Jump to content

Fire and Rubble


BFCElvis

Recommended Posts

@BFCElvis (shh, shh, let me get in the action, too. Whisper, whisper, I do not want to rouse Steve’s Smaug-like wrath …)

I have a question. Is CMRT F&R going to sound the death knell for WW2 games from BF?

[Sigfried’s Funeral March starts in the background... ]

 

CMBN and CMFI are now both complete (correct?). Only one module will be added to CMFB soon enough (?).

We’ve been told in this thread and elsewhere in the past that BF has no interest in:

-          the early war period in the East, Barbarossa, Stalingrad or other operations in Russia, so CMRT seems to be done and dusted;

-          the early war period in the West (France 1940 and I’m assuming, Norway, Finland, Op. Anvil etc.),

-          Crete ’41, thus Greece, and I’m assuming northern Africa, so no CMAK remake in the works,

-          the Pacific war (in a reply to me years ago, this hasn't changed has it?),

-          any other theaters of Ops I'm forgetting?

 

Is this end of an era for Battlefront? No upcoming WW2 titles or modules in the near future (apart from F&R and the one CMFB module)?

 

Edited by Malaspina
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can understand that WW2 will be as attractive for wargamers as WW1 is. I am 70 now and WW2 was still widely talked about by eyewitnesses when I grew up. We used to make Airfix models and use the plastic figurines and experimented making wargames. one mm represented 1 meter. A Tiger Tank could defeat any allied tank and could be defeated from the side only by a 75mm or 6 pounder guns. Parents had to be away, and the living room was area of operations. I think Battlefront still has a market for us oldies. We think the graphics are fantastic compared what we used to have. I still prefer WW2 above SF2 but I understand the generation gap. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, for what it is worth, I am 22 years old and I would play the hell out of an early WW2 game, specially in the Eastern Front, thought I wouldnt say no to North Africa or France as well. Plus, I do not feel I am an oddity in my "generation", here in the Internet at least, as there are tons of people of my age that enjoy WW2 games. The same goes to wargames, a lot of people of my age enjoys games like Men of War, Hearths of Iron, Steel Division, Post Scriptum; which are generally speaking non -arcade games with a setting in WW2. And I am sure that with proper marketing, a change in prices policy, and also a modernization of the engine; you could get a big chunk of that market coming to CM.

I understand that with the release of Cold War, they are going to be busy improving it an adding a ton of stuff that I will most surely buy and play. Nevertheless, I hope that they will eventually return to WW2 to make a Barbarossa game. Hopefully their contract with Slitherine with show them the huge market that exists to this kind of games, and a change in policy occurs, just like it happened in respect of the supposed impossibility of a Cold War gone hot game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO, CMRT will still be missing a module after F&R, the one to bring Hungarians, Finns and Romanians (the later on both sides) to the game, it would be great to have also captured materiel (beute tanks how I miss you) and Cavalry TOE and vissuals...

After this...whatever you like...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Malaspina said:

I have a question. Is CMRT F&R going to sound the death knell for WW2 games from BF?

[Sigfried’s Funeral March starts in the background... ]

I've got nothing official to announce but let's just say that it would be a stunning development if this were the end of WW2 content.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, BFCElvis said:

I've got nothing official to announce but let's just say that it would be a stunning development if this were the end of WW2 content.

Is it true that BFC has an aversion to the early war? If so, what might be the reason for that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

I can understand that WW2 will be as attractive for wargamers as WW1 is. I am 70 now and WW2 was still widely talked about by eyewitnesses when I grew up. We used to make Airfix models and use the plastic figurines and experimented making wargames. one mm represented 1 meter. A Tiger Tank could defeat any allied tank and could be defeated from the side only by a 75mm or 6 pounder guns. Parents had to be away, and the living room was area of operations. I think Battlefront still has a market for us oldies. We think the graphics are fantastic compared what we used to have. I still prefer WW2 above SF2 but I understand the generation gap. 

I prefer the cold war periods because of the variety of the weapons. Also I hate that in WW2 infantry squads don't really have a weapon against tanks. I love IFV. I love ATGMs.

