J Davis

"J Davis... you seem to be taking a system that other games use and are trying to FORCE it onto Combat Mission for no other reason other than you like it in other games..." Hmm. Like I said (one more time), the "core unit" situation is not a large issue for me, and I understand it if it isn't in CM, if nothing else than for the time issue. I'm certainly not "forcing" it on you. Your previous response on play balance leaves quite a bit to be desired, however. "You also seem to totally toss aside our ability to know what is best for this game with a casual sweep of your hand, as if you know more about Combat Mission or game design than we do. This is a pointless tact to take because you can't possibly support either position. We don't mind if you are skeptical, but you seem to be CONVINCED that we are wrong and what we are doing is totally harmful to the game..." I do wish you would stick to the subject rather than accusing me of things I didn't do or calling me names. Character assassination does you poorly. I never said I knew anything about the game, other than what you've chose to reveal on this web site. I never said that I am the final word on what's good for CM. I never said that you are harming the game. What I have said was: 1) The "core unit" concept does have appeal among gamers, despite its catering to fiction. My contention was that it does indeed have a wide appeal, and as long as it's an option, then there is no compromise to realism. My other contention was that your "core" implementation is not an implementation, in that the units are simply rollover to the next firefight in the same battle; the gamer can't use the same unit in a different battle (again, realizing that it is fictional). 2) In a campaign setting where there is 100% rollover (both unit composition & disposition) from mission A to mission B, play balance is going to be a problem. Your answers of "let history be our guide" and "play balance isn't a problem as long as the campaign has good play balance" do little than sweep the issue under the rug. "It would appear that you haven't played many historical wargames. The fact is that MANY real battles are balanced in some way or another... "Let me repeat -> Combat Mission is NOT just a game, it is a historical simulation. If you want a game that pays little attention to the realities of war then maybe you should stick to the beer and pretzel games out there." Yet more putdowns. What, aren't you going to suggest I stick to tic-tac-toe because my intellect level isn't up to anything else? Gosh, beer & pretzel games...are you sure those aren't just a little over my small misshapen head? "Combat Mission campaigns do not simulate more than a day or two's worth of combat tops. Do you know how long some battles were fought for in real life? MONTHS in some cases...A CM Campaign is only simulating a slice of that battle, so you might have to call off your operations because the enemy has beat you in that one small instance. Not for the whole war, but just that hour or day." Finally there's a solid answer out of the mudslinging barrage. Allow me to wipe myself off first. Now that I understand that a "campaign" in CM doesn't portray a whole battle but only a slice of one, let me tell you where I'm coming from so you'd understand me: I'm all for realism and history. If I weren't interested in history, I wouldn't be a wargamer. However, as a wargamer, there is one inviolable tenet that overrides even the sacred realism, and that is the game has to be challenging to play. That means that conditions have to be such so that either side will have a reasonable chance to win for any given contest. This is where play balance comes in. For one side to be so handicapped by its performance from a previous contest that it has no chance of winning the present one doesn't make for challenging play, and it means that the game has zero play balance (other than for the first contest with no preconditions.) I do see your point, however. I think there is a miscommunication here, and it stems from your use of the word "campaign" <with my finger so sharply pointed >. By normal definition, a campaign is a chronological series of battles, each of which may have some relation to each other, but the relation isn't strictly sequential, i.e. battle A doesn't need to be successful before battle B will happen. This is my understanding of the term. Certainly, I've never heard of the battle of Caen or the battle of Bastogne being referred to in history books as a "campaign." By your first explanation in this thread, then my understanding of the meaning of "campaign" is amended to encompass only a single battle or operation. But as you yourself stated, however, even a battle like Caen have many smaller ops within it, and the failure of any one op is not the end-all of the battle. This was my contention in my previous post from the realism angle (and the lack of play balance from the playability angle). Now I've come to find out that a CM "campaign" is not