CM review on Wargamer

[Neutral Party]

The wargamer website, never let it be said that it is slow on the uptake, has finally reviewed the beta demo of Combat Mission - no not the gold demo - the original demo we've all being playing for months.

http://www.wargamer.com/reviews/combat_mission_preview.asp

Not only that, but the reviewer was, how shall we put this, not tremendously familiar with war games in general and WWII in particular.

Over the course of the review we discover that the sound and graphics are not cutting edge, tigers can drive straight into buildings, groups cannot be commanded together "in the style of Command & Conquer" and that the game is not leading-edge in terms of the mainstream market.

In my opinion the review is disappointing in terms of its timing (with the imminent release of the gold), in its failure to note that this is an old beta and that many things have improved, and also in its utter superficiality. Maybe the old adage about there being no such thing as bad publicity has some truth in it.

I am constantly amazed by the seeming lack of interest and definite lack of coverage of CM on the Wargamer site. I really cannot understand why they are not more interested.

Joe

[All American]

I just read the review and I don't see why you have such a problem with it. The reviewer said a lot of good things about the game. Also, as he said himself, he plays mainly RTS games like Starcraft and C&C. He knows very little about WW2 and is used to click fest games. I think his review shows what a great game Combat Mission is since he said it was a lot of fun. I think this says a lot because RTS gamers usually hate all real wargames.

All American

[Allan]

This really hacks me off. First of all the author makes it clear that he is reviewing a beta demo (an old one at that)and then complains about the graphics. Why couldn't he wait a few weeks and review the final version? I mean come on, to review an old beta demo that has been out for months? Why bother?

Secondly, what wargame reviewer mentions Command and Conquer and Starcraft in the same review as a turn-based WWII wargame? Hey Steve, send this guy and updated beta and let him see what he is missing. Heck for that matter, send it to me. I do reviews for the Gamers' Voice and I will do it justice. Of course in a few weeks I will have my very own copy of CM and I may only come out of my study for food and water. Heck maybe I can get my wife to just slide it under the door

Allan

[Mark IV]

Just read it (thanks for the heads up).

Before we start slamming the reviewer, this is a good case in point.

As you noted, the reviewer concedes up front that WWII wargames are not his genre. Laudable honesty, but why would something called the "Wargamer" have a non-WWII gamer review a WWII game?

However, the conclusion reads thus: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>While it isn't a real leading-edge title in terms of the mainstream market, Combat Mission looks as if it may be a sleeper release. For wargamers, strategy gamers, and certainly for World War II fans, it could easily become a favourite. I definitely recommend giving the demo a try. It will certainly be staying on my PC for quite some time - or at least until I can actually win a scenario! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was not exactly a pan. And the worst thing we could do would be start flaming the guy and Wargamer.

One of the themes seems to be a "poor cousin" approach- the game is a "labor of love", a "sleeper", and worst of all, "there have been at least a dozen rebuilds to allow for minor alterations, bug fixes and so on" (can you say b-e-t-a?). They are not taking BTS seriously.

Another theme is that it doesn't live up to its claim of "cutting edge" graphics. Let's face it, to a FPS or space-fantasy guy, this is probably true, certainly of the beta demo. That claim should be tempered with "...for a historically accurate 3D combat sim" or words to that effect.

This dude was unaware of, and would probably not be very impressed with, an explanation of kinetic energy calculations under the hood. This is a person who has never heard of ASL.

But we gotta remember the guy isn't reading this board. He is highly complimentary of many features ("This is Wonderful!" of the 3D zoom). We tend to forget that the "outside world" takes things at face value.

This gem explains a lot: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In addition, it looks like Combat Mission will be very scenario-based. If an editor is provided with the full game, the limits will be endless, and The Wargamer Scenario Archive will no doubt flood with user-created wonders.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very scenario based? Maybe BTS needs to buy some ad space, after all. Some form of gentle persuasion needs to be brought to bear on the gaming press to assess CM for what it is, by those more familiar with the genre.

We all want "our baby" to do well, but the key word is "gentle". The worst reaction would be a knee-jerk "you don't know s**t" slam that brands us as a defensive, marginal, and paranoid cult.

[iggi]

I haven't read his review yet, (just got up), but if he hasn't taken the time to visit the site and see the new graphics, he is a fool. I suggest he receive just feedback. Off I go to see his review. Start the van.

