More photos and TOE's

[Redwolf]

... on ONE dimension. It comes out being vastly less flexible in every other dimension.

FTFY.

I was speaking strictly about the question whether a game only doing Husky (or what Steve thinks was in Husky) provides enough toys to warrant a new game purchase. And if not how a game could deal with it.

[mjkerner]

I was speaking strictly about the question whether a game only doing Husky (or what Steve thinks was in Husky) provides enough toys to warrant a new game purchase. And if not how a game could deal with it.

Did I miss something? BFC is doing Italy...Husky plus (essentially) Shingle and Avalanche and the drive up both coasts and the Liri Valley, to Rome and beyond. Not enough content for one game???:confused:

[sburke]

I was speaking strictly about the question whether a game only doing Husky (or what Steve thinks was in Husky) provides enough toys to warrant a new game purchase. And if not how a game could deal with it.

Man you really are a piece of work aren't you? Can't even make a simple response without taking a backhand swipe in the process. Worse, the swipe doesn't even make a bit of sense. I don't believe BF actually even mentioned Husky in their announcement. Fortress Italy is a new "family" of Combat Mission games covering the Allied struggle to knock Italy out of the Second World War. This initial release deals explicitly with the battle for Sicily and sets the groundwork for future additions to simulate the hard fighting in the rugged terrain of "Europe's underbelly" up until the war's end in 1945.

Look DON"T BUY THE GAME. It is that simple. I am sure BF would rather you not than have you sit around crying about it until hell freezes over.

Edit - before you point out the blazingly obvious - yes the battle for Sicily was from the allied perspective Operation Husky, The point is the game wasn't intended to cover the entire operation knowing they couldn't include CW troops. God I can't believe I figured I would have to note this in here due to the nature of how these threads go, friggin pathetic.

[JonS]

I was speaking strictly about ...

That's maybe true in your head, but on the page you were speaking about something else.

[Mord]

No, it's not in the slightest. And allowing modifications to 3D models doesn't equal creating content in the general sense.

Now we're just playing semantics. Adding new vehicles and the data that applies to them, and new 3D terrain features and the data that applies to them is pretty open source. Yes, I know it's no rewriting code and all that...but it's enough to apply to this discussion.

I've never had a problem with BFC controlling that sort of thing. I'd rather they did. That way you don't get a bunch of clutter like Uber Tigers and Super Panthers that a lot of guy's would create. However, if BFC had the time and staff it would be cool if users could create new content that could be submitted and released after it went through a quality control system.

Anyway, a lot of this is moot because the initial criticism was about how small the scope of both games are...and yet we ALL know that the titles are just a small piece of the over all content and the modules will expand them. It's only been talked about for the last five years...HERE and OTHER places...but now all of a sudden it's news. Not to mention proven through CMSF's releases and CMBN's. It's funny how some of you guys will completely ignore the facts when they don't suit your particular agenda of the moment. Probably easier to get Steve to come out and argue that way...

Mord.

[sburke]

Anyway, a lot of this is moot because the initial criticism was about how small the scope of both games are...

Mord.

LOL I am still mostly playing CM-BN. I finally have a couple PBEMs in CM-CF scenarios. I haven't touched much else. Not that I don't want to, it is just that there is far more here than anyone might want to admit even in just the base game. CM-FI is gonna be here before I have really gotten to CM-CF. That for me pretty much sums up what BF's announcement is going to mean. I will not be able to keep up. Damn I love that thought. 1/2 full, 1/2 empty. Hell with that, my cup runneth over

[ChrisND]

Mumble this theater and scope and hence TOE is a little too narrow for my taste, and for my full-game money mumble.

If five campaigns, about twenty standalone scenarios, at least 200 QB maps to play, 35 new vehicles, two reworked nations with new TOE and equipment, and a new nation that has been fleshed out in as high detail as we could realistically go aren't worth the money to you, then I'd suggest you just skip this one or wait for modules.

On another note: lets keep it civil in here.

[Sequoia]

Five campaigns?

[ChrisND]

Five campaigns?

2 training campaigns + American + Italian + German campaigns. Maybe the campaign designers will make an appearance to describe their campaigns...

