Patch V1.02 news from CDV

[CavalryMan]

Moving away from the semantics which the debate has degenerated, into the decision by BFC to wrap up CMBB at this point. It seems to fit with a core business rule I was taught when dealing with projects; that is the 80 20 rule.

Any further work would cease to be good business as it would only please a small number of people, all of whome have already purchased the product and most of them would not be put off purchasing future product by a lack of tweaking of the existing one.

Customer support is one thing, but not to the exclusion of good business.

Roll on the new engine I say.

[Andreas]

I am here because I think the game can always be improved - that does not mean though that all requests for improvement are reasonable, IMO. Your's isn't Hortlund.

But we are getting somewhere - now, does the fact that the SPW 251/17 is represented by the 251/1 diminish BFC's claim that CMBB is the most realistic wargame out there? I don't think it does - hence, IMO your expectation that all these models would be added in patches is unreasonable, based on nothing but muddled thinking on your part, and your inability to accept this makes you a whinger.

There was never any indication let alone a statement by BFC that they would add all the models. You imagined they would because of some warped interpretation of what 'most realistic wargame' means in your mind. That is about as relevant as me imagining that BFC would pay me US$10,000 per scenario I have contributed to the CD. IOW - not very.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Andreas:

I am here because I think the game can always be improved - that does not mean though that all requests for improvement are reasonable, IMO. Your's isn't Hortlund.

I respect that. I am also of the same opinion that the game, just like every other game there is, can be improved. But if you really want a bulletin board where people vent their views and opinions on the game, you should lay off the fanboi mentality. A forum without healthy dissent or where the community tolerates no criticism is a dead forum.

But we are getting somewhere - now, does the fact that the SPW 251/17 is represented by the 251/1 diminish BFC's claim that CMBB is the most realistic wargame out there? I don't think it does - hence, IMO your expectation that all these models would be added in patches is unreasonable, based on nothing but muddled thinking on your part, and your inability to accept this makes you a whinger.

Why are you saying that Im not accepthing that?

"It seems rather pointless to argue over this since BFC has made up their mind."

...

"personally I think it is better to finish one project before starting a new one."

...

"I have no problem buying half finished games as long as I know that they will be finished eventually through patches. To see the "you should be glad we included the data at all in the game and stop complaining about the 3d models"- attitude was frankly not something I was expecting to see from the makers of the game."

I'm accepting the fact, Im just not agreeing with it, and it does surprise me because it does display an attitude that I was not expecting. That is all Im saying. The rest of my posts in this thread has been me fending off various personal attacks from various fanbois.

[ February 09, 2003, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: Leutnant Hortlund ]

[Wildass69]

<Read><Read><Read><Read><Read><Read><Read><Read><Read><Read><Read><Read><Read><Read><Read><Read><Read><Read><Read><Read><Read><Read><Read><Read><Read><Read><Read><Read><Read><Read>......

wheW! I'm exhausted! Now I remember why I don't come here much. Finally we get down to looking up common language in the dictionary!

Let's look up another word.... French I believe...

Grognard! Grumbler. LROFLMAO!!!

I went through as much of this string as I could stand in hopes there might be some hint as to what the new Engine might pertain to in way of theaters/fronts - as in Desert Warfare (hope hope hope...) Or maybe early Europe like Poland. I love to invade Poland....

Not demands at all, BFC. When I get to be better at this than you are I will publish my own games rather than rag on you about your superb efforts. Frankly, you have hit all the right nails on the head so I won't even be trying to make my own game. (Get the hint Grognards?)

And moreover I couldn't care less about IS-3s and T-44s - They equate to FANTACY as far as I'm concerned and I don't play fantacy. I don't even play the "fictional battles" because I'm an historian (and sometimes an histarian). I would dare say MOST of us couldn't care less about IS-3s and T-44s.

Anyway after reading all this ....

Couldn't you drop a hint as to what area the new Engine/Game will be the subject of?

And thanks for the right kind of effort on the first two games!!!

[Battlefront.com]

Lt. Hortlund,

I can say for sure you wouldn't last a year at any level of project management authority, game or otherwise, with an attitude like that. You would either quite out of disgust, get fired, or off yourself because the world is so imperfect.

