Pelican Pal

There is a point here. Say a V 4.0 comes out, and you've been an exceedingly loyal customer buying every CM game. To upgrade your collection that small $10 fee could be aaas high as $50 (CM:A, CM:BN, CM:FI, CM:RT, and CM:SF). Now if you throw in Black Sea and the Bulge game you are paying $70 to upgrade your games to the same level. I also wondered about fire weapns. Presumably some formations currently in CMBN and CMFI should have fire weapons by default.

I do wonder how BFC's model/code database works. Do they have a single stockpile of assets that they can draw from or do they make a new Panzer MKIV for everygame that they make?

FWIW, I'll agree with you Kulik. If this were to happen again I would hope BFC would point out which features would be brought into the upgrades and which would not. I'm sure some people expected tank riders to be in the patch. Especially since they are a definite selling point of the CM:RT 3.0 version.

What seems to be happening here is two different parties running into CM and coming from different value points. The forum core, generally, are people who come from a war gaming background. They purchase(d) expensive boardgames and those $75 Matrix games without any demo. They generally play fewer games, and for them the way BFC does business (base game + # of modules + paying for updates) makes perfect sense and is super legitimate. The other group are the people who come from a broader video game background. They are generally younger and are used to the modern PC gaming industry. They don't purchase expensive war games so saying that CM is a good value compared to a Matrix game or a boardgame isn't getting you anywhere. Even saying that CM is a good value because you can play it for so long isn't a super good argument because it often doesn't equal a incredibly unique amount of playtime. In this environment there are tow primary ways companies interact with their customer's money. The Activision/EA way: This includes an expensive base game and then massive amounts of DLC priced at $15. This DLC might add a few maps, guns, and game modes. To stay current in multiplayer you need to buy essentially everything. and the Tripwire Interactive, Paradox, Bohemia way: This includes just absolutely massive amounts of free content. Vehicles, maps, guns, features. It is free. These companies also have DLC that they monetize. BFC definitely operates in the Activision/EA style and this, of course, rubs the video game players the wrong way. EA has won "worst company of the year" multiple times. Activision is lampooned for thier DLC policies. To these customers they are being fleeced. Now I will say that I don't begrudge BFC their business practices, but I also think that the point of view of these customers isn't stark raving madness. It is a perfect legitimate viewpoint with legitimate complaints. Their perspective on the economics of this are different, and some arguments here are a little weak in the face of that. Like the upgrade/patch distinction. People who don't understand that aren't dense. They are just used to the way that most other companies in the industry do things. The whole patch/upgrade difference is essentially some lingo that BFC made up to describe their policy. Outside of this arena those words are equivalent. Personally I think that a flight sim model (similar to DCS) with a single base and a number of branches would make a lot more sense (especially for the consumer) and with how BFC has taken the series. But hindsight is 20/20 and all that. In the coming years a v4.0 upgrade could cost a very active BFC customer $40. The price of a single module and not that far off from a base game. Which means it is probably something that needs to be looked at. Anyway my original point here is that people who are unhappy/complaining about pricing aren't dense. They aren't idiots who don't understand that businesses need to make money. However, they do come from a industry (that BFC is a part of) with a very different handle on how to run a business than BFC has, and for better or worse BFC has aligned its pricing scheme with the price gauging giants like EA and Activision. So the fact that people are complainy isn't unexpected. Now I would like to reiterate that I am fine with BFC's monetization policy. They can continue to do it and I will continue to buy some of their games. I'm not advocating that everything ever should be free or anything like that. There are different policies that would benefit the way I play CM more, but whatever. I got what I got.

From a thread in the CM:BN forum.

I actually found BFC's explanation which is a whole lot more legitimate than what is currently being thrown around. \ So yea, a lot of work. Which sucks but its what we got.

Tank riding is historically accurate. It did in fact happen. It should not be the tank riding that is currently in CM:RT. A Soviet squad will ride that tank into the drop zone come Hell or high water. Instead a small number of casualties or more than a few potshots should cause the men to dismount. This isn't an assault tactic but an administrative movement. Currently a player can have a rifle company attack across completely open ground covered in mines and TRPs with two companies of Germans dug into the other side of the field. This is company wide suicide yet the player can still do it. Hell the player can call naval artillery onto their own position if they want to. They can dismount a company of Shermans and have the crew act as infantry. Point is that because something is tactically suicidal does not mean that the player should be (or is) prevented from doing it. The game is also increasingly becoming the "12 miles behind the lines" simulator. The map size is now 8 KM deep by 4 ( or is it 3) KM wide. We are a mere four KM (and depending on map orientation even less) from that 12 KM. Back in CM:SF your argument would work, but the maps are getting increasingly bigger and the opportunity for tank riding (as an administrative move) to make a tactical difference is increasing with it.