[Kevin Peltz]

The review wasn't that bad- but I wrote him a note describing some of the changes between then and now anyway.

[iggi]

The Author of the CM article is: Steve "Spike" Wyatt.

Well I read his review.

It seems to intend to be favorable towards CM. However the article is strewn with inaccuracies.

Mr Wyatt states:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Its delivery date is listed as "when it is ready"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Wrong, delivery is end of May. BTS clearly states <A HREF="http://www.battlefront.com/cm_movie.html">here<A> that the release is late May.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>since obtaining the first Beta CD<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Is this guy a beta tester? If not, why a review on a cd he received 6months ago?

If you look at the screenshots that he shows, they are at the opening of the game. As though he hasn't really played the game himself. There's no initiative to create shots that convey the advantage of the 3D battlefield.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There is even birdsong and general background noise...although that should soon stop once the guns start firing<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What? Again, is this guy a beta tester? Where is he getting bird song?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If an editor is provided with the full game<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If? BTS clearly states that an editor is available ,<A HREF="http://www.battlefront.com/products/worldwar/cm/cm_faq.html">here<A>.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>groups of units could not be commanded together, in the style of Command & Conquer or StarCraft<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Wrong again. That info is presented <A HREF="http://combathq.thegamers.net/newfeatures/Group_move/groupmove.asp">here<A>

That said, his comments on the graphics tell me he has not seen the new screen shots. His statement that the game is not leading edge in terms of the mainstream market shows that he is comparing the game to FPS and RTS games and not wargames.

This post was sent to the editor of The Wargamer at: editor@wargamer.com .

[This message has been edited by iggi (edited 04-30-2000).]

[Guest Madmatt]

Lets just say that the Wargammer and The Gamers Net are NOT ON GOOD TERMS with each other (for events that happened long before I came along) so I would doubt seriously that they would pay CMHQ a visit and get current info. I have only heard bits and peices of the history between the two groups but I take it there is still bad blood. Wheter that has anything to do about the review, who knows. Just clarifying one small point about them not looking at recent pictures and news.

Madmatt

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

If it's in Combat Mission, it's on Combat Mission HQ!

And if it's NOT on CMHQ then its just GOT to be on CMHQ-ANNEX... Coming Soon!!!

combathq.thegamers.net

[Guest Big Time Software]

We are going to take care of this. It is a total sham Preview. Our main problem is WHO did the Preview. Good LORD! You don't give a wargame to a RTS fan for a WARGAME news publication! This is like having poetry reviewed by a comic book fan.

And that is not even counting what CM is to wargaming. CM isn't just another wargame. You would think that a publication called "The Wargamer" would pay something like this a bit more attention, at least qualitatively if not quantitatively.

We are totally baffled by this one and VERY disappointed in The Wargamer. Knocked down several pegs in standing after this shoddy approach.

Steve

[Guest Ol' Blood & Guts]

Well for them to call themselves "The Wargamer" and not be totally versed in wargames is a VERY BIG paradox in my opinion. For their staff to be fans of FPS and RTS games then WHAT are they doing calling themselves "The Wargamer"? Isn't that a contradiction in terms?

For someone to review "the" best wargame on the scene and not have a clue about wargames or WWII in general is a bit, how do I say it, incompetent, in my opinion.

Now, I'm not in favor of flaming the site or the editor or the reviewer, but they should at least be clued in on the genre.

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

"Fear is the path to the Dark Side.

Fear leads to anger.

Anger leads to hate.

Hate leads to suffering."

--Jedi Master Yoda

[Kevin Peltz]

The fact that he is not a wargamer per se (freely admitted by himself), and still enjoyed CM, I think makes big marks for the game- it is admittedly unfortunate that he reviewed the demo at such a late and inconvenient time. As I said earlier, I wrote him a polite note, describing many of the things that have been added/changed since the demo (nothing that could not have been gleaned from this forum, but there are 40,000+ posts, that's a lot of reading to have to catch up on for anybody). I don't know, I just don't think the game came off sounding that bad, really.Another person, who didn't like wargames,never mind play them at all, my son, finally played the

demo. He can't wait to see the real thing now. That is a BIG accolade, from my point of view (he's 12, and as jaded as they come...)

[This message has been edited by Kevin Peltz (edited 04-30-2000).]

[Lee]

I agree, Steve. It seems the previews we have seen thus far do

not communicate to the readers just how fantastic CM is. It

gets treated like it's just some other wargame that's pretty cool.

