Doug Beman Posted May 22, 1999 Share Posted May 22, 1999 Just curious. Actually, I'm going bonkers waiting for this game, and I want to play it, even just a TEENY part of it, NOW. NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW. (stomps feet and throws crayons) DjB ------------------ A lot of my schoolmates called me "warmonger." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted May 22, 1999 Share Posted May 22, 1999 Haha!! Well, it is going to be a while yet. We will, however, release a demo PRIOR to the final release. We are planning on this being about 2 weeks prior to final release, so don't look for it in the Downloads area any time soon. Seeing as Battlefront.com has a no return policy BASED on the notion of "try before you buy" it would be very unfair to not give pre-ordering folks to get a chance to make sure their money is going to be well spent. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted May 22, 1999 Share Posted May 22, 1999 This thread appears twice on my machine... uh oh...looks like the message board is running into some problems... Steve, PLEASE, fix it before it breaks down... I can't live without my daily dose of CM discussions anymore... I need it... [This message has been edited by Moon (edited 05-22-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted May 22, 1999 Author Share Posted May 22, 1999 Thanks for the consideration, BTS. I asked because lately I posted a thread on a historical games newsgroup--co/sys/ib/pc/ga/hist (saw your posts, Fionn. I'm 'anthony' that started it') I'm trying to drum up as much pre-release noise as I can (I'm such a great person :~) Many people on that NG seem somehow to have developed the wrong impression of CM. The naysayers were divided into 2 camps: The hardware-conservatives. They thought CM will REQUIRE things like P2-300/Voodoo2 card/big RAM. One person said "my system has trouble running Panzer Commander; I'll let CM pass me by." Apples/oranges; maybe just Macintosh apples to Granny Smiths. The pretty vs realism crowd. One went so far as to say "this will be totally graphics oriented, and will probably look more like Wolfenstein than SquadLeader." HUH? That's comparing apples to telecommunications satellites. Therefore, set up something to make the Doubting Thomases firmly entrenched on the negative side of things see the light of (angelic choir music plays) COMBAT MISSION! When I first started this topic, I accidentally clicked the ClearFields button, the quickly clicked Submit. Could that cause a problem? DjB ------------------ A lot of my schoolmates called me "warmonger." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted May 22, 1999 Share Posted May 22, 1999 Doug, Your evangelism is much appreciated. Why do you think these guys are drawing such incorrect impressions of CM? Is there something we need to put up on the website? Something we need to change? I ask because we've consistently said that CM will run on 166 MHz-class machines (and even caught flak over setting the bar too low) but maybe some people don't bother to read and just make assumptions? That's all I can figure. As for the guy who said, "this will be totally graphics oriented" he's obviously wrong and didn't bother reading much on our website either. However, I understand his skepticism. After all, when was the last computer wargame that was both graphically interesting *and* realistic? Uhhh... not too many of those out there. And since most of the industry is content to crank out games that look pretty on the outside but are just empty shells on the inside, I can't blame the average gamer for figuring that, absent information to the contrary, CM will just be more of the same. But I wish these guys would check out our website before spouting off these "truths" about a game they clearly don't know much about! End of soapbox rant. Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Davie Posted May 22, 1999 Share Posted May 22, 1999 ANSWER For Charles ------------------quote--------------- Why do you think these guys are drawing such incorrect impressions of CM? Is there something we need to put up on the website? Something we need to change? I ask because we've consistently said that CM will run on 166 MHz-class machines (and even caught flak over setting the bar too low) but maybe some people don't bother to read and just make assumptions? That's all I can figure. --------------end quote---------------- Simple; most people are completely unaware of the fact that the turns are resolved prior to you viewing the movie/playback of the turn and hence assume that a) the 3d performance of the game will take away from the AI and are unaware of the si plot/si move nature of the game. And yes, they are likening it to every other 3d type of game that has come before (be honest Charles did you really expect that the first 3d turn based game would be understood?), and hence automatically assume that CM will share problems inherent to that class of game. What can you do about it? On Usenet nothing (at the moment ). Here? Put up a short descriptive section which will explain in a flow chart type of sense how and why a typical turn progresses and concludes *as well* as allowing a lower powered system to run the game. If CM is revolutionary as opposed to evolutionary that almost garantees that it will be misunderstood on some levels. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted May 22, 1999 Share Posted May 22, 1999 Honestly, Charles, I wouldn't be too worried about it now. CM is not there yet, and until people get to see and play a demo they will doubt. Hell, if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes, I would be still doubting if this or that can really be as good as you say. I would suggest not to waste even a little bit of energy trying to convince people how good the game will be. CM doesn't need that, it will clearly speak for itself. And still: you will always get those people that are not convinced by anything, that think CC3 and West Front are the absolute top notch wargames(simply because THEY are good at them and bad at CM)... but that's life. If you'd release CM right now (even without the AI as a plain multiplayer game) you'd beat any other wargame on the market with ease... An example: I've shown a friend of mine the QT movies. He's never played anything else in his life than racing and sports games. I believe he has pre-ordered the game a few days ago... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted May 23, 1999 Share Posted May 23, 1999 Why do these guys make comments which are so totally wrong? Simple, they don't read the FAQ.. Why don't they? Sorry but this is polite company.. Basically I think a simple 1 page document stating why the 3D is NOT equal to Quake II and why 3D is a good way to go would settle a lot of problems. I would also suggest incorporating a section on how the game is turn-based and how it can be played in top down mode would also be good. The key points with CM are to stress that turn-based top-downers can play and enjoy it as grognard fare while more forward-looking elements can enjoy its full variety. Some people have hit CM for being graphically poor and NOT being top-down in the same email message Go figure out that dichotomy will u? hehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted May 23, 1999 Author Share Posted May 23, 1999 It's like Moon said--there are some who will believe that the world is as they want it to be, rather than as their senses tell them it is. However, there are some things you can do that might help. 1: Release a demo. Ship it to Doug Beman...(snicker snicker) 2: Explain that CM is NOT like Panzer Commander/iPanzer44. Many people see "3D" and automatically think "FPS" and getting a wargamer to play a FPS is like trying to get Dracula to lead a mass. Thomas' "flow chart" sounds good. Drive home the point that CM is a command simulation, rather than a tank simulation. 3: Maybe you two, Steve and Charles (BTW I found some back issues of CGW magazine today--saw mention of Charles in one of the "upcoming games" blurbs. Sorta neat) could play a quick game of CM, and upload the turn movies, plus a quick action brief, about what you were doing, how the system works (don't need the AI for that, do you?) etc etc. Maybe if people see a walkthrough of the game in the format "I placed my stuff here and here. On turn 1 I ordered these guys to do this, and those guys to do that. Click here for my perspective of turn 1's result." Then the other player, showing HIS POV on turn 1, etc. It wouldn't even have to be a complete play through. Just a few turns, until the action actually started, should show newcomers that this is a NEW type of game. 4: Hammer home the hardware req's. As far as I can see, your game has similar req's to TOAW, CC3, and WF, just to name a few. If people out there have systems that are capable of playing these, they'll be able to play CM. And if they can't play any of the other games out there, why are they posting about them to newsgroups and what are they doing in the market for a new game, anyway? I wish you continued speed and accuracy in the quest for beta. Respectfully submitted, DjB ------------------ A lot of my schoolmates called me "warmonger." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted May 23, 1999 Share Posted May 23, 1999 Good suggestions. We'll probably do up some of these soon. My own take is that these guys are doing knee-jerk reactions to static screenshots. No reading the info on our site (not even the FAQ!), no checking out the boards, no NOTHING. Probably haven't even downloaded any of the QT movies either. This is the kind of reaction we expect from the twitch crowd, not from people that call themselves Grognards. A TRUE Grog would look at everything we put up on this site BEFORE making a decision. And the comparison to Steel Panthers graphics and "realism" is laughable. SP is a game where you command platoons of ants (that's what they looked like to me), so why are people so bent out of shape about our figures? Even overhead they look better because you see elbows, weapons, knees, and all sorts of things move as they walk, kneel, crawl, run, etc. And did SP's tanks follow 3D terrain when viewed from overhead? SP was fun for a while, but its system for infantry and artillery simulation was so weak that I had to stop playing the game after only a short time, never to pick it up ever again. After 6 or 7 cakewalk campaign scenarios I had one beat up Soviet platoon neutralize nearly 2 companies of crack infantry coming at them from all sides. Why? Because I had to charge one of my platoons at a time, not all at once. So the Sov's reaction defensive fire got me first each and every time. Totally unacceptable. I still won the battle, but it was just too unrealistic for me and I went on to play something less frustrating. Also interesting to note that CM is being developed and tested on 2yr old machines that were, for their day, mid level computers. Both development systems are Macs running at 180 MHz and 210 MHz with 3rd and 2nd generation 3D cards. I've got the faster CPU, Charles has the better 3D card. Whoever it was that INSISTED he would need a "super computer" to run CM must be using a 286... Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cannon Posted May 24, 1999 Share Posted May 24, 1999 Not for nothing, but I think your new site Battle Front is hard to navigate. I had a devil of a time finding the screen shots and movies for Combat Missions, and had to navigate backward off of a search engine to find the information on Armies of Armageddon. Sure, I can find the information quite easily now, but the first time through was all hell to pay. Also the summary listed under the Heading Basics mentions 3D 7 times, but says nothing about your revolutionary (and very important to me) method of simultaneous turns, although it does mention turn based once. ------------------ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Balaban Posted May 24, 1999 Share Posted May 24, 1999 In the demo ver. will you be able the make severl PBM moves providing both players are using the demo game? It is to show other interested people how the game works by PBM and they will buy the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted May 24, 1999 Share Posted May 24, 1999 Any chance for gamer input on what would make a COOL demo? I'm voting for including 2 US fighter-bombers, a lot of arty including some nebelwerfers and a nicely-balanced tank/infantry mix with a central town and surrounding hills and woods. That way you get to show off a lot of items in the game in the demo which should make people think its cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted May 24, 1999 Share Posted May 24, 1999 Cannon, I'm surprised to hear you had such a hard time with the site's interface. Personally, I think it is one of the most consistantly laid out sites I go to. When you click on the Products link at the top all of our products are laid out, along with their prices, with multiple ways of getting to each. When you get to a product section all interface for that product is on the left. Anyhoo, you are the first to complain about it being difficult so I can't say that this has anything to do with the ignorance on the USENET groups. Could be, but I tend to think it is lazyness and/or knee jerk reactions. Proves one thing though, that no two people react the same way to web interface Good point about the main page not mentioning some "grognard" key words enough. I'll make some changes there. Boris and Fionn, the demo will be full featured from a game play standpoint, but will have the scope limited in some way. Most likely one battle with limited hardware and no editor. We will put in as much cool hardware as possible though, and airplanes are one of them Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted May 24, 1999 Author Share Posted May 24, 1999 I have a suggestion for a demo scenario. It comes from Ken Macksey's book _Tank vs Tank_ It's a meeting engagement in fall of 1944, in eastern France (I think) between a US combat command a a scratch German panzer group. They fight for control of a town (Singling) guarding one flank of a major crossroads/roadnet town (Bining) I don't remember the *exact* description, and the book is in another state. If you can find the book, check it out. If you can't, and you're interested in my recollection, let me know and I'll type up something. DjB remove the caps letters in the address to mail me ------------------ A lot of my schoolmates called me "warmonger." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Balaban Posted May 25, 1999 Share Posted May 25, 1999 That you BTS. I will be able to show other peaple and try to get them hooked on the game. I think I cold get 3 other people hooked on this game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Deych Posted May 29, 1999 Share Posted May 29, 1999 Speaking of all the newsgroup fallacies and so on and so forth...you've guys have been absolutely exceptional with your support and responsiveness on this board (the only other person I could compare you to would be Major H., which in my book is a high compliment indeed). Will you be extending your presence to c.s.i.p.g.w-h? It can take some thick skin, but IMHO nothing promotes a game as seeing a developer being out and about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MajorH Posted May 29, 1999 Share Posted May 29, 1999 >the only other person I could compare you to would be Major H., >which in my book is a high compliment indeed Thank you <g>. Did you know that battlefront.com is also my new home <g>? ------------------ Best regards, Major H majorh1@aol.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted May 29, 1999 Share Posted May 29, 1999 Greg, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Will you be extending your presence to c.s.i.p.g.w-h?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Most likely not. Two main reasons: 1. We don't want to spread ourselves too thin. The more places we are, the less in-depth our discussion can be. We've only got so many hours in the day, and we really ought to be programming! But chatting here is fun. 2. We'd really like to get all those grog eyeballs glued here to the battlefront website (at least some of the time) not spread far and wide. All part of the wargamer community building thing. Battlefront.com is "where the designers are" so we'd like to keep that consistent. Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts