Hasbro's Squad Leader

[patboivin]

I found the Save Trek URL, it's still there, although it hasn't had much effect on Paramount -- so complaining about huge multinational corporations does nothing folks.

http://members.nbci.com/save_trek/index.html

[rchristi]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Flipper:

starship troopers the movie that killed casper van dien's acting career I caught the last half of that movie on HBO.. GOD ALMIGHTY! the people at hasbro probably loved it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No question. The Very Worst Movie Thats Ever

Been Made!

[marcusm]

Guess you never saw Plan 9 from outer space .

I think Starship Troopers was a decent movie. It made pretty well in the boxoffice too.

Marcus

[Guest barrold713]

The difference being that nobody was anticipating Plan 9 from Outer Space to be decent. So the contrast from expectation to actuality for ST would push it towards an extra level of awfulness.

I think this is analogous to the thrust of the thread in that the expectations that exist due to the legacy of Squad Leader are going to be horribly realized in a Starship Trooper-like end product.

Makes me wonder what the new Starship Trooper's game is going to be like.

------------------

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb discussing what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote"

- Ben Franklin

[marcusm]

Well the average rating at imdb.com is 6.6, not a timeless classic but hardly a plan 9 either. That's basically how I rated it, a decent action movie not to be taken too seriously. Plus the boot camp instructor is one of the coolest i've seen.

http://us.imdb.com/Title?0120201

Marcus

[Malmvig]

Get the picture - Hasbro ship their ASL to the public and then you folks come around. With your head full of tweeks and idears you start to share them on their board. Hasbro then fire everyone and close down their board and sooner or later you receive their ASL code by email.

I can't remember where I had this coming

------------------

Malmvig

I'am not leaving either

[elementalwarre]

legally hasbro can do as it pleases with the name. it will likely create a relatively PC game since it sees a bigger market there. since i happen to agree that's a bigger market too, i can't very well argue

that doesn't make it right

legally, some "made in usa" clothes are made by people who are slaves in all but name, working in various US-controlled pacific territories

legally, genes are being patented - not just their uses, the gene itself - even though the genes in question are discovered, not created

legally, unrestricted capital flow has shattered various countries' economies

legally, british forces gassed some iraqi villages before ww2

having a legal right doesn't always make it morally right

[elementalwarre]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by marcusm:

Well the average rating at imdb.com is 6.6, not a timeless classic but hardly a plan 9 either. That's basically how I rated it, a decent action movie not to be taken too seriously. Plus the boot camp instructor is one of the coolest i've seen.

http://us.imdb.com/Title?0120201

Marcus<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

sure, another summer action flick. brain off, feet up, pass the popcorn

have you read the book?

the book was as much a civics lesson as an action-filled science fiction novel. it articulated its point about a test for citizenship -far- more clearly than the movie's gruesomely simplified 'fight to vote'

the frustration i had - and others on this thread, i think - is the movie's producers slashed what could have been a thoughtful fun movie into just another action flick

it would be like someone making _moby dick as just another whale chase. er...no. that misses the whole point

[marcusm]

There's more or less exactly the same topic over at csipgs now. Although that one actually started with someone asking for ST the game.

Sorry haven't read the book, the only Heinlein I've read is the black cat one (a murder story on some space station). My fave Sci Fi authors are Asmiov, Clarke and Hamilton.

I'll stick to the same argument I had on csipg-s though. Books are books and movies are movies, it's like comparing apples and oranges imho. Verhoeven took the parts he considered would make a cool movie and left out the other parts. Maybe he didn't think a "deep" movie would make very well at the box office? I'm a Kieslowski fan myself but I don't think he ever intended his movies to make the top 10 in the sales charts. Verhoeven is less concerned with the cineastics and more with making cash.

Marcus

[jdmorse]

I guess why I have a visceral reaction to this is summed up in a recent "preview" which would be based on Hasbro's marketing material http://www.mpog.com/e32000/software/squadleader/ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Squad Leader, from Microprose / Hasbro is a turn based Strategy game very similar to Warhammer 40K. It's based on Avalon Hill's game Advanced Squad Leader.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So very shamelessly they are specifically tying it into AH's reputation as a reputable source of games. Of course "based on" is code for we will change anything we damn well please and applies to movies, tv etc You know history is going to take a bath when it says based on true events

[This message has been edited by jdmorse (edited 09-15-2000).]

