[2nd Expansion Same Old Questions]

Hmmm... is the Search feature of this Forum broken? It must be since I've covered this topic in excruciating detail many times over the past two years. Oh well, might as well cover it again

The CMx1 QB system was never intended for CMx2 for four reasons and two reasons only:

1. There were strong, consistent, and often heated anti-Cherry Picking discussions.

2. There were strong, consistent, and often heated arguments about point values.

3. "as is" the old QB system didn't work with the command and control system at the heart of CMx2. The primary reason for that was Cherry Picking.

4. With the greater fidelity of the CMx2 terrain system a random map generator was deemed impractical for us to develop. Meaning, we could spend a LONG time making it and still wind up with a very disappointing end result.

Note that there is no mention of the typical rumor mongering conspiracy theories, for example that we purposefully reducing game replayability, that we were clueless about the importance of QBs to many customers, etc. That's because they aren't based in any sort of fact. As others have said, simply repeating the same rumors over and over again doesn't make them any more real than the first time.

As with most rumors, the origins tend to be rooted in a misinterpretation of fact. Often that misinterpretation is "deliberate" in that people twist the facts to suit their own preconceived notions. An example of this is the "Battlefront purposefully dumbed down QBs to make more money." Completely not true. If anybody wishes to correct me on this they are welcome to, but I'd much rather hear your theories on how the world is controlled by the Illuminati first since you probably can make a better case for that

What is true is that we have said many, many, many times that we over delivered for the CMx1 games for the amount of compensation we received and therefore we weren't going to put in the same amount of breadth (most often thought of as vehicles) in any one CMx2 game as we did in CMx1. Reducing the depth of game features is not part of our plan. It wasn't the plan for QBs, for sure, but it quickly became apparent that despite our best intentions that is exactly what happened for that one feature. We acknowledged that within a few months of the release of CM:SF and pledged to fix it for Normandy because there is no way we could slap something together and stick it into CM:SF. Several months of redesign, recoding, and testing are needed.

Getting back to some deliberate changes we made...

We did in fact remove Cherry Picking because it was both railed against by a fairly significant number of people AND because it posed problems for the C2 system. We figured we could kill two birds with one stone and also save ourselves some development time by not having Cherry Picking. Obviously we made a mistake by listening to what appears to have been a vocal minority. Which indicates why it is so dangerous to listen to people who complain about something... often times they don't represent the majority of players, despite their protestations that they do. Even a thousand people complaining on this Forum doesn't necessarily translate into a majority block.

The solution we have combines the ability to Cherry Pick with the ability to still have structured forces. It should address most of the concerns anti-Cherry Pickers have while at the same time allowing for a similar degree of historically impossible forces as was possible in CMx1. At the same time it will work with the underlying C2 model and historical plausible forces.

The second deliberate move was to eliminate a point value system for each purchasable item. Again, there was endless whining, complaining, and arguments stirred up about the values we chose. Since we already used a scientific (quantifying) system, and we knew that coming up with something significantly better wasn't likely, we got rid of it. We do not think this is a mistake and therefore CM: Normandy's QB system will also lack visible point system. However, we agree that the current system is too quirky and therefore have a better system in mind that we feel gets us a more consistent valuation of relative unit worth than the old or the current systems ever could. Since that is what people want/need, it doesn't matter what form it takes if the new system gets the job done better.

There is no chance of us doing a random map generator. Zero. What we are instead doing is combining CMx2's existing ability to use premade maps with a new system which allows smaller premade "Mega Tiles" to be assembled on the fly into new maps. This is a system which borrows from board and miniature wargames. User made Mega Tiles will increase variety even more.

Well, that's about it

Steve

That the original CMx1 gave away too much (in vehicles, etc) for what you paid, I agree and commiserate with and I have no problem with BFC trying to make a good margin on their efforts (be it with modules or whatever). I wasn't around for the QB wars, or any of the others, so this has no bearing on my thinking, and I really could care less. I just want a game that is as fun to play as CMx1. Hopefully that is not asking for too much.

