incomplete order of battle

[Beorix]

Hello

First, i have to indicate that english is NOT my first language ,so be indulgent please.

I am a "old" player of CMB1, Operation Barbarossa CMB2, CMAK ,etc...

I've noticed that in this first opus on the Eastern Front, the german side was, at my sense, better representated, with plenty of troops ,like Waffen-SS ,paratroopers, Jägers ,etc

My first sentiment ,at examinating the Red Thunder infantry german roster, is that its really incomplete and not enough representative of the german forces at this date...

I think we should already have all the stuff mentioned higher, at the launching of the game, especially in this case, which is only a part of the Russian Campaign :The Operation Bagration...

I expect that the final release of the game will include those troops.

That's just my 2 cents ,though ,and i'm curious to know what other "old" players think about this.

[Fizou]

Beorix,

Well, in short, BFC has changed thier bussines model since the CMBB days. Now you will typicaly see a base game (head of a game family) with several modules and/or packs released. The family covers a set time frame.

If Im not mistaken, Red Thunder will cover Bagration and up til the end of the war. We are sure to see moduels released that will include Waffen-SS and other formations/units/vehicles for both the Axis and Soviets.

Its not a viable option for BFC to include all units in one game if they wouldent charge a very high fee. It would also take much longer to complete. Now they will release titles faster and people have to options to buy the base games, modules and packs that they like and feel is valuable to them.

The new engine also allows for new engin improvmenets to be brought back to other titles. For example, the new improvements in Red Thunder (such as hit decals etc.) will be able to be purchased for a small fee in a upgrade for CMBN and/or CMFI.

I for one think the new bussines model is really good. Sure one wants to pay as little as possible and get as much as possible for every $ spent - but the model must be economically sound for BFC. I think the value of every base game, module and upgrade released so far has been very good. 2 cents from another non native english speaker

[c3k]

Well, I'd LIKE everything in one go, but BFC has stated that the amount of work required to do so would force the price to be exhorbitantly high.

So, the options were:

a.) Partial OOB for reasonable cost, then expanded OOB plus more scenarios and updates over time for small costs,

b.) Several year delay for FULL game (full OOB, like CMBB, and expanded timeframe) which would cost many times more ($1,000?)?

Hence, BFC went with option "a".

CMBN provides a good template of what to expect. The initial game created the structure. Module 1 (Commonwealth) expanded a lot. Module 2 (Market Garden) brought in some more, somewhat rarer, units.

I want BFC to stay in business. If they think (as they've stated) that trying to do a magnum opus in the style of CMBB would be counterproductive for them, then I must accept their analysis as being true. I fully support option "a".

Regards,

Ken

[Haiduk]

In list of German OOB I don't see Luftwaffe-Felddivision units, but in "Bagration" operation these divisions (4th and 6th) were in LIII Armee Corps structure. Luftwaffe units present in CMBN line, so their can to put in CMRT too.

Also no land-lease vehicles in Red Army, but they widely used in this operation:

3rd Guard,Mech.Corps of 3rd Belarusian Front had 110 M4A2 "Sherman", 70 "Valentine" IX

3rd Guard Tank Corps of 5th Guard Tank Army had at the end of operation "Bagration" 99 M4A2 "Sherman" and 23 "Valentine" IX, as well as 21 M10 SP-Guns in 5th Guard Tank Army

1st Mech.Corps of 1st Belarusian front had 136 M4A2 "Sherman", 44 "Valentine" IX, 5 "Valentine" X, 47 Scout Car

All these vehicles already exists in CMBN, so for more historical accuracy they should be to add in the game.

[AttorneyAtWar]

In list of German OOB I don't see Luftwaffe-Felddivision units, but in "Bagration" operation these divisions (4th and 6th) were in LIII Armee Corps structure. Luftwaffe units present in CMBN line, so their can to put in CMRT too.

Also no land-lease vehicles in Red Army, but they widely used in this operation:

3rd Guard,Mech.Corps of 3rd Belarusian Front had 110 M4A2 "Sherman", 70 "Valentine" IX

3rd Guard Tank Corps of 5th Guard Tank Army had at the end of operation "Bagration" 99 M4A2 "Sherman" and 23 "Valentine" IX, as well as 21 M10 SP-Guns in 5th Guard Tank Army

1st Mech.Corps of 1st Belarusian front had 136 M4A2 "Sherman", 44 "Valentine" IX, 5 "Valentine" X, 47 Scout Car

All these vehicles already exists in CMBN, so for more historical accuracy they should be to add in the game.

Those will be added in coming modules, they were not forgotten. They are doing it exactly like CM Normandy.

[Haiduk]

SS-units also will be add, I hope ? They are not participated in "Bagration", but should be interest to create some operations in Western Ukraine, which developed at same time...

[Beorix]

I can understand the economical point of view, i just disagree the lack of content for the player

For me it's just unconcevable to not have such troops in the basis Order of Battle ,even if these units didnt particpate in Bagration, they should be there , i.e for the battle generator.

That said, when the game will be released, i will eagerly waiting for the first expansion that would release them !