Pretty cool? Good grief! We're talking about one of, if not

THE, greatest computer wargame ever made. And all they have is

a few nice things to say? Wake up people!

The graphics aren't cutting edge? They aren't?! Let's forget

for a minute that these are early beta graphics and that the

current beta graphics blow them away. Do these people even realize

that is it physically IMPOSSIBLE with a battlefield that may

reach 2000 yards x 1500 yards or more to have soldiers that look

like something from Quake III, given today's hardware? If they

don't then someone needs to brief them on the current state of PC

hardware and it's limits, ASAP! Ask them to name one wargame out

there that even comes close to portraying the battlefield environment

as well as CM does. If anything, CM's graphics are awesome

considering how large of an area has to rendered in big battles.

Hopefully future previews/reviews will be written by gamers

who are fully aware of these issues and have a long history of

playing realistic wargames.

Now, having said all that, I realize that this fellow plays mostly

RTS games and probably isn't aware of the points I just raised.

So in that sense it isn't his fault. However, it IS the Wargamer's

fault for picking a gamer with the wrong background to preview CM.

[medlinke]

Okay... I have to interject here.

I work at The Wargamer. I put in for this review when we got it over 6 months ago. I was denied the review and it went to "Spike" who apparently had dibs on it. Fine.

Spike wrote the actual review of this game and completed it sometime in Jan. A lot of the information we have now on the game, wasn't availible then. Therefore, it isn't his fault the review is out of date.

As for his reviewing skills. That is a matter of personal preference. I liked the review when I peer reviewed it in January. Everyone at The Wargamer signed off on it and we thought it was fit to publish. I think it has a lot of merit to it. From the information at the time that Spike got, he was I think ill-informed initially about the product and some of the misinformation and confusion in the review stems from this. I knew a lot about the product having followed it now since it's inception basically way back with Avalon Hill / Monarch Games.

What you need to understand most about why this review is tardy is this.

1) We are moving to new servers so our HTML editors are working hard to do that instead of pumping out HTML conversions of reviews. Not that this is an excuse, it is merely the reason why this one was a little tardy.

2) I think that Spike lives in the UK so it took a while for him to get it because it went from battlefront.com to our press manager, to our webmaster, to Spike overseas. This process took quite a while as I remember.

3) Peer review takes about a week on most reviews.

4) Finally, Wargamer is going through a process of updating the format of our website to include more comprehensive reviews and this review I think got caught in the old review format and had to be converted to the new format. This was unforsseen, and not preventible either.

So it isn't Spikes fault the information is old. That was all there was when he reviewed it. A LOT of unforseen disastors happened to make this review get slow to the public.

There was a lot of competition to get this review at Wargamer and we love the game. I think Spike's review was excellent and if he had known what we know now...I think you would have seen a totally different review in terms of content completeness.

[This message has been edited by medlinke (edited 04-30-2000).]

[Aacooper]

If you check out the review now, you'll see Wargamer has admitted to inaccuracies, and one is corrected in the beginning. Other inaccuracies later in the article aren't corrected, though.

[SS_PanzerLeader]

Hi Medlike,

I was just about to ask you if you guys intended on updating your article to address the points raised by the CM community; regarding its currency and accuracy.

Upon heading over there I found an ammendment to the article already posted and must commend you on that

Please keep in mind that the dedication of the fans supporting this game largly stems from the production methods of BTS, and the importance of it doing well (not to mention its obvious superiority in its class )

I want to thank you for ammending the site so quickly and listening to our responses.

A suggestion for the future examination may be to have several different style gamers look at the final version to determine its overall appeal - whilst emphazising it from a wargamers standpoint - as this is the most important evaluation

Thanks again

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

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[Guest Big Fat Guy]

Oh, come on now. I have never read a review I agreed with. The Wargammer editor has gone out of his way to add his comments to fix some problems.

I have read reviews writen by members of this board about other WWII games. The reviewer was obviously anti-product and had an agenda. If we bark about every review that has bad comments about CM then this game will never be taken seriously.

[SS_PanzerLeader]

Hi again

medlinke,

I noticed that the begining portion of the article has only been updaed - I'm hoping that you aren't finished yet, as the other updates did well to clarify things

I also must note that for not being a wargamer he did have a lot good to say about the game

As far as the cutting edge graphics go, Could it be possible to get an explanation for that that is relative to the Genre?

