slysniper

The only thing I have seen so far that helps is low stone walls, a wall and building face can be close or together, this helps the players on the first level, since stone walls do stop small arms fire and building walls do not.

On my test i had the squad on all three levels of the house, MG on the first level, there is enough windows for all of the members and it appeared I was getting all to participate

I just finished testing a blue on blue American squad with leaders, at 100 meters apart. One in the 3 story house, one laying down in tall grass against each other to see what results I would see with the building as protection. A few observations for all of those that hate the buildings as defensive locations right now. Whichever squad spotted the other first had a big advantage, normally killing one or two enemies and getting others to cower before they were given full return fire. So thus the squad that generally won was who opened up first, not what cover they were in. So if I started by letting the infantry target the building as area fire, guess what, the squad in the open normally won. If I let them do it on their own. The squad in the bldg normally spotted first and normally won. If both units opened up about the same time, the ratio loss was around 3 to 2 favoring the men in the bldg, plus this seemed to also play into the fact that they would then not break and had better ability to keep the morale up compared to my men in the field that would flee to the woods. One last comment. I tried two squads per side and quickly found out that too many men in the bldg adds to more dead and less likely for success for them in the bldg. Bullets are flying through there and the less body's the better it appears. My personnal suggestion, send teams into bldg only when they are ready to open up on the enemy that is approaching. stay behind until then. avoid likely area fire, learn to play to be the first to shoot, this is much more important now

So with them statements, It appears likely over the 50,000 mark but less than 200,000. I figure if things go very well for them in the long run, with plenty of good reviiews in gaming magazines, maybe they might get near 100,000 on sales. Which as is mentioned in the one statement might be a new level of profit that they have not seen before, it might give them the ability to push to a new level of ability within the company. That might be good news. Also it shows a little more what I was interested in, that is how small of a group of people this is in a very large portion of the world market. These numbers are so small compared to say the free online game of "World of Tanks" But look at two totally different concepts, the game is designed to appeal to the masses. the concept of protraying something real is only in the graphics. Profit is a interesting thing with these games, find ways to get players to pay for upgrades, not sure if its in that game yet, but I saw a discussion with the owner and know there was something on that line being implemented. Always add something new and better to force players to keep coming back. Addiction is actually part of the design in most new online games. They require you to get the latest stuff to be able to stay at the top of the food chain, so new added items that defeat the last new toy.

This one is from steve "No you don't. If we became insanely rich we might retire early and do something else. So you want us to be comfortably compensated, but still hungry for more And no, the order numbers don't mean anything. 220,000 orders would definitely put us into the "at risk of retiring" range, not to mention 2 million! Either one is a nice thought. While we won't give out sales numbers, or a hint of them, we can say that CM:BN will likely top our direct sales for any other game except (possibly!) CMBO. Too soon to say for sure since the game hasn't even been out a week yet, but that's the way it's headed." Steve

The other active thread had these comments, so these give a little insight A while back there was a thread where BFC actually admitted to a semi-load of metal boxes being delivered. Quote: Do the math: 53feet long X 96inch high X 102 inch wide {size of 18 wheeler} / 6inches X 8inches X 2inches{per box} - volume taken up by pallets = whole freaking pile Quote: Careful calculations indicate: 64,872 This of course doesn't take download only games and games ordered after the metal box supply was exhausted. __________________ "I wish instead I were doing what my dog is doing at this moment, rolling in something ripe he has found on the beach in order to take on its smell. His is such an easy, simple way to increase one's stature and enlarge one's personality." EB White

I know battlefront will not give out any information, so I thought it would be interesting to see what other thought total sales might be. but so far I see no one has the guts to share their thoughts. So chill, I am not breaking into the company files to get facts, just trying to get players to voice their thought on sale numbers. But maybe my efforts on this one is in vain. like it is taboo to speak of such things.

be careful with statements like this, there is ladder players out there that this stuff all matters to. I agree, at the moment, sweep and clean tactics are needed to be done before you allow a game to end when dealing with objectives. But I have to agree with the concept that maybe there needs to be another catagory of points awarded in capture zones where this tactic of a few men left behind cannot affect the score much. If you have a 100 points of units in a zone and the other guy has 2, the zone is in your control. that is what is being pointed out. So why not have a system that allows the percentage being awarded, in this case he would receive 98% of the possible points assigned for that zone. You could have both types still, thus leaving a type of zone players need to learn they must totally sweep and clean. but a new better type where last second rushes by a deveated enemy does not allow him large points being denied just because he has a man or 2 in the zone.

