developed by accountants to increase return on investment, and represents a lack of integrity in conducting business for the buyers of CMBO and CMBB (hell Microsoft just stopped supporting Win98). At a minimum you should list those games as "not supported".

Once you've ended with your tantrum, you might try understanding that the developers can't just keep on adding units. Yet you still receive support for technical problems in the Tech Support and Madmatt does all he can to help with driver etc. problems, so yes, the game is supported.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sergi is correct,

Windows 98 support is gone, but the upgrade of windows 98 other then bug fixes does not exist unless you buy Windows XP. Hence, their support was for bugs, and NOT changed to the operating system.

Same thing here. We continue to support the products, but no enhancements will go into the game. There is a single programmer, and he is working on the next version of the engine. Remember the entire company consists of 6 people.

Rune

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a MSDN member for a number of years, your information is wrong Rune (and I shoulda been clearer in that MS recently announced the dates of ending support),

Paid incident support for Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, and Windows Millennium Edition (Me) is available through June 30, 2006.

Critical security updates will be provided on the Windows Update site through June 30, 2006.

Customers may request non-critical security fixes for Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, Windows Me, and the most current version of their components until June 30, 2006 through typical assisted-support channels.

Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, and Windows Me downloads for existing security issues will continue to be available through regular assisted-support channels at no charge until June 30, 2006.

Noting that driver support is left to third parties, and were not likely to see NTFS released for 98, that only leaves the CIA model, of which all of the above addresses.

I don't want to get into a debate on enhancement vs. bug (as MS calls bunches of bug fixes Service Packs). Needless to say I understand there will be no further "enhancements" to CMBB.

Save your insults Sergei, as I was making constructive comments, and not insulting the game, but making suggestions if there were still being excepted. Disenting views should be encouraged, and ideas freely expressed.

I understand your a small company, and I was making the above comments if there was still work going on. This is not the case, so as I said I won't post requests or ideas for CMBB.

Maybe there could be consideration for releasing older code, if a completly new engine is being worked on, sort of on the Open Source concept. Maybe die-hards in the community could offer to do maitenance work on CMBO and CMBB....before some flamer goes berzerk, its just a thought.

As a newer member to the board, I get the feeling some folks are a bit sensitive about inquiries or comments? Looking back through some of the older posts, I've seen some pretty rough comments, this is not meant to be one of those, just an opinion.

[ August 11, 2004, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: frozen ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"As a newer member to the board, I get the feeling some folks are a bit sensitive about inquiries or comments? Looking back through some of the older posts, I've seen some pretty rough comments, this is not meant to be one of those, just an opinion."

I am sorry if I have misjudged you as a troll - its just my opinion. Having joined the forum barely a month ago I would have thought you were still on the initial phase of learning the capabilities of the hundreds of vehicles available and mastering the interlinking of your infantry, artillery, airpower and armour to good effect.

: ) I feel better now. Thank you.

PS When was Monopoly last patched?

EDited to remove flame content!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought the games when they came out, and dusted them off recently to take a look at the editing capabilities. Read the entire thread next time, this is a discussion on updates and support, not on game mechanics or strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If what you say is accurate, that is too bad. As a programmer my experience has been when a project is no longer supported through improvements, updates, patches, you’re basically saying to the customer, "Hey we stopped caring, and so should you. If you want something better, buy our new product." What I've found is that while this doesn't get rid of customers immediately, it puts them into a state of mind of constantly being on the lookout for a new vendor (and product). Count me lookn. "

Seemed more like I will throw my rattle out of the pram thread. Leaving a tank out of the game , and not planning to do a another patch do not warrant your comment. Of course your comment may be aimed at Microsoft .....

It is a game not a mission critical piece of business software. It is designed to make an enjoyable and playable game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So lets's compare it with the biggest software firm: I never noticed improvements in Win98 or Word. Just as you write: Some security patches - but these are bug fixes. Nothing that eased working. If I wanted changes - buy the new product. Nobody gave me VBA for my old Office 5.0. Had to buy it with Office 2000.

Did I get a version of Word 6.0 that could correclty read my old .docs written in 2.0? No. Still have my master thesis as a word 2.0 file, but can't print it (it includes formulas). Several research papers in Word 6.0. University upgraded to another Office version - the papers were effectively gone. Type them again (or keep Word 6.0). Did I get a patch to be able to load my old .docs from old versions of Word? No.