If you say that you've found a way to make the QB system better, we'll have to go with that until we actually see it; and then the legions of doomsayers, witches of eldrick and black hearted demons of hell who have nothing good to say about it can deride it to pieces and then the same old wars can ensue where the CM beta boys and BFC take up sword and shield to battle the forces of darkness with their powers of sweetness, light and truth (or care bear powers.... whatever the case).

For me, I am looking forward to the new game, and will buy it, or not, based on my consumer criteria.

It's really that simple.

Thanks for the update!

Cheers!

Leto

[2nd Expansion Same Old Questions]

As an examplie, if said people wanted to believe that a watermelon could be crushed by sheer numbers of educated and intelligent people piled upon it, your above statement would be falsified... making you look a little silly... well, silly-er.

I guess it would too if your "example" bore any relevance whatsoever to my post.

Looks like you didn't get it...

Cheers!

PT

You thought I was trying to be relevant?

LOL @ "I don't get it".

Sheesh, lighten up people.

Cheers!

Leto

[2nd Expansion Same Old Questions]

Between the Brit module campaign and the standalones how many new hand-built scenario are there going to be, somehing like 40? 50? That sounds like a LOT of scenario playing before anyone needs to start worrying about the separation of force size from map size in QBs.

You do know, if anyone really wants to 'cherry pick', all you have to do is bring any QB map into the editor, drop your dream forces onto the map then save as a regular scenario. What's the difference between selecting any force you want in the editor and selecting any force you want in a separate QB screen?

Looks like MikeyD just doesn't get it...

Cheers!

Leto

[2nd Expansion Same Old Questions]

Why they dropped it in CMx2 I can only guess,

I seem to remember the reason BFC offered way back was that it had something to do with the new game engine's C2 model and certainly not the following preposterous statement...

What makes this statement 'preposterous'? Using the word 'preposterous' to sum up that statement is much more prepospterous I would think.

: )

but many people have conjectured that it had to do with its inability to capture any more dollars for BFC, and thus the new module system.

Hmm. Many intelligent and educated people believe really stupid things but sheer weight of numbers can never make them true.

As an examplie, if said people wanted to believe that a watermelon could be crushed by sheer numbers of educated and intelligent people piled upon it, your above statement would be falsified... making you look a little silly... well, silly-er.

; )

Cheers!

Leto

[2nd Expansion Same Old Questions]

The QB system in CMx1 broke the mold with respect to the 6 month playability scheme that Steve once stated they are aiming their game development strategies by... gamers are still playing CMx1 (masses of them actually) due to its eminent replayability due to the QB system. Why they dropped it in CMx2 I can only guess, but many people have conjectured that it had to do with its inability to capture any more dollars for BFC, and thus the new module system. I don't really know or care. All I know is that I still play CMx1 and am still struggling (and I've tried real hard) to like CMx2, no matter how awesomefantasticwonderful some fellas around here try to defend its virtues like their lives depended on it.

Hip hip hooray for CMN and a new QB system... all the best to BFC with that.

Cheers!

Leto

[Battlefront... is it lonely at the TOP?]

It's ok to love a niche product and it's ok feel good about it and have fun and enjoy what you are doing and not care what others say about your hobby.

No harm with that wargamers have been doing that for 30 years.

But it borders on fanboy delusion to think that your favorite little niche product is at the top of it's larger market segment "world".

At best you can say it is good at what it does to fill it's tiny little niche, although even that is laughable.

I can make a game about shoveling crap and if it is the only crap shoveling game on the market I can make myself feel all warm and fuzzy about it by calling it the "best CS game ever" that only a few hundred people play.

And I do not believe the "good sales" routine.

Good sales would mean that a large amount of people bought the game and if even a small percentage of those people were talking about it there would some sort of buzz on the net, not just the same dozen or so folks on the niche publishers website.

I really like this game and play it more often then other games (not waiting on WW2 either I like Modern games) but I am a realist.

I like that it is a niche game and that it does what it set's out to do very well and that is has a small diehard following.

But I'll never say that it is the best at anything or on top of the gaming world.

It is what it is, nothing more. When you can deal with that you'll have much more fun.

Had to say my peace, flame me for speaking in reality if you want, don't really care.

