CMAK is an add-on CMBB is a bloody add-on CMBO! What gives?

[WineCape]

No offence intended to reinald@berlin.com's as quoted below on CMBO's forum, as posted also here. [see http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=027201 ; see also Moon's reply which BTW I'm in agreement with]

Reinald:

Am furthermore kinda bothered with the concept of CMAK I have to admit. Looks like they take up others' bad habits of publishing something as a full game that isn't more than an add-on. Did anybody say Atomic? Multi-turreted tanks and dust clouds do not justify another 40 or so bucks IMHO.

My dear Sir,

May I remind you about a sequence of facts...

</font>

• Fact: CMBO is an innovation in the genre of tactical wargaming</font>
• Fact: CMBB uses same engine as CMBO</font>
• Fact: CMBB is a different playing game vs. CMBO due to these "add-ons"</font>
• Fact: Majority of CMBB buyers (those players that opted to play/buy in/into the Ostfront) did not complain that $45 charged for CMBB (CMBO "add-ons") were not worth their p(l)aying pleasure;</font>
• Fact: CMBB and CMBO were priced the same</font>
• Fact: Despite fact above, CMBB (with "add-ons") is outselling CMBO</font>
• Fact: CMAK is going to use the same engine as CMBB</font>
• Fact: CMAK (with CMBB "add-ons") will be priced $10 cheaper as stated by BFC/Moon</font>
• Fact: CMAK will be a different playing game than CMBB due to "add-ons," to what extend/degree we don't know yet</font>
• Fact: CMAK is strictly an "add-on" CMBB is strictly an "add-on" CMBO as all use the same engine.</font>

Now let's examine part of reinald@berlin.com's statement again:

I'm furthermore kinda bothered with the concept of CMAK I have to admit.

Your opinion/concern and rightfully yours, nothing wrong with that. It is likely that people that don't know the history of the "add-ons" viz-a-viz CMBO and CMBB might share (rightfully) the same concern. And even if prospective buyers do know the history of the Combat Mission improvements so far (can I assume you do?), it might be a concern for some people if this thingy called CMAK - a CMBB add-on - will be worth $35.00.

Only time will tell whether BFC's business model/pricing of CMAK will be sound with the release of this CMBB "add-on." If they fail, it can be expected that Battlefront will erode a sizeable chunk of their future/prospective buyers, at least with regard to players that moved from either CMBO or CMBB (or both) to CMAK.

My money, given the sequence of listed facts above, is on BFC taking my money again for CMAK, the CMBB "add-on." But hey, I'm only playing the odds here based on prior listed facts, aside from my personal feelings regarding BFC's wine consumption…

But my God, what an add-on have we not received in the form of CMBB?! I'm happy if CM's v.2 engine is never realised through the programming efforts of Charles, but only through add-ons of the quality of CMBB, and I presume CMAK. Don't quote me on my latter deduction from the sequence of listed facts above

Reinald, in the words of Oddball: "Have a little faith, baby."

Indeed.

Sincerely,
Charl Theron
Stellenbosch, South Africa


-----------------------------------------------------
</font>

• Sponsor of the (now infamous) Invitational (Ari Maenpaa)</font>
• Sponsor of the 2 WineCape Tourneys (Fangorn’s Brazilian customs drank the wine prize up! + KiwiJoe)</font>
• Sponsor of the Nordic Championships in honor of Nabla (His scoring system revolutionized CM tourney play)</font>
• Rumblings of War, aka RoW I/II/III and beyond tourney sponsor (Wreck/Ali+Kanonier+Jon_L/~)</font>
• Grateful donateur to the drinking habits of Battlefront.com (Baldy received the Fat Bastard Chardonnay)</font>
• Thank You donation send to Manx (He used to run the “sexiest CMBO modsite on the net”)</font>
• Wine donation send to Team Boots & Tracks for their scenarios created specifically for RoW tournaments</font>
• Wine donation send to Gordon Molek for his CMMOS utility (Thereby making the installing of CM mods a breeze)</font>
• Wine donation send to Andrew Fox for his CM modding work</font>
• Wine donation send to Keith Miller @ Scenario Depot for his dedication in hosting CM scenarios</font>
• Sponsor-to-be of Pengville’s “Gamey Bastard” tourney (In honor of Seanachai + Lars for showing an act of kindness to an outerboarder - Well, bribery does pay.)</font>

[ September 01, 2003, 08:58 AM: Message edited by: WineCape ]

[BeauCoupDinkyDau]

That's it. WineCape has finally drank too much of his own stuff.