After all Unreal Tournment could never draw maps this size and look good too, not if you wanted to play as well

Thanks

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

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[SS_PanzerLeader]

Big Fat Guy said :

The reviewer was obviously anti-product and had an agenda.

*********************

I didn't come away from reading the review with that idea at all man - He had ALOT of good things to say about CM, THe article wasn't perfect, nor entirely accurate due to the build reviewed, but I sure wouldnt say he had any agenda nor was he anti-product.

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

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[This message has been edited by SS_PanzerLeader (edited 04-30-2000).]

[Allan]

Wow, he reviewed it in January and it just now gets posted? When I did my reviews of F/A 18 and Flanker 2 for the Gamers' Voice it was about a 2-3 week lag time but almost 5 months to post the review of CM beta demo is amazing.

Every once in a while a game comes along that reshapes a genre of computer games. Doom and Half-Life come to mind for FPS. Panzer General( the original) and Steel Panthers for wargames. I feel CM is on the threshhold of defining our hobby once again. Not only by the detailed way the game is presented and played but by the way it is also distributed. No more middle-men in suits to dictate when a game is ready. Rather it is the programmers themselves that say when it is to be released. With true wargames seeming to fall out of favor with big publishers these days (Talonsoft, SSI, Microprose)it is refreshing to know that our hobby is still alive and well as long as there is a team of programmers willing to put in the time and effort to produce a quality product and market it directly to their customers. I feel that Games like CM and Smolensk 41 which are sold only on the net may truly reflect the future for our pastime.

Allan

[iggi]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So it isn't Spikes fault the information is old<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, but it is his fault for *submitting* old information. Thank god he is not an artillery officer. You get the barrage after you captured the target. Bad sense of timing there.

I commend the editor for his fast response although I see only the beginning of the article amended. Considering this was info that was ready to post in January and they waited until May(tommorrow) to post it, the editor should really rip that article out and start fresh over and place an article reflective of the potential at The Wargamer.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Let me be VERY clear why we are upset with this preview:

1. That it is SEVEN MONTHS late. Even had it been posted in January it still would have been 3 months late.

2. I fail to understand why it took 3 more months since January to get the preview posted. That doesn't speak well for the publication rather than the reviewer.

3. That it was published, knowing that it was woefully out of date does NOT speak well for the publication. It certainly is unfair to us, especially because the press knows darned well how careful they are supposed to be with preview material because of the nature of it (i.e. IT ISN'T FINISHED).

4. We sent a full Beta off to The Wargamer a LONG time ago. I also answered a ton of questions from the first individual CM was given to ages ago, and this was not Spike. BF.C is not responsible for the lateness of the preview, or the lack of answers from us to reviewer questions, in any way shape or form.

5. Combat Mission is a Big Deal for wargaming. Period. This is not a biased statement, but one of pure fact. There has never been a 3D wargame EVER. And at this level of combat there has been nothing major since Steel Panthers' first release nearly 5 years ago. To have such lame coverage from a supposedly serious "wargame" publication is a HUGE black spot on the publication as a whole. Add to it the length of time.

6. The slant of the reviewer was NOT relevant to what CM is about. Therefore, Spike should never have been selected for an EARLY look at the game. I have NO objections to a "general gamer's look" at Combat Mission if it is done in conjunction with a true wargamer's perspective. Problem is, this is the first "official" look at the game.

Yes, I see that retractions have been posted pretty quickly (they weren't there when I read it this morning). This is fine, but why were they necessary? That is my point. That preview should either have gone up in January (still late and the wrong slant mind you!) when it was written, or not at all. It is like putting up a review of the stock market by a novice investor 7 months after the time being written about. There is no point, so why do it?

We don't mind critical discussion of CM. We don't mind having minor beefs with previews/reviews. We DO have a problem with something like this though. And if you spent 3 years working on something, and have been in the business long enough to know good journalism from sloppy, then you might understand better why we were blown away by this preview. It is unprofessional at best.

Steve

[Moon]

Aw... just found about this whole thing now. Looks like indeed the edits were done VERY quickly. Personally, I'd think that the whole matter is not a bad intention of Wargamer at all, but more the result of some... uhm..."internal" irregularities? Did they had staff leave recently or something? Just wondering...

But of course all this is not a real excuse. What I see is simply poor journalism (I studied journalism). If indeed this review was planned as a "general gamer point of view thing", it should have said so very clearly from the very beginning. But even then - the Wargamer is making money of what they're doing. I would expect them to hire people to write articles with a basic understanding of journalistic working methods, research being one of them (and that includes additional research AFTER the article was written and BEFORE it was posted; that would be the job of their editor, NOT the author, by the way).

Martin

[PvK]

Hi folks,

I'm the editor at The Wargamer. Please take a look at the comments I added throughout the review, and let me know if I missed anything, via email (although I am quite interested in CM, I can't keep up with the pace of this message board without falling behind on other work, except when something specific comes up).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Let me be VERY clear why we are upset with this preview:

1. That it is SEVEN MONTHS late. Even had it been posted in January it still would have been 3 months late.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry. Our initial previewer vanished on us. We have a volunteer staff, but we do accept submissions - if anyone had sent in a useable preview based on the CM demo (or other CM-related article), we surely would have posted it.

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

2. I fail to understand why it took 3 more months since January to get the preview posted. That doesn't speak well for the publication rather than the reviewer.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I received this draft on March 19. We've been extremely backlogged on editing and HTML conversion, but are now mostly caught up. Since I realized that the CM demo was not the latest news, and this was a preview of a product that wasn't released, and was also an article aimed at showing a hard-core game to a more mainstream audience, perhaps it didn't seem as urgent as reviews of games that were released.

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

3. That it was published, knowing that it was woefully out of date does NOT speak well for the publication. It certainly is unfair to us, especially because the press knows darned well how careful they are supposed to be with preview material because of the nature of it (i.e. IT ISN'T FINISHED).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We didn't know it was out of date until this morning, when your most avid fans informed us. We did send it through peer review, which entails showing it to dozens of wargamers, several of which are fans of the game, and we addressed all objections, of which there were few. I do realize that previews should be sensitive to the fact that the game could change, and perhaps I should have edited to make that clearer, as I just did, but the game does say it was based on a beta version.

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

4. We sent a full Beta off to The Wargamer a LONG time ago. I also answered a ton of questions from the first individual CM was given to ages ago, and this was not Spike. BF.C is not responsible for the lateness of the preview, or the lack of answers from us to reviewer questions, in any way shape or form.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We're unhappy that our initial previewer disappeared too. With volunteer writers it's impossible to guarantee that every game will be reviewed, or that even important wargames like CM will always be reviewed in a timely way, although we do try. I'm not aware that we ever heard any concern from Battlefront about a review, or any news of updates or impending releases.

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

5. Combat Mission is a Big Deal for wargaming. Period. This is not a biased statement, but one of pure fact. There has never been a 3D wargame EVER. And at this level of combat there has been nothing major since Steel Panthers' first release nearly 5 years ago. To have such lame coverage from a supposedly serious "wargame" publication is a HUGE black spot on the publication as a whole. Add to it the length of time.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry you feel that way. We do have three or four old articles on CM, and a CM section (the original maintainer of which had to bow out as well). The game isn't released yet, but we will surely review it when it is available. So there has been a playable demo and new developments in the game - we came out with a somewhat outdated preview showing the perspective of a gamer who wasn't a hard-core WWII buff, which was intended to help introduce similar players to a game that might appeal to them too. I don't see this as "a HUGE black spot" myself - again, sorry if you do.

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

6. The slant of the reviewer was NOT relevant to what CM is about. Therefore, Spike should never have been selected for an EARLY look at the game. I have NO objections to a "general gamer's look" at Combat Mission if it is done in conjunction with a true wargamer's perspective. Problem is, this is the first "official" look at the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not our first official look - we have 3-4 earlier articles and a support section on the game. I disagree that having a mainstream gamer write about a hard-core wargame is inappropriate.

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

Yes, I see that retractions have been posted pretty quickly (they weren't there when I read it this morning).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The retractions weren't there before 11am PDT because none of us knew there were mistakes before then, including your fans on our staff - I added comments as soon as your more attentive fans pointed out problems.

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

This is fine, but why were they necessary? That is my point. That preview should either have gone up in January (still late and the wrong slant mind you!) when it was written, or not at all. It is like putting up a review of the stock market by a novice investor 7 months after the time being written about. There is no point, so why do it?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As far as I know, this was submitted March 19. If it was based on an old beta, it's because that's the latest version The Wargamer had at that time. I had played the CM demo, the review seemed in line with my experience, and as far as I knew, there was no newer version available.