[Lorak]

I still see what the big fuss is about.

ok, It isn't going to be a re-make of the board game.

Once that is out of the way. You have to focus on the game for what it tries to be.

It is going for the jagged allience(WWII)age), soldiers at war two, X-com(WWII), ect..

If they can pull it off it will be interesting. This game is not trying to be realistic, and thier web site states this. They are going for pure fun in a WWII enviroment.

If a game is fun. It is fun. Statego and Risk are not realistic but they were a lot of fun.

Lorak

------------------

"Do not wait to strike till the iron is hot; but make it hot by striking."--William Butler Yeats

[FutbolHead]

In what respect is Hasbro being immoral? It's not immoral that they choose not to make it an exact duplicate of the board game. Morality isn't even an issue in this discussion. It's a matter of intelligence and preference.

You may have a case of making this a moral issue if they slapped screenshots on the back of the box that looked like the board game on computer and then had an entirely different program inside. That isn't the case though. Web reviews and interviews are pretty upfront about what the program is supposed to be like.

While some of the points below may have some validity in their own right, they have absolutely no relevance to this debate.

The may not be "right" according to whatever your definition is, but you haven't made a case for how they are "wrong" either.

However, if you do FEEL they are wrong, don't buy Hasbro's products. But if you want to make a dissuasive argument to those who would support Hasbro, you may find it more successful to base your argument on facts not feelings.

FutbolHead

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by elementalwarre:

legally hasbro can do as it pleases with the name. it will likely create a relatively PC game since it sees a bigger market there. since i happen to agree that's a bigger market too, i can't very well argue

that doesn't make it right

legally, some "made in usa" clothes are made by people who are slaves in all but name, working in various US-controlled pacific territories

legally, genes are being patented - not just their uses, the gene itself - even though the genes in question are discovered, not created

legally, unrestricted capital flow has shattered various countries' economies

legally, british forces gassed some iraqi villages before ww2

having a legal right doesn't always make it morally right<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message has been edited by FutbolHead (edited 09-16-2000).]

[FutbolHead]

A little poll:

How many people in this forum are going to buy this game simply because it has Squad Leader on the side?

I'm dying to know how many people in here will buy it on name alone.

[deanco]

I don't anyone in here is going to buy it, but I don't think that this board is a good cross-section of the world at large.

DeanCo--

[pzvg]

Again my point gets made for me, How many of the defenders of Hasbro work in the industry?

I take any defense of a business's "rights"

(when interpeted as screwing people) as either a sad joke, or self-serving propoganda. As for complaining about big business doesn't do any good, yes you are quite correct, complaining ABOUT them does no good, You have to complain TO them, counter-culture websites populated by fringe elements do not impress anyone, Market forces are impressed by arguments that involve staying profitable (always issue no.1 with a company) You have to translate it for them, ie; If you screw a thing that I love in the name of profit, I will do my utmost to see that you do not make a profit,or in fact a return. One Email means nothing, 100 emails are a trend, and 1000 emails are a crisis. As for they can make anygame they want, I don't care, Uh HUH, well pal, it's you, Joe Igiveadam, that the market weenies are aiming for, When I buy a car, if I want a FORD, it better not come with a Honda engine, Because I do care, If you plan on buying out a title, then releasing some crap in a cheap cynical attempt to capitalize on brand recognition, then I feel perfectly ok about telling people it is cheap crap intended to make a buck, and they shouldn't waste money on it.

Might I suggest all who disagree with this concept go ask Ralph Nader if it works or not. I'm not trying to sway opinion of the game, when it comes out, I will look at what others say about it, and if it deserves my scorn and contempt, then it,and the people responsible will hear from me. Try it folks, you might be surprised.