I have stated to you that CMBB will NEVER EVER be "finished" using an idiotically blind definition. We knew this before we ever started working on the game. We don't have horsed cavalry, for example, or every single possible infantry formation ever fielded. We don't have exotic small arms, we don't have every defensive position possible. We don't have support for graphics which are geographically correct for every battle area on the Eastern Front (like Hungarian architecture vs. Stalingrad stuff). There is also no support for tons of game features that would increase realism, like Relative Spotting, multi-multi player, etc.

In short... if you want to draw a hard line to determine if CMBB is "finished" or not, why draw it in the most ridiculously superficial area? Are you superficial yourself? I am getting the distinct feeling that you are.

Tell you what... I'll have Charles send you a special EXE that does not have any incorrect models in it. Will that make you happy? Will you consider the game "finished" and forever sing our praise for delivering on your unreasonable expectations?

Of course, said version will be short a couple of vehicles and guns, but since you want the thing to be "finished", what basis would you have to complain?

Steve

P.S. When reasonable people disagree with completely unreasonable ones, that does not make them "famboyz". It simply means they have something postitive to contribute instead of pointless whining.

[Nolloff]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

.... The rest of my posts in this thread has been me fending off various personal attacks from various fanbois.

Yeah, the rabid attack of the mad fanbois and your heroic stand for reason, justice, free speech and customer dissatisfaction. A day to remember!

Nolloff

[Sgt. Beavis]

Originally posted by Andreas:

But we are getting somewhere - now, does the fact that the SPW 251/17 is represented by the 251/1 diminish BFC's claim that CMBB is the most realistic wargame out there? I don't think it does - hence, IMO your expectation that all these models would be added in patches is unreasonable, based on nothing but muddled thinking on your part, and your inability to accept this makes you a whinger.

I think he is saying that he would like a bit more detail, concerning the halftrack models. To be honest, I agree with him. I'd rather wait 2 weeks more for CM2, which is 2 years away...approximately... and have correct graphical representations for the various models that still need them. Is this a huge issue? Nah, but it sure would be nice to see halftracks, which were fairly common, modeled correctly (modeled in this case referring to the graphics).

You don't think this matters, so you consider Hortlund's statements are "whining," and that he is misguided. Well, I think you're misguided. So who is correct? I think I am correct, along with Hortlund. Doesn't prove anything, of course, and neither does your statement that he is "whining" and he's wrong. You claim the use of the spw 251/1 model for the spw 251/17 doesn't take anything away from "reality," but Hortlund and I think it does. Not a huge amount, it certainly doesn't make me depressed or anything. But to say that he is misguided and that you are most certainly correct is a wee bit arrogant. Especially since what he and I agree on is actually true. Using the 251/1 model for the 251/17 is not accurate or, dare I say, realistic.

I understand the reasoning of BTS about this, and I certainly do approve of how they've done CMBB and the amount of effort put into this product. But I also think that spending a couple more weeks to add in the last 3d models would be nice, particularly the halftrack variants. I mean...they weren't exactly rare. Maybe it wasn't explicitly stated by BTS that "every single vechicle will have a proper 3d model," but I certainly went with the assumption that they all would have the appropriate graphics. I think Hortlund did too, and that is why he feels disappointed now. I do to some degree as well.

Is this nitpicking? Could be considered that way, for lots of you on here it seems to be thought of that way. For him and I though, it is worth talking about.

[Battlefront.com]

Lt. Hortlund,

I respect that. I am also of the same opinion that the game, just like every other game there is, can be improved. But if you really want a bulletin board where people vent their views and opinions on the game, you should lay off the fanboi mentality. A forum without healthy dissent or where the community tolerates no criticism is a dead forum.

I agree. But pointless, unreasonable, and completely unfair feedback has no value what so ever. It is "whining" or, more impolitely, "bitching". Such behavior is indeed worthy of being smacked down. It actually DISTRACTS from positive discussions about how the game can be improved. Therefore, it is harmful to the central purpose of having this BBS in the first place. And although sometimes there is gray area about what is valuless complaining and legit criticism, in your case it is absolutely not in the gray area. You are just bitching and insulting. Nothing positive can possible come from your postings, and therefore they have no value what so ever.