[JonS]

The Italian campaign is loosely based on the attack by the Italian 'Livorno' Division just west of the Gela River on 11 July 1943. I say 'loosely' in the sense that the battles are plausible but not historical. The units and maps, however, are the actual units and very detailed pieces of actual terrain. That is, these units - on both sides - really fought in these real locations, but not quite in the ways shown or at the times chosen.

As the Italian commander you will get to conduct a recon, a blitzkreig, a bypass, a slog, and an urban assault, all within the space of about 12 elapsed hours. You may also have to conduct a fighting withdrawal a later date. Because the main part of the campaign occurs over such a compressed timeframe, you will need to be very careful with your forces and your expenditure of ammunition - in general if you use it or lose it, it's gone for good.

The Italian taskforce contains a mix of some of the best Italian forces available on Sicily. The Livorno division was deliberately held back from the coast specifically because it was well equipped, well trained, and mobile. It's task was to 'seize the fleeting moment', and throw any invaders back into the sea before they had time to organise themselves. US forces consist primarily of the 26th Infantry Regiment, 1st US Infantry Division.

A good taste for this campaign can be gleaned from:

* Rick Atkinson, “Day of Battle”

* Carlo D'Este, “Bitter Victory”

* Ian Gooderson, “A Hard Way To Make A War”

* C.J.C. Molony, “The Mediterranean and the Middle East, vol.V"

* S.E. Morison, “Sicily-Salerno-Anzio” (available on the web)

[Michael Emrys]

* S.E. Morison, “Sicily-Salerno-Anzio” (available on the web)

And maybe from some used book stores...if you are lucky.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

And I would repeat my recommendation of Martin Blumenson's Sicily: Whose Victory?.

Michael

[Redwolf]

If five campaigns, about twenty standalone scenarios, at least 200 QB maps to play, 35 new vehicles, two reworked nations with new TOE and equipment, and a new nation that has been fleshed out in as high detail as we could realistically go aren't worth the money to you, then I'd suggest you just skip this one or wait for modules.

On another note: lets keep it civil in here.

The problem here is that the stuff included is the kind of things that external users can make in the first place. If the game would be Vastly Successful then there would be no shortage of maps and scenarios. The real limiter is vehicles and other units and regardless of how many tankettes you put in there this is the smallest set ever released in a CM game. This in turn will limit people's interest so that condition #1 doesn't apply. To do something about problem #1 BFC enlists beta testers to make maps and scenarios before release. But this turns the game into a fire and forget release with customers playing the premade campaigns (in case they work right) and low after-release user-contributed activity.

It's just not the way to go. The success of the series (well the early parts) was in aftermarket activity.

I just hope that Steve doesn't blame low sales numbers on the Mediterranean setting. Again.

[Mord]

The problem here is that the stuff included is the kind of things that external users can make in the first place. If the game would be Vastly Successful then there would be no shortage of maps and scenarios. The real limiter is vehicles and other units and regardless of how many tankettes you put in there this is the smallest set ever released in a CM game. This in turn will limit people's interest so that condition #1 doesn't apply. To do something about problem #1 BFC enlists beta testers to make maps and scenarios before release. But this turns the game into a fire and forget release with customers playing the premade campaigns (in case they work right) and low after-release user-contributed activity.

It's just not the way to go. The success of the series (well the early parts) was in aftermarket activity.

I just hope that Steve doesn't blame low sales numbers on the Mediterranean setting. Again.

So, what's the excuse for CMAK then? It had a ton more stuff.

Or why is the PCO forum dead? You can add all kinds of things in that game. You are arguing in circles and hiding every time some one points out the flaws of what you are saying.

So, is it the game won't sell because it doesn't have enough vehicles? Or is it the game won't sell because of the theater? Or is it the game won't sell because BFC won't allow people to rewrite the code?

Mord.

[Thomm]

The problem here is that the stuff included is the kind of things that external users can make in the first place.

Users cannot create new vehicles or new terrain elements in CM. So what you write is not exactly true. Or did you mean other games.

The success of the series (well the early parts) was in aftermarket activity.

How do you define "success"? Because CMx1 was not successful in the long run (declining sales) they switched over to CMx2.