------------------

Pzvg

"Confucious say, it is better to remain silent, and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt"

[Philistine]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pzvg:

Again my point gets made for me, How many of the defenders of Hasbro work in the industry?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What industry? I don't work in the game industry, but I do work in an industry where I deal with corporations and issues of profitability. (also I'm not sure I (or anyone else) is "defending" Hasbro).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I take any defense of a business's "rights"

(when interpeted as screwing people) as either a sad joke, or self-serving propoganda.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who is Hasbro "screwing"? They took a property and are using the name (and very little else but the setting) in bringing it to a different medium. Much like the book to movie changes discussed throughout the thread.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As for complaining about big business doesn't do any good, yes you are quite correct, complaining ABOUT them does no good, You have to complain TO them, counter-culture websites populated by fringe elements do not impress anyone, Market forces are impressed by arguments that involve staying profitable (always issue no.1 with a company) You have to translate it for them, ie; If you screw a thing that I love in the name of profit, I will do my utmost to see that you do not make a profit,or in fact a return. One Email means nothing, 100 emails are a trend, and 1000 emails are a crisis.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but Hasbro has already either done or should have done the profitability calculation. AH had tried to make computer squad leader for years. Everytime it has been unsuccessful. (although it did result in Close Combat and Combat Mission). I remember the same types of posts being made on BTS's early forum complaining that Combat Mission wasn't going to be ASL. Hasbro has determined (as did Atomic before it and BTS later) that a direct port of ASL would not be feasible, either technically or economically.

The only issue that I see is that the use of the name is misleading to players of ASL. But really, who do you think will be misled? For the most part, ASL players are a pretty sophisticated bunch, and a quick glance at any website talking about it or the box should indicate the vast differences between ASL and Hasbro's Squad Leader.

I just don't think what happened was a bunch of suits sitting around thinking "let's make a game totally unlike ASL, but call it Squad Leader so that we can get all the unsuspecting Squad Leader Players to buy it."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

As for they can make anygame they want, I don't care, Uh HUH, well pal, it's you, Joe Igiveadam, that the market weenies are aiming for, When I buy a car, if I want a FORD, it better not come with a Honda engine, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But what if Ford buys Honda, or vice-versa. I wouldn't be surprised if in that case you'd see a mixture of parts (in fact I remember I had a Dodge Colt back in the late 80's that had an engine made by some Japanese auto company, I forget which now).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Because I do care, If you plan on buying out a title, then releasing some crap in a cheap cynical attempt to capitalize on brand recognition, then I feel perfectly ok about telling people it is cheap crap intended to make a buck, and they shouldn't waste money on it. Might I suggest all who disagree with this concept go ask Ralph Nader if it works or not. I'm not trying to sway opinion of the game, when it comes out, I will look at what others say about it, and if it deserves my scorn and contempt, then it,and the people responsible will hear from me. Try it folks, you might be surprised.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, if it is cheap crap, I think you are entitled to and should trumpet that fact. The problem I've had with some of the anti-Hasbro Squad Leader posts is that they are assuming it will be bad and acting accordingly. Wait for the game, it may surprise you. Or it may not.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of squad-level games (although I do like Armies of Armegeddon), so It'd take a pretty spectacular showing to get me to buy it.

My main thought is, you can't really expect any large company these days to make a wargame which would be acceptable to mosts grogs. For the same amount of time and money, that company could make a game that would have much wider distribution and greater profit. Luckily, the smaller companies like BTS have stepped up to the plate and delivered games putting the big companies offerings to shame.

Just my $.02.

--Philistine

[FutbolHead]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pzvg:

Again my point gets made for me, How many of the defenders of Hasbro work in the industry?

FBH: I'm a cop, I don't work for the industry. I'm not so much "defending" Hasbro (at least no more than I would most other companies under circumstances comparable to these) as I'm saying that people are assuming Squad Leader will be crap when they haven't even played it yet. And the rest condemning it are doing so just because it's not their kind of game.

I take any defense of a business's "rights"

(when interpeted as screwing people) as either a sad joke, or self-serving propoganda.

FBH: You can take it how you like. You have an OPINION just like anyone else. It serves well to have some factual basis for an opinion though, it gives credibility to your opinion. In this particular case, you have offered no evidence to suggest that Hasbro is screwing anyone or that the game is crap.

As for complaining about big business doesn't do any good, yes you are quite correct, complaining ABOUT them does no good, You have to complain TO them, counter-culture websites populated by fringe elements do not impress anyone, Market forces are impressed by arguments that involve staying profitable (always issue no.1 with a company) You have to translate it for them, ie; If you screw a thing that I love in the name of profit, I will do my utmost to see that you do not make a profit,or in fact a return. One Email means nothing, 100 emails are a trend, and 1000 emails are a crisis.