You are only diminishing your value to this BBS in the process because people, including myself, will take future postings of yours less seriously. Like the boy who cried wolf, people who strongly argue for the unarguable are listened to far less closely in the future. And if they keep it up, are ignored completely.

Steve

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Are you superficial yourself? I am getting the distinct feeling that you are.

Personally I'm getting the feeling that you dont know me at all.

As for the rest of your post, I've already said that I've accepted your desicion. That does not mean I have to agree with it.

[Battlefront.com]

Sgt. Beavis

Nah, but it sure would be nice to see halftracks, which were fairly common, modeled correctly (modeled in this case referring to the graphics).

Then you should be happy to note that this is already the case. The HTs which are not correctly modeled in 3D are not common ones. In fact, we could easily justify not including them at all. It isn't like we have a M3 HT representing the 251/1. In fact, we have both the older (alt) and newer (neu) versions of the most common German HTs. So the argument that we have not acheived a reasonable level of graphical representation simply isn't accurate.

You don't think this matters, so you consider Hortlund's statements are "whining," and that he is misguided. Well, I think you're misguided.

Respectfully, you are misguided here. Hortlund is not just saying that he thinks we should finish all the models. He is saying we should risk our financial health to do so. But worse, he has stated quite clearly that he feels we have released a "half finished" game. This is as stupid as insulting of him to say. See my previous comments about how he is marginalizing his worth on this BBS by being so completely out of touch with The Big Picture.

Especially since what he and I agree on is actually true. Using the 251/1 model for the 251/17 is not accurate or, dare I say, realistic.

The alternative was to not include it at all. Which is better from a game standpoint? To have an ultra rare vehicle correctly simulated but not correctly represented graphically, or to not have it at all?

I understand the reasoning of BTS about this, and I certainly do approve of how they've done CMBB and the amount of effort put into this product. But I also think that spending a couple more weeks to add in the last 3d models would be nice, particularly the halftrack variants.

What you forget that is if we spent a "couple of weeks" to add your pet peeve, then why shouldn't we spend "a couple of weeks" to add someone else's? This is what we are faced with. You have the luxury of being able to draw distinct lines and make them into demands. You can do this because you don't have to actually do them. There is another thread where someone demanded that we get rid of the extra PBEM file swap. We think that would take at least 2 months. Add that to your 1 month for vehicle models and we have 3 months to do just "two" things. Do you have any idea how many other threads there are that would add time to this?

If we tried to do everything people here have asked/demanded/whined about we would still be working on CMBO. I can not help it if some people can not grasp that time and resources are limited, or the concept of "something for nothing" doesn't exist in software development.

Steve

P.S. Hortlund said that we didn't "suffer" because of the 6 months extra we spent on CMBO. Just because you don't see obvious signs of "pain" doesn't mean they didn't happen. I could prove that Hortlund doesn't have a friggin clue how much those 6 months really hurt us internally, but I don't need to prove what he obviously has ZERO clue about.

[Battlefront.com]

Hortlund,

Personally I'm getting the feeling that you dont know me at all.

I can assure you that I know you a LOT better than you know me. Your woefully ignorant and incorrect statements over the last 3 pages leave no doubt about that. I wonder how "painless" not being paid squat for 6 months while working 80 hour weeks is for you.

As for the rest of your post, I've already said that I've accepted your desicion. That does not mean I have to agree with it.

No, it is not that you do not agree with it that bothers me. It is that you obviously do not respect us for making a decision that we are perfectly entitled to make. On top of that you have zero perspective on how your pet peeve fits in with the game as a whole. In other words, you are a whiner not someone who just disagrees with something we did. Disagreement is fine with us. It sits well, no problem. Bitching and whining, while at the same time insulting and degrading our work, never sits well with us.

I ask you to please snap your CD in half and send back the "half finished" game you purchased. I'll double my offer and refund you 2x the price you paid and send you two copies of GI Combat. If you don't take me up on the offer I can only assume that deep down you understand how completely off base your posts are.

Steve

[Hortlund]

I can assure you that I know you a LOT better than you know me. Your woefully ignorant and incorrect statements over the last 3 pages leave no doubt about that. I wonder how "painless" not being paid squat for 6 months while working 80 hour weeks is for you.