I think, but I am not sure, they allowed 3rd party publishing firms to make cd's and box and sell the CMX1 games, I know that because that is how I bought all three of CMX1 games, and I bought them for much less than battlefront was selling it for. So battlefront likely was only paid cents on the dollar for what they produced. Also I think it was these firms that did little in protecting the game from being copied or protected from reproduction. So when all is said and done, Steve and Battlefront said, we will not let that happen again. recommitted themselves to the indepentant concept and just do it on your own. Sure they will lose some sales as to total units sold. But much better profit when it all flows directing to your company. Which is where I think it has stayed with the CMX2 stuff I am glad they have figured a way to stay profitable and to produce the type of game we all enjoy. I would just like to get a feel more for the reason I really do wonder how many people out there really do find this as a hobby and play this type of game. For sure we ase a very small minority that seems to find and stay in this area of game entertainment

On this first release of the new game with the topic chosen, I think the sells to general players might be high, but it is a game that really only attracts those that want detailed level play and am willing to learn the system to play well. So many casual gamers might buy one version of the game, but liking not a second. So it comes down to war nuts that find out about the game and are willing to invest in it. For more of the crowd that whats a sim. As for numbers of sales, it cannot be too high becasue they sure do not seem to have the money to expand the company much. And look at CMX1 maybe with all it sales there is hundreds of thousands who have played it. But sights like the scenario depot show that those tracking the game and playing it is not that high in comparison. and many of them players bgought the games in stores or have illigal copies.

Since Battlefront seems to keep this stuff a big secret. Because they do this for the love of the hobby, Not the money:) lets get everyones opinion of how many copies they think they manage to sell of this game. Hopefully enough to keep them employed for years to come, right. I know what type of numbers I see at club sites and forums as to those that register, but what percentage of that to those that buy the game I will say, maybe 50,000 copies, what is your opinion

it almose describes everyone on this forum

One thing I have found in the few scenarios I have done. Balence is a mystical thing. No way to prove it at all unless you get the results of many battles from head to head play, and then that really only shows the results of that type of play. I cannot remember how many of mine I did for tournaments , but somewere between 10 to 15 scenarios. My goal for every one of them was to hopefully see close to half of the games being won from either side. I would say 65% percent of them did that, but many others did not. But seeing scores return and players comments. you find some interesting things out. Plenty of good players will question the balence if they lose and they do not see a reason because of the other players game play for their loss. Second, even on scenario's that were not balenced, there was still 15 to 20 percent winning with the weak side. and not just barely winning, but by huge wins at times. So I decided that the game is really being influenced by the skill of the players likely more than the balence provided by the units in play. of course luck and fortune plays a part also. But bact to my comment, adjusting a scenario does not take unit or map changes unless someone points out things that are bugs or maybe units that should be there for realistic reasons that might have been overlooked. but any score system can be adjusted to help even out the wins per side4 without impacting you desired design. But until you have plenty of feed back, how would you ever know.

I agree with this also, RT is fun and I like it also for the same reason. But it still only make sence to me if you have a small amout of units, it comes down to how many units you want to manage playing realtime

I go along with any designer sticking to the design to give the battle a historical feel or a tactical situation they want to create and not giving into changing a scenario for the sake of balence. But I disagree with balence not being possible, the fact is, I think that every scenario can give players a close to equal chance to win by just adjusting the scoring that has been placed in a scenario. So what if one side has a great disadvantage, if the score can be adjusted so that a handful of remaining troops can gain 1000 points but the attacker can only gain 1000 points by controling most of the map, then that is balenced if that is the general end result of the battle. The problem is for the designer, what is the general end result of a scenario they create going to be. They can test play it, make some judgement calls, but no matter what, there is no real answer for that. But a designer should make a effort to decide what that will be. try to set a balenced score set up for that end result, then when the game varies from that, then you have a winner one way or another. But I know there is plenty of excellent designed scenarios out there, but how they are set up in scoring is a joke. in my book that is the only adjustment needed in almost any scenario. Written by someone that loves to only play scenarios

For now the best thing I suggest is get in the habit of turning the trees on and off while you are reviewing the map and giving orders. I find that I need the trees off to give commands but need them on to understand what the terrain around each unit is really doing. The middle setting is ok, but it can mislead you as to terrain up close, the tree trunks alone do not really tell you the situation of what is around the troops at times. It comes back to getting the camera in the troops low level view points to really get a feel for the terrain. Easy to do in Wego, RT players just cannot afford to do this at times, so they have a reason to gripe. I would hate the game if I was player at level 4-7 all the time. It really comes down to how was this game meant to be played.