Seriously, I do not understand this post. :confused:

[BeauCoupDinkyDau]

And everone on this forum is a dang NAZI!! :mad:

[Denwad]

Last I heard CMAK was going to be less than CMBB and greater than CMBO.

I.E. 35-40 bucks.

Me? I'll probably buy it, as Silent Storm and CMAK are the only good games coming out for christmas.

[RooT]

ehhhhhhhhhhhh? I have no idea i am not shure what he is complaining about.....lol

is he complaining because CM AK is not a intire new engine, or is he complaining about having to pay 35 bucks for getting the Medeterainian theater into CM eather way it makes no sense i guess.

here is some facts

Fact, CM BO was a great game

Fact, Althow CM BB used the same game engine as CM BO it is a extreamly improved engine.

Fact, not only is it a improved engine it also added the Eastern front to the world of combat mission.

Fact, most add ons cost 35 dollers. (so if you dont want the add ons or dont feel they are worth it dont buy them)

Fact, CM AK will be using the same engine as

CM BB what inhancements have been made to it I really dont know but it will add another theater to the world of CM. and it wont go back to to what we see in hind sight as a almost laughable armour system of CM BO.

Fact, CM BO was worth every penney

Fact, CM BB was worth every penney

My bet is that CM AK will follow suite and be worth every penney

Fact CM BB and CM AK are not add ons to CM BO they are stand alone games. None of share space with each other now nore will they after CM AK is relased

All I know is I love Combat Mission and I i will gladly pay to get another installment of it.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Vader's Jester:

And everone on this forum is a dang NAZI!! :mad:

Sieg...er, how does the rest of that go?

Michael

[ August 31, 2003, 01:11 AM: Message edited by: Michael Emrys ]

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by Vader's Jester:

That's it. WineCape has finally drank too much of his own stuff.

Seriously, I do not understand this post. :confused:

Hush, clown!

I like to hear WineCape speak. His patois amuses me.

What he is telling the rest of you puddles of ignorance is that it is hardly fair to characterize CMBB as a simple 'add-on'.

Not only were the improvements made to the basic game engine significant, they were calculated to make the 'East Front' playable both from a game and historical perspective.

One could also point out that 'expansion packs', as Reinald (wasn't he recently 'dismissed the service' for acts prejudicial?) apparently feels CMBB to be, and claims that CMAK will be, generally require you to own 'the full and complete original game', while all the CM series can be purchased and played without regard to any other game in the series.

East Front interests you not? Simply purchase CMBO. No interest in France '44? Buy CMBB.

I have 'expansion paks' for games, and there's not a one of them that's stand alone. BFC, may their beards never wither, have given any and all their choice of what game they wish to purchase.

Factor in the reduction in price for CMAK and their acknowledgement that they are releasing it 'under the old engine', while taking into account that the 'old engine' will have to undergo some serious modifications in order to make the battle environment and units work, and you've not only pretty much made so much piffle of the argument that 'we're all paying for what we already have', but you can call into question the motives of the person who's made the argument.

Personally, I think the amount of work that goes into each of these mis-called 'add-ons' is significantly different than simply releasing 'new levels and maps'. Not to mention that each change and improvement made to make the new fronts historically accurate and playable are improvements that will ease the path to the engine rewrite that you stormy puppies constantly yip for on the Forum.

There was much gnashing of teeth and cursing over the failure to address 'two-turret' tanks in CMBB. They've taken the opportunity to work on them and the mechanics in CMAK, given that this is one of the changes they have the time and resources to address in this incarnation of the 'old game engine'.

So, we could have had 'everything' in the same game engine and watched with pride while our grandchildren played the game that we'd all anticipated, or we could, to some extant, pay for the development of the game that has captivated so many of us for so many, many months.