even that--a single battle--but only a small portion of one. Yes, if a CM campaign is only about the travails of Company B in battle XYZ, then if there's no more company, then no more anything. However, even at this small a scope, it still depends on how the campaign designer tells the story. If he sticks with just the same unit throughout the course of the "campaign," then the strict sequential relationship applies. If, however, he wants to portray the battle from more than one perspective (i.e. with different units involving in neighboring operations), then play balance WITHIN a CM campaign will still rear its ugly head, as in this latter case, the success or failure of firefight A should not be a precondition to firefight B. Three questions, then a comment: Q1) Can the campaign designer opt to have some or none of the forces from mission A to rollover to mission B? Q2) Can the campaign designer predicate the volume/amount of reinforcement or replacement on the outcome of the previous mission? Q3) Understanding that a "campaign" in CM is only on a single map, can a designer have different maps and still package it as a single campaign? Put another way, can he package different "campaigns" together and call it as one campaign? Comment: Rather than a taking up umpteenth paragraphs asking of "how dare you question our design abilities and insult our manhood, you stupid ignorant beer-n-pretzel lover," all you've needed to say was in the paragraph above. For what it's worth, I think you should make very clear to gamers what a CM "campaign" really is, or amend it to use another term. By any other view, a campaign is a series of relatively discrete battles, and because they are discrete, then gamers would not want the success of one to be a precondition to play the next. A CM campaign is not a campaign, not a battle, not even a portion of a battle. What it is, is different phases--a continuation--of the same firefight, because that is the only instance where you can justify a strictly sequential relationship between "missions." This isn't to say that a CM campaign won't be fun. As you said yourself, I don't know if it will be fun or not, as I don't know anything about the game other than your say-so and a bunch of screenshots. I do hope that it (CM) is fun, or else I wouldn't be here posting and getting people's egos bruised. I do hope, however, that a CM campaign can be more flexible to cover more than just a particular unit in the portrayal of (a portion) of a battle, thus my three questions above. "Are you trying to be purposefully insulting to us, or are you just ignorant? You are so wrong about so many things, but yet you seem to be so convinced you are right..." " The interesting test to our "vaunted customer-responsiveness" is trying to remain composed in the face of all your groundless insults towards our ability to do game design. Seriously, do you understand how utterly insulting you are being here? On the one hand you say that you are really looking forward to Combat Mission, which means that we must be doing something right in your eyes. Then, when you see a very specific game feature that you want that we are purposefully NOT adding in the way you see it in your head, you call into question our capabilities and put your unqualified opinions forward as being superior." An insult is dependent as much on the receiver as it is on the sender. I'm not sure where asking about play balance and contending that a "core unit" implementation is appealing to gamers is insulting, but if you say so, then it is. Rest assured, Steve, that if it does come down to insults, then I'm sure you are much better equipped for it than I am, so I will quit while I am ahead. However, once you've sufficiently recovered from the grievous hurt I've caused you, then perhaps you may want to go back and review the maturity level in your own response. "If when all is said and done, and the game has been out for a while, people find our campaign system lacking, we will improve it...That is how we do things. Now I guess I should should ask if you are prepared to eat your words if the vast majority of gamers say that our system is better than what the other games have. After all, it is what you have asked us to do if we are wrong..." On your first, I'm glad to hear. On your second, I don't believe in the concept of "right" or "wrong" when it comes to tastes. If I like X and the majority like Y, that means nothing other than that we have different opinions on the matter. We're talking about a game, not doing math. That said, I agree that what's "better" or "worse" will be determined by popular vote. My feeling is that you will see this "core unit" issue again, although certainly not from me (I've learned my lesson in messing with the BTS manhood). On the play balance issue, I'm hoping that the CM "campaign" won't be just limited to a strictly sequential A-then-B relationship. As Forrest Gump buddie would say, "And that's all I have to say about that." Thanks for your time.