FBH: I couldn't agree more. At least we are not in total opposition.

As for they can make anygame they want, I don't care, Uh HUH, well pal, it's you, Joe Igiveadam, that the market weenies are aiming for,

FBH: Which seems to read 'If you make a game I don't like, I don't care if other people like it, it's a crap game. Game companies should only make games that I like.'

FBH: The simplicity of this seems to escape most people. It's the consumer who plops down the dough to buy products based on their own criteria for buying that product. If their criteria for buying the product is stupid, that's their problem. Marketing people aren't brainwashing anyone. Marketing people aren't holding guns to people's heads making them buy anything. Stupid people happen. If you want to crusade the stupid people from themselves, by all means, go ahead. But I'm not going to join you. When I have the opportunity, I try to educate stupid people when they make mistakes. Teach them principles of good decision-making, but I don't tell them what to do and I don't do things for them because that accomplishes nothing.

When I buy a car, if I want a FORD, it better not come with a Honda engine, Because I do care, If you plan on buying out a title, then releasing some crap in a cheap cynical attempt to capitalize on brand recognition, then I feel perfectly ok about telling people it is cheap crap intended to make a buck, and they shouldn't waste money on it.

FBH: That sounds nice, but you haven't proven anything is crap here. Nor have you shown evidence of any plan on the part of Hasbro.

Might I suggest all who disagree with this concept go ask Ralph Nader if it works or not. I'm not trying to sway opinion of the game, when it comes out, I will look at what others say about it, and if it deserves my scorn and contempt, then it,and the people responsible will hear from me. Try it folks, you might be surprised.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FBH: If you are saying be an educated consumer, by all means, I agree. But personally, if you just take other people's words for it, you subject yourself to their preferences not your own, their agendas, not yours and their intelligence, not your own. I'm glad I didn't take the "prevalent opinion" of the game Rebellion. That's one of my favorite games. I could give a rat's behind who else likes it. I can live with the fact it wasn't economically viable to pursue more games along that line, but I'm sure as heck glad it made it to the shelf, and that I took the risk that exists in buying any new product.

FBH: Games are about entertainment folks. If they entertain, they have done their job. If they don't, they go back to the store and maybe the company learns from that or maybe they go down the drain.

[This message has been edited by FutbolHead (edited 09-16-2000).]

[chrisl]

I've stayed out of this one for a while, but let me paint a realistic scenario (realistic because that's how I found CM):

Old (or continuing) SL/ASL player has trouble finding opponents, enough space to play etc, realizes there ought to be a computer version of SL/ASL (with that many pages of rules the computer has no trouble remembering, but I certainly do). Starts looking on the web, initial search is under "Squad Leader"

Finds Hasbro's squad leader and in blind excitement orders it. Gets Hasbros squad leader and starts hurling as if Peng showed up at the door in person.

I found CM because I was looking for a computer version of SL. I almost ordered CC, but was reluctant to since that evil company in redmond had its name on the box, and figured if it was as good as their other software I could do without. I continued searching for another day or two, found CM, and it's the only game on my HD (and I play at least a turn a day). Had the Hasbro version been available, I would have forked over the cash reviews unread and been sorely disappointed.

[This message has been edited by chrisl (edited 09-16-2000).]

[FutbolHead]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chrisl:

I've stayed out of this one for a while, but let me paint a realistic scenario (realistic because that's how I found CM):

Old (or continuing) SL/ASL player has trouble finding opponents, enough space to play etc, realizes there ought to be a computer version of SL/ASL (with that many pages of rules the computer has no trouble remembering, but I certainly do). Starts looking on the web, initial search is under "Squad Leader"

Finds Hasbro's squad leader and in blind excitement orders it. Gets Hasbros squad leader and starts hurling as if Peng showed up at the door in person.