When we buy Reinald's so called 'CM add-ons', we're not simply paying for a few new 'levels', or 'physics models'. We're not simply paying for 'new scenarios'. Hell, we're getting those infinitely, and for free, because of a dedicated community using the tools that are available with every game (and these tools, too, undergo improvement). We're not simply getting 'new graphics' (again, infinitely available and free due the efforts of dedicated fans, and because of development decisions of the creators).

What we're paying for with these 'add-ons' is the development of the game into a shared vision of what war-gaming excellence should be.

Of course, some people want excellence as a sort of 'entitlement'. The old, "I bought the game once, and I don't see why I should pay one dime more until it's exactly what I want."

I think the appraisal that 'we're paying the same money for tweaking the same game' is so much ****e. We're not paying for 'features'. We're paying for 'evolution'.

[Michael Dorosh]

I wish you would get your graphics card already, so you can go back to sucking at CM and typing considerably less. It just took you 12 paragraphs to say 'reinald is an idiot'!

Did Hines forget to forward his Paypal winnings to you?

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I wish you would get your graphics card already, so you can go back to sucking at CM and typing considerably less. It just took you 12 paragraphs to say 'reinald is an idiot'!

Grog Dorosh, you should leave these things to me. You do not express these things well. Of course Reinald is an idiot. But I sought to address his idiocy, rather than the fact that he is an idiot.

And your way would neither have booted the fool, nor tweaked the vintner.

And they were short paragraphs.

[manchildstein (ii)]

well if it's a rip-off don't buy it... personally i think being able to model early italian and british desert battles is going to be 'flavorful' enough that just that alone will be worth $35 to some people... for me it would have been a slam dunk with the inclusion of yugoslavs and greeks... even as is i'll probably pony up...

[Moon]

I guess part of the whole issue is a "perception problem", because we don't got the usual route (of other publishers) to concentrate on making new breathtaking graphics and visuals for each iteration, but instead focus on gameplay, realism and things "under the hood". To the (very) casual observer, CMAK might look a lot like CMBB might look a lot like CMBO. I am sure that we will see reviews in mags to this effect, as well. But is it the looks alone that define if a game is "new"? Usual marketing hype for most games out there makes you believe so, in my opinion largely because many of those new games ARE nothing else but new graphics.

Steve, Charles, Matt, Dan, Fernando and myself don't buy into this thinking. We're here to make good games, and a good game is more than "a new look". This doesn't mean that we're not going to improve on the visuals - we do (CMAK will see several times more polygons for tanks for example; and obviously the new engine will have a total facelift), but for us - visuals come second, gameplay comes first.

Martin

[GRUMLIN]

seeing as cmbb is currently £9.99 in GAME at canary wharf, that seems like an add on price to me..

*steps back from the touchpaper*

Grum

[kump]

from Moon:

but for us - visuals come second, gameplay comes first.

Wait, wait, wait on there. Please, lets not bring up the gameplay versus graphics angle. It may be true, but it comes out as an age old defense for games that are behind the times and don't get the attention they deserve, which CM isn't.

This reason is used for war games that just don't look that great. Smaller teams and budget, you need to concentrate on gameplay. I understand the "sacrifice" when it has to be made and agree that gameplay should always be the priority.

However, CM is the one that bucked this theory, that you can't have BOTH in a wargame. Bless you, you've totally shown me the way. So yes, I demand good graphics as well as game play. Why not?

CMAK is going to be a little behind the times in graphics because CMx2 will be the next face lift. There has been no effort to imply otherwise. However, CMAK fills a missing hole in the current CM series, and that is of course the desert front.

My interest in the Africa battles is really small. But the changes to CM and the new graphics is enough to persuade me to purchase and own it. I'm thankful for the decision to come out with it. Those new Sherman models look fantastic. I'll be a desert fan in no time, I'm sure.

But don't fudge on the textures to get out two months earlier, because visuals are important to your fan base as well.

There, I said it. I like good visuals and I hope it is important as well in further CM releases.

Don't scare me like that!

[Panzertruppe]

Thanks Moon!