Been there done that. Before I started working as a lawyer I was working for a company salvaging cargo from various sunken ships. Treasurehunting if you will. The only reason I got out of that business was because my gf got pregnant and I needed a more stable income. As you can imagine, the wreck salvaging business is not exactly where you recieve your paycheck regularily every month. (Just out of curiosity, was this in line with your "image" of me and my superficial tendencies?)

No, it is not that you do not agree with it that bothers me. It is that you obviously do not respect us for making a decision that we are perfectly entitled to make. On top of that you have zero perspective on how your pet peeve fits in with the game as a whole. In other words, you are a whiner not someone who just disagrees with something we did. Disagreement is fine with us. It sits well, no problem. Bitching and whining, while at the same time insulting and degrading our work, never sits well with us.

What kind of respect are you looking for here exactly? If I'm saying that I accept your desicion, but I disagree with it, that is not enough apparently. Where is the bitching from me? You will see two posts in this thread from me directed to you. One where Im asking if I understood you correctly, the other where Im saying that I was not expecting that kind of desicion from you. Which I wasnt.

[ February 09, 2003, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: Leutnant Hortlund ]

[Belaja smert]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The previous post

Being one that is working 24/7 in software industry, I have to admit I'm with BFC. Nothing is ever *perfect*, when talking about software, that is a contradiction in terms.

Should there have been more tweaks and updates and 3D-models? Sure, but not if those would mean future delays. The way I see it, CMBB is the most accurate and fun-to-play simulation to date.

The only wish I have concerning the CM2, is _completely_ moddable units, if only for the public's sake. It should be *relatively* easy to accommodate these changes in the future engíne. I mean moddable graphics, values and specific characteristics.

BTW Hortlund is using the word "fanboy" in an offensive manner, not one to encourage discussion, not to mention debate. Labeling your opponent is a cheap way to secure "victory" in debate.

[Battlefront.com]

Folks...

I want to make sure everybody understand our position on people's reaction to the incomplete model list. Here is what we consider to be an acceptable, reasonable, and respectful position to hear from a customer:

"Gee, that kinda stinks. I was really hoping to see things like the IS-3 represented graphically correct. They are super cool and, even though they never saw combat, would have been neat to see. And same for other rare/obscure vehicles. However, this doesn't negate all the fantastic value I find in the game. Disapointed to not have the last 1%? Sure, but I'll manage to live "

That is opposed to:

"You guys have let us down. Totally unacceptable to not have a 251/17 graphically represented in the game. I mean, I didn't pay for a 1/2 finished game! Your business model is all screwed up if it allows such incomplete stuff to be released. You always said you would never release something so woefully incomplete as this. I mean, what were you thinking?!? I don't care a flying fig about realtiy or your abilities as a development house to produce the biggest, most feature complete and innovative wargame in the world. If I don't get my obscure halftrack models I think you guys let us down."

That is what we don't like to see. Not only is this unreasonable and insulting, but we absolutely do not deserve to be treated like this by anybody. Especially when there are NO games which come even close to offering people the value we have given them for $45. Ungreatful customers are not valuable customers.

Steve

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Sgt. Beavis:

You claim the use of the spw 251/1 model for the spw 251/17 doesn't take anything away from "reality," but Hortlund and I think it does.

I think it does too. Sorry Sgt. Beavis, but what you think I said is emphatically not what I was saying. What I say is that whether the SPW 251/17 is represented by a PSW251/1, does not affect BFC's claim that CMBB is the most realistic wargame out there (I may paraphrase). Please show me a game that does simulate tactical WW2 combat more realistically if you have any issues with that statement.

Of course it is not 'realistic' to portray the SPW251/17 with anything else but a model of the SPW251/17 - it would be idiotic to say otherwise. Thing is - BFC never claimed for CMBB to be 100% realistic, and they never said they would add all of the models.

[Battlefront.com]

Hortlund,

Been there done that.

So why do you casually dismiss the impact of endless development on a single game to make the .01% customer base happy until they figure out something else to complain about?

(Just out of curiosity, was this in line with your "image" of me and my superficial tendencies?)