I understand a bit about what you are saying... the metrics for determining what is the 'best' are poor if nonexistant for many of these wargames. Ergo, it is silly to cast about such statements as pure fact. What constitutes "the best" and how a game is ranked is mostly if not all, subjective.

But BFC HAS to portray their games as the best there are in the market, as that is all part of the marketing gig... and I honestly think that BFC feels they do make the best games in this genre, however small that market may be. I think they may successfully argue that out of the small population of wargaming companies, BFC develops this type of gaming the best... and I harken back to your crap shovelling example... (something I am exceedingly good at, I am told).

You have to also remember, that BFC has been under attack for so long, for so many things, that they may just want to puff their chests up a bit and re-arrange their bright tail feathers, in the least, just to make themselves feel good in response to so much negativity, and at the most, to help them pick up chicks. We all have egos... and we all like chicks (not sure about that Ezra guy, but I withold my judgement for now).

: ) j/k

It's only human nature, and from a strictly marketing sense, technically appropriate. I think some of the acrimony that has appeared over the last few years based on the lackluster introduction of CMSF and all the problems it faced has weathered the once more playful and thick skinned facade of these guys that are working hard to build games for people. Thus the angels vs demons conflict between the fanbois (who are in part, have a stake in BFC games and also wants to get the feel good, 'we are number one atmosphere rolling' and ultimately cheer on the company) and the pissy grogs (who don't care for the game, the way that they have been 'ignored' for expansion into new markets, and the terrible way that BFC handles themselves publicly under so much criticism). This is all understandable, partly unfortunate, ultimately regrettable, but eminently understandable (on both sides of the 'conflict').

I will let you work out who are the angels and who are the demons for yourselves.

So if BFC wants to toot their horn: let them. If they want to obfuscate, backtrack on things they have said publicly, and attack their dissenters: that too is their perogative. Lord knows, critical discussion takes place on BFC's products, their decisions, their business models, and even the demeanor in which they represent themselves to customers all over the net. Shouldn't their website be a land of sweetness and light for their products if they want it to be?

At the end of the day, many people D/L the products, play the games, and ultimately buy them or don't. Discerning wargamers can come here, read the forums and sort out the feel good rhetoric from the substance for themselves... I think most wargamers are pretty adept at understanding the politics of game company websites.

Yet the drama rolls on an on. I guess playing the game for some people is ancilliary to talking about it (perhaps myself included?).

: )

Cheers!

Leto

[Battlefront... is it lonely at the TOP?]

Hey, if you came out with a new CMx1 game with these fixes in it, that wasn't compatible with the old... I would buy it... and buy it for all my opponents if I had to.

You have every right to make some money off of this.

Cheers!

Leto

[When will we be getting a CMx2 WW2 section?]

I see there is a bit of interest in the upcoming CMx2 WW era games proposed and they are now overlapping the CMSF threads in the CMSF section.

When will there be a new section for discussion of the new game? I think it would be very much welcomed here.

Cheers!

Leto

[Battlefront... is it lonely at the TOP?]

CM as open source code. What an odd argument to have. It rather reminds me of those people who are rabid on the topic of legalizing 'hemp fabric'. Its like the primary unspoken topic is just slightly offset from the lesser topic thats being openly debated. This unspoken topic is difficult to put into words, it seems to be something like "BFC disappointed me. I want someone else to be able to monkey with their code in the hope that I will eventually be satisfied."

Although not open code, one example I have that is near and dear to me is that Talonsoft's Campaign Series has been redone by Matrix games, and IMHO, they monkeyed with things and made it better.

: )

A lot of satisfied people out there who've had to satisfy themselves... but isn't that always the case??

ROFL!!

Cheers!

Leto

[Battlefront... is it lonely at the TOP?]

Well, except for some of some of the people you associate with, who do think it's personal, I totally agree.

Didn't Jesus have some very questionable associations? Didn't sully his rep.

LOL!

Thank you and yes. We can't stay in business in a tiny niche like this without doing most things right most of the time on a consistent basis. That doesn't mean we can make each and every potential customer equally happy equally well all the time. To think that would be to admit insanity. Therefore, since we can't please all the people all the time by definition all the time some people will be displeased. We accept that and are at peace with it. The problem is some of the people that aren't pleased think that means we're pleasing none of the people and should go out of business. The makes them rather bitter and nasty.

