Steam reviews need support

[Bagpipe]

So the steam reviews so far are "Mixed".

I have been playing on standalone but have switched to Steam so was able to leave a positive review. I would ask anybody else who is enjoying standalone to consider at least playing the steam copy for an hour or so in order to leave a positive review and support the devs over in that area as much of the negativity seems to be pretty petty and unfair.

Thank ya 

[Redwolf]

Reviews by people who register via a key don't seem to count for the top level view, though. Only reviews from people paying to Steam.

[Bagpipe]

11 minutes ago, Redwolf said:

Reviews by people who register via a key don't seem to count for the top level view, though. Only reviews from people paying to Steam.

Much corruption!

Still it will get the total number of positives up and bring the overall review score to "mostly positive"

Edited November 21, 2021 by Bagpipe

[Bufo]

I left a review.

[The_MonkeyKing]

I wonder why is CMCW getting mixed when all other CM titles are getting very positive scores.

Maybe this title is managing to attract wider audience without previous CM experience. With expected results. (the graphics, UI and performance are unexpectable by any standard.)

[Bufo]

1 hour ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

I wonder why is CMCW getting mixed when all other CM titles are getting very positive scores.

Maybe this title is managing to attract wider audience without previous CM experience. With expected results. (the graphics, UI and performance are unexpectable by any standard.)

Yes I think the same, there are more players interested in this title, and many of them sees a CM game for the first time (and these unaware players see the really outdated engine).

Edited November 22, 2021 by Bufo

[Grey_Fox]

3 hours ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

I wonder why is CMCW getting mixed when all other CM titles are getting very positive scores.

Maybe this title is managing to attract wider audience without previous CM experience. With expected results. (the graphics, UI and performance are unexpectable by any standard.)

Most of the positive reviews for CMCW are being ignored by steam as they were added using steam keys.

[dbsapp]

I left a positive review (I know, I know, you are surprised). 

[Redwolf]

6 hours ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

I wonder why is CMCW getting mixed when all other CM titles are getting very positive scores.

Maybe this title is managing to attract wider audience without previous CM experience. With expected results. (the graphics, UI and performance are unexpectable by any standard.)

There were only 14 reviews that count (not from keys), of which only 9 were positive. The 5 negative ones only had 2 written ones, so we don't know what the other 3 people were complaining about.

Makes it hard to defend the fort.

[The_Capt]

Hey folks, thanks for the support - yes, even you @dbsapp

All reviews are taken with a grain of salt.  Steam is pretty good if one looks at all the reviews (about 86% positive) and these are early days.  As to the issues, well they are well known and big reason for the push to CMx3.  That said, CM will likely always be the Dwarf Fortress of the wargaming community with a dedicated following of people who really love the game but still a niche for the hardcore.  We are doing fine as far as I know - game sales once they go on multiple distribution platforms is a labyrinth- and the BFC Modern Titles group is becoming a real thing with the Superpack release (that CM modern meta-verse idea is really sticking in my head). 

Again, big thanks to the biggest bunch of hardcore and salty grognards the industry has ever seen in supporting us so far.

[Bagpipe]

3 hours ago, Redwolf said:

There were only 14 reviews that count (not from keys), of which only 9 were positive. The 5 negative ones only had 2 written ones, so we don't know what the other 3 people were complaining about.

Makes it hard to defend the fort.

You are right enough, just had a look and it only weighs in the 15 steam purchases even though there are over 40 reviews from all avenues. Bad voodoo that. 

[MG TOW]

Might be filtered by language. If you change reviews to all languages you'll see all written reviews. 43 now. Only 6 are negative. Some kind of lag in reporting. More important to have an active and constructive forum.

[Simcoe]

I bought on Battlefront but after I decide to stop being lazy and get the steam key I will put a good review in.

Don't kill me but I think a big problem is how Noob unfriendly Cold War is. I've been playing these games for years and I'm getting destroyed. The learning curve is a cliff and that's while reading the forums and watching Usually Hapless. Battle for Normandy will kill once it gets on Steam because of how new player friendly it is.

Disclaimer, I love Cold War to death even with the difficulty. 

[A Canadian Cat]

40 minutes ago, Simcoe said:

Don't kill me but I think a big problem is how Noob unfriendly Cold War is.

