aka_tom_w

I think that is a GREAT marketing strategy but it almost seems TOO obvious and too cra$$ly and blatently commercial for the good folks at BFC. (But you never know ) That said I think it would be a VERY profitable marketing strategy... so I guess we'll see -tom w [ June 05, 2005, 08:50 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I think that is a GREAT marketing strategy but it almost seems TOO obvious and too cra$$ly and blatently commercial for the good folks at BFC. (But you never know ) That said I think it would be a VERY profitable marketing strategy... so I guess we'll see -tom w [ June 05, 2005, 08:50 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

"Bottom line, I think the size of the rumor is bogus and ridiculous. I could see "using an Intel chip for something that isn't a Mac" or partnering with Intel to make PPC chips, but not a shift to an x86 CPU." Absolutely YES I agree completely -tom w [ June 05, 2005, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I would guess (and it would be a well educated guess) that Apple will make the shift to the Intel chip transparent to the user by way of an update or modification to OS X (the operating system System 10) that will mean there is no change to the way ALL the other current Mac software that already runs on OS X now. To do otherwise would be a form of technical suicide for Apple. Don't worry, the prices will come down, the processors will become faster and all the current OS X applications will run the same as they do now after Apple releases the appropriate System software updates to run on the new intel processors OR Intel will MAKE the processors to Apple specs. One way or the other it should be a no brainer for Mac users and it should be seemless or they would not do it. (*I hope*) -tom w

hmmm Did I miss something? Did Seanachai get banned? Oh I guess if he did get banned I am really not actually missing anything after all am I ? he he -tom w [ June 04, 2005, 09:04 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

hmmm Did I miss something? Did Seanachai get banned? Oh I guess if he did get banned I am really not actually missing anything after all am I ? he he -tom w [ June 04, 2005, 09:04 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I think there are still questions pending from the previous thread... AND yes of course I have one: (But there were other questions there as well) Steve? Is this what you are trying to tell us: There's The NEW CMx2 Engine - (multi-functional, pan-dimensional living breathing, masterpiece of game code, pinnacle of game development achievement of ALL TIME!) or, the underpinings of everything There's The Game - Era specific... WW2, Cold War (NOT likely or so we are told), Space Lobsters, whateever ( Korean "conflict" MAYBE Arab-Israeli wars? ) There's The Module - Narrow focus addons to The Game. Normandy, Battle of the Bulge, Austerlitz, whatever. (no more than 2-3 modules PER Game/Era ( with a new one maybe every 6-8 months?) BUT if the Game/era is WWII how could we (the CMxx Hardcore which are extremely well represented in this thread ) possibly be happy with only 2-3 modules FOR ALL of WWII unless I am missing something here OR the Modules you speak of are somehow quite broad and generous?? (larger than the narrow scope of one battle that I am lead to believe?) Maybe I just can't see the "BIG" picture yet? BUT I am trying -tom w P.S. and I am guessing from the tang, taste and texture of the recent bones (gristle and ALL!) the first game MAY not be WWII but some other interesting historically significant armed conflict between WWII about 15 years ago maybe??

I think there are still questions pending from the previous thread... AND yes of course I have one: (But there were other questions there as well) Steve? Is this what you are trying to tell us: There's The NEW CMx2 Engine - (multi-functional, pan-dimensional living breathing, masterpiece of game code, pinnacle of game development achievement of ALL TIME!) or, the underpinings of everything There's The Game - Era specific... WW2, Cold War (NOT likely or so we are told), Space Lobsters, whateever ( Korean "conflict" MAYBE Arab-Israeli wars? ) There's The Module - Narrow focus addons to The Game. Normandy, Battle of the Bulge, Austerlitz, whatever. (no more than 2-3 modules PER Game/Era ( with a new one maybe every 6-8 months?) BUT if the Game/era is WWII how could we (the CMxx Hardcore which are extremely well represented in this thread ) possibly be happy with only 2-3 modules FOR ALL of WWII unless I am missing something here OR the Modules you speak of are somehow quite broad and generous?? (larger than the narrow scope of one battle that I am lead to believe?) Maybe I just can't see the "BIG" picture yet? BUT I am trying -tom w P.S. and I am guessing from the tang, taste and texture of the recent bones (gristle and ALL!) the first game MAY not be WWII but some other interesting historically significant armed conflict between WWII about 15 years ago maybe??

Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted June 03, 2005 02:20 PM quote: Just please... let me fight another war We feel the same way. 9 years of doing nothing but WWII was OK, but 9 more is out of the question. The new engine allows us to do both WWII and other stuff, so everybody should be happy. Especially us Steve Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted June 03, 2005 03:57 PM I can state that we have an unofficial list of our Top 5 subject matter for CMx2. As I've stated pretty clearly, not all are WWII I'll at least go so far as to say that contemporary (i.e. current/near future) combat is on there as well as Space Lobsters. And no... I am NOT kidding about the latter Sure, it might be called something different, and there might not be any lobsters in it, but it will be good none-the-less I've trotted out lists of other possible game settings in recent days, so there is even more food for though there (things like D&D, US Civil War, Ancient, etc.). The cool thing about the new engine is we don't have to worry about what we can't do. Having said all that... I do agree with Dorosh that as long as there is significant innovation, there is always room for more WWII games. As good as CMx1 is, and as supierior as it is compared to the others before it, we can do better. And will We're just not going to dedicate 9 more years of our lives to doing it to the exclusion of all other things. Kip, it isn't so much about the money as it is the creative burnout and frustration levels. If someone offered us a boatload of money to spend the next 9 years doing nothing by WWII we wouldn't likely sign on the dotted line (OK, if it was a billion Dollars... maybe ). We'd rather make less money and have more creative outlets. Fortunately we feel that our strategy will not only give us mental and creative relief from WWII, but it will also net us more money (or at least not less). And we'll STILL do some WWII stuff in the mix, while at the same time releasing games much faster. It really is a win-win situation for everybody. Dale, the way I picture it when you get a Module you'll never know you even have it. What I mean is when you boot up the game instead of seeing only the Americans to choose form you might now see Canadians and Brits. A look at the scenario list shows more "stock" choices than what came with the original game. In other words, it will feel just like CMBO does now. And yes, bigger than St. Lo, smaller than all of Normandy 1944 is probably right. You might be able to play all of Normandy 1944 from one perspective, just not from all. We'll just have to see since we haven't made any firm plans about this yet. Again, the deciding factor will be overall gameplay. And to judge that we need the game pretty much done. That's when we'll know how important qunaity (edit by tom w: that word should be quantity?) is. Remember that some of the best games out there, the ones we've played and loved the longest, lack significant features and yet are still fondly thought of. My personal top wargame of all time is Grigsby's War in Russia, as played on my Atari 800. The game was a 64 bit game with no sound, no graphics worth mentioning, no editor, only 3 or 4 scenarios, no TCP or LAN play, and certainly no "random" battle generator. Yet even though I paid $80 for it (yes kids, that is how much your elders used to pay for computer games!) I got 10 times my money's worth out of it. My point is that gameplay is the deciding factor as to what the value of a game is. Sometimes the gameplay comes from breadth, sometimes depth, and rarely both. I say rarely because few games are both broad and deep to start with, even fewer of them are any good. So when I hear comments about how the game will suck if it doesn't have x, y, or z I can't help but conclude that such comments aren't meaningful to us. Not yet, anyway. AFTER we release a game if we get that sort of feedback then we'll know we screwed up Steve [ June 03, 2005, 08:56 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted June 03, 2005 02:20 PM quote: Just please... let me fight another war We feel the same way. 9 years of doing nothing but WWII was OK, but 9 more is out of the question. The new engine allows us to do both WWII and other stuff, so everybody should be happy. Especially us Steve Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted June 03, 2005 03:57 PM I can state that we have an unofficial list of our Top 5 subject matter for CMx2. As I've stated pretty clearly, not all are WWII I'll at least go so far as to say that contemporary (i.e. current/near future) combat is on there as well as Space Lobsters. And no... I am NOT kidding about the latter Sure, it might be called something different, and there might not be any lobsters in it, but it will be good none-the-less I've trotted out lists of other possible game settings in recent days, so there is even more food for though there (things like D&D, US Civil War, Ancient, etc.). The cool thing about the new engine is we don't have to worry about what we can't do. Having said all that... I do agree with Dorosh that as long as there is significant innovation, there is always room for more WWII games. As good as CMx1 is, and as supierior as it is compared to the others before it, we can do better. And will We're just not going to dedicate 9 more years of our lives to doing it to the exclusion of all other things. Kip, it isn't so much about the money as it is the creative burnout and frustration levels. If someone offered us a boatload of money to spend the next 9 years doing nothing by WWII we wouldn't likely sign on the dotted line (OK, if it was a billion Dollars... maybe ). We'd rather make less money and have more creative outlets. Fortunately we feel that our strategy will not only give us mental and creative relief from WWII, but it will also net us more money (or at least not less). And we'll STILL do some WWII stuff in the mix, while at the same time releasing games much faster. It really is a win-win situation for everybody. Dale, the way I picture it when you get a Module you'll never know you even have it. What I mean is when you boot up the game instead of seeing only the Americans to choose form you might now see Canadians and Brits. A look at the scenario list shows more "stock" choices than what came with the original game. In other words, it will feel just like CMBO does now. And yes, bigger than St. Lo, smaller than all of Normandy 1944 is probably right. You might be able to play all of Normandy 1944 from one perspective, just not from all. We'll just have to see since we haven't made any firm plans about this yet. Again, the deciding factor will be overall gameplay. And to judge that we need the game pretty much done. That's when we'll know how important qunaity (edit by tom w: that word should be quantity?) is. Remember that some of the best games out there, the ones we've played and loved the longest, lack significant features and yet are still fondly thought of. My personal top wargame of all time is Grigsby's War in Russia, as played on my Atari 800. The game was a 64 bit game with no sound, no graphics worth mentioning, no editor, only 3 or 4 scenarios, no TCP or LAN play, and certainly no "random" battle generator. Yet even though I paid $80 for it (yes kids, that is how much your elders used to pay for computer games!) I got 10 times my money's worth out of it. My point is that gameplay is the deciding factor as to what the value of a game is. Sometimes the gameplay comes from breadth, sometimes depth, and rarely both. I say rarely because few games are both broad and deep to start with, even fewer of them are any good. So when I hear comments about how the game will suck if it doesn't have x, y, or z I can't help but conclude that such comments aren't meaningful to us. Not yet, anyway. AFTER we release a game if we get that sort of feedback then we'll know we screwed up Steve [ June 03, 2005, 08:56 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted June 02, 2005 08:22 PM Now, back to practical stuff... A random battle generator is something that we should be able to do. I'm just saying that if push comes to shove, I'd rather have a better scenario editor or a number of other features. We're not going to rush CMx2 out the door without major features, however we will not get ourselves into any more "1 year" development cycles that take 2 years to complete. It just can't happen that way any more. Get paid once every 2 years and work even harder in the 2nd year and you'll see that it isn't something you'd want to repeat more than a couple of times in one lifetime As for speculation about customer retention and all of that. Kellysheroes missed one critical thing, and I'll explain it in abstract terms... CMBO came out and was so mind blowing that 1000 people bought it (I'm just using Ken's number ). CMBB came out and 500 people said "well, it isn't all that different" or "I want to play as the Americans" or "I've had a life change that put gaming on hold" or any number of other reasons to not buy the sequel. That puts sales at around 500, but some new people find the game and buy it. Let's say that yields a total of 750 people for CMBB. So for two years of development we actually have fewer customers. A year later CMAK comes out. Out of the 750, 300 or so opt out for one reason or another (similar to CMBB), which leaves 450. Some new people come in and guys who did not buy CMBB come back to buy CMAK. Let's say 150. That brings the total to 600. This means that for 3 years of solid development has netted us about the same number of people that bought the first game, which also took 3 years. However, revenue wise the total is far less because CMAK was sold at a lower starting price. That's not a sustainable business model over time, especially if the haul of money was fairly modest (i.e. if we made $1 Billion off of CMBO, why should we care? But we didn't, so we do). Why the reduced number of customers each time? Primary reason is lack of reinvestment in the core engine. While the hardcore are generally happy to play (basically) the same game for 4 years, hardly anybody else is. Especially since the game was written for 7 year old technology. In other words, the hardcore get jazzed about PzIV variants and being able to play out some obscure battle against a bunch of hardly ever dicussed enemy troops... everybody else gets jazzed about the game system. And I am NOT just talking about graphics here. CMBO was wildly popular because the game system broke new ground. CMBB and CMAK did not break much new ground, nor subject matter (i.e. WWII ETO for all three), and therefore weren't all that interesting to a pretty big chunk of people who bought CMBO and loved it. And there are other groups that also opted out of CMBB/CMAK for other reasons (mentioned above). So here is the irony. Some of you guys are criticizing us for trying to milk more money from the same cow. Yet the strategy you guys are proposing we stick with does exactly that, just in a different way. We're not about milking something... we want to keep doing new things and expressing new ideas. We don't want to keep redoing the ETO every 9 years with some new technology thrown in. BORING! Egads... that sounds like another rant! Sorry about that! So I'll throw you another bit of info to chew on... We are not planning on 20 modules at $45 each. No way. We'll probably release 2-3 Modules per title with a price that seems fair for the content being provided. They will work seamlessly with the previous purchases, or at least as seamlessly within a particular front (I am not promising that you can play Americans vs. Russians just because we released Western and Eastern modules of some sort. Though we might!). You might never get as much content as you did for the past CMx1 games, but you'll have lots of other Battlefront CM type games to choose from instead. In short, you'll not be wanting for things to play even if we ONLY give you the Battle for St. Lo. (which I am not saying is the plan). Our philosophy is to give you something that won't put down for weeks on end, and keep coming back to for months later EVEN with new titles available to you. If you see us market a St. Lo only game... it is because we feel the gameplay value fits this mold. If we don't, then we'd obviously be releasing something different. It would be suicide for us to ignore gameplay value, so obviously we won't. Steve Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted June 02, 2005 10:37 PM We have some retail distribution in the Great White North already. We didn't for the release of CMBO or CMBB, but shortly thereafter. Modules, however, won't be in retail as stand alone products. In order to do that we would HAVE to make the price pretty high because otherwise there wouldn't be anything left for us Electronic distribution will likely be the only way the modules are released anyway. No, you won't have to buy all the modules. However, each successive module will not be inclusive. So if we have a game that is Normandy, a module that is Bulge, and another which is Commonwealth... you wouldn't get the Bulge stuff if you just bought the Commonwealth module. You do, however, have to purchase the initial release because all modules will do is add functionality, not act as stand alone games. If that were the case we'd have to charge for them as stand alone games, which is not what we're talking about here. Of course if you wait long enough we'll bundle things together. It's one of the primary ways to extend the "shelf life" of a product. So let's say you don't buy the game or any of the modules... perhaps a year or a year and a half later you'll probably be able to purchase them all together as a single product for less money than if you bought them separately 6-18 months earlier. But anybody that is willing to wait 18 months to save $20 or so is a bit silly in the head if they really like the game. Steve Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted June 03, 2005 02:14 PM Regarding sales of each title... we probably did better than most. Standard rule of thumb in the game business is each sequel (same engine) sells half as much as the one before it. 1000 goes to 500, 500 goes to 250, 250 goes to 175, etc. Sequels with new engines are entirely different beasts. Dale, I think I missed your earlier post but our stratey is not like Avalon Hill's SL/ASL strategy in some respects. You need a base game and can purchase modules that are of interest to you. That is similar to SL/ASL. The difference is that the modules will be priced according to how much gameplay is offered and what expenses we had to go through to make it happen. For example, if we released an Italian Module for the Eastern Front, there would not be that much too it and therefore it would be priced pretty low. Of course, such a module would likely be a poor seller so we wouldn't do it in the first place, but it does illustrate how we think about this. As far as I am concerned Random Battle Generator is just another name for Quick Battles. Steve

Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted June 02, 2005 08:22 PM Now, back to practical stuff... A random battle generator is something that we should be able to do. I'm just saying that if push comes to shove, I'd rather have a better scenario editor or a number of other features. We're not going to rush CMx2 out the door without major features, however we will not get ourselves into any more "1 year" development cycles that take 2 years to complete. It just can't happen that way any more. Get paid once every 2 years and work even harder in the 2nd year and you'll see that it isn't something you'd want to repeat more than a couple of times in one lifetime As for speculation about customer retention and all of that. Kellysheroes missed one critical thing, and I'll explain it in abstract terms... CMBO came out and was so mind blowing that 1000 people bought it (I'm just using Ken's number ). CMBB came out and 500 people said "well, it isn't all that different" or "I want to play as the Americans" or "I've had a life change that put gaming on hold" or any number of other reasons to not buy the sequel. That puts sales at around 500, but some new people find the game and buy it. Let's say that yields a total of 750 people for CMBB. So for two years of development we actually have fewer customers. A year later CMAK comes out. Out of the 750, 300 or so opt out for one reason or another (similar to CMBB), which leaves 450. Some new people come in and guys who did not buy CMBB come back to buy CMAK. Let's say 150. That brings the total to 600. This means that for 3 years of solid development has netted us about the same number of people that bought the first game, which also took 3 years. However, revenue wise the total is far less because CMAK was sold at a lower starting price. That's not a sustainable business model over time, especially if the haul of money was fairly modest (i.e. if we made $1 Billion off of CMBO, why should we care? But we didn't, so we do). Why the reduced number of customers each time? Primary reason is lack of reinvestment in the core engine. While the hardcore are generally happy to play (basically) the same game for 4 years, hardly anybody else is. Especially since the game was written for 7 year old technology. In other words, the hardcore get jazzed about PzIV variants and being able to play out some obscure battle against a bunch of hardly ever dicussed enemy troops... everybody else gets jazzed about the game system. And I am NOT just talking about graphics here. CMBO was wildly popular because the game system broke new ground. CMBB and CMAK did not break much new ground, nor subject matter (i.e. WWII ETO for all three), and therefore weren't all that interesting to a pretty big chunk of people who bought CMBO and loved it. And there are other groups that also opted out of CMBB/CMAK for other reasons (mentioned above). So here is the irony. Some of you guys are criticizing us for trying to milk more money from the same cow. Yet the strategy you guys are proposing we stick with does exactly that, just in a different way. We're not about milking something... we want to keep doing new things and expressing new ideas. We don't want to keep redoing the ETO every 9 years with some new technology thrown in. BORING! Egads... that sounds like another rant! Sorry about that! So I'll throw you another bit of info to chew on... We are not planning on 20 modules at $45 each. No way. We'll probably release 2-3 Modules per title with a price that seems fair for the content being provided. They will work seamlessly with the previous purchases, or at least as seamlessly within a particular front (I am not promising that you can play Americans vs. Russians just because we released Western and Eastern modules of some sort. Though we might!). You might never get as much content as you did for the past CMx1 games, but you'll have lots of other Battlefront CM type games to choose from instead. In short, you'll not be wanting for things to play even if we ONLY give you the Battle for St. Lo. (which I am not saying is the plan). Our philosophy is to give you something that won't put down for weeks on end, and keep coming back to for months later EVEN with new titles available to you. If you see us market a St. Lo only game... it is because we feel the gameplay value fits this mold. If we don't, then we'd obviously be releasing something different. It would be suicide for us to ignore gameplay value, so obviously we won't. Steve Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted June 02, 2005 10:37 PM We have some retail distribution in the Great White North already. We didn't for the release of CMBO or CMBB, but shortly thereafter. Modules, however, won't be in retail as stand alone products. In order to do that we would HAVE to make the price pretty high because otherwise there wouldn't be anything left for us Electronic distribution will likely be the only way the modules are released anyway. No, you won't have to buy all the modules. However, each successive module will not be inclusive. So if we have a game that is Normandy, a module that is Bulge, and another which is Commonwealth... you wouldn't get the Bulge stuff if you just bought the Commonwealth module. You do, however, have to purchase the initial release because all modules will do is add functionality, not act as stand alone games. If that were the case we'd have to charge for them as stand alone games, which is not what we're talking about here. Of course if you wait long enough we'll bundle things together. It's one of the primary ways to extend the "shelf life" of a product. So let's say you don't buy the game or any of the modules... perhaps a year or a year and a half later you'll probably be able to purchase them all together as a single product for less money than if you bought them separately 6-18 months earlier. But anybody that is willing to wait 18 months to save $20 or so is a bit silly in the head if they really like the game. Steve Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted June 03, 2005 02:14 PM Regarding sales of each title... we probably did better than most. Standard rule of thumb in the game business is each sequel (same engine) sells half as much as the one before it. 1000 goes to 500, 500 goes to 250, 250 goes to 175, etc. Sequels with new engines are entirely different beasts. Dale, I think I missed your earlier post but our stratey is not like Avalon Hill's SL/ASL strategy in some respects. You need a base game and can purchase modules that are of interest to you. That is similar to SL/ASL. The difference is that the modules will be priced according to how much gameplay is offered and what expenses we had to go through to make it happen. For example, if we released an Italian Module for the Eastern Front, there would not be that much too it and therefore it would be priced pretty low. Of course, such a module would likely be a poor seller so we wouldn't do it in the first place, but it does illustrate how we think about this. As far as I am concerned Random Battle Generator is just another name for Quick Battles. Steve

Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted June 02, 2005 01:47 AM We're not going to do a subscription service. It's an entirely different business model and it isn't something we're interested in. A way to note which scenarios have been played before... interesting concept. Useful too. Won't be in the first release of CMx2 most likely, but something to consider for the next one. WW2 RTS does look rather neat. But the name says it all Infantry fans will likely be less than thrilled with it based on what I've read. Looks vehice centric. Steve Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted June 02, 2005 12:18 PM We do plan on having a random battle generator. If for some reason we can't do it for the first release of CMx2 (not saying we can't, just presuming the worst for the sake of discussion) it will be available for the second release. The scenario tracking feature could be a real development distraction for us, which is why I don't see much of anything (if anything) happening for the first release. This is what we call a "Bell and Whistle". Good feature, but unnecessary compared to things like ballistics modeling, Realtive Spotting, etc. Steve Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted June 02, 2005 07:51 PM As was said by me, and others in this thread, you guys were spoiled beyond belief with what we did before. And it cost everybody, including you guys, a lot more than you think. OK, perhaps not in money shelled out for games, but VERY long wait times, less innovation than we could have otherwise done, and no other type of game other than WWII. Frankly, we'd rather shut down Battlefront and start making FileMaker Pro addons than go through another 9 years of what we've already gone through. So... We ain't doing any more "mother of all front" games ever again. Accept it or don't, but whining won't change it. The previous development strategy was unsustainable for us (I'm talking more about interest level) and we aren't idiots enough to repeat it. Even if you paid $100 per title you STILL got far more than you ever would have from any other 3 wargames ever released. So even start down that road because I'll just mark you down in the "ungreatful, spoiled rotten, selfish customer" list and remind myself to not listen to you any more. Now, I do understand the desire to have lots and lots of gameplay options open to you at the tips of your fingers. I love it too... which is why I slaved away for 9 years to make games that did it. But, as stated above, this is definately one of those "be careful for what you wish for" things because it took a serious toll on all of us. Sure, the games we produced are classics and set the bar really high... but in terms of volume of content... we most certainly set it too high. We don't have the energy nor the interest to try and reach that again. Instead what we are doing is taking the energy, time, and money we spent making a couple hundred vehicles (most of which nobody uses), hundreds of voice samples, and other stuff and investing this in NEW directions. Better game, better environments, and more variety of subject matter. All with shorter release times. It is a sustainable strategy and we expect even most of the whiners here to shut up after a while because they'll recognize it is a better thing overall. Not without sacrifices, of course, but when has innovation ever happened without somethings being left behind? Like hexes, phases, and all the other crap we abandoned years ago. Again, some of you seem to forget that we've always have to fight against the "I don't want any change, give me what I've already got AGAIN" mentality. We don't listen to it because it is reactionary and harmful to everybody, including themselves. Same thing this time around. What I can't stress enough is that you guys are picturing CMx1 with less units and smaller scope. Bad, bad, bad, bad! CMx2 is an entirely different experience. Quite a bit of the enjoyment of CMx1 came from the variety of units, but in CMx2 it will come from the variety of gameplay. Tons of units are not necessary, even if they were possible. As for the Chicken Little comments I see here based on the scant information I've put out so far... grow up. Or at least pretend to grow up. Either one is fine with me so long as the "it's all over for me... this is going to suck" comments get shoved where they belong (hint... it is a dark and smelly place... and I ain't talking about the Peng thread ). yeah... yeah... I know... some of you are going to get your panties in a twist over such hard language. But like any spoiled child left in a room with me for more than 5 minutes would know, you're just going to have to deal with it. You don't have to like what I say, you don't even have to hide concerns about diection... but the whiney "I want the whole box of cooooookiesssssss!!!" crap is just a wasted bunch of keystrokes. If you can't get with the program, then log off and wait for the demo. It's as simple as that. Better for everybody since it leaves the bandwidth open for more rational discussions. End of rant Steve

Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted June 02, 2005 01:47 AM We're not going to do a subscription service. It's an entirely different business model and it isn't something we're interested in. A way to note which scenarios have been played before... interesting concept. Useful too. Won't be in the first release of CMx2 most likely, but something to consider for the next one. WW2 RTS does look rather neat. But the name says it all Infantry fans will likely be less than thrilled with it based on what I've read. Looks vehice centric. Steve Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted June 02, 2005 12:18 PM We do plan on having a random battle generator. If for some reason we can't do it for the first release of CMx2 (not saying we can't, just presuming the worst for the sake of discussion) it will be available for the second release. The scenario tracking feature could be a real development distraction for us, which is why I don't see much of anything (if anything) happening for the first release. This is what we call a "Bell and Whistle". Good feature, but unnecessary compared to things like ballistics modeling, Realtive Spotting, etc. Steve Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted June 02, 2005 07:51 PM As was said by me, and others in this thread, you guys were spoiled beyond belief with what we did before. And it cost everybody, including you guys, a lot more than you think. OK, perhaps not in money shelled out for games, but VERY long wait times, less innovation than we could have otherwise done, and no other type of game other than WWII. Frankly, we'd rather shut down Battlefront and start making FileMaker Pro addons than go through another 9 years of what we've already gone through. So... We ain't doing any more "mother of all front" games ever again. Accept it or don't, but whining won't change it. The previous development strategy was unsustainable for us (I'm talking more about interest level) and we aren't idiots enough to repeat it. Even if you paid $100 per title you STILL got far more than you ever would have from any other 3 wargames ever released. So even start down that road because I'll just mark you down in the "ungreatful, spoiled rotten, selfish customer" list and remind myself to not listen to you any more. Now, I do understand the desire to have lots and lots of gameplay options open to you at the tips of your fingers. I love it too... which is why I slaved away for 9 years to make games that did it. But, as stated above, this is definately one of those "be careful for what you wish for" things because it took a serious toll on all of us. Sure, the games we produced are classics and set the bar really high... but in terms of volume of content... we most certainly set it too high. We don't have the energy nor the interest to try and reach that again. Instead what we are doing is taking the energy, time, and money we spent making a couple hundred vehicles (most of which nobody uses), hundreds of voice samples, and other stuff and investing this in NEW directions. Better game, better environments, and more variety of subject matter. All with shorter release times. It is a sustainable strategy and we expect even most of the whiners here to shut up after a while because they'll recognize it is a better thing overall. Not without sacrifices, of course, but when has innovation ever happened without somethings being left behind? Like hexes, phases, and all the other crap we abandoned years ago. Again, some of you seem to forget that we've always have to fight against the "I don't want any change, give me what I've already got AGAIN" mentality. We don't listen to it because it is reactionary and harmful to everybody, including themselves. Same thing this time around. What I can't stress enough is that you guys are picturing CMx1 with less units and smaller scope. Bad, bad, bad, bad! CMx2 is an entirely different experience. Quite a bit of the enjoyment of CMx1 came from the variety of units, but in CMx2 it will come from the variety of gameplay. Tons of units are not necessary, even if they were possible. As for the Chicken Little comments I see here based on the scant information I've put out so far... grow up. Or at least pretend to grow up. Either one is fine with me so long as the "it's all over for me... this is going to suck" comments get shoved where they belong (hint... it is a dark and smelly place... and I ain't talking about the Peng thread ). yeah... yeah... I know... some of you are going to get your panties in a twist over such hard language. But like any spoiled child left in a room with me for more than 5 minutes would know, you're just going to have to deal with it. You don't have to like what I say, you don't even have to hide concerns about diection... but the whiney "I want the whole box of cooooookiesssssss!!!" crap is just a wasted bunch of keystrokes. If you can't get with the program, then log off and wait for the demo. It's as simple as that. Better for everybody since it leaves the bandwidth open for more rational discussions. End of rant Steve

Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted June 01, 2005 12:59 AM Scenarios should wind up being far more editable in CMx2 than in CMx1. What I mean by that is in CMx1 the designer had only a limited back of tricks to draw from in order to get the scenario to feel correct. Things like objectives, AI behavior, force Order of Battle, chains of command, etc. were sometimes very difficult to simulate for a particular battle. In CMx2 such stuff should be much more controllable. As for the salami... Part of the problem is that with each CMx1 game we charged you guys for a couple of slices of salami, but we in fact gave you the whole salami log. Great for you in some ways, bad in others. Specifically, you got to eat for months on end without having to buy any more salami, but the downside is that all you had to eat was salami when you might have liked some ham or turkey too. And that is where I'll end the deli metaphor The fact is we spent too much time giving to too much stuff that lasted you far too long in terms of replayability for far too low a price. We spoiled you rotton, in other words. Now, we were happy to do that in some ways and in many ways aren't sorry that we did it. However, as we got deep into CMBB we started to see that spoiling you guys didn't come without us making some serious sacrifices. But we were too far along to turn back so we took the extra, unplanned, year and finished CMBB. With CMAK we were faced with similar problems and decided we could not afford (in all senses of the word) to deliver ANOTHER game like CMBO or CMBB that took 2 years to develop. But we had set certain expectations and therefore were in a pickle of our own making. So we decided to keep changes to the engine minimal instead of limiting the subject parameters (i.e. doing the whole Med Theater instead of something like just Italy or just the Western Desert). This compromise worked out pretty well in that you got a new game in a year instead of two, we finished the game in a year instaed of two , and we were able to start the process of making the CMx2 engine as well. But CMAK is the last "mother of all front" games we will ever do. It is simply a strategy that doesn't work. Not for us, and not for you. Remember that some CMBO diehards had no interest in the Eastern Front and had to wait THREE YEARS to get CMAK. None of you should have to wait three years to get new product from us. So, what we are going to do is the sensible thing. Instead of giving you a game that is replayable for 2-3 years while you wait for the next title to come out, we'll give you something that is playable for probably 6 - 18 months, depending on interest level, not inherent replayability. Not everybody wants to play the same theater for 2 years you know For those that do we'll have Modules to extend and enhance replayability while at the same time releasing completely different games. Which, for all you know, you'll want to play more than the one you bought 6 months earlier. OK, I'm rambling now So to sum up... 1. You're all spoiled rotten 2. Long development times are BAD for everybody in the long run. 3. We can not (or more accurately, will not) retain a business model of "mother of all front" games released every couple of years. 4. You're going to see less replaybility with each title, but what you get will almost certainly be better than any other one time purchase game out there (of any genre) In short... there will be whining and griping... but in the end it is good for everybody. We're more certain of this than anything else we've ever been sure of. And we've been sure (and correct) about a whole lot of stuff before Steve Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted June 01, 2005 01:05 AM Oh, and I forgot to add... We fully expect the game play value of CMx2, on a battle by battle basis, to far exceed CMx1. To oversimplify things... if a CMx1 game that shipped with 50 scenarios and 100 possible units, and a CMx2 game shipped with 25 scenarios and 50 possible units... you'd most certainly pick the CMx2 game as your favorite simply because it was an overall more deep, enjoyable experience. Obviously this is a pretzles to french fries comparision, but I think you can figure out what I mean by this. And if not... "less is not necessarily less than more" Yeah, that ought to clear things up... Steve Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted June 01, 2005 10:26 PM More stuff... Maps will be MORE editable than they were in CMx1 for the simple fact that the map system itself is far more powerful and flexible. Also a much finer level of resolution. Will you be able to place a single rock in one spot and a particular shrub of your choosing 0.05m away from it, with the bigger branch facing north? No, but it will be a ton more close to that than the way CMx1's 20x20m tiles could allow for. The limiting of 100 vehicles down to 50 was just an example. We might limit it down to 10 It all depends on what the setting is we're shooting for. If we did only the battle for St. Lo, for example, there would be an extremely small set of units to choose from. Probably too few, even considering the depth of the game itself. But then again... maybe not. All depends on how one wishes to look at it. If the goal of the player is. If the player wishes to experience an intense, inter connected, deep, and detailed depiction of WWII warfare... then having 200 vehicles and 400 infantry formations to choose from is actually a BAD thing. And believe me... many people do feel this way about the CMx1 game system (i.e. too many choices, not enough focus). However, if the player wants to experience a little bit of everything... well, nothing short of the Full Frontal Monty will do. In fact, even that won't do for some people My point here is to not get caught up with numbers of this and that. Instead, remember that variety and gameplay are inherently different things. Just as game play and replayability are as well. Meaning you can have a fantastic game with a very limited set of x, y, and z, or you can have a crappy game with everything and the kitchen sink at your fingertips. Likewise you can have a narrowly focused game that gives a lot of replaybility options, or a wide ranging game that only offers a few weeks of entertainment. The deciding factors are the quality of the game experience and what the player is looking to get from it. Numbers of units, flexibility of map editor functions, etc. are all side issues (as important as they may be for some people). The way it will work for us is like this... The chosen setting dictates the units, terrain, and other factors we have to choose from (be it a historical game or whatnot). Scope is then set to focus in on an interesting subset of the total possible options. And that is what you'll get. An interesting slice of a much bigger pie. Modules can be released after to give different slices of the same pie, and thus different experiences for the player. Simple as that Steve [ June 03, 2005, 08:50 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted June 01, 2005 12:59 AM Scenarios should wind up being far more editable in CMx2 than in CMx1. What I mean by that is in CMx1 the designer had only a limited back of tricks to draw from in order to get the scenario to feel correct. Things like objectives, AI behavior, force Order of Battle, chains of command, etc. were sometimes very difficult to simulate for a particular battle. In CMx2 such stuff should be much more controllable. As for the salami... Part of the problem is that with each CMx1 game we charged you guys for a couple of slices of salami, but we in fact gave you the whole salami log. Great for you in some ways, bad in others. Specifically, you got to eat for months on end without having to buy any more salami, but the downside is that all you had to eat was salami when you might have liked some ham or turkey too. And that is where I'll end the deli metaphor The fact is we spent too much time giving to too much stuff that lasted you far too long in terms of replayability for far too low a price. We spoiled you rotton, in other words. Now, we were happy to do that in some ways and in many ways aren't sorry that we did it. However, as we got deep into CMBB we started to see that spoiling you guys didn't come without us making some serious sacrifices. But we were too far along to turn back so we took the extra, unplanned, year and finished CMBB. With CMAK we were faced with similar problems and decided we could not afford (in all senses of the word) to deliver ANOTHER game like CMBO or CMBB that took 2 years to develop. But we had set certain expectations and therefore were in a pickle of our own making. So we decided to keep changes to the engine minimal instead of limiting the subject parameters (i.e. doing the whole Med Theater instead of something like just Italy or just the Western Desert). This compromise worked out pretty well in that you got a new game in a year instead of two, we finished the game in a year instaed of two , and we were able to start the process of making the CMx2 engine as well. But CMAK is the last "mother of all front" games we will ever do. It is simply a strategy that doesn't work. Not for us, and not for you. Remember that some CMBO diehards had no interest in the Eastern Front and had to wait THREE YEARS to get CMAK. None of you should have to wait three years to get new product from us. So, what we are going to do is the sensible thing. Instead of giving you a game that is replayable for 2-3 years while you wait for the next title to come out, we'll give you something that is playable for probably 6 - 18 months, depending on interest level, not inherent replayability. Not everybody wants to play the same theater for 2 years you know For those that do we'll have Modules to extend and enhance replayability while at the same time releasing completely different games. Which, for all you know, you'll want to play more than the one you bought 6 months earlier. OK, I'm rambling now So to sum up... 1. You're all spoiled rotten 2. Long development times are BAD for everybody in the long run. 3. We can not (or more accurately, will not) retain a business model of "mother of all front" games released every couple of years. 4. You're going to see less replaybility with each title, but what you get will almost certainly be better than any other one time purchase game out there (of any genre) In short... there will be whining and griping... but in the end it is good for everybody. We're more certain of this than anything else we've ever been sure of. And we've been sure (and correct) about a whole lot of stuff before Steve Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted June 01, 2005 01:05 AM Oh, and I forgot to add... We fully expect the game play value of CMx2, on a battle by battle basis, to far exceed CMx1. To oversimplify things... if a CMx1 game that shipped with 50 scenarios and 100 possible units, and a CMx2 game shipped with 25 scenarios and 50 possible units... you'd most certainly pick the CMx2 game as your favorite simply because it was an overall more deep, enjoyable experience. Obviously this is a pretzles to french fries comparision, but I think you can figure out what I mean by this. And if not... "less is not necessarily less than more" Yeah, that ought to clear things up... Steve Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted June 01, 2005 10:26 PM More stuff... Maps will be MORE editable than they were in CMx1 for the simple fact that the map system itself is far more powerful and flexible. Also a much finer level of resolution. Will you be able to place a single rock in one spot and a particular shrub of your choosing 0.05m away from it, with the bigger branch facing north? No, but it will be a ton more close to that than the way CMx1's 20x20m tiles could allow for. The limiting of 100 vehicles down to 50 was just an example. We might limit it down to 10 It all depends on what the setting is we're shooting for. If we did only the battle for St. Lo, for example, there would be an extremely small set of units to choose from. Probably too few, even considering the depth of the game itself. But then again... maybe not. All depends on how one wishes to look at it. If the goal of the player is. If the player wishes to experience an intense, inter connected, deep, and detailed depiction of WWII warfare... then having 200 vehicles and 400 infantry formations to choose from is actually a BAD thing. And believe me... many people do feel this way about the CMx1 game system (i.e. too many choices, not enough focus). However, if the player wants to experience a little bit of everything... well, nothing short of the Full Frontal Monty will do. In fact, even that won't do for some people My point here is to not get caught up with numbers of this and that. Instead, remember that variety and gameplay are inherently different things. Just as game play and replayability are as well. Meaning you can have a fantastic game with a very limited set of x, y, and z, or you can have a crappy game with everything and the kitchen sink at your fingertips. Likewise you can have a narrowly focused game that gives a lot of replaybility options, or a wide ranging game that only offers a few weeks of entertainment. The deciding factors are the quality of the game experience and what the player is looking to get from it. Numbers of units, flexibility of map editor functions, etc. are all side issues (as important as they may be for some people). The way it will work for us is like this... The chosen setting dictates the units, terrain, and other factors we have to choose from (be it a historical game or whatnot). Scope is then set to focus in on an interesting subset of the total possible options. And that is what you'll get. An interesting slice of a much bigger pie. Modules can be released after to give different slices of the same pie, and thus different experiences for the player. Simple as that Steve [ June 03, 2005, 08:50 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted May 29, 2005 05:16 PM We do have to be quite careful in the subject matter and scope we choose for each title. We want to make sure that you guys get something that is still fun to play by the time the next module or full title comes out. If we start out with an idea for the subject and scope that later on in development seems to be too narrow... then we'll widen it out a bit. But the days are gone when we'll release a game that people can play for 2-3 years without getting bored of it. Fortunately, with quicker release schedules the need for a game that has 36 months of playtime in it is made unnecessary. As for the modules working with each other... yup, that is the thoght. Let's say you get a WWII ETO game that is limited to Battle of the Bulge, US vs. Germans (specific unit types). 6 months later we release a Normandy modlule that allows you to play US vs. Germans (specific unit types). The latter will simply add options to the game you already own, kinda like CMBO. Another module comes out that supports Commonwealth for both Normandy and Battle of the Bulge. Now it really is like CMBO. Yes, it took three releases to get it to that stage, but in the mean time other games have been released and others started. Every development strategy has its tradeoffs. The CMx1 strategy was to make a "mother of all fronts" game and then move onto another front. Downsides to this were: 1. Looooooong waits inbetween titles 2. Modest improvements to the game engine (game stuff and graphics stuff) 3. No other CM type products for any other theater, time period, or what have you 4. Players not interested in a particular front had even longer wait times for a new game of interest The new strategy fixes all three of four problems, but of course has its own tradeoffs: 1. More narrowly focused content per release 2. Less chance of a full "mother of all fronts" type game, even with modules 3. Need to reinvest in the game every 6 months or so when a new module comes out (if interested, otherwise it can be skipped). These all seem to be reasonable tradeoffs for the new flexibility, game engine improvements, and general boradening of the CM community (i.e. not JUST WWII nuts ) that will be gained from it. Obviously we'll all have to see if the new strategy works the way we think it will. Great thing about being independent is that we can make adjustments without having to win a Publisher's OK:) Steve

Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted May 29, 2005 05:16 PM We do have to be quite careful in the subject matter and scope we choose for each title. We want to make sure that you guys get something that is still fun to play by the time the next module or full title comes out. If we start out with an idea for the subject and scope that later on in development seems to be too narrow... then we'll widen it out a bit. But the days are gone when we'll release a game that people can play for 2-3 years without getting bored of it. Fortunately, with quicker release schedules the need for a game that has 36 months of playtime in it is made unnecessary. As for the modules working with each other... yup, that is the thoght. Let's say you get a WWII ETO game that is limited to Battle of the Bulge, US vs. Germans (specific unit types). 6 months later we release a Normandy modlule that allows you to play US vs. Germans (specific unit types). The latter will simply add options to the game you already own, kinda like CMBO. Another module comes out that supports Commonwealth for both Normandy and Battle of the Bulge. Now it really is like CMBO. Yes, it took three releases to get it to that stage, but in the mean time other games have been released and others started. Every development strategy has its tradeoffs. The CMx1 strategy was to make a "mother of all fronts" game and then move onto another front. Downsides to this were: 1. Looooooong waits inbetween titles 2. Modest improvements to the game engine (game stuff and graphics stuff) 3. No other CM type products for any other theater, time period, or what have you 4. Players not interested in a particular front had even longer wait times for a new game of interest The new strategy fixes all three of four problems, but of course has its own tradeoffs: 1. More narrowly focused content per release 2. Less chance of a full "mother of all fronts" type game, even with modules 3. Need to reinvest in the game every 6 months or so when a new module comes out (if interested, otherwise it can be skipped). These all seem to be reasonable tradeoffs for the new flexibility, game engine improvements, and general boradening of the CM community (i.e. not JUST WWII nuts ) that will be gained from it. Obviously we'll all have to see if the new strategy works the way we think it will. Great thing about being independent is that we can make adjustments without having to win a Publisher's OK:) Steve

Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted May 27, 2005 03:39 AM flamingknives wrote: quote: There are lots of FPS games out there - they need such total conversions to give them an edge. That's our opinion too. Mods are necessary for those games to have any sort of staying power. For CMx1 Mods were a wonderful way to enhance an experience that was already good enough to stand on its own for a long time. If CMx1 were not modable at all people would still have bought it for sure. I think the same can be said for the leading FPS games out there too, but as soon as the next FPS came along they would jump to it. BTW, we're now 8 years out from starting CMx1, and there is still nothing that compares to it. The latest crop of WWII non-FPS games on deck show no signs of changing this at all. The likely best of the bunch is certainly RPS geared compared to CMx1. Now, as for "completeness"... I know how you guys feel. I *love* playing as the Romanians or Hungarians... but I also know I am very much in the minority. Will we ever ship a module type program that supports these minor countries? I hope so, but I really can't say for sure. We'll just have to see how things go. Steve

Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted May 27, 2005 03:39 AM flamingknives wrote: quote: There are lots of FPS games out there - they need such total conversions to give them an edge. That's our opinion too. Mods are necessary for those games to have any sort of staying power. For CMx1 Mods were a wonderful way to enhance an experience that was already good enough to stand on its own for a long time. If CMx1 were not modable at all people would still have bought it for sure. I think the same can be said for the leading FPS games out there too, but as soon as the next FPS came along they would jump to it. BTW, we're now 8 years out from starting CMx1, and there is still nothing that compares to it. The latest crop of WWII non-FPS games on deck show no signs of changing this at all. The likely best of the bunch is certainly RPS geared compared to CMx1. Now, as for "completeness"... I know how you guys feel. I *love* playing as the Romanians or Hungarians... but I also know I am very much in the minority. Will we ever ship a module type program that supports these minor countries? I hope so, but I really can't say for sure. We'll just have to see how things go. Steve

Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted May 22, 2005 03:42 PM quote: With the right chemicals, you can make nearly anything burn nearly anywhere. Trust me. Well, with a name like "flamingknives" who is going to doubt you? Back on topic... I can assure each and every one of you that Space Lobsters of Doom is as much on our radar as it always has been. I am someone who lives in an area where Lobsters are kinda like the sacred cows of India, except boiled with lots of butter so as to draw in those tourism Dollars. Have no fears about our seriousness in this matter of Lobsters! Now, completely off topic... When will you guys know what we're going to do next (and right after that)? I don't know. I'm thinking mid Summer. We really don't want to announce anything until we have the game a little further along visually. Pictures and small QT movies are worth thousands of words, so it would be more efficient for us to have a larger discussion with those sorts of materials available to you guys. Steve

Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted May 22, 2005 03:42 PM quote: With the right chemicals, you can make nearly anything burn nearly anywhere. Trust me. Well, with a name like "flamingknives" who is going to doubt you? Back on topic... I can assure each and every one of you that Space Lobsters of Doom is as much on our radar as it always has been. I am someone who lives in an area where Lobsters are kinda like the sacred cows of India, except boiled with lots of butter so as to draw in those tourism Dollars. Have no fears about our seriousness in this matter of Lobsters! Now, completely off topic... When will you guys know what we're going to do next (and right after that)? I don't know. I'm thinking mid Summer. We really don't want to announce anything until we have the game a little further along visually. Pictures and small QT movies are worth thousands of words, so it would be more efficient for us to have a larger discussion with those sorts of materials available to you guys. Steve

Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted May 22, 2005 12:17 PM Obviously CMx2 is no CMx1 with a more narrow focus, so I'm not even going to bother getting into Rollstoy's question. However, if someone wants to toss him a bunch of links to bones I've tossed out, I am sure he'll be happier The concept of narrower, deeper focus is to make each game more intense and well rounded. However, you have to remember that we aren't going to take the 1 year we had spent on simulating a whole front and reinvest it into a narrow slice of the front. Instead we are going to take SOME of that time and flesh out a more focused setting and spend the rest of that saved time on doing something else entirely. Example: Our first WWII ETO game might be just Normandy between Americans and Germans from this date to that date. You get it into your hands after only 12 months of development instead of 24. You have a blast with it... then 6 months later maybe there is a "module" that is released that offers something different... like Commonwealth in Normandy from this date to that date. Price is lower than the full game, but the full game is required. The "module" can be done by an auxillarly development team which allows us to keep going forward on the next title. So 6 months later you might have CM- Pigs In Space; The Baccon 6 Conundrum. What this means is that in the same time it would take to make a single "broad front" WWII NW European Theater of Ops you get two "narrow front", though deeper, ETO games as well as an entirely different game. If you extend this out a bit further using past history as a guide, the 2nd full game (Pigs in Space) would take 24 months to develop. This means in 12 months you are getting what would (in the past) have taken us 48 months to make. Under the new development philosophy in that 48 months you'd have 4 "primary" games and perhaps 8 "modules". HUGE difference. Now, to the jaded reader this might sound like a money grubbing ploy on our part. Far from it!! The reality is we make games because we LOVE making games. It is very frustrating for us that we have to spend so much time doing one thing when there are dozens of things that we also want to do. Think about it... for the last 9 years we have done nothing more than WWII ETO! While we are by no means sick of ETO combat (still our favorite), we will be if we have to spend the next 9 years on just ETO To put this in a way that I think you guys can all relate to... think of all the wargame ideas you've had over your life. Now think about how disapointint and frustrating it is to not be able to play those ideas in actual games of your own design. Now imagine that you make games for a living and have the expertise and ability to theoretically make all of them come to life. BUT... you are tied to a philosophy that allows you to do only one every 9 years. Dontcha think ya might be a little bit jazz'd about changing things a wee bit in order to scratch all those itches instead of gouging one so deep that it leaves a scar? Dontcha? I'm not saying that you guys don't understand this... but the record of "narrow front" and "module" type games is not all that good. Usually the games aren't really that deep, the modules that exciting, and/or the prices pegged correctly. Guess I felt I had to reassure you that we know this VERY well and will absolutely not be going that route. We like money, but we like making the best games out there far more Steve

Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted May 22, 2005 12:17 PM Obviously CMx2 is no CMx1 with a more narrow focus, so I'm not even going to bother getting into Rollstoy's question. However, if someone wants to toss him a bunch of links to bones I've tossed out, I am sure he'll be happier The concept of narrower, deeper focus is to make each game more intense and well rounded. However, you have to remember that we aren't going to take the 1 year we had spent on simulating a whole front and reinvest it into a narrow slice of the front. Instead we are going to take SOME of that time and flesh out a more focused setting and spend the rest of that saved time on doing something else entirely. Example: Our first WWII ETO game might be just Normandy between Americans and Germans from this date to that date. You get it into your hands after only 12 months of development instead of 24. You have a blast with it... then 6 months later maybe there is a "module" that is released that offers something different... like Commonwealth in Normandy from this date to that date. Price is lower than the full game, but the full game is required. The "module" can be done by an auxillarly development team which allows us to keep going forward on the next title. So 6 months later you might have CM- Pigs In Space; The Baccon 6 Conundrum. What this means is that in the same time it would take to make a single "broad front" WWII NW European Theater of Ops you get two "narrow front", though deeper, ETO games as well as an entirely different game. If you extend this out a bit further using past history as a guide, the 2nd full game (Pigs in Space) would take 24 months to develop. This means in 12 months you are getting what would (in the past) have taken us 48 months to make. Under the new development philosophy in that 48 months you'd have 4 "primary" games and perhaps 8 "modules". HUGE difference. Now, to the jaded reader this might sound like a money grubbing ploy on our part. Far from it!! The reality is we make games because we LOVE making games. It is very frustrating for us that we have to spend so much time doing one thing when there are dozens of things that we also want to do. Think about it... for the last 9 years we have done nothing more than WWII ETO! While we are by no means sick of ETO combat (still our favorite), we will be if we have to spend the next 9 years on just ETO To put this in a way that I think you guys can all relate to... think of all the wargame ideas you've had over your life. Now think about how disapointint and frustrating it is to not be able to play those ideas in actual games of your own design. Now imagine that you make games for a living and have the expertise and ability to theoretically make all of them come to life. BUT... you are tied to a philosophy that allows you to do only one every 9 years. Dontcha think ya might be a little bit jazz'd about changing things a wee bit in order to scratch all those itches instead of gouging one so deep that it leaves a scar? Dontcha? I'm not saying that you guys don't understand this... but the record of "narrow front" and "module" type games is not all that good. Usually the games aren't really that deep, the modules that exciting, and/or the prices pegged correctly. Guess I felt I had to reassure you that we know this VERY well and will absolutely not be going that route. We like money, but we like making the best games out there far more Steve

Battlefront.com Administrator Member # 42 posted May 19, 2005 07:45 PM We're not interested in making a "toolbox" type engine. Way too much work for that. No commercial incentive for us either, so that + the work = nogo While I did not really intend on throwing any bones into this thread... might as well toss one bigish one.... never again will we make the kind of games we did for CMx1 in terms of their scope. Why not? CMAK is the best way to explain this. It took us nearly a year, with a full time team of 6 people and a part time team of probably a dozen, to make what is basically a HUGE mod of the existing engine. Relatively little programming time went into new features for that game, and yet it still took that long. We though we learned our lesson with CMBB, but I guess we had to suffer through yet another massive development effort to really learn it. And that is... For $45 or $35 a copy it just isn't worth putting in that quantity of stuff. Yeah, I know some of you (like me!) really enjoyed playing Conscript Romanians, complete with Romanian voices... but really... how many (% of total customers) would have misssed it if that was missing? Yet we probably spent 1 year's worth of full staff development on those features. Really not smart from our standpoing, nor yours. You guys had to wait 1 year extra for BB and AK because we felt like we had to simulate every darned stinking thing for the entire Eastern Front. Yet I am sure that 95% or more of you would have rather had a smaller scoped version of the Eastern Front a year earlier and then had AK follow right up and then had something else right after (or CMx2 released a few months ago). So... from now on you will see from us: 1. More variety from title to title 2. Less time in between releases 3. Deeper game play within a title (vs. breadth) 4. More game engine improvements with each release I'm sure some will grumble and invent all sorts of negative things to say about all this, but that's par for the course with Gorgs After you get ahold of the first CMx2 title's demo, and you see what our new strategy REALLY means, only the hardcore whiners will still be bitching. And since these guys probably bitched about CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK not being up to their standards... well... you can guess how much we'll care Mikey... I figured someone would note the TM I hope nobody here works for the g'vmnt 'cuz we're not exactly allowed to use that mark without having actually filed and paid for a trademark Steve