To compare MS with BFC:

Are there any security problems? Viruses entering via PBEM? Somebody found the key to hack PBEMs and thus cheat? Nope. Every critical security problem was fixed immediately (as there never was one)

We can request changes now - but just like with MS, we get it in a new version/engine (for which we have to pay). We got 3 patches with user requested changes for free (BB). Just one in CMAK. Anything else we'll have to pay for.

The big difference? Nobody (except the Austalian military) uses CM as a critical tool. An upgrade will not loose lots of valuable documents. (At least if those people I PBEM continue their games with me once the new engine is done.)

But I agree the problem are the accountants who want to increse return on investment. That is called capitalism. And until recently it worked ;)

Gruß

Joachim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If BFC release the source code, I would imagine that they will wait until they've got the next engine sorted.

I don't actually recall any commercially produced game that had new units released in a new, free, patch from the manufacturer. All patches are functionality improvements and bug fixes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joachim,

I was leaning more towards MS history of reluctance to offer updates and patches in a timely manner, and that as an example, some piece of antiquated software still shows up on their list of "we support it" (given this was from some customer pressure). There seem to be a bit of irony there.

Please keep in mind, this was an "suggestion" for a "consideration" if there was going to be a fourth patch. Since reading through the readme for 1.03 listed that new units had been added. That’s it, nothing more...

diesel,

As I stated, when the advancement stops, I look to see what’s next. Yeah SD and PG provide ways to keep the current system going. CMAK, no, probably better to wait and see what the new offering is going to look like. In the mean time there are a host of other games to look at, count me lookn.

(only game I'm aware of that pushed the limits of lifespan, Neverwinter Nights, giving out the editor the designers use, including the ability to create your own objects and methods in quasi C++.)

flamingknives..

Well BF was nice enough to add units in 1.03 (Several Romanian aircraft added and data updated) minor but an addition.

Neverwinter Nights has added new units on each patch. And yes they have stopped patching, now new units come from the community, via the editor system described above.

So far BF has been very nice in responding and taking the time to explain their approach. On the other hand, the ignorant can't resist putting in insults along with their opinions, and find any questioning threatening. Mission critical? For some it appears to be...

[ August 12, 2004, 10:20 AM: Message edited by: frozen ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As of now, there is no plans to release the code. It would take Charles wayyyy too long to write up a document on how to just add a vehicle. That time is better spent on the new engine.

Also, support for an enhancement is PAID for for Windows 98 and Windows ME. So, if a millionaire out there would like a patch to CMBO or CMBB, just drop Moon a line, something can be worked out. smile.gif

Last, I simplied the MS model, as I have been a MS Beta tester since Windows 3.1. I know more of the internal workings of MS then I care to admit. smile.gif

Rune

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, all the CM games use a similar engine, so releasing CMBB or CMBO could comprimise CMAK.

If you've read through the fora, you'll have seen the arguments that spring up over millimetres of armour and tenths of percent points of accuracy.

Imagine if people had the ability to mod their particular preference. The community would factionalise faster than you could say "nahevertigungswaffe", which would be a pity, and would make it difficult to play PBEM or TCP/IP, as the current crop of CM games aren't set up for engine mods.

I suspect that some of the AI is dependent on the units involved, so adding a unit requires altering the AI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi...

I weigh in on no side of the argument as I under stand your point and any BFC point made here. ('cept maybe mine I guess...)

I would like to see additional units in CMBB and CMAK (King Tigers and Jagd Tigers especially) but I understand that CM AK for example is North Africa based and Italy based and this also leaves something for the next engine. :D

*sigh*

As an avid ASL gamer, I'd like to see infantry smoke all round, but it ain't going to happen...

No offence 'frozen' but this may be the point where you say, 'ah OK'... (no offence really so don't bother getting shirty an quoting me an stuff)

Let's run with a theme....

Given that you had your mine roller tank and your opponent (less likely) or the AI knows you may have one. God forbid, the designer gives you one if they were available ( which also tells you two things, 1; You have mines ahead, and 2; you'll never get to clear them coz' of that PaK 40 and that ideal ambush spot... )

BLAM

No more mine clearing tank...

'The valient crew bail from their hatches as rampant MG 42 fire cuts them to ribbons... "Yuri, Yuri... are you hu "BUDDA-BUDDA-BUDDA" ... But wait... If I can mortar that bunker and get some pioneers up to those mines via that culvert I may just be able to clear them...'

And the story goes on.

Someone designs the scenario you play...

There's always carrots on the road of pain!

:D

Richie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...