The Cold War battlefield is just more complex than the ww2.

If you look at WW2 CM titles as chess, then a cold war title is like chess upgraded.

Edited by Bufo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bufo said:

The Cold War battlefield is just more complex than the ww2.

Post WW2 conflicts got an annoying dimension it is called politics. In SF2 it plays a role too. We all play the games to have fun and wish you happy gaming. Artillery would have been dominant at the Fulda Gap and the North German plain. I didn't see much of it watching some demo games. Role playing a war which never was is difficult. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

Post WW2 conflicts got an annoying dimension it is called politics. In SF2 it plays a role too. We all play the games to have fun and wish you happy gaming. Artillery would have been dominant at the Fulda Gap and the North German plain. I didn't see much of it watching some demo games. Role playing a war which never was is difficult. 

You'll see artillery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

Post WW2 conflicts got an annoying dimension it is called politics.

In which CM game can I find a politics layer? This game is about the battles, not politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BFCElvis said:

it would be a stunning development

In the last year there have a been a couple of stunning developments (Steam distribution, Combat Mission in the Fulda Gap...). Next thing we know you guys turn up with a game on the war of Vietnamese Independence or the War of Jenkins' Ear...

In+Place%252C+artist+unknown%252C+1738%2

Edited by BletchleyGeek
Corrected spelling of old Jenkins' surname
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bufo said:

This game is about the battles, not politics.

In SF2 you get penalized for damaging civilian structures. It is a hypothetical situation. Dirty bombs were used in Western Europe NATO responds by invading Syria were the planning originated. You have your warning orders in a few games not to damage certain buildings. Places of worship, government buildings etc. War is foreign politics by different means. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

In SF2 you get penalized for damaging civilian structures. It is a hypothetical situation. Dirty bombs were used in Western Europe NATO responds by invading Syria were the planning originated. You have your warning orders in a few games not to damage certain buildings. Places of worship, government buildings etc. War is foreign politics by different means. 

SF2 is an exception. There is Cold War and Black Sea without your politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

@Bufo at this time I just look forward updating RT with FR that keeps me happy for some time. I still enjoy SF2 apart from some silly hypothetical scenarios. I don't have FI either. 

In our defense, when we first released it I had a CIA analyst tell me the notion that the next armed conflict in Syria was ridiculous.  As "silly" as our hypothetical scenario might be, it was more accurate than what the CIA was thinking ;)

We like to avoid politics as that's not what our games are about.  But it's impossible to do that.  Anybody that thinks there's no politics in WW2 gaming just needs to look back a few pages where this thread almost got locked. 

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

As "silly" as our hypothetical scenario might be,

I just suggested after you dirty bomb Western Europe. The people would not be overly concerned about damaging places of worship, palaces, or commercial buildings. Don't get me wrong I like the game, I just find myself playing WW2 games more often now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Is it true that BFC has an aversion to the early war? If so, what might be the reason for that?

Sceptical is probably a more precise word than aversion. Here¬īs what Steve said earlier in this thread:
 

Quote

Barbarossa would be a massive, huge, incredibly hard slog to get done because we have practically nothing needed for that setting other than the terrain.  And for sales?  Well.  We don't think it would be strong enough to justify that major an effort.  Same thing for Western Front 1940.  Just too much work for too little customer interest.

 

Quote

The problem is that for a 1941-1942 game pretty much all of the units and organizations have to be created from scratch.  Limiting the scope of forces for both sides certainly reduces how much new stuff we have to come up with, but the minimum is still a large amount of work for (in our view) a questionable return for our time.  Again, it's not just about sales it is also about what else we could be doing with our time.  I bet we could do better with Space Lobsters.  And yes, I really would like to do something like that sometime before I call it quits on doing games.

But I really, really hope they¬īll change their minds about that ‚ėĻÔłŹ

Edited by umlaut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

We like to avoid politics as that's not what our games are about

agreed, but there is nothing wrong with talking politics in a civil manner, should you consider a politics seperate forum?

bad idea?most likely 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...