I do agree with the comments that the interface is not easy, that for new players it could be too difficult and that there should be aids in helping new players understand all the data that is being feed to them. This is not just a problem for new players, old timers might be having a harder time of this because they want it like it once was.

oK, you say it sucks. along with others who agree with you. Plenty of others say its fine, including me. I just was willing to accept change and have found it to be even quicker than the old system. Can it use improvements, yes. But does it need to be like the earlier games. No. (That is much more of a issue to not accept change)

you can pause the game any time you want playing the AI and issue orders, so that is a easy option in RT for the campaigns. Playing someone else, you should stick with the size of battle you have been doing so far.

Watch out for Green troops as your spotter unit, I know they are in that scenario, that can create all sorts of problems getting rounds to fall on target and get spotted.

I have heard this complaint plenty, really is not what this thread is about. but will say, I agree on only one aspect. that is buildings. I see no issue with the different bushes and such. Maybe right at first for the first few games I had the typical complaints like others, but now I can tell pretty easily. terrain elevational changes is not that hard to figure out either. But for both issues, if you do not like it, I am sure there is mods out there to solve the problem. I know I have seen a grid on some photo's. so mod away and solve your problems But the buildings really do lack what is needed. Many have pointed out how there is no infomation as to the type of protection they can give. It is a good point, but in general they all S**k, even the large churches allow to little in protection from large cal. gun fire. The sad thing is, I have yet to see any comment that they will look at making changes or improve the protection or inform us in what is a heavier structure of a building. My new style of play is to stay behind a building, not in it. and rounds still get to me, its a joke. All I can do is hope this gets better in the future, but my hope might be in vain.

I agree, but I figure most on the forum that reply, have the game, play the game and to some extent enjoy the game. I just wanted to have fun coming up with a list of why people cannot or do not want to change in the game systems.

tell me about it, I visit this forum while at work during slow periods. Hard to get to it once I am on my time. But like to, just wish there was more discussion about game play and scenarios than what is normally here anymore.

Now to try and get this thread back on topic. This was a discussion as to why some do not want to switch from CMx1 to CMx2, I feel we are up to 8 reasons now, can we add some more, here is the present list Type 1 player I Rule in CMX1,I generally crush all those I play and now this new system is beating me with the AI and my tactics are getting me creamed in head to head play, man this system s**ks. Forget it man, I stay where I rule Type 2 player I have been telling Steve on this forum for ten years how to make the perfect combat game and here is the new game and he has not implemented every concept I think is needed and has made the game by what he thinks is correct, man this game s**ks, . I will never play it; I will wait for the perfect game someone else will create that matches my likes. (This type of person has a long wait) Type 3 player Why did you Not make the interface just the same as what I am use too, I am way too old to relearn key strokes or new ways of getting information about my units or how to control them, forget it, I am not going to learn this new system, I will buy the game when you somehow add all the old game interface concepts to it. Type 4 player The QB system is better at producing good match ups, able to generate maps and play competitive games in the CMX1 engine, CMX2 has messed that up, even selecting units is a much more complex task. (I agree that the QB is much better in CMX1 at the moment, I will not fault anyway for staying with CMX1 for this reason) Type 5 player Someone that cannot tolerate aspects of the CMx2 engine that do not work correctly due to the graphic limitations. They are fine in believing in a abstract approach in CMx1 But CMX2 needs to show it perfectlty. Type 6 player Any player, no longer having the time to want to pick up a new game Type 7 player this type has not jumped into CMBN because of the cost of the game, there is a portion of players that seem to have to figure out where to get the money for such past times. For sure, some have a hard time owning a machine that is up to date, that can run the program. Others just cannot justify the cost of software for that machine they own. Type 8 player The game is getting too complex; I want it to be simple I think that covers pretty much what has been brought up so far

Actually, back in the old days, I had to wait that long for cmX1 turns also in huge maps, but in 10 years, my computers have improved many times. Now there is nothing that slows my machine down in CMx1, I figure with time cmX2 huge battles will run smooth for me also once my hardware gets the ability.