German Campaign - second Mission - ridiculus!!!

[Skwabie]

spend countless unpaid hours building this

Might I ask why? Making scenarios and campaigns is hard work and time spent just like coding or 3D modelling or database building. When I bought the game I thought the campaigns/scenarios in the install is included in the price payed for the game. Despite many ppl's beliefs payware does have some advantages over freeware you know... Note pnzrldr this isn't a Q for your post but bfc's.

[BletchleyGeek]

Might I ask why? Making scenarios and campaigns is hard work and time spent just like coding or 3D modelling or database building. When I bought the game I thought the campaigns/scenarios in the install is included in the price payed for the game. Despite many ppl's beliefs payware does have some advantages over freeware you know...

Some wargaming developers pay royalties to scenario designers. This is basically a share of future revenues - that is, first, the scenario designer isn't paid up front for every hour he or she dedicates, and he'll get paid in proportion to how well the game performs. I don't know if this is Battlefront's policy as well. That also means that the time already sunk in the game isn't included in the price tag (which obviously, wouldn't be going downward but upwards).

Getting that as promptly paid work would entail a non-negligible overhead on the cost. Consider the time JonS put into the Sheriff of Oosterbek (not counting writing the Scenario Design DAR). That probably was about 20 hours. The work he did wouldn't really qualify as 'unqualified work': it does require skills which aren't common. Let's say a fair price per hour would be 50 USD (before tax) per hour. That adds up to 1,000 USD, or in other words, the equivalent of about 40 copies sold of Market Garden. Sales number are unknown, but my guess is that Market Garden sold in the thousands. Just count up how many scenarios are included inside and outside of campaigns and run the numbers.

Another view on this is to consider that scenario designers (and beta-testers in general) are 'crowdfunding' the development of the games. Rather than investing currency, they invest in species (usually devoting a significant chunk of their spare time, which I reckon anybody here will recognize as a valuable asset). In exchange, they get early access to the new shiny toys and privileged access to the developers (and therefore, some degree of influence in shaping how the game results) and the reward of knowing that they have made a contribution into a project they believe in.

Drawing a parallelism: we've all probably read about that "heartbleed" bug in OpenSSL (potentially compromising a substantial proportion of all secure connections over the Internet). Probably you'll also learnt that it was developed by a bunch of volunteers over a period of two (?) decades. You'll probably have read that the bug was the responsibility of the developers, and in some quarters, used as an argument to pan out open source development. Here one needs to take a step back and realize how many millions of dollars in software licenses have been saved by the companies taking the software for free and deploying OpenSSL off-the-shelf, without ever bothering to review it. Indeed, due to its licensing, they were having free software as in free beer. Note as well that probably 99% of those companies have, over the years, provided exactly zero feedback and support to the OpenSSL project. I can't other than be bemused by the sense of entitlement of lazy free-booters.

If there's an actual or perceived problem the mature thing to do is to attempt to provide feedback and assistance, if requested, to those who provide us with entertainment, rather than to stamp a sticker reading bullsh*t in capital letters on top of it.

Note as well that the degree of involvement of scenario designers and beta-testers is voluntary, which implies that scenario designers and beta testers are usually a bunch of quite selfless individuals. Some might say that the perks match or outweigh the contribution, but I'd contest that, depending on the contributions individuals made and a fair cost-analysis of the time involved in delivering that contribution. That doesn't make their creations to be above criticism: provided such criticism is constructive and useful to further improve those creations. The Internet provides for a platform to get feedback quickly, but perhaps is too easy to put together ten or twelve sentences, with some snark thrown in for a good measure disguised as a humorous remark, and probably making self-contradicting statements. Being myself an ESL I've learnt the hard way to check, and double-check, that my writing has the intended meaning and the appropiate tone.