Because time and time again in this thread you have refused to put your graphical (i.e. eye candy) demands into perspective of the whole. And when called on this you dodge the issue. You aren't in threads demanding that we stop all future work until we do something like getting rid of an extra PBEM swap or institue Relative Spotting. Instead you are here complaining about not getting obscure HT 3D models that rightly could have been left out of the game.

What kind of respect are you looking for here exactly?

I do not require you respect, but I do require you to not show overt disrespect. And that is what you are doing here.

If I'm saying that I accept your desicion, but I disagree with it, that is not enough apparently. Where is the bitching from me?

Because you can not see the forest through the trees. When real world issues were brought up, you dismissed them as irrelevent. You also got into war of words, literally, about what the word "finished" really means. How petty do you have to be to see yourself as such?

You will see two posts in this thread from me directed to you. One where Im asking if I understood you correctly, the other where Im saying that I was not expecting that kind of desicion from you. Which I wasnt.

When you go after the game, the process of making it, or how we communicate with our customers... addressed to me directly or not, you are addressing it to me as the lead rep of Battlefront.

Steve

[Mr Byte]

I would just like to say two things

1.re the missing models

"Gee, that kinda stinks. I was really hoping to see things like the IS-3 represented graphically correct. They are super cool and, even though they never saw combat, would have been neat to see. And same for other rare/obscure vehicles. However, this doesn't negate all the fantastic value I find in the game. Disapointed to not have the last 1%? Sure, but I'll manage to live "

and ....

2. I think we should bring this deadend thread to a close now, all go and have a long cool beer and think of naked women

cus its starting to get ugly and this forum dosn't usually get like that.

and NO one is looking good.....not that they should look good or that was the point of all this

ok i'm going before Steve turns up in the middle of the night and puts a bat down my pants

love and peace

[Priest]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

The difference for CM2 is pretty irrellevant IMO, I mean if CM2 arrives Q3 2004 or Q4 2004 doesnt really matter that much, it would have been better if BFC had decided to get CMBB "done" before moving on.

My guess is that the difference is thousands of dollars and the company's chance at success. Just a guess though.

[jeffsmith]

My Comment to those who think

BFC has made a product

that is "Significantly Flawed" in any way

Go Make your Own WWII Tactical WarGame,

Make it Better than the Combat Mission series

Market it so it outsells BFC products

Provide Better Customer Service

Then feel Free to return to the Forum

with criticism on how BFC has failed

I seem to recall one person who made the attempt

[S.Sgt. Havilandt]

The way the vehicles are modeled doesn't bother me in the least. But I am one of those guys that plays from view 4 or 5. . .

[Wildass69]

LOL...

(Shakes head and walks away)

I have 50 bucks here for the next version of Combat Mission - whatever it is - unless it's in the Pacific!

All your Sabre Rattling did very little for a bunch of us!

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

So why do you casually dismiss the impact of endless development on a single game to make the .01% customer base happy until they figure out something else to complain about?

I was looking at the question from the customer viewpoint. I have no idea about your business model, and I have no idea what kind of marginals you have. From my perspective, as a customer, I would rather wait 3 more months for CM2 if that would mean all of the models were made for CMBB. What such a delay would mean for you as a company, I have no idea whatsoever.

Because time and time again in this thread you have refused to put your graphical (i.e. eye candy) demands into perspective of the whole. And when called on this you dodge the issue. You aren't in threads demanding that we stop all future work until we do something like getting rid of an extra PBEM swap or institue Relative Spotting. Instead you are here complaining about not getting obscure HT 3D models that rightly could have been left out of the game.

You are of cource completely correct, eye candy is just that, eye candy. Like many others here, I "grew up" playing SL and ASL, and CMBB is the wet dream of every SL-Cross of Iron player. It is just a little detail, it is less than 1% of game value. But that doesnt mean I would not want to see it included.

I do not require you respect, but I do require you to not show overt disrespect. And that is what you are doing here.

Disrespect? I honestly do not understand this. I am playing your creation at least one hour every day. I think this is the best ww2 tactical wargame ever made. I have no idea how many hours I've spent infront of the computer playing CMBO and CMBB, I do know that my marriage ended because of it though. I thought that the respect was understood already. I mean if I didnt love the game, why would I be here posting at all? You wont find me at the GI Combat forums if I put it that way.

