Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kellysheroes

Continuing an old debate thread

Recommended Posts

The point is the game engine is an ever evolving platform for our wargaming hobby. It will never, ever have everything you guys want to see in it, but it will continue to have more than any other game company is willing (or even capable of) providing.

I don't see how this is true since Matrixgames Panzer Command Kharkov far surpasses even your CMX2 modules because it has random generated campaigns and random generated battles even. I think you bit off more than you could chew with that statement Steve. Even the ai is better in it. Once Koios gets the Western front portion out it's going to put CMX2 Normandy and it's modules way behind unless you put back in quick battles and random created campaigns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just bought the game after following its development from the first demo. 1.11 was what sold me. Absolutly the best game of its genre on the market right now! I am glad I waited till it got to this point, since it really has me adicted now. All that have been waiting to get it, or have given it a negative review should check it out now. It is such a better game from previous versions. Great, Great product Battlefront! I'm spreading the word!

I think your opinion on the lack of a random map generator and the fact that PC:K "far surpasses" CMSF is a tad subjective.

Having said that, there are plenty of things in CMAK that are much funner and maybe even better, than CMSF, but why not wait and see what turns up in the WW2 game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you bit off more than you could chew with that statement Steve.

From what I know about Panzer Command, I think not. The reviews I've seen from CM players the game itself has quite a ways to go to catch up to even CMx1's level of sophistication. It also has some shortcomings that CMx2 doesn't have in terms of scenario making and size. I've not played Pz Command, but I can see that the graphics are lagging behind CMx2.

So, with no disrespect intended towards the developers of Pz Command, I don't think the two games can be compared by looking at unit counts and a specific method of play or two. Plus, as I've said a thousand times already... CM:Normandy will have a QB system that is more like CMx1 (in the ways people want it to be) and yet still work within the more sophisticated CMx2 environment.

CMx1 did not have random campaigns and I don't think we suffered for it. Which is why CMx2 won't have them either.

So if you're intention was to get us quaking in our boots about possible competition for CMx2, you didn't do that. If you're intention was to show us that someone is going to finally do better than something we made 10 years ago, I say GREAT!! It's about time :D

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hoolaman,

I think your opinion on the lack of a random map generator and the fact that PC:K "far surpasses" CMSF is a tad subjective.

I think Kelleysheroes is the one that "bit off more than [he] could chew with that statement". ;)

For me, and I think most wargamers out there, having a game that offers tons of units and randomized methods of play is a secondary concern. The primary concern is the core game itself. We're quite comfortable that we have an edge there that won't be matched. Why do I think that? Because some 8.5 years after CMBO's release (and 11 years since we started making the game) it still appears to me that nobody's topped it, not to mention the improved CMBB/AK. We welcome competition, but we're still waiting for it.

BTW, it's also unfair to compare what is going on with Pz Commander now to what we're doing. We've been doing this for a lot longer. We can come back to this discussion in about 3 years or so and see how things panned out. I honestly hope the developer doesn't find out the hard way that adding a ton of units isn't the way to success. This niche needs more quality developers, not less.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a Superbowl coming up in the next few days in the very competitive NFL American Football League.

Last time I checked there is no Superbowl for wargames.

I don't think one-upsmanship is the cardinal rule amongst wargame developers and publishers unless something changed since I woke up yesterday. I'm not in that business so I guess I could be wrong. It seems more like an ongoing attempt to build on what others have done in the past.

The only "winners" should be the wargaming consumer who gets to choose amongst many hopefully good titles. At least that's the way it should be.

Play what you like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said!

And to comment on the title of this thread... what is the debate, exactly? When it comes to us staying in business... there is no debate. We're doing what we need to do and that's all there is too it. Complaining, wishful thinking, whining, etc. may indeed come into a discussion we have about Modules and what not, but that's not the same as a debate. We've decided to not go out of business and we honestly think that isn't something people should want to debate :D

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whine, whine, whine, cry, cry, cry,. Alright, now that that business is out of the way, give us some brit module screenshots already. :) By the way, keep doing what your doing BFC, you'll get my money. Bwahahahahahahahahaha...................Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did play Panzer Command for a very short while, not even as fas as to have mastered the system. However, while it has some appeal, the game routines are translated from miniatures wargame rules and AFAIR the maximum map size is about 1000x1000m!? Might have some more fun with it in the future, but for me it does not even compete with CMBO. Maybe the next PC game will, I don´t know, but even with having CMSF on my computer, I still have great fun playing CMBB and AK in H2H mode and I still love making maps and scenarios! :) Btw, I remember I could not start the Panzer Command map/scenario editor, cause it requires an installment of IE7 minimum. I´m a Mozilla user long time! Think that was also the last time I did start up any Panzer command software.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have PCK, the game is good, but there are little things that put me off PBEM play, like the 2 x 40 second phases and the double emails. Its feels CMBBish though and has some better graphics and what not. The better features are platoon commands and formations for the armour, a definite advance.