Well if there is such peace in the valley, I would think people's associations would matter little to you. If I may be so bold, I think there has been more than enough bitterness and nastyness on both sides.

My main point from before though, is that I hope that personal feelings about certain groups of customers (such as grognards) doesn't enter into the equation when building your future games. You've stated it doesn't. I'm good with that, because I still hope you are attempting to make competitive and fun to play wargames for guys like me, whether I am associated with whiney grogs or not.

As to the code being free, I would never release a code unless I thought that there was some value to be accrued to me, my company brand or anything else that might benefit me. Thing is, value is often subjective and not always (at first anyways) monetized. I think the other thing people should maybe take into consideration, is that at the end of the day, CMx1 is BFC's baby, beautiful warts and all... I'm not too sure my artistic side would be able to cling to the "serenity now" zone if others began changing or reshaping whatever I had created... even if it made it better...

: )

Cheers!

Leto

[Battlefront... is it lonely at the TOP?]

This, my good friends, is a question you do not want us to sit down and seriously ask ourselves

Steve

So, are you saying that one of the key factors in your decision tree with respect to releasing the code is that a certain community that may benefit has complained or criticized your games/company?

Not trying to put words into your mouth, but just trying to properly infer what you have said. If that is what you meant, fair enough, I can see it from your perspective enough to understand. If not, I don't mind being set straight.

I think that regardless of the wargaming company, or gaming company for that matter, there are always going to be complaints and criticisms. As for the vast majority of these critical customers, I would argue, its nothing personal, its just how the market works. It is general human nature to complain, or ask for improvements in such a passionate environment.

Not having walked in your shoes for these 6-10 years, I cannot say with certainty that I might feel a bit jaded by constant criticism as well. But I can say that I would not ever let personal feelings get in the way of opportunities, especially with respect to advancing my career, making money or winning a nobel prize (which I certainly will never achieve). I think we all have to take your word for it that BFC's decisions are good ones, no matter what they may be, as long as BFC continues to be a sustainable gaming company and continues cranking out games that people buy... the only true litmus test.

Cheers!

Leto

[An interesting, if somewhat harsh analogy]

I don't see what all the fuss is about. If the opinion is so out in space, then ignoring it is a much better strategy than denigrating it openly... in a professional sense.

The responses I've seen here so far will only serve to set the natives to sharpening their tomahawks...

BTW, I know The Coil personally, and although I do not totally agree with his parable he is not one of the "natives" nor is motivated as such.

Cheers!

Leto

[More Pie in the sky questions about CM2:Normandy]

Eastern front? Who said eastern front?? PANT PANT PANT...

I long for exploding cabbages and parsnips up the panzers tail pipe tactics... and the ability to drink the molotov cocktails for what they were worth in regards to actual battlefield efficacy (that is, convincing soviet soldiers in an inebriated stupor to actually charge a Tiger across an open plain wielding nothing but a handful of beets... as point-Ed stick technology comes later in the cold war)...

: )

Cheers!

Leto

[Where are CMx1 gamers hanging out and playing?]

I thought that FGM was a tournament area for the Blitz? Is FGM stand alone now, and has no connection with the Blitz? If so I stand corrected.

Anyways, yes, if you are interested in tournaments (I believe they have quite a few tournaments, and a new innovation for gameplay running called "domination"... where each QB game counts towards an overall game board strategy) then this is a good place to hang out.

I believe that they screen memberships, but if you are someone who is interested in community stuff, a la WeBoB, it may be worth it, as they are a dedicated lot.

Cheers!

Leto

[PC-Gamer Review]

Leto,

Marines does... it's just that apparently he's not that interested in it

Good to know... I may buy the Marines module when I can finally get my copy of CMSF to work... anyone know what the computer specs needed to run it is offhand? Maybe my 2.33 Pentium / ATI Radeon 2600 set up is not boss enough?

(I also think customers shouldn't be so snobbish either ) any more than someone reviewing CM: Normandy and saying "what we're really waiting for is Space Lobsters".