Not just Cold War. All CM2 games are quite challenging. I even have two friends who were big CM1 fan who just cannot get going in CM2. Now they are both taking another crack at it with Cold War. We will see how it goes. I am again getting messages that say things about how this or that is broken in the game. I keep trying to explain what they are seeing and acknowledge the limitations. Wish me luck :-0

[Simcoe]

3 hours ago, IanL said:

Not just Cold War. All CM2 games are quite challenging. I even have two friends who were big CM1 fan who just cannot get going in CM2. Now they are both taking another crack at it with Cold War. We will see how it goes. I am again getting messages that say things about how this or that is broken in the game. I keep trying to explain what they are seeing and acknowledge the limitations. Wish me luck :-0

I think each game should have a basic training campaign, beginner campaign and medium difficulty campaign. My biggest leap in learning this game was playing ALL the training campaigns. Not everyone can do that. If you are playing one of the modern games you are SOL after that super basic training campaign.

Until these training campaigns become a larger priority this series will shed old players and turn away new players.

[The_Capt]

On 11/22/2021 at 1:08 PM, Simcoe said:

Don't kill me but I think a big problem is how Noob unfriendly Cold War is. I've been playing these games for years and I'm getting destroyed. The learning curve is a cliff and that's while reading the forums and watching Usually Hapless.

I can't speak for BFC writ large but we thought long and hard on this for CMCW.  So we knew that CMCW was never going to go "mainstream".  CM is a niche within a niche to begin with, and the Cold War is a niche within the Modern titles within that.  So how much accessibility do we really need?  It wasn't zero, hence why we built the NTC and Soviet Training scenarios.  But our main audience were those hyper-realism hardcore players that want the "real deal".  And by that, I mean scenarios and campaigns pulled directly from doctrine.  This war never happened so we cannot play directly from the history books, so instead we need to lean on doctrine from both sides and realistically try and portray what "would have happened".  

With that Vision, it really became central to our design moving forward and everything else fell into place or out of the way.  I rarely thought about "play balance" to be honest.  I looked at the ground, the likely forces on that ground and built what made military sense based on the doctrine of both sides.   It is why we needed larger maps and likely do not have enough small or tiny battles, because neither side thought in terms of platoon actions.  We did use our imaginations and build in some but a Cold War game focused a the platoon level is simply inaccurate.  A Soviet campaign at the company level does not make a lot of sense either.   So bigger and harder was the direction we were pulled in.  Did we sacrifice accessibility, yes I think we did but it was worth it in our opinion.  

Hopefully we will get some new blood that does stick around but they also probably would have gotten bored quickly if we had made it more gamey.  The player who loves CM is a "type", we have learned that much.  Connecting the game to that type and helping it stick is the challenge.  So welcome all "noobs" but you have been warned, you are going to have to earn your wins in CMCW.  The designers, like the game are old-school, we only hope that when you do succeed you feel it was all worth it; we don't want players to turn away when it gets difficult, we want that to be the reason they stay.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

1 minute ago, The_Capt said:

The player who loves CM is a "type", we have learned that much.

Ex-tabletop/boardgamers plus a heavy smattering of military types and wannabes? 

[Grey_Fox]

4 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I can't speak for BFC writ large but we thought long and hard on this for CMCW.  So we knew that CMCW was never going to go "mainstream".  CM is a niche within a niche to begin with, and the Cold War is a niche within the Modern titles within that.  So how much accessibility do we really need?  It wasn't zero, hence why we built the NTC and Soviet Training scenarios.  But our main audience were those hyper-realism hardcore players that want the "real deal".  And by that, I mean scenarios and campaigns pulled directly from doctrine.  This war never happened so we cannot play directly from the history books, so instead we need to lean on doctrine from both sides and realistically try and portray what "would have happened".  

With that Vision, it really became central to our design moving forward and everything else fell into place or out of the way.  I rarely thought about "play balance" to be honest.  I looked at the ground, the likely forces on that ground and built what made military sense based on the doctrine of both sides.   It is why we needed larger maps and likely do not have enough small or tiny battles, because neither side thought in terms of platoon actions.  We did use our imaginations and build in some but a Cold War game focused a the platoon level is simply inaccurate.  A Soviet campaign at the company level does not make a lot of sense either.   So bigger and harder was the direction we were pulled in.  Did we sacrifice accessibility, yes I think we did but it was worth it in our opinion.  

Hopefully we will get some new blood that does stick around but they also probably would have gotten bored quickly if we had made it more gamey.  The player who loves CM is a "type", we have learned that much.  Connecting the game to that type and helping it stick is the challenge.  So welcome all "noobs" but you have been warned, you are going to have to earn your wins in CMCW.  The designers, like the game are old-school, we only hope that when you do succeed you feel it was all worth it; we don't want players to turn away when it gets difficult, we want that to be the reason they stay.