On play balance: "Your worries about play balance are not a problem either. Reinforcements are allocated by the campaign designer according to historical time tables and force allocation, or if the campaign is fictional, based on good, sound play balancing decisions (not all scenarios and campaigns designed by people are going to be good. They never are). If the player screws up ROYALLY in a battle, and isn't able to make good on losses or lost ground, then the player has lost. Play balancing does not mean that either side can win every time no matter how badly they screw up..." You didn't really answer the question. For historical campaigns, your reliance on historical accuracy isn't the answer because historical accuracy != play balance. In real life, there is no such thing as "trying to be equitable" when fighting a war. If you want CM to be challenging to play, as versus "yeah I'll just call in my fighter-bombers and blast you to bits before I walk in because that's what the history books said happened," then play balance necessarily outweighs a strict reliance on historical force allocation. Moreover, in real life, things don't happen in a vaccuum as it is in a wargame. Reinforcement schedules aren't static, but can vary in accordance with how well or poorly the present battle is going (yes, I realize you can vary the timetable, but they aren't dynamic relative to results from previous combat, from your description.) Your response of "well, if you screw up a 60-minute firefight in a campaign then you might as well hang it up and forgo the rest of the campaign (for that battle)" is not only outrageously callous from a playability standpoint, but is also highly ahistorical from a historical standpoint. How many large battles in WW2 do you know that were given up for lost after a battalion commander screws up in a firefight? "...or if the campaign is fictional, based on good, sound play balancing decisions..." This is circular reasoning. There is no worry about play balance if the (fictional) campaign has good play balance decisions? I didn't have much of a concern about the issue of having or not having a core unit, but your above rationale of how play balance is dependent on historical accuracy is frankly worrisome, and casts a pall over CM as far as this gamer is concerned. On the "core unit" issue: "My question is, why is it so important to take your men from St. Lo and plop them into Bastonge? Isn't it the combat that is the important thing here, not the names of the places you are trying to capture? Remember that each battle is only about 30 - 60 minutes worth of combat." Different people have different definitions of what "fun" is. Granted, CM's scope of "fun" is more narrowly defined than many of the beer & pretzels wargames out there, but realize that your notion of what's important in the game may not be shared by some of your targetted market. For many gamers, the notion of having an "alter ego presence" in a game and being able to transfer it from battle to battle is "fun." If you doubt this, I'll just point to PG's popularity and to the many requests that led to a similar feature in CC3. Granted that PG's and CC3's implementations are faulty and (in PG's case) can severely impact gameplay, that doesn't mean that the concept is without merit. And since it is an optional part of play, it shouldn't have any impact on the realism emphasis that you seem to be striving so hard for. Sticklers for accuracy will simply ignore it. So at worst, having such a feature will have no change to the game. At best, it widens CM's appeal to more casual armchair generals who want more identification with the units. I understand that your primary targetted market is the grogs, but why not make the game "fun" for as large a market as possible, especially when you don't need to compromise on your goal of historical accuracy? And given that you said the game already saves the end-state of units to rollover to the next battle, then I think it's hardly an effort to have those end-states be carried to other campaigns as well. As I said earlier, this "core unit" issue is of secondary importance to me. The play balance matter is going to be a sticking point for me, I'm afraid. But I think the "core unit" thing will prove an interesting test of BTS' vaunted customer-responsiveness, when CM is released and gamers start asking for such a feature. Will you relent to customers' wishes and implement a feature that takes minimal effort, even when it runs counter to your personal philosophy? Anyway, am still looking forward to the game, even if not quite as eager as before.

