[hirr]Leto

Point taken and already acknowledged previously. Whether you have it backwards or forwards is for the market to decide. When resources are constrained, you have to make priorities, and hope that they are transformed into the most value as possible, and more importantly, have that value communicated to the marketplace as effectively as possible. One of the reasons for this MB I would think? I also understand, unlike others perhaps, that this MB only provides you with a small percentage of the input and feedback that you require. Cheers! Leto

And don't forget, superfluous to a myriad of other issues... my main point is who cares? The more important question is: "when do we get more?" Cheers! Leto

But does not knowing the "inside info" convey so much more to the gamer and provide the gamer with information that not only contributes to a more enjoyable and immersive gameplay, but also to build skill and capacity around this information? Would be nice to see this "visual" and "statistical" and "operational" expression in CMx2. But like it has been said, we cannot have everything, yes? : )P Cheers! Leto

How exactly? I'm interested in a general comparison of how it is better and why. Thanks forf the reply in advance! Cheers! Leto

So let me get this straight: Tiger = sexy that rhymes with good marketingexy? Or: we were just shodding around and had a pickie of a Tiger from the new game that we were messing around with (because we oh so love Tigers, they are sexy!) and decided to post one up? Albeit that all the above is quite superfluous to the flesh and blood of the new game, it's been a fun discussion. Cheers! Leto

Are you implying something about some of the posters here, Adam? LOL! Cheers! Leto

I have a few questions: Do you have a plan for releasing information on Cm2 Normandy ex ante, and if so, at what stage or stages and at what level of detail? A sub question of the above: will you be opening a new forum section to deal with the questions that will obviously start flowing now that you have posted the infamous Tiger shot heralding CM2 Normandy? What market or demographic are you aiming at with the new game (do you have some research data that you may be basing some of your design principles on) or are you just building it and hoping they will come? I ask this because you've stated in the past that you have greatly expanded your sights with respect to target markets, moving from your past customers of your old products to new customers who may be already playing in new genres (you mentioned real time gaming forums once). What is the process for beta tester selection? Do you have to know or trust the person, or are you looking for a specific skill or characteristic, or even demographic to strategically link your betatesting squad to the markets to which you will be selling? Is the emphasis going to be on campaigns (a narrative, or storyline as you will) so that a player will need to complete missions, or are you looking to build in scenario based, full editing and QB based flexibilities to allow for the development of a user based community? (almost like open source products, but of course the code is not disseminated, so not really) I ask these questions in a forthright and respectful tone. Thanks for your response. Cheers! Leto

You'd never guess that he is a member of MENSA AND a lawyer, would you? : ) Cheers! Leto

Great AAR! Loved it! Cheers! Leto

New turns are up at FRONTLINE. Cheers! Leto

Standartenfuhrer and I have run through the gauntlet and emerged at the top of the tourney heap. The tourney has been a year in the running and is about to complete. I am doing a DAR broadcast (during action report) of all three final games over at WaW, as the website allows for the DAR section to be locked against my opponent (not that he would peek, he's a stand up guy). Unfortunately, this requires everyone to create an account and log in to view the DAR's. http://worldatwar.eu/ Come on by and watch the grand finale! Setups are posted with first turns to begin shortly! (FYI THIS IS CMx1) Cheers! Leto

Standartenfuhrer and I have run through the gauntlet and emerged at the top of the tourney heap. The tourney has been a year in the running and is about to complete. I am doing a DAR broadcast (during action report) of all three final games over at WaW, as the website allows for the DAR section to be locked against my opponent (not that he would peek, he's a stand up guy). Unfortunately, this requires everyone to create an account and log in to view the DAR's. http://worldatwar.eu/ Come on by and watch the grand finale! Setups are posted with first turns to begin shortly! Cheers! Leto

And you are completely fine with a little foreplay and some heavy petting to get you really really excited... no need to finish, right? ; ) A little lightheartedness here, please. Cheers! Leto