[Battlefront.com]

We faced the same issues when we released CMBN and CMFI. Those with a "kitchen sink" expectation were disappointed that we didn't include everything at once. Putting aside a clear lack of understanding about how unreasonable the expectation is (without a massive delay and huge increase in game cost), after the games came out people found that it wasn't such a big deal. That is because CMx2 is all about "depth" whereas CMx1 was about "breadth".

It should also be pointed out that the TO&E in CMx2 is vastly more detailed, more accurate, and more varied for a given force type than anything in CMx1. Check out the formations available to US Armored Infantry compared to CMx1, for example. It's relevant because otherwise people are comparing apples to oranges.

So far people seem to be very happy with our strategy. We've even improved it over time, including adding Upgrades and Packs to the mix. We also like the way things are going. Definitely not going to change it

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I can understand the economical point of view, i just disagree the lack of content for the player

Some people view the glass half full, some view it half empty. Your choice We saw the same sort of arguments made with CMBN... no SS, no FJ, no Commonwealth... etc... and yet when people got into the game they found no shortage of reasons to keep playing it.

I take it you haven't played CMBN?

For me it's just unconcevable to not have such troops in the basis Order of Battle ,even if these units didnt particpate in Bagration, they should be there , i.e for the battle generator.

If we "should" put all that stuff in then players "should" expect to pay for them to be there. I don't really know who wants to wait around for another 12-16 months without any game at all and then be forced to pay $120 for one and only one product when it is released. Because that's what you're advocating, whether you know it or not.

The system we use gives people games sooner and with more depth than anything else available (now or before). As we release new content people have the option to buy it or not, buy it now or buy it later.

That said, when the game will be released, i will eagerly waiting for the first expansion that would release them !

Steve

[AttorneyAtWar]

Some people view the glass half full, some view it half empty. Your choice We saw the same sort of arguments made with CMBN... no SS, no FJ, no Commonwealth... etc... and yet when people got into the game they found no shortage of reasons to keep playing it.

I take it you haven't played CMBN?

If we "should" put all that stuff in then players "should" expect to pay for them to be there. I don't really know who wants to wait around for another 12-16 months without any game at all and then be forced to pay $120 for one and only one product when it is released. Because that's what you're advocating, whether you know it or not.

The system we use gives people games sooner and with more depth than anything else available (now or before). As we release new content people have the option to buy it or not, buy it now or buy it later.

Steve

While were on the subject of expansions, Steve do you guys still plan on having those campaign/Mission packs released for CMBN or any other title? I literally cannot get enough of them and unfortunately I have gone through most user scenarios, and I know you guys have mentioned it before!

[Rokko]

Given that Red Thunder is set in the exact same timeframe as CMBN (May-September 1944), shouldn't it be easy to include branches and formations that were involved in this timeframe easy since TOEs and equipment is the same as in CMBN? I don't know of any TOE or equipment differences between Western and Eastern front (talking about LW infantry, HG division and WSS here)

[Battlefront.com]

While were on the subject of expansions, Steve do you guys still plan on having those campaign/Mission packs released for CMBN or any other title? I literally cannot get enough of them and unfortunately I have gone through most user scenarios, and I know you guys have mentioned it before!

We have some in the works, yes. We'll talk more about them once Red Thunder is out the door.

Given that Red Thunder is set in the exact same timeframe as CMBN (May-September 1944), shouldn't it be easy to include branches and formations that were involved in this timeframe easy since TOEs and equipment is the same as in CMBN? I don't know of any TOE or equipment differences between Western and Eastern front (talking about LW infantry, HG division and WSS here)

True that a lot of the work needed is already done. For things like HG Division there are likely oddities that we'll have to incorporate, but on their own not major work. This means the time to get them into the game is going to be shorter (for those elements, at least) than they were for Normandy.

There are three reasons these things didn't go into the initial release:

1. Overall project management. Even though these elements aren't totally new, you'd be surprised how many knock-on side effects there are of putting something into any one specific game. On their own perhaps not a lot of work, but coupled with all the other stuff it can be a real burden.

2. Our focus on "depth" means that if we put something into the game people expect us to do something interesting with it. That means scenarios and/or campaigns. But there's only so much of that we can practically do for any one release, which means we lose our ability to highlight/focus on everything equally well. People then complain "hey, I just bought this game and there are 20 scenarios and 2 campaigns, yet only two battles have Waffen SS in it. And those are small battles and I hate small battles. I feel ripped off!". Trust me, this is experience talking when I say this So it is better for everybody if we not try to stuff too much into any one game.

3. Overall value to the customer. Everybody has to keep in mind that just because we've made something once doesn't mean it should be free to everybody after. If we put in Waffen SS and Luftwaffe into CMRT, would it have increased our sales any? Not in any real sense. Which means we'd be giving things away "for free" that Western Front customers had to pay for. That doesn't seem fair. It also isn't a good incentive for us to take on subjects that might not be paid off in one release. Commonwealth forces, for example, were a HUGE effort for us and I'm not sure we would have been satisfied with one $35 product for one Family. When we made these units we thought "we'll need them for Italy too, so we don't have to make all our money back in one release".