Because you can not see the forest through the trees. When real world issues were brought up, you dismissed them as irrelevent. You also got into war of words, literally, about what the word "finished" really means. How petty do you have to be to see yourself as such?

I'm a lawyer, arguing, or "war of words" is what we do. I was of the impression that me and some other person I cannot remember the name of right now was not talking about the same thing even though we were using the same words. Real world issues are never irrelevant. I have been surprised to learn though, that your ambition for CMBB was not what I was expecting. True I was expecting perfection (in this case, all the models) but that is really the highest praise you can get. For example, another game I'm playing is Hearts of Iron, a game that is filled with bugs right now, in those forums you see people asking for stuff like "please remove the flying panzer divisions", here we are asking for that last 1%. That speaks volumes about your game.

When you go after the game, the process of making it, or how we communicate with our customers... addressed to me directly or not, you are addressing it to me as the lead rep of Battlefront.

I am not "after the game" as I have been trying to say here, I was looking for those models because I was expecting them, and I was looking forward to them.

As I have tried to say, I have no problem with buying games that arent finished. I bought Hearts of Iron even though that I knew it was bug ridden. Same with Uncommon Valor. What I meant when I said "I have no problem with buying games that are half finished" was not "CMBB is half finished". What I meant was, I am not looking for perfection in the out of the box version. But I am expecting regular patches until the game is done. I can see from your comments that you got the impression that I felt CMBB was half finished, I was talking about the new design philosophy in computer wargaming. Release a not finished product and patch it later.

[V]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Leutnant Hortlund ,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Uh...?

I just wanted to make sure I understand you correct. No new models for CMBB? There will never be a JS-3 that looks like a JS-3 etc?

Correct. We have been saying for months now that 1.02 is the last planned patch. If, for some strange reason, some new model is added in a 1.03 patch it will certainly not be the IS-3. This thing really shouldn't even be in the game, and as long as there are vehicles that rightly are in the game which don't have correct models, such things as the IS-3 and T-44 will not be put ahead of them.

Of course, this is accademic because we are moving on to do the new engine now full bore. We could be endlessly distracted by CMBB enhancements, so time to cut the cord. We spent WAY too long futzing around with CMBO and have learned from that (it delayed CMBB by at least 6 months).

Steve </font>

[Battlefront.com]

Hortlund,

For example, another game I'm playing is Hearts of Iron, a game that is filled with bugs right now, in those forums you see people asking for stuff like "please remove the flying panzer divisions", here we are asking for that last 1%. That speaks volumes about your game.

Well, here it is in a nutshell. If you are complaining this strongly about a 1% "failing", I shudder to see what you would unload on the Hearts of Iron guys.

My point directed towards you is to keep things in perspective. I don't think you have done this, or at least have not done so consistantly. The fact that you are a lawyer was not known to me before, but it comes as no surprise. Lawyers are funny in their own annoying way

I don't know where you got the impression that every single unit in the game would be accurately modeled in 3D. CMBO certainly didn't have that, and we released it when it was "finished" (less TCP/IP, which was added later). And as I have said before, if we were forced to make a decision between 100% accurate models and cutting out obscure stuff, we would have cut out obscure stuff. But I think most people like the choice we made.

Now, can we just drop it? Your point has been painfully presented ad nausium. We "get it" that you wanted 100% modeling. We "get it" that you are disapointed by it. Now you have to "get it" that it isn't going to change and that it is a terribly minor "flaw". Think of how much gametime you have lost arguing over something that is irrelevant? I thought lawyers only took on lost legal cases if they think they become either rich or infamous through them (exception: Public Defender, who's job it is more often than not to defend the undefendable) .

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by jeffsmith:

My Comment to those who think

BFC has made a product

that is "Significantly Flawed" in any way

Go Make your Own WWII Tactical WarGame,

Make it Better than the Combat Mission series

Market it so it outsells BFC products

Provide Better Customer Service

Then feel Free to return to the Forum

with criticism on how BFC has failed

I seem to recall one person who made the attempt

Heehee - is that the guy who's game is on sale in the bargain bin for 10 bucks (and wasn't that actually before the initial European release?).

Hey, Hortlund, why dontcha sue Battlefront? Cause, you know, they owe ya that 1 percent and all.