In terms of sales has it proven to be niche (for a CM game that is)?

Edited November 23, 2021 by Grey_Fox

[domfluff]

I have and continue to think that Cold War is pitched higher than the other CM titles.

I also think that's entirely okay - Shock Force and Normandy are excellent introductions, and can both do things that Cold War just can't, without sacrificing everything that makes it "Cold War". 

[Bagpipe]

Just now, The_Capt said:

Hopefully we will get some new blood that does stick around but they also probably would have gotten bored quickly if we had made it more gamey.  

CMCW is my first ever CM purchase having toyed with the various demos on and off for years. I had experience as a youth from way back in the day when CM1 appeared but I just couldn't wrap my head around the depth of the modern titles. Finally, CW arrived and it was just stinking of Operation Flashpoint vibes so I buckled up and took the plunge and it has really paid off. Will be adding to my collection for sure. Have already learned so so much

[The_Capt]

6 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Ex-tabletop/boardgamers plus a heavy smattering of military types and wannabes? 

I was more going with "Type A, hyper-focused, micro-management loving masochists"  but hey your definition pretty much matches.

[Simcoe]

14 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I can't speak for BFC writ large but we thought long and hard on this for CMCW.  So we knew that CMCW was never going to go "mainstream".  CM is a niche within a niche to begin with, and the Cold War is a niche within the Modern titles within that.  So how much accessibility do we really need?  It wasn't zero, hence why we built the NTC and Soviet Training scenarios.  But our main audience were those hyper-realism hardcore players that want the "real deal".  And by that, I mean scenarios and campaigns pulled directly from doctrine.  This war never happened so we cannot play directly from the history books, so instead we need to lean on doctrine from both sides and realistically try and portray what "would have happened".  

With that Vision, it really became central to our design moving forward and everything else fell into place or out of the way.  I rarely thought about "play balance" to be honest.  I looked at the ground, the likely forces on that ground and built what made military sense based on the doctrine of both sides.   It is why we needed larger maps and likely do not have enough small or tiny battles, because neither side thought in terms of platoon actions.  We did use our imaginations and build in some but a Cold War game focused a the platoon level is simply inaccurate.  A Soviet campaign at the company level does not make a lot of sense either.   So bigger and harder was the direction we were pulled in.  Did we sacrifice accessibility, yes I think we did but it was worth it in our opinion.  

Hopefully we will get some new blood that does stick around but they also probably would have gotten bored quickly if we had made it more gamey.  The player who loves CM is a "type", we have learned that much.  Connecting the game to that type and helping it stick is the challenge.  So welcome all "noobs" but you have been warned, you are going to have to earn your wins in CMCW.  The designers, like the game are old-school, we only hope that when you do succeed you feel it was all worth it; we don't want players to turn away when it gets difficult, we want that to be the reason they stay.

Thank you for explaining your reasoning. I'm definitely not owed any. Again, I am having a great time learning the ropes.

I guess I was getting into a more general discussion of Combat Mission in general. It would be nice to bridge the gap from training missions (kiddie pool) to scenarios/campaigns (dumped in the ocean miles out from land).I should bring it to the general discussion forum.

[The_Capt]

7 minutes ago, Grey_Fox said:

In terms of sales has it proven to be niche (for a CM game that is)?

Heh, I see a mix of concern, hope and schadenfreude when I skim other boards (and sometime in here) on this topic.  The answer, in so far as to what I can say is likely "no", we are not on the margins.  Our popularity is quite strong compared to our initial estimates, a little surprising to be honest, and healthy enough to get us the green light for a DLC.  We won't have wide distribution details for some time but the support on the BFC release alone was enough to make us happy.

[The_Capt]

1 minute ago, Simcoe said:

Thank you for explaining your reasoning. I'm definitely not owed any. Again, I am having a great time learning the ropes.

I guess I was getting into a more general discussion of Combat Mission in general. It would be nice to bridge the gap from training missions (kiddie pool) to scenarios/campaigns (dumped in the ocean miles out from land).I should bring it to the general discussion forum

Hey it was a fair question and you are a paying customer.  I think that an engine upgrade in the works might make the game UI a lot more accessible.  Content-wise it will remain up to the title leads.  In a perfect world the player would be able to be more specific in the settings (Iron to Basic are good but not really customizable) and maybe even tailor AI difficulty...it is pretty much set to "kill all humans" right now. 

[Simcoe]

Bender would be proud!

Edited November 23, 2021 by Simcoe