Hmm OK so what you are saying is that a campaign in CM will always be on a single map that expands with succeeding missions (firefights), and therefore would only portray a single major battle, am I right in saying this? If that's the case, how do you provide for play balance for succeeding missions? Say that I really take a beating in mission 1 and my forces are literally wiped out. How can I continue with the campaign in such an instance? From the campaign designer's view, how can he provide for balance with such a potentially large force variance? Anyway, about the core unit thingie, what I had in mind was more of a "Forest Gump" tour of duty campaign deal--you know in the movie Forest bud was in on every major cultural US event in the 70's. So I was planning on making an ahistorical(!) campaign consisting of the famous battles. But if a CM campaign is per force on a single map, then scratch that. Can a campaign by made up of missions on separate maps, and if yes, can units' states be carried over? I think this is gonna be a no-go reply... AHAH! Something CM doesn't do! Anyway, you still haven't convinced me that the CM "rollover" system is "better" than the other systems cited. It's different, and it's certainly more historically accurate, but the problem remains that "my guys" are tied to a single series of battles and I can't take them to another battle of my chosing. I want to stress again that, yes, I know it's totally BS from a historical viewpoint, but so is putting Pershings against King Tigers. Your argument about play balance isn't kosher, as given my suggestion of a small rollover force (platoon sized), it would affect the game less than the present system where the whole force from one mission is rollover to the next. Moreover, I'm not into the RPG stuff of "growing" the core unit. I don't care about increasing morale or weapons or whatever. As said, I'd be perfectly happy having the regular "rollover" unit taking casualties, getting green replacements, and getting busted down to greenie status, i.e. be affected/changed in battles in a realistic manner WITH THE EXCEPTION OF being able to warp to another battle and getting replacements along the way. Anyway, it's late in the CM development cycle, and I'm sure the suggestion box is long closed before now, so if it's not in already then that's the way it will stay. May be I'll bring it up again when CM2 is getting put together and you have more time to consider it. CM is still the apple of my eye, with or without the "alter ego presence" feature. Hey I have another question: Why is CM limited to only 2 players? It would be neat to have a bunch of guys, each commanding a kampfgruppe, fighting it out in a big battle. You know, team play! Then you can restrict comm channels to simulate the confusions in a battle...and all sorts of other nifty stuff! Oh hey may be that'll be for CM2 I guess?

BTS sez... ...units as uniquely individual and plan accordingly. There is also a high level of "attachment" to units this way to. Trust me, you won't want your only decent platoon to be hacked to pieces... My comment & suggestion: I've read about BTS' decision not to have the "core group" concept popularized by Panzer General that the player can use throughout a campaign for the reason that it is ahistorical. Likewise is their rational to not to have a leader/HQ that can "grow" from one battle to the next (in Squad Leader, among others). I agree with these decisions from a historical standpoint, but from a gameplay standpoint (CM is a game, after all), I respectfully disagree. As Steve (Charles?) said in the above, gamers will get attached to some of their units. And the natural tendency is to see their "charges" improve from mission to mission. I believe that the "core unit" concept was the primary, if not only, reason behind PG's popularity. I'm a wargaming buff, but not a grognard. I want historical authenticity, but also "fictional" battles/campaigns (which BTS have said CM will have). I don't care much for PG's "core unit" implementation, as it gets really out of whack toward the later stage of a campaign (where you can have an all-Tiger force, say). I also really don't care for the leader RPG concept from SL, as single individuals can get KIA or WIA. But I'd like to see a gamer-designated force (I'm thinking platoon sized) that I can take from mission to mission in a fictional campaign. The force size is constant, only the make-up (experience, morale, may be weaponry) will change. What I'm after isn't the traditional RPG goal of growing the force from peons to superdudes, but simply have a bunch of guys that I can identify with as "my guys." Indeed, they can be worse at the end of the campaign than when they started. The platoon size is suggested so that the varying makeup of the force won't unduly impact the game balance. What is needed to have this happened is for the game to be able to save the end-state of the particular unit (platoon, as per my suggestion) and be able to automatically insert the unit into the next mission in the campaign, with any additional enhancement/replacement the campaign designer may have for the unit. If possible, I'd like to see the "core platoon" concept be modularized, so that the gamer can insert the platoon into any other campaign (possibly replacing one the existing platoons) if he desires. Again, I realize that this is totally ahistorical, but don't think that have this as an option would lessen the game's appeal to hardcore authenticity-uber-alles fans, and would widen its appeal to more casual wargaming fans. Is this an unreasonable request? Or am I making an ass of myself by asking for something that will already be implemented?