LOL! Good luck! Man, you are quibbling... pretty much all consumers are snobs... that's just how the market works: individual taste. Figuring out how to cater to all those different tastes is the sweet spot we all swing for...

I will thus retain my right to continue to be a snob and paw at you for CM Normandy... give me some credit for buying CMSF and working on that in the meantime...

; )

Again... minor quibble all in all. I have to listen to you customers quibble all day long year after year so I think I'm entitled to quibble now and then

Steve

Yep, that's the unfortunate tale of most game developers. That less than stately Raven will be perched above your pallid bust of Pallas right above your chamber door... forevermore!

; )

Cheers!

Leto

[PC-Gamer Review]

I didn't get a lot out of the game review. But what I did get was that if you do like SF, you will probably also like Marines... although there is not a lot of extra toys... the big slam on modules.

Modules should have lots more toys, features and units (I always compare the value of modules to the ASL series modules... a few improvements in the engine and a schwack of new shiny units that offer diversity and new tactical opportunities.

That it got an 8 out of 10 should be taken as a positive, especially as the reviewer phoned it in a bit and the context of what he wrote may have reflected a "7".

The WW2 bit... well, that has been discussed to death, and I agree with the reviewer (but I wear my bias on my sleeve: I'm looking forward to CM Normandy, and am ho hum about Syria as well).

Cheers!

Leto

[Questions about WWII infantry for CMx2]

Nah, it drags down good threads, in my opinion.

Best regards,

Thomm

I can scan through the detritus. It doesn't bother me.

Cheers!

Leto

[Questions about WWII infantry for CMx2]

No, foxholes are placed where the defenders are placed in setup just like in CMx1, and I don't understand why Redwolf wants to imply otherwise. Currently trenches are not placeable but they will be in CM:WW2, although they will be visible to the attacker.

Exactly why I have to place trenches as decoys in CMx1... and move my troops into "rocky terrain" hiding for their lives when the Soviet 122's come flying in en masse right on top of the trenches.

My opinion: two kinds of trenches: regular: cheap, camoflouge: not as cheap. trenches like any other terrain element should be spottable as per unit spotting rules based on distance and terrain placed. Camoflouge trenches are spotted at half the regular distance.

Foxholes MUST BE spottable on the spotting of the unit using the foxhole... or the dilemna posed above with the Soviet 122's smashing defenses like GAWD-ZILLAH is repeated.

Cheers!

Leto

[Questions about WWII infantry for CMx2]

Hmmm. The "us versus them" way of thinking seems to be deeply ingrained in a few members of both the "fanbois" and the "haters" group.

Unfortunately, this causes a disproportionate amount of damage.

Not that it will change; this is just an observation.

Best regards,

Thomm

All people with TOO MUCH TIME ON THEIR HANDS... IMHO.

...the damage (if any) caused is to egos, and is completely superfluous to the discussions here.

Cheers!

Leto

[Questions about WWII infantry for CMx2]

No, what affects sales is a newbie visiting the game sight out of curiosity, finding a bunch of grogs on the chat board complaining bitterly about missing Bren tripods or lack of working wristwatches, and mistakenly concluding that the game is too flawed to bother with. When all that was really wrong was a few obsessive-compulsive types forgot to take their meds.

Following your logic, it may work the same way with overzealous fanbois bearing the standards for BFC on the tips of their bloody spears... which they systematically run through anyone who has a dissenting, critical or semi constructive (perhaps not to BFC) opinion. Thus turning people off the game and customers being lost.

That is a false logic, borne of subjectivism.

If the product is found to be fun to play by a majority of the gamers that are interested in this venue of war (therefore having value), then it will be successful. If people will pay the price that BFC is asking, it will sell. If there are enough people that buy the game, then BFC makes more games, until they are no longer competitive, new technology comes along, or someone comes out with a new innovative game (such as the WEGO of yonder days).

It's called market clearing. An overly simple way of looking at it, but in general holds true. And whether or not they seem themselves as agents of the market, BFC does not acquire special status, just because they say so. If their business model creates value, they sell games. The market usually cares not about philosophy (as much as some CSR types preach it...) and unless you can brand that philosophy with some kind of societal based asymmetric value, its just "part" of the business model that is relevant or it isn't.