So let's not forget that the context isn't just the same as that of American Airways tweeting at a disgruntled female customer a meaningless polite nothing along with a picture of a naked fellow female playing with a model plane

[Skwabie]

Some wargaming developers pay royalties to scenario designers. This is basically a share of future revenues - that is, first, the scenario designer isn't paid up front for every hour he or she dedicates, and he'll get paid in proportion to how well the game performs. I don't know if this is Battlefront's policy as well. That also means that the time already sunk in the game isn't included in the price tag (which obviously, wouldn't be going downward but upwards).

that makes good sense. Although afaik the scen designers and betas here are purely on a volunteer basis?

Consider the time JonS put into the Sheriff of Oosterbek (not counting writing the Scenario Design DAR). That probably was about 20 hours. The work he did wouldn't really qualify as 'unqualified work': it does require skills which aren't common. Let's say a fair price per hour would be 50 USD (before tax) per hour. That adds up to 1,000 USD, or in other words, the equivalent of about 40 copies sold of Market Garden.

woh that is an astronomical hourly pay! my RL job pays about 5 per and I'd say it's fair compared to others. But that there's the third world rate for ya I suppose...

Another view on this is to consider that scenario designers (and beta-testers in general) are 'crowdfunding' the development of the games.-snip-

yep that was the model I was previously familiar with and it ain't without problems. luckily from what i see BF is combining the two together with decent results. Personally i just wish there is more content for replay, at the mo if I've won the campaign victory there's little interest to go thru it again. So willingly shell out some $$ for a campaign or 2 is on my wish list, or instead of getting 2 campaigns per game/module we get like 5 with a bigger price tag. But seems luck is out on that front...

[BletchleyGeek]

that makes good sense. Although afaik the scen designers and betas here are purely on a volunteer basis?

I don't know what are the arrangements Battlefront has with beta-testers and scenario designers, and probably those arrangements are confidential and covered by a non-disclosure agreement.

woh that is an astronomical hourly pay! my RL job pays about 5 per and I'd say it's fair compared to others. But that there's the third world rate for ya I suppose...

It all depends on the supply and demand of such labor, Skwabie. The more supply of qualified individuals for the job, the less the pay. If your skills are especially rare, you can pretty much ask for the salary you want (within reason, of course). Or it should work that way

I honestly recommend you to migrate to a country where there is a decent minimum salary in place (not that many left, last time I checked). I did that - going over 12,000 kms away from home - a couple of years back, as my "old country" banks decided it was the taxpayers responsibility to bail them out.

yep that was the model I was previously familiar with and it ain't without problems. luckily from what i see BF is combining the two together with decent results. Personally i just wish there is more content for replay, at the mo if I've won the campaign victory there's little interest to go thru it again. So willingly shell out some $$ for a campaign or 2 is on my wish list, or instead of getting 2 campaigns per game/module we get like 5 with a bigger price tag. But seems luck is out on that front...

Actually, "content-only" expansions is something Battlefront doesn't seem keen on doing for whatever the reason, and probably could generate some substantial revenue. New official content is tied at the moment with new engine features, and those features development probably takes a lot more time than developing the content (which already takes a substantial amount of time).

[MARS42]

@ pnzrldr

O.k. i think you were a little bit pissed, when you read the postings here. Understandable, because most of the scecenario-designers make this hobby without payment, to help Battlefront stay alive and produce more fun stuff in the future for us.

I spent a lot of my freetime for helping on the CMSF-NATO-Modul without payment and know, how you are feeling. So sorry for my harsh thread-title ("ridiculus), i used it for getting attention.

As you mentioned in point 4., the customers have paid for the product and so they and i (i have also payed for it, because i did not help on Red Thunder) have a right to critisize the game. We do this not to make the volunteers and professionels angry, but to develop the campaign-system from game to game to a higher level.

So, thank´s for your work!

Greets, MARS42

[Skwabie]

as my "old country" banks decided it was the taxpayers responsibility to bail them out

bah I work in a bank. If only I could go to your "old country" and get all that special treatment:D Anyway, tank battalions....

[Fizou]

@pnzrldr

Every CM release takes flak for campaign/scenario design. Mostly campaigns (ask PT). For every unhappy customer there are several that are happy. Cant please all and all that.