Remember, at the end of the day Battlefront is a business. It doesn't matter how good we are at making games, or how much we want to make them, if we can't afford to stay in business. I've said over and over and over again that we're not getting rich off you guys, yet we are still here after 15 years. To me this seems to indicate we are striking a pretty good balance which is beneficial to all of us. You guys get great games, we get to eat

Steve

[sburke]

You guys get great games, we get to eat

Steve

Just please reassure us you are not surviving on a diet of this

[Baneman]

... You guys get great games, we get to eat

I, for one, am pretty happy with that trade.

[Maarten]

So there will be an option to pay in food?

[ChrisND]

So there will be an option to pay in food?

I will take payment in eggs, chocolate, and craft beer.

[Dadekster]

I will take payment in eggs, chocolate, and craft beer.

Damn, I gotta say that is pretty close to quotable material right there.

[Sixxkiller]

I think everyone of the "customers" should buy 1000 units each so that BFC is the first gaming company to pay $100k salaries to it's Sicilian heritaged Beta Testers. That's an offer I couldn't refuse!

[umlaut]

I literally cannot get enough of them and unfortunately I have gone through most user scenarios

Well, one way of securing the flow of user made scenarios is by giving the designer some kind of feedback - either in the form of a review in the repository or by some kind of written comment.

Currently, the lack of feedback means that I am very doubtful wheter I can be bothered to upload any more scenarios myself.

[sburke]

Well, one way of securing the flow of user made scenarios is by giving the designer some kind of feedback - either in the form of a review in the repository or by some kind of written comment.

Currently, the lack of feedback means that I am very doubtful wheter I can be bothered to upload any more scenarios myself.

Look at it this way Umlaut, most feedback tends to be critical - fix this, make the map larger/smaller etc. no feedback MUST mean they love it and it is perfect!

Keep doing what you are, you do some really nice work. Even for official releases feedback is minimal on these boards and those giving feedback are in a relatively small group. Within them they do have types of scenarios they really enjoy so you end up with an even smaller subset. When it comes down to it folks generally prefer to play than write about playing.

[Battlefront.com]

I agree. There's no better place to see this at work than Apple's App Store. There are iOS apps with literally hundreds of thousands of downloads and only a few hundred reviews, quite a few of them negative. The app is also rated one of the top grossing apps. This tells me something I already know from first hand experience...

Most people, happy or not, do not tend to write reviews. Generally speaking someone who thinks well of the game will not bother if the overall rating is where they think it should be. The reviews you do see are generally the result of 1 or 2 people starting off negative. A few then feel compelled to counter balance with positive, then a few try to counter balance that with negative... etc. When the review is where most people agree, the feud levels off. This usually happens when either the negatives take a break or the aggregate is large enough that any one crank can't influence the rating much.

Steve

[Apocal]

Some people view the glass half full, some view it half empty. Your choice We saw the same sort of arguments made with CMBN... no SS, no FJ, no Commonwealth... etc... and yet when people got into the game they found no shortage of reasons to keep playing it.

I take it you haven't played CMBN?

Honestly, the only things that (somewhat) put me off playing were issues like MGs being ineffective.

[Battlefront.com]

Which is one of the reasons why we changed our CMx1 "kitchen sink" strategy to the CMx2 "depth" strategy. I'm sure most people would rather have a better game with (initially) more restrictive TO&E, than to have a huge amount of TO&E and serious game flaws.

Hopefully we've got MGs much more to your liking already, but the next release will have some improvements to RoF (fire discipline, or perhaps lack there of).

Steve

[76mm]

Hopefully we've got MGs much more to your liking already, but the next release will have some improvements to RoF (fire discipline, or perhaps lack there of).

Next release as in Red Thunder, or in the one after?

[umlaut]

Look at it this way Umlaut, most feedback tends to be critical - fix this, make the map larger/smaller etc. no feedback MUST mean they love it and it is perfect!

Keep doing what you are, you do some really nice work. Even for official releases feedback is minimal on these boards and those giving feedback are in a relatively small group. Within them they do have types of scenarios they really enjoy so you end up with an even smaller subset. When it comes down to it folks generally prefer to play than write about playing.

I am - of course - truly happy with the review that you gave my latest scenario, Seizing Ciembienne. So thanks a lot for that.

The thing is that this scenario has been downloaded nearly 200 times - and so far your review is the only one. Two other players have commented in the release thread - and fortunately very positively. But still that is only three out of 200.

I´ve spent more than a hundred hours making and testing this scenario. If I am to find any motivation for releasing more scenarios I need to how it has been recieved. Was it good, was it bad, what did you like and what didn´t you like? I can´t assume that silence is a positive review.

(and I don´t think you can compare lack of response for user made scenarios with lack of response for official BFC scenarios: You´ve already paid for the official ones)

If I don´t know what players think of my scenarios I loose all motivation for releasing new ones. Simple as that.

And if a player can´t be bothered to write a comment or review, I accept that this is his choice. But he must on the other hand accept that this could mean that he won´t be playing any more of my scenarios.