Best regards,

Thomm

[sburke]

Steve, Charles, you writing all this down? You have been given free expert outstanding business advice from an acknowledged pro in the industry who has demonstrated his acumen by how well his own gaming company is doing (I understand it is going to be considered the next facebook of IPOs).

C'mon guys you can't be too proud now, you very success is at stake here! Can't you see it, you have made a total mistake in your business model. This will crash and burn just like everything else you have done over the past 10 years. By the way, what venture capitalist is flushing their money down the toilet funding you since you obviously do not know how to make money at this.

Well don't blame me if you hear "I told you so", you were warned.

[Redwolf]

So, what's the excuse for CMAK then? It had a ton more stuff.

Or why is the PCO forum dead? You can add all kinds of things in that game. You are arguing in circles and hiding every time some one points out the flaws of what you are saying.

So, is it the game won't sell because it doesn't have enough vehicles? Or is it the game won't sell because of the theater? Or is it the game won't sell because BFC won't allow people to rewrite the code?

Mord.

What excuse is needed for CMAK?

And Matrix failure to drive PzC forward has little to do with the technology of the game.

[Mord]

What excuse is needed for CMAK?

You tell me. You just said this about CMFI

The real limiter is vehicles and other units and regardless of how many tankettes you put in there this is the smallest set ever released in a CM game. This in turn will limit people's interest.

CMAK had way more content. Why didn't it do as good as CMBB? Or CMBO? Oh, because BFC won't let people add to the code...I remember now.

And Matrix failure to drive PzC forward has little to do with the technology of the game.

LOL. Wait, I thought when you allowed people to create models and stuff for games it made them more successful...now you're saying it's because Matrix didn't support the game. So, basically whenever I point out your inconsistencies you'll just ping pong to the other side of the argument.

It's just not the way to go. The success of the series (well the early parts) was in aftermarket activity.

Still is. There's a good amount of content for CMBN a year after release...and there'll be much more as the modules continue to come out and the scenario creating becomes even more intuitive with the updates. The difference between CMX1 and now is guys have to put much more effort and thought into the battles they create. Quantity (CMX1) doesn't equal quality. Plus CMBO and CMBB have been out for a decade.

On the mod front, it's harder to mod and takes much more skill, so you don't get as many guys jumping in. And some of the main modders from CMX1 days are actually making the game. The stock graphics are even more spectacular than they were with CMBB and CMAK so there's also no big rush to improve them a day after the game comes out.

You are so married to your negativity and criticisms that you can't see how cool the future is gonna be. You'd rather keep on beating your doom drum than face the fact BFC is still here even while ignoring all your advice for the last ten years. And yet they just don't know what they are doing...

I just hope that Steve doesn't blame low sales numbers on the Mediterranean setting. Again.

LOL yes, because running a software company and having created six tactical, 3D war games yourself, you know what drives sales and what doesn't.

Mord.

[MikeyD]

Is this a BFC stockholder meeting and I missed the announcement? Oh, no it isn't. Nobody posting here appears to have an actual stake in the company.

[LukeFF]

So, does this mean machine-gunners will continue to fire bipod-equipped MGs like they're an assault rifle?

[Crender]

Hmmm. Just noticed a split in the background (beta shot 19 - just to the leeft of the truck). There was the same issue in CMA and it never got fixed. Hopefully this will be sorted by the time of release.

[Collingwood]

Don't know if this has come up yet, but in the shot above - what is up with the strange skin condition on his hair-line at the back? Looks like lumps large enough to be casting considerable shadows.

[Erwin]

Oh my god, man. You should know better than to make negative comments here. Let's hope nobody notices and you'll be ok.

[Paper Tiger]

Nah! The issue with jagged shadows is a fairly obvious one . They look like that on my graphics card too. However, when I look at that screenshot, I notice the detail on the canisters in his kit. Or the shoulderstraps being askew because his upper body is leaning to the right. Some look and see bad, some look and see good but we're both looking at the same pic. What we say reveals more about ourselves than anything else.

(I know you were joking, Erwin )

[Collingwood]

I realize it could have seemed like nit picking but I don't actually have any issue with those neck lumps - I don't think I've ever zoomed that close in anyway. For all I know every soldier has had his hair stapled on. Or has had hair plugs to deal with baldness.