Hello, I've owned CM:BN for a while and am currently at the 2.0 upgrade level. I'm considering upgrading to 3.0, but would like to use this opportunity to save $5 and get a module combo (probably CW). However, there only appears to be a stand alone 3.0 upgrade. Are any 3.0 module bundles currently in the works?

I'm going to swing in here and comment. At ranges above 120-130 meters (generally out of effective SMG range) I am quite happy to have rifles. Infantry advancing on open ground from 300 meters out and closing will take enough casualties over that time to make them much more brittle if they do manage to close. However, once that 120 meter range is broken rifles become dramatically less effective (because SMGs suddenly become much more effective at killing the riflemen) and SMGs become dramatically more effective. Importantly, losses become more compacted in time. While at 300-150 meter range rifle fire will accrue casualties over a period of minutes. This allows the player to correct mistakes and avoid further casualties. The squads morale will also be mostly intact. At SMG range you will lose half a squad + in a period of 10 seconds. That squad will be effectively destroyed. One man can do this repeatedly.

The AI auto selection isn't completely hopeless. However, it is generally pretty heavy handed. Attempting to buy entire formations first so you will end up with an opponent that is mostly 1 type of unit. You can have the AI autopick forces and then go in and add/delete certain things without totally ruining FOW.

Wouldn't illum rounds negate, to some extent, the capabilities of NVGs?

I come off rather harsh on CM and BFC. However, I do thoroughly enjoy the games and the work BFC puts into it. I will continue to purchase a few games/modules every now and then and I'm excited about the upcoming content. I post because I enjoy the games enough to care. Unfortunately the current pricing structure doesn't really work with my eclectic wants when it comes to games. I rather more breadth than depth. I would also love to see how CM:SF + modules or CM:BN + modules would do on Steam. CM is good enough that I think it is niche largely based on the nonexistent PR rather than the average gamer being too dumb. Also what are the chances of combining all of the familes now that they are being kept up to date. I would absolutely love a 1946 East Vs. West game.

Is there a period map that shows the area that is covered in the Orsha master map, or can someone help me locate a couple of places on google maps. I am looking for Lake orekhi and the village of Plehany. Thank you!

I'll one up you: Possibly. I'm more confused because the CM:FI module is also placed at $35 and iirc the CM:SF modules were also $35. CW is an anomaly.

So why is CW so expensive?

Arma 3, Red Orchestra 2, and the Paradox games, just to name a few, all provide free functionality updates to users. If BFC wants to charge for it and it works all the better for them. I don't begrudge them making money. Haha, spelling mistake on my part. Like I always say. I don't begrudge BFC their money. I would prefer a cheaper price across the board since it would fit my consumption of CM more appropriately. I also think releasing an older game on Steam would be an interesting experiment. Personally I think it would do pretty well, but I also have unusually high opinions on the capabilities of the Steam userbase. I won't bring up these discussion myself, but if they are around I'll speak my mind.

But actually why is the CW module more expensive than the others? All the others are $35 and CW for some reason is $45. Right now it is more expensive than the base game by $10.

The current occupy objective is woefully designed to handle how it is actually used and constantly results in gamey battles. If you need to occupy a whole village then it is possible that a lone wounded crewmen in some shack on the corner of town will contest the town from your good order company who has secured it. That is blatantly absurd. If the occupy objective is only on very specific "key" points then the battle becomes some absurd king of the hill where two opposing companies might be trying to push a squad into a single building in a village. Holding that single building does not mean that you own the village. The occupy objective as it stands is really a sweep and clear objective. Having a proper occupy objective would be a lot better than the current system.