Games are for playing, as has been said here already, and there cant be enough of them.

I dont think anyone should start knocking CM Normandy before it comes out, I realise that we may have a lowered expectation after the SF release debacle, but Im firmly of conviction the that BF will get this one right first time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for Matrix...I'm glad they are moving into the 3D realm. Matrix makes wargames for wargamers. BFC makes Wargames for wargamers. There are a handful of companies that cater to our needs. What I never understand is Why the need to debate...especially an old debate, long since concluded by wargamers who purchased the product and continue to play it or have shelved it. I bought and supported (and worked on)Matrix products. I did that while playing CMx1 products by BFC. I never once had an argument on my hard drive about having to share Gigs. I did notice more than a few "My game's way better then your game" threads on various forums. To my mind an utter waste of time to compare "types" of wargames as the best (or ONLY!) way to play. So Good for Matrix and BFC. And to all who play their games; glad you have found a game you enjoy and hope you'll support the companies that produce them. But if any of us thinks for a minute that we belong to some huge consumer group, targeted by all the gaming companies, and all our needs will be met....well...just writing that is delusional.

Relax...enjoy the wargaming ride!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It can't come as very much of a surprise that different games are different. That game makers with a bigger art staff have better art, game makers with deeper AI programming experience have better AIs, and the one with a bigger advertising budget has more advertising. Sure I'd prefer CMSF to have cast shadows on par with game X but I'd like game X to have an AI as good as CMSF.

But there's a danger in that way of thinking too, its called 'design by committee'. If BFC had listed to all of the demands from this forum from the beginning we'd be playing on 20x20km maps with micro terrain detail, commanding Battalion size units and individual soldiers, with unlimited game time and full playback. And with fully furnished building that tanks can drive through and destroy. Sounds like a great game - that would've taken ten years to code-up and would be unplayable by any computer on the market. So the game designers instead pick-and-choose which features to stress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think your opinion on the lack of a random map generator and the fact that PC:K "far surpasses" CMSF is a tad subjective.

Having said that, there are plenty of things in CMAK that are much funner and maybe even better, than CMSF, but why not wait and see what turns up in the WW2 game?

I didn’t think making such a bold statement would bring up a debate. I don’t believe I have played Panzer Commander, but I will check it out. All I can say is with the 1.11 patch Battlefront sold me, and that is rare as I am a very picky gamer. True, it does not currently have all the features, and great things we miss from CMx1, but it is still a great game worth getting now that is at least at this point. I think Cmx2 is only going to get better in time as more things get eventually included.

There is definitely room enough in the world for more than one good game, but CMAK has been the bar to measure up to for me since I have been playing it the last several years. I think any smart developer should look at what is good out there, and take the best parts to make something uniquely their own. Undoubtedly I am sure the developers of Panzer Commander looked to Cmx1 for inspiration since the screens I saw of it look very much like Combat Mission. I looked to CMx1 for a game concept I came up with for the development team at Firerglow for their Sudden Strike 3 engine. Fireglow is like a guy who has a beautiful woman, but doesn’t know what do with her. Their engine has some of the nicest eye candy out there, but lacks in the depth offered by Combat Mission. I combined the two games to make something unique. Drawing from Combat Mission as the bar to measure up to. The more good, quality games out there the better since they can all offer different experiences.

Check out my game concept, some good Ideas there, perhaps even Battlefront may draw from. http://www.suddenstrike.com/index.php?uid=forum_message_list&uid_forum_topic=8407880&uid_forum_section=38202&offset=0&total=15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one hope and pray someone comes a long and gives BFC a run for their money. 2 great games is always better than one. Plus then they dont have to have the added pressure of being the only game in town for some of you guys. To a lesser extent, thats like being a country EXPECTED to be the world's stabilizing factor and hating them when they use military force to enact peace. I would just hate to see what some of us would do if Battlefront stopped making games, and since they are not to my knowledge immortal, that day will come eventually.

And if you want a higher degree of realism, equipment true to real life, and shockingly accurate sounds of battle, there is a 10000km by 10000km battlefield that you can still register for with free travel, lodging, and amenities. You can even get a bonus for registering! Go to https://officialarmy.com/ and get in the game!!!

:)

PS Free camelback for the first few hundred thousand users

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn’t think making such a bold statement would bring up a debate. I don’t believe I have played Panzer Commander, but I will check it out. All I can say is with the 1.11 patch Battlefront sold me, and that is rare as I am a very picky gamer. True, it does not currently have all the features, and great things we miss from CMx1, but it is still a great game worth getting now that is at least at this point. I think Cmx2 is only going to get better in time as more things get eventually included.