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

We don't mind critical discussion of CM. We don't mind having minor beefs with previews/reviews. We DO have a problem with something like this though. And if you spent 3 years working on something, and have been in the business long enough to know good journalism from sloppy, then you might understand better why we were blown away by this preview. It is unprofessional at best.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. Yep, we made some mistakes, but we did try. In hindsight, we should've passed it by you for an accuracy check. With the corrections, I think it does a pretty good job:

1) It shows that a non-WW2-nut can really enjoy the game, from the point of view of one.

2) It shows that Combat Mission has many of rabidly-enthusiastic fans.

3) The editor's comments make the distinctions between the casual-gamer writer's point of view, and the hard-core gamer's details, quite clear.

4) The comments show that the game has been improved in many important ways, including addressing issues that the reviewer noticed were the problems.

All in all, it looks like a very positive piece, which I imagine could even have a more positive effect than if we'd caught the mistakes in advance and corrected it seamlessly. It makes us look a little sloppy, but it shows that we will correct ourselves, and it makes Combat Mission look like a very promising game that a lot of gamers are excited about.

So please accept my apologies, let me know if I missed any corrections, and please do send us a version of the final product as soon as it's available - we will be sure to cover it in serious detail.

Regards,

Peter von Kleinsmid

Executive Editor

The Wargamer www.wargamer.com

[citizen]

Wargamer and PvK:

Please attempt to save a little bit of face and take down that shoddy article. It makes you look bad. It will surely act as a warning to other wargame companies to deny you a preview copy if this is the treatment they can expect.

You tried to fix it, but it was never worth saving.

Matt

[Fionn]

Well, firstly it is time for a little disclosure...

1. I was a volunteer member of staff at The Wargamer for some time until roughly 10 months or so ago and was "in management" there. I was in the top 5 anyways and so I know exactly how it operates.

2. I left because I felt I wasn't having emails etc answered by certain specific other managers there (and no-one likes being ignored).

3. I still have issues with how I was treated (and lied to) after leaving by Wargamer staff members etc BUT I'm writing this post from as neutral a standpoint as I can manage after the passage of some time.

4. I know Peter, Mario and others at The Wargamer well. I don't know Spike but I figure he must have joined after I left.

A. It IS inappropriate to have a non-wargamer preview a hard-core wargame. A preview is a specialised type of game coverage and requires a fine balance between reportage, hyping and dissection of expected performance versus ommissions.

An inexperienced wargamer simply cannot do himself or the game justice if given a hard-core wargame to review.

B. 7 Months. That's simply far too long. The article should have been scrapped simply for being obviously out of date when delivered.

C. With a newbie wargame reviewer and an outrageously out of date preview it would behoove anyone to go to the source and just ask for that source to correct any missappreciations.

D. I remember when I wrote a rather infamous CC3 review for The Wargamer it was sent to Keith Zabalaoui and he was allowed to read it and argue aggressively for changes to have been made.

E. At the VERY LEAST you should have sent it to Steve for him to read quickly or to one of the beta testers ( most of whom are publicly known on this forum).

The article is littered with innaccuracies which any of us could have picked up on and corrected in seconds.

The section about beta revisions is pure tosh. There have been far more than 12.

The release date time was wrong. The comments regarding ambient sound are incorrect (there is none in the demo.. Now the reviewer is imagining things which aren't there and ascribing them to the game? ).

Etc, etc, etc...Why the reviewer (or anyone else at The Wargamer) didn't think to simply contact myself or Matt and ask for a few pictures from the current Beta Builds is beyond me.

There was precious little research, corroboration and investigation of facts that I can see. The peer review process must have included no-one who reads these boards regularly and no-one who visits CMHQ.

In short, the preview is not only wrong it is disastrously wrong and out of date and the fact that it is wrong and out of date is inexcusable given the myriad ways in which 5 minutes of work would have provided a multitude of people qualified to point out how CM has changed since then.

Now, as a matter of help to you, I'm willing to offer my services to check whatever preview or review you do of either the Gold Demo or Release Version and report any further errors in veracity to you. I think it is a pity that The Wargamer couldn't find someone more qualified to review a wargame than Spike, especially since I know a lot of the guys there really do know their stuff ( IMO this just points out the failures inherent in the "dibs" system operated at The Wargamer ) and Spike did neither The Wargamer or Combat Mission justice.