Take what you find as constructive to heart and forgett the rest.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

I have merely played around with building scenarios. Enough to know that i is indeed a lot of work to get right. So I can appreciate all the work that went in to designing the published scenarios out there so far. Very occasionally you get a dud but, please, let us stick to constructive feedback

[JonS]

Understood, but maybe it would be nice to mention that in the briefing ?

The 4th mission for example has visible exit zones but there is no hint if the enemy needs to exit or the Germans ....

Would you happen to have a picture of that? I'm looking at the 4th mission now, and see nothing like what you're describing.

[sburke]

@BletchlyGeek.

Thank you. I won't comment on any specifics, but I will re affirm one item. I can't speak for anyone else, but I accepted the offer to beta test because CM is THE game for me, bar none. As small businessmen and indie game developers who have essentially defined their own nitch, I really admire what Charles and Steve have done. If I can contribute in any way at all to their success it feels good. It is nice to see the good guys win. And this game absolutely rocks, warts and all.

I don't think anyone, BF included knows for sure future direction regarding content etc. BF has come a long way from 1999. They completely revised their engine into a much more capable, but also time consuming beast. They struggled through it's growing pains while also taking it in a completely different modern period (ballsy move if you ask me) before finally getting it really stable and then got even more ballsy by announcing a perpetual upgrade process. In that time they have also managed to grow the business fighting uphill against a huge downturn in the general economy. I can't say I know many businesses that have done that much to the very foundation of their business and succeeded. They might not have the billions that Apple has accumulated, but I'd go so far as to say they are every bit as creative and ambitious. (and nowhere near as annoying).

Perhaps they will change their direction but for now the business model works and the designers and testers help BF keep to a tighter and tighter schedule while maintaining quality high and costs relatively low. It is a win/win for all of us.

For fans of the game the future is very very bright.

[mjkerner]

^^^^ What he said!

[JasonC]

"the reason for the tactical German successes was often their tactical skill"

Attacking T-34s with SPWs does not denote tactical skill. Quite the opposite.

[Marc Anton]

Would you happen to have a picture of that? I'm looking at the 4th mission now, and see nothing like what you're describing.

The Mission with visible exit zones is Dybow Kolonia. Not sure if its mission 4 or 5 ?

2. Yes, the scenarios include Soviet 'exit' objectives, and many of their forces will leave the map as you advance, depriving you of potential points. You must balance the risk of pressing them closely to gain kills and thus points, against the hazard of their fire. However, do not despair. Any forces that exit the map will be available for your destruction (read this two ways) in subsequent missions, especially mission 6.

This would be a good information at the beginning of the campaign.

3. You all have the same access to the editor that we do. Nothing to prevent you from building your own scenarios - or campaigns - and posting them. You can build them with any unit size you desire, from PLT up through Regiment, and can research the history, create the map underlays from historical documents, build the maps, add flavor objects, select the forces, set their morale and stats, deploy them, build the AI, and carefully playtest them over and over again. It is possible to spend countless unpaid hours building this for the enjoyment of others. You can then spend your time on the forum defending criticisms of your creation. If you build it, I will play it and supply you with ample feedback. Promise.

Well, not as long as i have to pay 45€ for a product.

[agusto]

"the reason for the tactical German successes was often their tactical skill"

Attacking T-34s with SPWs does not denote tactical skill. Quite the opposite.

Attacking T-34s with SPWs successfully does denote tactical skill if no better weapon systems are available, or at least it denotes a lack of tactical skill of the commander of the T-34s. The german Stummel SPW for example was quite capable. While certainly not sufficiently armoured for battling medium tanks such as the T-34, the HEAT ammunition for the short 7,5 cm gun was capable of reliably penetrating the side armour of the T-34. I ve used Stummel SPWs very sucessfully in ambushes in Normandy against american Sherman tanks.

[JonS]

This would be a good information at the beginning of the campaign.

