CM Wargame or TB Strategy Game?

[Greybeard 101st]

Before you all shoot me, let me make a few points.

This is the first "wargame" that I have played, and I wonder why it is labeled a wargame vrs a TB Strategy game.

I know that the subject matter is realistic war, but wouldn't the game appeal to even a broader group of gamers, if it was sold and reviewed as a tb strategy game?

I have told alot of people about this game, and alot of they say, well I'am not into wargames, then I try to explain that although it is technicaly a wargame, to me it is like a turn-based strategy game, then they say "yea I might check that out".

Many have the idea that a wargame is a electronic boardgame with hexes and stale gameplay.

I know alot of you love this type of game, and I am in no way saying anything is wrong with that.

But CM, presents a more mainstream game that will attract gamers like myself who always wanted a strategy game about WW2, instead of a alien, or fantasy game world.

I think that this game will attract many like myself who love tb strategy, but have not been interested in the standard "wargame" of past.

It benefits everyone the more this game sells and the broader audience it appeals to.

With so many samller game developers going under the few remaining need all the support they can get.

It seems Big Time Software has hit the jackpot, and it couldn't have happened to a better group of people.

Just some thoughts and feedback from other gamers I know, and who have ended up buying CM once I explained what it is about.

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

-kill 'em all and let God sort them out-

[OsinO]

Hmm interesting, I usually think of it as a wargame. Although it is turn-based, it is not a you-go-I-go, its a we-go game If you think im crazy just read the manual and youll see what I mean

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

¤§ïѤ

[Fred]

Well, the case is, that CM is a wargame. The scope is tactical, not strategic.

That is the reason why it is labeled as a wargame. BTS is honest and not into marketing hype (like other companies).

And maybe people are getting false impressions when saying "it's just another strategy game".

Quality sells itself, as one can surely see now, even if CM is not mainstream (and hopefully will NEVER be).

Fred

[IntelWeenie]

I'll go along with Greybeard here. To some people, the very name 'wargame' brings up images of hexagonal maps, stacks of cardboard counters and rulebooks 2" thick. I recently tried getting my 18yr-old brother interested in CM. When I first told him it was a wargame, he immediately had that "Oh, no, I don't like those. They're too hard." look on his face. Once I showed him the demo, he became VERY interested.

OTOH, mentioning "turn-based" will probably have the same effect (especially on non-grog types) as "wargame".

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

"Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

[Von Fauster]

Interesting question. When I describe the game to friends, I simply tell them that if they like strategy games, or wargames, or spending lots of time getting sucked into a game they can't put down ("Okay, just one more turn. Well, alright, just one more"), then Combat Mission is for them. Another way is what I did on Friday: I took the demo to a party where I knew atleast 3 or 4 people would be really interested and just showed them the game on my buddies computer. They were hooked after the first 2 turns.

Like the man said, Quality sells itself.

[jgdpzr]

I can understand the point of your question. But, the fact is this is a wargame. Pure and simple.

Strategy games, at least according to my understanding, usually emphasize resource management or at least some considerations that fall outside the realm of actual combat. Additionally, they are fantasy-based, rather than historical.

To market this as a strategy game may only confuse its product identification. And those who bought it with expectations of things external to combat may be sorely dissapointed.

Not trying to be argumentative, I just think this game is correctly labeled as a wargame and should wear that badge with honor. I know many wargame grognards would be aghast at such an identification. Just my $.02

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

"Sometimes you eat the bar and sometimes the bar eats you. Take it easy, Dude." -- The Stranger

The Dude abides.

[Grognerd_Fogman]

I say burn the Gold Demo onto a CD an let them try it. Shwing!!

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

Thanks for Athskin!

Grognerd_Fogman

[Disaster@work]

BTS should do whatever they can to market it to as many people as possible. If they see the grognard / intro wargamer market as good enough, that's fine. If it's just a matter of relabelling it into a more appealing category, then they should.

It sounds like some grognards are afraid that marketing will change the game. I wonder, would the same grognards shy away from a product that was obviously about WWII if it was labelled as a TBS? Would BTS lose that market? I would hazard not because that market will probably look at such a title specifically and then decide because of its focus on WWII. If that is not a danger then labelling it TBS would be a benefit for getting a larger market share.

Saving Private Ryan raised more awareness of WWII partly because of marketing and its glossiness (graphics? <-- see the other discussion on CM's graphics). Spielberg married a Hollywood budget with a commitment to detail. It became a success because it was marketed as a phenomenon, an event if you will, that brought in people who thought WWII was just a bunch of black and white documentaries (I wasn't one of them) or bad movies where people fell dramatically without blood. SPR didn't say much about the history of the war because of its focus. Appealing to a mass audience doesn't mean a loss of quality.

[Disaster@work]

By the way, lest my comments regarding WWII movies before SPR strike you as ignorant, please read the thread about fav WWII movies in the general discussion forum.

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum9/HTML/000060.html

[Philistine]

I think, right or wrong, the various labels used contain connotations as to what the game is. I'm not sure that CM really fits into the "turn-based strategy" genre.

When I hear the term "turn-based strategy" I think of 1 of three types of games:

(1) HOMM/Warlords types of fantasy turn-based game;

(2) Space Empires/Stars/Birth of the Federation type of 4x games; or

(3) Civiliation-type games.

Although some lump wargames in with all "strategy" games, generally if you're just leaving it at "strategy", you're not making the distinction with turn-based.

Conversely, "Real Time Strategy" (RTS) games make me think of the C&C, Starcraft, Age of Empire style game heavily dependent on resource gathering and base-building.

Wargames on the other hand, don't really bring to mind either turn-based or real time (although I generally prefer turn-based--just my bias) and games with as diverse concepts of turns or "real time" as TOAW, Close Combat, Fleet Command, Fighting Steel and Combat Mission all fall under the wargames standard.

I had always considered being labeled a "wargame" as a good thing (again--my bias) and I can recall a few years ago when games that had no business being called wargames tried to pass themselves off as one (presumably for marketing).

Now, I would be surprised to have CM described as a "turn-based strategy game," just because of the connotations that term now has. I would not be surprised to hear it described merely as a "strategy" game though. Interesting...

Just random musings.

--Philistine

[Greybeard 101st]

Some good points on what a wargame actually is, being new to this genre, I wondered.

Like was said, once played this game sells itself.

I am on the Gone Gold forum, and a guy there kept talking about a new game called Combat Mission, I said, I really don't play wargames, he said picture a WW2 TB type strategy, tactical game in 3D, I said, where's the demo.

Nwxt day I ordered the game.

It seems now days that the line is blurring in osme genres.

You see RTS combined with RPG elemnets, RTS games without the usual base building, and even RPG's with rts elements.

Perhaps CM is a wargame/tbs with tactical warfare at its core.

I think a game can be both tactical and a strategy game.

This by far is the best game that I have played as compared to any RTS or TBS games.

I hope everyone such as myself, take the plunge into "wargames" and gets this excellant game, forget the labels and genre, a great game knows no boundries.

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

-kill 'em all and let God sort them out-

[Philistine]

I agree, the lines are blurring. The "genres" (e.g. RTS, FPS, RPG, etc.) are a bit ossified. Most newer games that aren't just a rehash of older games are closer to a blend or a new type then they are the "classic" genres, and most take great pains to try to point it out.

I can see where someone whose only idea of a "wargame" is TOAW (which I enjoy very much but realize isn't everyone's cup of tea) might be a little leary of trying something he's only heard described as a wargame.

Kudos to you for bringing in those who wouldn't have otherwise thought to try it.

--Philistine

[deanco]

Ahhh...It's great to hear someone say independantly what I've been saying for a while. CM is one kickass, deep, game. Period. It's got the cool, fun factor mixed in with a game you could play for 2 years and still not know all the nuances. Go to a Civ-like or RTS forum, most people are complaining about depth of gameplay. They learn the tank rush, or whatever, and thats about it. This game is what they want, they just don't know it yet. Heh...I'm glad I'm seeing this 'live', so to speak. I am following this whole thing avidly.

DeanCo--

[Disaster@work]

Bite your TONGUE. Civilization (and it's fantastic update Civ2) is very very deep, just on a different operational level than this game. It's the modern day chess for grand strategy. I can start a game up right now and choose a differently nuanced strategy than I did yesterday based upon how I feel like conquering the world today. Yes, it's AI needs an update (which, I hope, Sid Meier is working on right now for Civ3) but very little else needs to be changed.

[Rookie]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Greybeard 101st:

I am on the Gone Gold forum, and a guy there kept talking about a new game called Combat Mission, I said, I really don't play wargames, he said picture a WW2 TB type strategy, tactical game in 3D, I said, where's the demo.

Next day I ordered the game.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Guilty As Charged The game is a Genre Buster. Its more than a "simple" Wargame IMHO. I have never been a big fan of the turn based,cardboard counters as much as the tabletop stuff. For me,this is the best of both worlds. Visceral and thought provoking.

Here's to many more great games from Big Time Software!!!

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

-Rookie

Cactus Air Force Homepage

[deanco]

Woah there, Disaster, I never said Civ (THE Civilization, not a Civ-like) was a bad game. On the contrary, it's one of my Grand Masterpieces, along with Railroad Tycoon, M1 Tank Platoon, (really, my most fun days were on the Atari 1040) and Total Annihilation. And of course CM. I lost a sexy girlfriend over Civ I, at least I think I did... she musta split when the Greeks and Romans both decided to gang up on me.. at any rate, she's gone now...

DeanCo--