If anyone thinks what is said on this MB by a bunch of people (potential customers) asking critical questions of the designers will influence sales at a noticeable level, they are delusional, and probably should begin taking their meds again.

IF the game is good (being subjective once again, as there are differentiated tastes out there), people will buy it. There is just too much information on the net these days to let a few dissenters poison the soup. Free demos often allow people to make their own decision quite easily and quickly.

So why the "kermit the frog freak out" by some people around here when anyone says anything critical or asks a critical question wanting information???

NOW, if game reviewers don't like it... that's another story.

Point being: civil debate and feedback, whether fer or 'ginst, should be encouraged on this website, and criticisms not utterly destroyed as sacrilegiously apocraphyl.

The good can be considered, the bad can be ignored. (At least from BFC people)

The rest can be debated.

That's the way I see it.

Cheers!

Leto

[Questions about WWII infantry for CMx2]

I was [/iThe biggest threat to the WWII title now (beside the imminent collapse of the world economy) is "expectations creep".

If that is the case, then the market will respond appropriately, and the game will not sell very well.

C'est la vie.

Cheers!

Leto

[Where are CMx1 gamers hanging out and playing?]

There seems to be a degradation of many of the old CM communities. Is there still outposts of CMx1 that are still producing interest out there?

I know that World at War and Gamesquad (two places where I attend), have withered a bit, The Blitz is a good place to find an opponent, but not much on board banter, and WeBob, Appei Fui, and WPC have closed and shrinking communities... Not sure about PolishCMHQ...

Where are you playing?

Where are you posting?

Who are you playing with?

What tourneys are being played or are being thought up?

What innovations to CMx1 gameplay are being used to keep it interesting and fresh?

And What are you doing to keep CMx1 alive and interesting???

Cheers!

Leto

[Could this be the first pic of CMx2 WWII ? [Edit] Yes!]

It wasn't sarcasm Leto. Lighten up. I'm looking forward to WWII as much as anyone.

Christ, talk about projection.

Extremely happy to be proven wrong then.

What exactly do you mean when you state "Christ, talk about projection", though?

I don't understand?

Cheers!

Leto

[How does CM:SF stack up against CMx1?]

Thanks for the response Steve,

I think the answers will be beneficial and valuable to a lot of the people poking around in here. I know it was for me.

I think I can successfully resume lurking mode again for awhile.

Cheers!

Leto

[Could this be the first pic of CMx2 WWII ? [Edit] Yes!]

I want infantry to be afraid of MGs

I want MGs to be afraid of tanks

I want tanks to be afraid of ATGs

I want ATGs to be afraid of mortars

I want mortars to be afraid of infantry

I want arty to be a blind, deadly giant

I want Borris and Tommy and Joe and Fritz.

I want an Achillies and a Churchill XI and a Sherman 105.

I want a Tiger and a Panther and a T34/76 and a Wildcat

I want zooks and shreks and PIATs and fausts.

I want rain and clouds and fog and ice.

I want water and bridges and splashes and boats.

I want mud and sand and steppe and rocks.

I want immobilisations and gun hits and crew panics and abandoning

I want strafing and bombs and rockets and triple A.

I want trenches and airbursts and panic and prisoners.

I want rallying and bravery and outlandish results and stark, naked terror.

I want to cherry pick.

I want to TCP/IP WEGO.

I want to see action at a distance.

I want C2 and FOW

And I want it ALL and I want it NOW.

And this is not a definitive list.

I don't find this sarcasm constructive, nor very helpful to BFC considering you are a beta tester. Do you not want an open discussion for potential customers to tell you what they want?

If not, then state it as such. Snide commentary like this leads people to believe this may be the case.

Their will be feedback good and bad. Their will be people telling you what they want, wishlists and concerns. It's your job to evaluate and use the data, not inject personal bias that is both insulting and unnecessary.

How you react to all this says a lot more about you (and unfortunately the company) than it does about the (majority) of the people posting here.

Sheesh.

Just to add, the point of the post is not lost on me, considering the history of these forums.

But... come on? Fighting fire with fire is an exercise in failure (in regards to respectful and constructive community building), unless it is to only serve your own personal whims.

Cheers!

Leto