Thank you WW. That post had the right attitude and was helpful in that it explained some things to the consumer in basic 'unglossed' terms. I do not think anyone here (at least for me personally) has a problem with you. But there have been at times a 'pack of feral dogs' mentality of some of the beta testers that is less than cordial... whether they feel they have the right to treat the consumers like a scooby snack may be justified in some instances, but they have a duty to not be inflammatory, snide, or disrespectful, especially when someone raises a concern about the very nature of the product itself. I will go back to lurk mode and continue to await CM x 2 Normandy (dreaming of sugar plums and functioning, effective WEGO, QB generators and workable pathfinding). Cheers! Leto

I also think that an action based definition is not appropriate here or at least highly limiting, as inaction, as much as intended action to obfuscate, can also be viewed as 'covering up'. Its a semantic argument. Just having that argument provides evidence to people that have the perception of a cover up. Plain and simple, the perception is there: that BF would rather ignore, re-phrase or imply other definitions in response to the queries of people who have paid money for a game that they feel is 'broken' because they cannot play elements of the game that were offered within it. It's entirely understandable, as admitting an error was made is not good for business, and can lead to other inferences being drawn, such as incompetence, ineptitude, deception and perhaps more importantly: that this is not a good product and I won't buy it (or buy another title released by the company). Why would BF want that? My experience in business is that the culture of 'spin' is predominant within almost every business model that one encounters these days. I suspect there is quite a lot of empirical evidence that suggest just as much (although I am not specifically working in the field of public relations or management ethics). Tell the truth, be up front, and listen to your customers without showing your disdain to them (as all artists and creative people are sensitive about their work... its understandable). If you want to represent the company in a fair and equitable manner, then action, positive and informative as possible, is always the best strategy. Cheers! Leto

I'm a member of one of those websites that also holds that opinion, among many others. Am I to be insulted as well? Cheers! Leto

For those of you who like to read the ongoing saga of a battle almost turn by turn, you may want to check it out. My humor is pretty bad, but others are also contributing, so you can see two people playing head to head on a turn by turn basis. http://worldatwar.eu/index.php?entity_sess=〈=3&location=disboard&boardid=33 You can access the DAR's on the right hand menu under FRONTLINE. Cheers! Leto

I agree wholeheartedly. Kuhnian paradigm shift logic in full effect. The mechanisms are there for those who wish to contribute feedback to the new game, whether or not you like or even play its current iteration (as long as the understanding is there that feedback does not mean instant adoption). And hey, it won't be for everyone. I'm still eternally grateful to BF for CMx1 even though I don't play CMx2. Who knows? Perhaps CMx2 WW2 will be an advance that even someone like I will want to play some day. And if not, c'est la vie. But out of all the wargaming companies out there, I think you guys still have the greatest promise for delivering what wargamers want... no matter the context. I think that little point has been lost on many. Anyways, end of my two cents, I shall return to lurker mode. Cheers! Leto