I found CM because I was looking for a computer version of SL. I almost ordered CC, but was reluctant to since that evil company in redmond had its name on the box, and figured if it was as good as there other software I could do without. I continued searching for another day or two, found CM, and it's the only game on my HD (and I play at least a turn a day). Had the Hasbro version been available, I would have forked over the cash reviews unread and been sorely disappointed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which proves my point. You choose the criteria you thought were important in buying this game. They weren't criteria I would have used however. And they weren't criteria that were in any way BTS's fault nor would they have Hasbro's fault. And it's a good thing that CM made it to the (virtual) shelf so that you get to play it. You took a blind risk and got lucky. But the bottom line is, YOU TOOK A BLIND RISK, not the smartest consumer strategy. You let emotional desperation govern your buying experience. How anyone can blame that on a company is beyond me.

[chrisl]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FutbolHead:

You took a blind risk and got lucky. But the bottom line is, YOU TOOK A BLIND RISK, not the smartest consumer strategy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't take a blind risk. BTS gave me a free copy of the beta demo, like a good pusher, and the rest took care of itself. Had I purchased Hasbro's SL I would have been the victim of a bait-and-switch. "Looky here, we have a computer version of your favorite game" and then it turns out to be unrelated crap.

It would be like Avalon Hill putting Chutes and Ladders in the GI:Anvil of Victory box and calling it the third gamette of the SL series.

Sure, they can do what they want with the name, and they can even bait and switch on me, but I don't have to buy anything from them again. So it's: a) a cheesy marketing ploy to take advantage of the SL franchise, and short sighted. Anyone who gets burned by the CSL won't likely be forking money over to Hasbro again in the near future.

[This message has been edited by chrisl (edited 09-16-2000).]

[FutbolHead]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chrisl:

I didn't take a blind risk. BTS gave me a free copy of the beta demo, like a good pusher, and the rest took care of itself. Had I purchased Hasbro's SL I would have been the victim of a bait-and-switch. "Looky here, we have a computer version of your favorite game" and then it turns out to be unrelated crap.

It would be like Avalon Hill putting Chutes and Ladders in the GI:Anvil of Victory box and calling it the third gamette of the SL series.

Sure, they can do what they want with the name, and they can even bait and switch on me, but I don't have to buy anything from them again. So it's: a) a cheesy marketing ploy to take advantage of the SL franchise, and short sighted. Anyone who gets burned by the CSL won't likely be forking money over to Hasbro again in the near future.

[This message has been edited by chrisl (edited 09-16-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You said the following:

"Finds Hasbro's squad leader and in blind excitement orders it."

Which indicates you would have purchased this product blindly had it been available. A foolish move on your part, not Hasbro's. You said you would have bought it without reading reviews. Would that have been Hasbro's fault?

You never mentioned trying the demo first in your previous post. You said you saw CC one day, didn't buy it then saw CM two days later and did buy it. That's where I got the blind purchase idea. Having the tried the demo first, you made a more informed decision, which I can respect.

One interview I read concerning CSL stated that a demo may be available around the time of CSL's release, which again will afford people to make a more informed choice on whether or not to buy the game. Hence, more evidence to indicate truthfulness on Hasbro's part.

You already know the game of computer SL is different from the original game, at least you could know if you do minimal research on the web. If you look at any site, web review, interview or anything else that tells you about the upcoming computer SL game, it's plainly obvious that it is different. If they can still pull a bait and switch on you at this point, it won't be Hasbro's fault. Any person with a brain cell can see its different and there is no evidence to show that is what they are trying to do a "bait and switch". If you want to make a case of misrepresenting a product, you need to find one that has merit because this isn't one.

But you use the term "victim" here which brings out another interesting point. Our country is full of "victims" these days. The only problem is that most of these "victims" are people who are looking to hold other people or organizations responsible for their own stupidity or shortcomings. Smokers are leading the pack right now in this arena. I can't wait until alcoholics start suing bars, ABC stores and 7-11's for their problems. Let's blame everyone else but not take personal responsible for our own problems. That's becoming the American way as evidenced by many of the opinions in this thread. Personally, I'm considering suing the makers of eating utensils for my extra 30 pounds of weight. I'm a "victim" of the food industry.

And yes, if the product fails to live up to consumer expectation, it should affect the future business of Hasbro. But it certainly can't be because Hasbro was misleading anyone about the gameplay. I know that if I decide to buy it, and I don't like it, I will take it back for a refund and possibly share my humble opinion with others. But it will be an informed opinion, not a half-cocked opinion before the game even hits the shelf.