You mean ... that info that's already there in the campaign briefing?

Well, not as long as I have to pay 45€ for a product.

Actually, yes.

For 45€ you get the scenarios designed by someone else to suit their mores. You do NOT get a set scenarios and campaigns designed to your mores. However, for that 45€ you also get a fully featured scenario editor which means that you can redesign existing scenarios any which way you like.

[Collingwood]

Well, not as long as i have to pay 45€ for a product.

You don't have to pay anything for user contributed scenarios/campaigns, made for all of us to enjoy - often made by the same people who paid for the game just as you did.

There will be plenty of these to download as time goes by, just see the number of scenarios available for CMBN and CMFI. In the mean time you can also play quick battles.

The point JonS is making is that you're not restricted to what's included in the game - you can roll your own, of course at the risk of people coming along and criticizing your efforts despite your best intentions. If you don't want to do that and if the precise design and outcomes of the included scenarios don't meet your expectations, I guess that's bad luck. I've already had more than my money's worth, but that's just me.

[zmoney]

This would be a good information at the beginning of the campaign.

.

Yep, it is in the English briefing and made quite clear too. I don't know if you have a German version and maybe it is not in that one, but the English version is pretty clear about the commies exiting.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

"the reason for the tactical German successes was often their tactical skill"

Attacking T-34s with SPWs does not denote tactical skill. Quite the opposite.

Have you considered what really happened at Prokhorovka namely he evisceration of 5th Guard Tank Army by II SS Panzer Korps. Contrary to the tradiional account which we now know originated with a lie by Rotmistrov (to save his career and quite possibly his life) to Stalin. A lie that was contiued after Stalin's death because it would have been politically embarrassing for a certain Nikita Khruschev who, at the ime was a senior Commissar at Voronnezh Fron and therefore closely involved with the events immediately before ano on 12 July 1943. From II SS PZK records we now know they destroyed at least 400 Soviet tanks during the day (the Corps commander was so ncredulous about the claim he actually came down and counted them himself see Nipe Decision in the Ukraine)

[FG ODIN]

tipp for the second mission, i have after 4 x restart : Mad: new tactic find, waiting scout troops KG Baker (dont no why this a KG is she have no offensiv character she have more scout character therefore misleading named KG) i have fire with all mortars in seconds steps smoke walls in city and to the train station near kg baker, after this lightning-like thrust with 6 x PzIV and (after the reinforcement arrive) protecting groups up to eat on the outskirts of town then clear up with the inf. and Ari support requested (hold down) then it went, until then I had only 1 x PzIV failure by chain strike and had to get off the crew, had shot up to here with the other PzIV 6 t34 and could very! fight his way slowly into the center, the biggest trouble is the time window mission for the attack. This mission I personally find extremely hard but you can do it as described above, I think there are definitely other options for the attack ....

[Lethaface]

woh that is an astronomical hourly pay! my RL job pays about 5 per and I'd say it's fair compared to others. But that there's the third world rate for ya I suppose..

EUR 5,- * 8 hours * 5 days = EUR 200,- a week. OR ~800-900 a month. I hope that's after tax AND that you aren't paid in euro's

Over here people get more for doing nothing, although that's about to change probably. It all depends though, when I lived in SE Asia EUR 500,- a month a person is enough to go out to eat 4 times a day and still save money

[Skwabie]

Lethaface that's about the size of it although the hours are longer. Maybe... eh... 60 per week or something like that. Just speaking for myself/friends and colleagues ofc. Plus job related social networking and family pretty much takes up the rest. 900 euro monthly is still craved by many for sure! It is one way to interpret the massive MMO crowds and low quality game blossoms here for ppl ain't got the time for in-depth games.

Over here people get more for doing nothing

That's a given, i reckon BFC's business somewhat depends on that:D

when I lived in SE Asia EUR 500,- a month a person is enough to go out to eat 4 times a day and still save money

yep, basic living cost is cheap, otoh luxury/quality goods are much steeper.