I'll tend to disagree with this. Niche products, especially in gaming, tend to result in a single company monopolizing that niche. Paradox is a good example of that occurring in the grand strategy genre. This isn't to say that other products don't exist, but there is clearly a market leader. And to say Company of Heroes competes with CM is pretty clearly not true. CoH is competing with Starcraft and the standard RTS fair. Detailed tactical level games also require a certain amount of buy in on the part of the developer before they are successful. Which makes it a hard market to get into. The cost just to enter the tactical level market is such that small independent developers can't stomach the costs (or will have to go with a lighter and more abstracted sim) and might not have the programming experience to finish the product. While the niche isn't big enough to get a large publisher to throw millions of dollars of dev funds at it. Now the opportunity certainly exists for someone to run a kickstarter or something of that nature. Unfortunately there just seems to be a lack of adequately skilled and motivated developers to make that happen. The CM games are not as dense as I suspect a lot of people are. However, what they do lack is any sort of proper ease of use and tutorial built into them. The opportunity exists to make these games relatively easy to get into and understand it would just require some work to get that up to speed. In game tutorial, tooltip that **** out of everything, maybe even an advisor who would give you general tips about how to use units. With some more exposure and a proper introduction mission/campaign the games could do a lot more business. I also think the current family module system creates some market confusion as to what the heck you are actually buying. I cannot think of any other developer who charges solely for increased functionality. If nearly any other company did this they would be crucified by the community. In other situations this would be a "free upgrade for loyal customers who have bought our games over the years". BFC gets away with charging for it, and good for them. I also think it adds to the purchasing confusion. Right now there are like 14 different ways to buy CM:BN and there is an option to buy an "upgrade" that brings you to "patch 2.12"" whatever the hell that means. I'll totally agree with this. As someone who plays CM casually off and on alongside many other games and hobbies I find some of the arguments here infinitely frustrating. Because, no I do not spend all my spare gaming time playing CM. I am also not a "wargamer" who is buying $140 boardgames or persuing Matrix's catalog of absurdly expensive, no demo, games. So telling me that CM is inexpensive compared to that $140 boardgame that takes months to play through and a solid 10 square feet of room in the house does not make me think CM is suddenly a great value. I play CM and some lighter strategic level games, and every once in a while I'll dive into Scourge of War or something like that. However, most of my gaming time is spent playing Dota 2, Red Orchestra, Arma, Battlefield, or whatever singleplayer game I'm pushing through at the time. I buy weird indie games like and that many people here wouldn't consider video games at all. How I play CM and what I want from CM as far as I can tell is much different than the average forum goer. My primary issue is breadth. I would absolutely love to own all the CM games, but I don't spend hundreds of hours playing them. What I want to do is spend a few days playing in Italy with some early war equipment and then go play some scenarios on the Eastern Front. I don't really want to spend a 100 hours exclusively playing in any of these locations. The price to do this though it entirely beyond what it is worth to me because I will not spend a more than a few hours per year in any theater. Effort involved does not equal value for the consumer. Like I said earlier in nearly any other setting charging for upgrades would sent he internet into a blind rage. Imagine a company like EA doing that. I also don't understand the penchant for comparing CM to boardgames.

I think the high price point drives people away from buying multiple modules/theaters. While the bigger detractor for the CM games growth is probably getting people to know about it. The demos provide a solid way of letting someway see if they will like it without any sort of purchase. I know that Matrix's no demo policy has put me off buying a number of their products. $50+ dollars is just too much to buy blind. BFC has done an admirable job of avoiding this. Comparing digital game prices to board game prices is a dead end. They aren't comparable media and the audiences are largely independent of each other.

Actually every meter with a different color (assuming enough unique colors) would be pretty useful. At an individual level the change in height doesn't matter much. but it would give you a solid idea of how the map's elevation changed by viewing the colors. Alternatively a single color could be chosen and as elevation became lower the color became darker. In effect you would see color pits where elevation is low. 5 meter contour lines would also be useful. Less so than single meter changes, but still it is sufficiently hard to see a 5 meter change in elevation that it would be beneficial.

Rolls Royce is also part of BMW. They are targeting a portion of the market. Not subsisting solely on the sales of those cars. Seriously though I never made mention of 99 cent Steam games. I said that I wouldn't want to pay more, and that increasing the price does not increase income. If each game cost 500 dollars their income wouldn't suddenly increase by tenfold.

Even a separate topographical map would be super helpful.

I completely disagree with you. Increasing the cost does not also increase the amount of money BFC receives by default. Individuals have a limited amount of money to spend and increasing the price of something does not increase the amount of money an individual has to spend.

Ah, yea. So Sicherungs is a very standard scenario. Which is almost finished at this point. I just need to add the briefing and send it out for playtesting. Getting motivation to finish that last bit is a little harder than it was for the rest of it. But it is really closed to *finished*. The other is called Squad Battles. The name will probably change or become a signifier for a style of battle, but it is supposed to be CM at a platoon level with every man in a squad controllable. I'm doing this through the use of scout, sniper, AT, and lmg teams at 50% strength. I am also using transport vehicle drivers and breaching teams. This is creating some issues that need to be worked around or controlled via house rules (German riflemen have no grenades and SMG soldiers are represented by observers which can call down artillery). Currently it is working, but does need some fine tuning to make sure everything works together like it should. An average German Squad would look like this: HQ (2 men, basic HQ team at 50% casualties) Riflemen X6 (truck drivers, no grenades) 1 LMG (LMG team 50% casualties 1 SMG (Observer team, at 50% casualties) While a Russian squad would look like this: HQ (2-3 men, normal HQ 50% casualties. Must be a company HQ) Riflemen x6 (Truck drivers, come with hand grenades) SMGs x4 (Observers at 50% casualties) 1 LMG (LMG team at 50% casualties) So nearly every unit on the battlefield is a single man that is controllable by the player. This is not always true, especially with crew served weapons and HQs. I figure in these cases it is okay for it not to be 1:1. The idea for this mission arose during the discussion in this thread (http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=116173&page=2) about the overly high effectiveness of SMGs.