[This message has been edited by FutbolHead (edited 09-17-2000).]

[FutbolHead]

For those of you who want to see what Hasbro is saying about their game, the following link has an excellent interview with the game's producer Andy Masurek. This interview supports exactly what I have been saying about how they are accurately representing what this game is all about. He even plugs Combat Mission and Close Combat and says how great they are, but that they are different types of games. The one inaccuracy I noted was that he refers to Combat Mission as a real-time game in one segment. He also plainly states that while they attempted to include some of the concepts and ideas of the original Squad Leader, it is not the same game, it is different. This should allow some people to add to the information they need in deciding whether or not this game will be for them.

http://www.combatsim.com/htm/2000/09/squadleader/

[pzvg]

You're right, we do not agree.

Neither do the folks from the now defunct Microprose I'll bet, but I doubt we'll hear from them.

I will let Hasbro make my point for me, since I already have put a lot of thought into what they do, and it might be legal, and aboveboard in the business sense, (an oxymoron btw,) but I don't have to like it, and you don't have to listen to me say so, after all, this is intended for those sitting on the fence.

I do apologize for the "in the biz" crack, that was bad manners on my part. But I still hold to the rest of my stance, and as for judging a game before it's out, anybody here willing to buy a product from GT Interactive?

You should be able to find many of those titles at Wal Mart, and if they are what you want, why,more power to you.

------------------

Pzvg

"Confucious say, it is better to remain silent, and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt"

[FutbolHead]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pzvg:

You're right, we do not agree.

Neither do the folks from the now defunct Microprose I'll bet, but I doubt we'll hear from them.

I will let Hasbro make my point for me, since I already have put a lot of thought into what they do, and it might be legal, and aboveboard in the business sense, (an oxymoron btw,) but I don't have to like it, and you don't have to listen to me say so, after all, this is intended for those sitting on the fence.

I do apologize for the "in the biz" crack, that was bad manners on my part. But I still hold to the rest of my stance, and as for judging a game before it's out, anybody here willing to buy a product from GT Interactive?

You should be able to find many of those titles at Wal Mart, and if they are what you want, why,more power to you.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Microprose is a subsidiary of Hasbro (ironically). It's not defunct. Your argument could be made that it may as well be though.

GT Interactive, I bought Unreal. Great game. I skipped Unreal Tournament thus far, but I may buy Unreal 2 from them. Don't know much about their other games. Perhaps there's history you are referring to from other games in which I didn't have an interest.

As far as your opinion goes, yes, I do have to listen to it if you wish to express on this forum and I read it. I'm not here to stiffle that expression either. I couldn't if I wanted to and I don't. I enjoy reading about what other people think. It gives you great insight about those people. But what I do is challenge are those opinions expressed when they appear to fly in the face of facts.

Here's where I insert an opinion. I believe most of the die-hard ASL'ers on here FEEL betrayed and that is what has caused such contempt for the game and for Hasbro. I believe they could have titled it many other things and still would likely have received ridicule from that same community. Combat Leader, Squad Combat, etc. etc. etc. Then we would be reading complaints about how Hasbro bought up the rights and was not doing anything with the title. I see no favorable scenario for Hasbro "winning over" the die hard wargaming community. They are too family oriented. But that doesn't mean they won't find a niche market amongst the rest of their customer base. Some will like, some won't.

Hasbro won't go the way of other companies even if this game craps out. They have many other pursuits to keep them afloat and viable. They may back out of the PC game market if they do poorly with several games, but the whole company won't go down.

I'll lay off. I think I have establish my position with enough facts and I'm willing to see what the future holds for the game and for Hasbro. What I would hate to see is a good game go down over sentimentalism. I would rather see it pass or fail on the merits of the product, not simply the name association. If I were to find fault with Hasbro at all at this point, it would be for not considering that as a factor.

There is a flip side to this whole issue. I'm not putting much money on the gambling table that this will come to fruition, but I believe in possibilities. What if a segment of the mainstream market comes to like CSL and that results in a few more people seeking out the real SL. It's a long shot, but it's a "the glass is half-full" perspective, one which has been overlooked.