Once again the old saying "if it works don't fix it"! come to mind. Remember SSI? They consentrated on fancy "eye candy" instead of gameplay after Mattel bought them up!...R.I.P.

Many of the CM players still have 3 year old computers and don't have the money to upgrade to the "uber" yuppie computers (that won't run any games older then 2 weeks anyhow)!

CMBO,CMBB are milestones in wargaming history...call CMAK an add-on if you want to...but it works!

Bill

[Moon]

Kump, good points. I didn't mean it this way.

Visuals are obviously important, even if alone for the fact that CM is a full 3D game, and it would be odd to play with counters and hexes in such an environment We have spent and will spend a lot of time on visuals. If you compare how CMBO and CMBB looked right out of the box, I think it's quite evident.

But - all things considered - graphics do come second. Instead of spending time to merely make explosions simply look cool with turrets blowing off and gigantic explosions, we rather spend the time to first get the underlying ballistic and penetration models right. Then we make the graphics. Think of it as if the core simulation is the foundation of our house. Some other houses in the neighbourhood look a lot like a nicely painted cardboard with fake windows and doors in comparison

The good news is that as we move to the new engine after CMAK, we will be able to take a lot of the underlying core simulation stuff with us, and focus a lot more on visual appeal as well as other (perhaps more visible) gameplay issues.

By the way, I don't quite agree that CM is "behind the times". What other wargame that is currently released is comparable? I know a few that are in development for next year, and without a doubt what we've seen of them surpasses CM in looks (even though none of them is still able to handle such large maps and amount of units as CM). That's good, as a wargamer I'm looking forward a lot to Battlefield Command and a few others, there is - finally - movement in the wargaming "niche". Our focus on the new engine CMX2 is a result of this development, and all (the community first and foremost) involved will benefit from it.

Martin

[Ruthless]

Plenty of game companies charge full price for an "add-on" which will give you maybe a night or two of playing (maybe a week at the outside) for something like your average FPS.

I think we can all vouch that CMBB gives years of playing as will CMAK, though my understanding is CMAK will be less dramatic a change than CMBB was from CMBO.

I think it probably cost BFC quite a few man-hours to research and model all the new terrain and units for a new theatre, so I can fully see a full price. This isn't like a wargame where units just have attack/defense strengths. Each unit has to be modelled in detail.

Also, I'm a big believer that companies need to be smart in their pricing: If it costs you $X to produce a game and you expect to sell Y number of units, you need to charge at least $X/Y to break even. I see this all the time in communities like the combat flight sim community. A modern combat flight sim is probably just about the most complex game you could make and the most manpower intensive, their market is small, and they still charge the same as an average FPS. Bad business model!

[on soapbox]

There are a lot of discussions right now in the sim community about what direction sims are headed. Lock-On is supposed to come out in a few months and many simmers (myself included) who come from Falcon 4.0 are concerned because it appears it will be less detailed and ED/Ubisoft have already admitted they are trying to target a wider audience than just combat flight sim enthusiasts. So, their game will certainly be pretty, but it will have less accurate/less detailed avionics than we've seen in previous sims, they will try to reach the mass market, and they will charge the same as for an FPS. To me, this sounds like they are making the product mediocre so that it will appeal to masses (like a sitcom or somefink.)

I for one do not want to see BFC change their business model if they are making a profit and they are focusing on more and more realism per release. To me, that is the RIGHT way to go.

[off soapbox]

[SgtMuhammed]

All I can say about CM being behind in its graphics is to recomend that one views a full out Russian tank rush from ground level. I haven't seen anything like it since I left the army.

[kump]

from Moon:

By the way, I don't quite agree that CM is "behind the times".

As it relates to other war games, yes, CM is light years ahead of everything else in the graphical department. Sorry, didn't mean otherwise.

I should have qualified that statement with respect to the latest and greatest 3D FPS and RTS big titles and the use of the latest 3D special effects of the higher end graphics cards. By the way, almost all these games suck anyhoo.

I would not keep coming back to this game without the gameplay. The graphics will never keep you interested for long, its the gameplay that ensures you keep playing. But the CM graphics do pull me in like no other wargame ever has, and still its the best out there. Sorry, I'm a greedy customer, I want even more of it!