[Cuirassier]

Have you considered what really happened at Prokhorovka namely he evisceration of 5th Guard Tank Army by II SS Panzer Korps. Contrary to the tradiional account which we now know originated with a lie by Rotmistrov (to save his career and quite possibly his life) to Stalin. A lie that was contiued after Stalin's death because it would have been politically embarrassing for a certain Nikita Khruschev who, at the ime was a senior Commissar at Voronnezh Fron and therefore closely involved with the events immediately before ano on 12 July 1943. From II SS PZK records we now know they destroyed at least 400 Soviet tanks during the day (the Corps commander was so ncredulous about the claim he actually came down and counted them himself see Nipe Decision in the Ukraine)

Which is why Germany won the war, right? Oh wait...

No one denies that the II SS roughly handled the 5GTA at Prokhorovka. Two points are to be drawn from that confrontation.

The first, small one, is that it was mostly poor Russian tactics that led to excessive losses. Rotmistrov's 5GTA took an overly aggressive, offensive stance and attacked into German strength. It was a tactically poor use of Russian armor. No German brilliance about it whatsovever.

The second, big, point, is that the battle didn't matter. Citadel had already been decided and any German successes were tactical only. The Russians were dominating at the operational level. Does a week long German tactical success really matter when the Soviets are conducting Front size, offensive operations at Orel and the Mius, to be later followed in the Kharkov area itself? Not particularly.

[Wodin]

I'm on mission 2 at the minute. About 10mins in and so far I haven't lost a tank and have taken out two T34. It's all about find a good little position then waiting ti spot the foe..hoping they don't spot you first and so far I've been lucky.

I find in CM as soon as you try and rush abit your punished. I always do best when I'm slowly and patiently moving along and never taking a substantial risk as more often than not your punished for it. I play as if my pixeltruppen where actual living beings and if I do what I think would happen in real life more often than not it works out OK.

I will probably change the way I play if playing as the Russians as they where more reckless with their troops and it seemed had little fear of death being more fatalistic.

[SnakeTheFox]

The Panzer IV has absolutely no chance against a T34/85 at long ranges on this map.

I haven't played the campaigns yet so I can't weigh in on this mission specifically, but every mission I've played that has had Panzer IVs squaring off against T-34/85s (and coincidentally, all times at long range) has been overwhelmingly in favor of the Panzer IVs. On "The Passage", for example, you get like 8 Panzer IVs at the start vs around 20 T-34/85s, and my IVs took out all ~20 of them with only 2 losses.

Although naturally an anecdotal example, I feel the superior optics (and I believe superior ballistics) of the Panzer IV make it vastly more potent in long range shootouts vs the T-34s; it's in close-medium range that the superior numbers of the T-34/85s begin to really turn the tables, in my experience.

[Fetchez la Vache]

I personally find that PzIV vs. T34/85 at >1000m that:

- PzIV hits faster and more accurately but needs multiple hits to knock out the target

- T34/85 slower to acquire and less hits on target but their impacts are harder

Overall I am finding that 1:1 the T34/85 often comes off worse since once the PzIV starts hitting the Russian crew are too shocked to retaliate. But the PzIV needs to land multiple 3-9 solid hits before the T34/85 is knocked out completely. This takes time and ammo. (Aside: just played the The Passage where I can count 17 penetration decals on a non-knocked out T34/85, albeit many partial-penetrations, dead main gun and 3 panicked crew left inside. However the TacAI was still happily throwing more AP...)

However once you throw another T34/85 into the mix then the PzIV comes off worse. Mainly because the TacAI is too busy throwing AP shells into the first target and ignores the 2nd T34/85 calmly zeroing in and bagging a kill.

Bottom line for me is don't let PzIV's compete with T34/85 at long range. Funnily enough I'm happier using PzIV at shorter ranges where their 75mm can penetrate the T34/85 armour more reliably.

This is only in-game observations mind you and I'm not conducting a shooting range test. But it's enough for me to alter my pattern of duels between these two tanks...