(The "That's it I quit" parody - Futbolheads meager attempt to insert levity: Subtitled - "I'm not always an a--hole, just when I open my mouth")

That's it I quit. I'm going back to Chess, the real wargame. The true, traditional, original wargame. No one argues that a pawn should have been made stronger or that the queen has too much power. They don't cry about the fact that pieces were never intended to be made out of wood or steel or marble. If someone comes out with a chess set that has purple and yellow squares there isn't a massive outcry that chess is coming to an end. The rules are simple and no one argues about them anymore. The worst you hear is people saying "My chess engine is stronger than yours." The intellectual equivalent of comparing, how shall we say, "member" sizes. Yea, like the average Chess player can beat Fritz 6 or HIARCS or Rebel Century.

They haven't even made a good wargame since chess. Simplistic design, simple rules, immense strategic possibility.

(Okay, so it wasn't that funny. That's why I don't guit my day job.)

[M Hofbauer]

might be a long post but bear with me there might be something in there for everyone:

E.Meeks:

I don't want to turn this discussion too serious but let me just say that the issue with blacks in SL is not their appearance rather it's their appearance in mixed units, which did not occur until Truman desegregated the army in the Korean War. Keep in mind that a greater percentage of blacks joined the army and fought in WWII than whites.

the army dropped their absolute segregation during the Battle of the Bulge, when the reinforcement system got quite some cracks under the offensive, and soldiers were sent out as soldiers, not as blacks and whites. So, mixed replacements appeared in the originally all-white or all-black units. I have pics to prove that.

personally, I find the blacks not as much an issue as the general issue I have with that p.c. mixture, and I fear that if Hasbro's open intent is to have p.c. squads, then there will be the usual Hollywood quota of latin-american, asian-american, jew, woman, gay, etc. pp. in the squads makeup, probably in the evil squads, too. Don't get me wrong, nothing against these minorities, it's just ridiculous if they applied their Hollywood cast quota upon WW2 squad makeup.

Joe Shaw:

Frankly, I felt the same way when I saw the movie Starship Troopers.

yes, the movie and the book have rarely anything in common. Personally, I found the movie was blatantly stupid, but kind of fun just because of that, like those old B-movies (japanese godzillas, formicula etc.). Of course, ST was obviously rather kryptofascist, and it had that usual Hollywood cast makeup.

what is funny is that in the wake of the movie they sold the books as "the book to the movie", not the other way around.

OTOH, a 1:1 conversion of Heinlein's work would have been hard to do, and probably less enjoyable - unless you are into his simplistic protofascist-chauvinistic political views.

elementalware: legally hasbro can do as it pleases with the name.

not really. sorry but the intellectual property juriost in me kicks into gear. if the name "squad leader" was a so-called "notoric brand" (don't know the angloamerican expression, see article 6^bis Paris Agreement on the Protection of Commercial Property(the US is party to it)), that is, it would be a widely known concept = everybody would associate the name with certain qualities, then the use of that name for something that it doesn't live up to is consumer fraud.

The real question is whether "Squad Leader" indeed carries enough popularity to fit under article 6^bis's definition. Since the amount of public knowledge/acceptance of the brand is directly used to determine how much leeway the supposedly wrongful user of the name has in deviating from the public perception of the notoric brand, then even if you would conclude that "S.Ll" is a notoric brand (which I doubt) then it's publicity is so low that the deviation that Hasbro undertakes is still within the accpeted frame of leeway.

philistine: But what if Ford buys Honda, or vice-versa.

Ford owns Mazda, and together with DaimlerChrysler they own Hyundai. But not Honda.

Footballhead: I never played SL or ASL. I know the concept though, and played other boardf wargames. Personally, I wouuld like a more individualized wargame, something with a litle bit more of character development / RPG factor, so basically I have nothing against the leters from home. If these letters were just an _additional_ side fact in CC1, I really wouldn't object, as litle asI would object to hzave some sort of personal file for each of the solödiers for a game on the scale of CC.

My personal gripe with Hasbro's upcoming game stems from their own admitted features of the game, mostly the ridiculous p.c. "family wargame" approach...besides of course it is totally pervert to have a no-violence WW2 game...

ROTFL....Family Wargame - that's an even bigger oxymoron than wargame itself already is...

------------------

"All i hear is the Iron Cross sucks etc. " (GAZ_NZ)