Steve, I think the majority of players who liked WEGO and think that AI in CMx1 is better than that of CMx2 is that they play a lot of PBEM. A lot of the autonomous aspects of CMx1 are good, especially when playing against a human opponent, which I only play myself. I would never play the AI as you are setting yourself up for an irreducible comparison that will leave you disappointed, especially not knowing how either game engine works and "thinks". From everything I have read, CMx2 is without a doubt, a better AI platform. On the other hand, my sense is that CMx2 can be much more playable against the AI with proper scripted scenarios, and from the little I know about the gaming industry, those games that people can play against the computer on their own time without having to wait for an opponent, either PBEM, or IP, are more popular. I'm not saying that CMx2 is not playable head to head... but perhaps that it does not play as well head to head as the old CMx1 version in the WEGO format, especially from a CMx1 mindset. On top of that, I think the real problem you have is that this new warfare concept is just not the clear cut force against force of world war 2 CMx1 ilk, and that your concept of blue and red is lost on the "chess game" head to head players who espouse balance. You've said somewhere else that blue vs blue or red vs red may be the way to go for those people. Once you make a game too "real" you take the surreal balance element out of the equation that allows two players to play against each other thinking that their chances for winning should be dictated by their own capacity. I do not feel that is the sense that players get from CMx2. Long story short, two radically different games from many perspectives. Speaking for myself, I would have loved an upgraded version of CMx1, as I am comfortable with it, would love the new toys, etc and would also not have to worry about embracing a new game that my hard fought experience in CM ladders may provide little advantage. That this may have not made business sense to you is also quite acceptable because the gaming world moves on through technology, and thus cannot accomodate a move that is laterally, although graphics and playability may be upgraded. You need to set out building a new game, a new experience. I was an old Xcom player, and loved the first two, and hoped that the third would be more of the same. It wasn't. They added real time, and the game just didn't play all too well in turn based... it added to much reality to it... to much chaos... and diluted the "surreal" of the old games that allowed one control. I do research on entrepreneurs and find that the element of "control" is a huge factor for most people, and they would rather control their future rather than predict it... as far as they can control things, they don't have to predict. Thus a game injecting "reality" into the matrix may not sit well with some people... for others, they will appreciate the "reality". For the former, the game is not fun... for the latter, it's a hoot! But your dealing with two entirely different cognitive perspectives that cannot be reconciled easy. I for one wish you the best on the WW 2 version, but already realize that I a control type wargame player, and will probably not like it either. For us, the only thing we have to look forward to is CMC... thus I can understand why you have to deal with so much bitterness on these boards... the passion of those of us for the original CMx1 burns pretty bright. As a business economist, I understand your position from an unattached perspective. Most others here cannot. The awful reality of the situation is that you have to determine the power of your stakeholders, and TBH, us old CMx1'rs just don't have a lot of clout. Anyways, I hope this ramble adds some much needed clarity (I doubt it, but I tried). Cheers! Leto

That it works. Leto

I can't get CM:SF to run on my computer, so had to go down to the local gaming arena to try it out. But I couldn't get into playing the AI at all, and even for CMx1 games, I couldn't ever get into playing the AI either... I guess the rush of playing against another opponent is the Deuce for me. It seems like more people play CM:SF against AI than in CMX1... Who do you play against? AI or HUMAN? IS the trend that more CM:SF'rs play AI? Cheers! Leto

"I smell faculty member varmint... and the only good faculty member varmint, is a dead faculty member varmint... I think." Cheers! Leto

Once again, I believe this needs a succinct summary: 1) Reviewers feel the game is incomplete. 2) The majority of players know the game is incomplete. 3) Other players are concentrating on what they will have when CMx2 engine is complete, ignoring its current incompleteness. 4) A mix of 2) and 3) are debating the subjectives around what was dropped from CMx1 to CMx2 (this is most often contentious). 5) BFC is sticking to their philosophy on gaming evolution, predicated on two issues 1) they cannot please everyone, 2) its hard to explain it, so just give it a chance, play it and see for yourself. 6) We now return to issues 1 and 2 with respect to the incompleteness of the game standing in the way of 5). Please let me know if I'm close here. Cheers! Leto

Actually, this is also a highly opinionated piece of fluff IMHO and a bad post. All things being equal, the main objection that people have with CMSF is that it is broken. The potential is there though... looking forward to BFC getting it done right. Cheers! Leto

But that is exactly it. Go buy a Camaro. Perhaps a Crossfire. Maybe even an SUV. Probe GT's are not for you. But you don't wish Ford to go bankrupt just because they moved their platform. For all we know, BF's interpretation of this metaphor is that they have a sleek new euro sport smart car that will revolutionize the automobile market. Looks sharp, drives sharp, does not cost a whole pile to fuel it, but guess what, the technology only allows you to drive it 200km's and you can only haul your dog along for the ride cause its just too small to fit anyone else, especially another fat old wargamer with fumbly fingers and an aversion to all those new buttons and features. The money we make by selling these little hybrids will fund future research for the total package automotive driving experience... twice the range, twice the fuel economy, twice the looks and three times the performance. In the meantime, I won't be driving a smart car, but wish them well. I'll buy it when it does what it says it can do and sates my consumer palette. Cheers! Leto