Assuming that such will take up any more development time/resource, I'd suggest you skip on all the filler multimedia bloat and just deliver the game with some atmospheric background music and a menu front-end. I remember playing Close Combat 1 & 2, and never did like those old b/w WW2 retreads that I can already get on PBS. Now, if you can get Playboy to license their centerfold videos so the victors of a game (the losers get to get Beavis & Butthead cartoons), then by all means do that!

Well, since it's getting close to the home stretch, can you guys provide a more specific date than "late summer"? Also, I see that pre-ordering international folks can dispense with the poster and get an $8 discount. Can a "domestic" buyer get in on this option as well? Frankly, I'm not much for posters of any kind (I'm a functionalist). Thirdly, I haven't seen anything in the web site about Big Time Software itself. Is it true that this game has only two people (Charles & Steve) working on it? If so, that would indeed be amazing! Lastly, why does the Battlefront frame graphic have a bunch of soldier raising a flagstaff (i.e. the Iwo Jima pose)...with a skull-n-crossbones flag on top?! Is this really the message that they want to convey to their potential fans, that piracy is "in" at Battlefront?? Anyway, hope to see the culmination of your work soon. J.D.

Thanks to Steve and Charles and others for their replies. Since I am out of the board wargaming for some time, I have some other questions: 1) Is the board wargaming industry now truly dead with the passing of AH? Or are there still publishers who are putting out new board wargames (I'm thinking mainly of the US market)? 2) The hobby/book stores were a major outlet for board wargames when I was playing them. From my take of reading the manifesto & other info of the Battlefront site, these outlets aren't feasible for computer wargames. Why can't they function as an adjunct to the direct-sales model? 3) What exactly is the target market of Battlefront, BTW? Is it only to hardcore wargamers? What does it offer to the indie developer other than just a web site? Say, if I were a developer and I have under development a game like Panzer General (i.e. more of a beer-n-pretzel wargame), would I fit under the Battlefront banner, and what help could I expect from them? The Battlefront manifesto, unfortunately, is long on rhetoric and short on specifics (no offense intended). 4) Do BTS plan on any marketing campaign other than word-of-mouth? I can't imagine the traditional marketing vehicles (mainstream gaming mags) to be effective in reaching wargamers. Or would this be a Battlefront function? Anyway, Combat Mission looks very appealing, even to casual wargamers (which is what I categorize myself as nowaday). I am hoping that it, and BTS, will meet with lots of success, if only for the selfish reason that it will mean more titles for the CM family. I think the web-only sales approach would happen eventually, and it's nice to see someone taking up the banner. However, I've yet to see any evidence (or intention) for anything other than by word-of-mouth advertising, and I have my doubts as to Battlefront's function. In any case, good luck. I'm looking forward to trying the demo.

Question for BTS: I'm curious as to why you decided upon the direct-sale-only approach (this is not a criticism, BTW). Certainly, with a title such as CM, I'm sure you could've swing an attractive deal with such pubs as SSI or Talonsoft or whoever. I suppose what I'm wondering is the volume of sales that you would need to break even respective to each of the two approaches to sales. And as a follow-up, what your realistic expectation of sales would be, again with each of the two approaches. I'm not sure if you're willing to divulge what your break-even point would be, as many companies prefer to keep their financials under wraps. If so, then would you give a simile with reasonably accurate amounts? A third question: When I was still playing computer boardgames, the bulk of the titles I bought were in small hobby/book stores. The only wargaming title I ever recalled seeing in a "big" game store (Toys 'R Us) was Squad Leader, and it was only in there for a short time before the place realized they made a mistake. What has happened to these traditional outlets for wargaming? Or have they been swallowed up by the larger chains? Thanks in advance for any answer.