I was being a bit obtuse when I quoted your post.

My point was to show that someone else posted a thread at the same time about this being the best game in its genre in contrast to KellysHeroes' post where he says the game is second best because of xyz.

I am not arguing that CMSF is the best game in the world or even in its genre, just that people have a lot of different priorities and opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hoolaman,

Even though you are Australian (and therefore obtuse by definition :)), I understood you perfectly because you are absolutely correct. There is no such thing as a master check list to look at and grade a game by. You can't say "well, Game A doesn't have Features X, Y, and Z, therefore it flunks. Game B, which does have Features X, Y, and Z passes." It just doesn't happen.

What does happen is that individual customers have their own checklists. They are somewhat squishy (I'll cover that in a sec), but they have meaning to that individual person. Let me emphasize that... INDIVIDUAL MEANING. They have no group meaning. So if someone values PBEM more than anything, then to THAT ONE PERSON it means more than anything. For the next person it could be that they never, ever, in a million years would want to play PBEM so that feature means absolutely nothing to them. In fact, if that person were put in charge of development he would probably want PBEM to get the axe so whatever it is he values most could get more attention.

Now, the truth is that each individual's checklist is subject to exceptions and changes in emphasis depending on the game that is actually in front of them. How many times have you heard people say "this game doesn't have Feature X and Feature Y is not the way I like it, while Feature Z is something that doesn't even work right, but overall I really like the game"? It happens all the time. Why? Because gamers have to play what they are given, not what they design in their heads. So sooner or later people have to come to terms with the fact that it is unlikely they will get the EXACT game they are picturing in their heads, and that means they have to adapt to what they do get.

Either that or they are miserable SOBs who try to destroy a game or game company because they aren't getting exactly what they want. This is the spoiled rotten child throwing a tantrum equivalent. We've had a bunch of that nonsense here, and yet despite that our biggest detractors still follow every word we utter and usually say they will at least check out the Normandy game when it comes out. In other words, they are full of stinky bodily waste and therefore we can safely ignore them :D It's the customers that go away quietly and never come back that concern us, not the vocal and over-the-top abusive critics. They're good for an occasional laugh or groan, not much else.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In other words, they are full of stinky bodily waste and therefore we can safely ignore them

You nearly killed me with that remark -I was snacking on some grapes while reading and nearly choked to death laughing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sixxkiller,

I for one hope and pray someone comes a long and gives BFC a run for their money.

We want this too. There are MANY reasons why competition is good for us, both as a game company and as developers:

This is a small niche that is vastly under served by game developers. This means there is plenty of room for competition without cutting into our bottom line. Since there are reasons why competition is good for us, it's a win-win for us if a strong competitor comes upon us.

One of the primary benefits to us, as developers, is that pressure is taken off of our shoulders to produce stuff as quickly as possible. We work as fast as we can but we all know it isn't fast enough. We even spent a few years making the CMx2 game engine especially designed to speed things up, partly to take advantage of the vacuum and partially because we're under pressure by our customers to crank things out.

Games tend to be better when they have competition. Call it inspiration, call it shameless ripping off of other people's ideas, call it collaborative designing... it doesn't matter... it just works. To say that today's top cars have nothing to thank Henry Ford for is ridiculous, right? Who would argue that just because one car company introduced shoulder restraining safety belts that it's a bad thing that all cars now have them? Nobody. Nobody sane, anyway ;)

Since wargame development has almost ceased to exist, and innovation has never been it's strong suit anyway, we've had to leverage advances in gaming from other genres. We would love for some wargame developer to introduce a "CM Killer" because then we'd know for sure what it would take to make a "CM Killer Killer" :) As it is, we have to come up with our own "CM Killer" because, so far, nobody else has. That is an opinion, of course, but it is one that we think the majority of CM customers hold. Some even think that CMx2 hasn't "killed" CMx1, or hasn't done so quite yet because of various reasons (number one being CMx2 hasn't done temperate WW2 yet).

Lastly, innovative wargames coming out at regular intervals would have a better chance of keeping the audience for wargaming growing instead of stagnant as it has been for eons. While the best games that used to sell 100,000 ten years ago now sell 3,000,000 and beyond... wargames sell about as many units as they did 15 years ago. This isn't good for anybody, except for the mass market game companies that don't want competition.

So there you have it... competition within the wargame market is good for everybody.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MikeyD,

You nearly killed me with that remark -I was snacking on some grapes while reading and nearly choked to death laughing!

I'm glad you survived. You would have been missed :D

MarkEzra,

I like SOME grapes better than others.

Presumably pressed and fermented kind?

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be happy to hear that more companies are developing games in this genre, because that means competition, and copetition means better products. That being said, BFC is always going to be a lot better, at least in my opinion. ;)

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...