But you put my fears to rest. Not that I was in anyway really concerned. The CM series always took visuals seriously and gave it a lot of time and effort, as well as having the best realistic tactical engine to date.

Now get CMAK out already. It looks fantastic!

[Firefly]

Originally posted by kump:

I would not keep coming back to this game without the gameplay. The graphics will never keep you interested for long, its the gameplay that ensures you keep playing.

I agree 'kewl' graphics are nice for about 15 minutes, after that you get used to them and if there's no game play there, the game gets binned. It's not really fair to compare CM's graphics to the latest FPS blockbuster which only uses one POV, when you can view the action in CM from any point of the battlefield you choose.

[ August 31, 2003, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: Firefly ]

[theike]

Im not going to read al this.

I read something about this yesterday in the cmbo forum.

i think the people whining about this dont know very much about the gaming world.

As allmost all games dont change their engine but work with what they have, changing it to better it. Good engines last for years and make for plenty of game mods onto even completly new games.

I dont hear anybody saying thats undone, ore even 'money-hunting', ore whatever, in the gaming world.

I also i dont hear people whining about the money.

And another thing...the forum has been taken over these days by pre-thinking, pre-fantasising about and pre-discussing what isnt around jet.

I want to talk about cmbb in this forum, not about something that is not up to me to jump up on.

I CAN talk about bettering the game in general; yes...but its in no way up to me to make descissions on whatever consurning the game to come, nore to bloody ask for the impossible of the already very, very consumer friendly makers

No new engine...:omg.

[pavlov]

Originally posted by Moon:

for us - visuals come second, gameplay comes first.

Martin

That's a rare statement from a game engineer these days. I buy it--and I will I don't mind shelling out a few bucks for good work and all the user support you guys have put into it. For Macintosh (at least) there's no competition anyway.

My only request: When Bill Gates comes knocking, put that T34 in your garage to good use! Microsoft has assimulated and destroyed many a good software producer.

[WineCape]

Originally posted by Seanachai:

I like to hear WineCape speak. His patois amuses me. What he is telling the rest of you puddles of ignorance is that it is hardly fair to characterize CMBB as a simple 'add-on'.

Touche!

One word, nay, one sentence! No funny-galore/district dialect there.

Thank you MC Seanachai.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by pavlov:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Moon:

for us - visuals come second, gameplay comes first.

Martin

That's a rare statement from a game engineer these days. I buy it--and I will I don't mind shelling out a few bucks for good work and all the user support you guys have put into it. For Macintosh (at least) there's no competition anyway.

My only request: When Bill Gates comes knocking, put that T34 in your garage to good use! Microsoft has assimulated and destroyed many a good software producer. </font>

[Private Bluebottle]

One would hope though, that with all the preliminary work done that with the release of CM2x that it would be one game, to cover the whole war (perhaps with supplements) rather than three or four, each incompatable with one another.

I'd personally like to be able to utilise the same maps for different periods/locations. I've been recently reading Delaforce's Marching to the Sound of the Guns and several accounts make the point of units fightng through the same area in 1944 that they had fought through in 1940.

Being also able to mix and match forces would make it possible to fight unusual campaigns, such as in the Balkans in 1945 where Germans, Russians and British encountered one another. It'd also enable post and pre-war campaigns to be fought, such as the Spanish Civil War or Korea or the counterfactual mainstay of so many wargames - Patton versus Zurkhov.

[[MyIS] Buffpuff]

With all the talk about graphics and old engines I figured I'd throw my small 2 cents in. Anyone ever hear of Counter-Strike? Before you flame me for being a FPS bastard(and I am...CMBB/CMBO gives me a nice change of pace) I only mention it because CS is a game based on the 7 year old Half-life game engine. Yes the visuals are pretty bland compared to what's out there today but the gameplay is what makes it what it is. I personally have never played CMBO/CMBB and thought to myself "Man these graphics suck!". They are by no-means cutting edge but they get the job done IMO.

[ September 01, 2003, 07:41 AM: Message edited by: WKA Buffpuff ]