Even more ranting in praise of the Cold War for CMX2 :)

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Tarkus:

About the QB generator, one thing that people seems to like a lot is to be able to control all parameters of a battle. Somehow the exact opposite thrill of a man made scenario, but useful for competitive play.

Basically, yes. For me, picking my units is one of the most interesting parts of the game.

I think I've played exactly one pre-made scenario.

For people like me the QB generator is Combat Mission.

[Michael Emrys]

Clarification: I did not say that I did not like nor use the QB generator, I said that I never used the random generator. I never have trusted it not to give me battles that I would find uninteresting or just too absurd.

Michael

[Kellysheroes]

I like the absurd battles. Letting the computer pick the place, time, units, everything has led to some wonderful games against the AI. The absurd ones are when it gets crack troups and everything I have are green. Those are some damn tough battles and fun as heck trying to win one especially with the handicap I give to the ai.

And yes, I see some people must have "exact wording" when I say random I'm talking about Quick Battles setup with random everything. The best games I've ever played.

One thing to STEVE for the Quick Battles random setup, I'd like to see you add "random" to the handicap the AI gets as well. That way I won't even know the handicap level it gets at the start, could be zero could be 200% that would be kewl also to have that randomized. Also for the computer experience level of the AI, adding "random" there as well would be welcomed.

[ June 03, 2005, 09:13 AM: Message edited by: Kellysheroes ]

[jeffsmith]

Originally posted by Andreas:

The moment CMx2 appears I will shell out €6000 or so on a new rig (I am thinking high-end G5 with a nice 30" LCD screen), the only reason being that I want to play it in style. At the moment I still keep my five year old G4/400 around, just so that I can play CMBB/AK.

I let a proper economist figure out what that indicates about my 'Willingness to Pay' for CMx2, and how it affects the market clearing price.

I'm in this group as well

the only thing I use OS9 for is CM

when I see the system requirments

its off to my local Apple Re-seller

I wonder how much an uptick in Mac sales there will be

when the Mac CMers upgrade

[MikeyD]

I'm (still) torn on platform upgrades. I genuinely fear the PC and I'm getting more comfortable with running mac OSX at work, but it would be SOOOOO nice to have both CMx2 and that new T72:Balkans tank sim to play with. Decisions decisons.

From the extended discussion above it looks like a fair number of people are in danger of letting their fantasy of what the ultimate CM game 'should' look like get in the way of actually enjoying the next CM game! If we make a habit of letting our fantasies spoil our realities nobody would ever get married! ...except for maybe that congressman who married the actress who played Wonder Woman on TV.

[Pzman]

MikeyD... just get more used to OSX... for two years I said I'd never use it, now I just switch back to OS9x for CM and a few games that only run in an old version of Virtual PC. I'm not likely to go out and buy a new G5, sadly that is not in my price range at this time, so I'm hoping my upgraded G4 will hold out, if all I have to do is get a new graphics card that would be ducky.

[M1A1TC]

Well, I bought all 3 Combat Missions and I am happy with each one of them. I am Russian, M1A1 Abrams tank commander in the US Army, so these games are "right up my alley".I had no problem with CMBB, since I speak Russian, English and some German.

I have been promoting the games in my Army unit, and I know of atleast one person that bought CMAK because of me.

I can not wait till CM 2, whatever it might be. I am planning on buying it. I am hoping that someday there will be a modern scenario with modern technology. I can then promote it as a learning tool, a "virtual sandbox".

[hellfish]

I really don't have the time to read through the whole thread, as I'm at work and not chained to my desk, but here's my $0.02...

I'm tired of WWII games. Seriously... how many times can you fight in the Battle of the Bulge or on Normandy before you get worn out? I've taken Shermans against Panthers, Cromwells against Tigers for years now. I know exactly what'll happen if I take a platoon of M4s against a platoon of PzVs. I know how to assault buildings with an MG42 in support. I know the feeling of exquisite glee when your M5 light tank kills a Tiger with a totally lucky shot to the rear.

I'd really like a game that lets me do something else. I don't care if it's Pakistani M48s against Indian Centurions, Israeli AMX-13s against Egyptian T-34s or Soviet T80s against American M60A3s. Just please... let me fight another war.

[Battlefront.com]

Regarding sales of each title... we probably did better than most. Standard rule of thumb in the game business is each sequel (same engine) sells half as much as the one before it. 1000 goes to 500, 500 goes to 250, 250 goes to 175, etc. Sequels with new engines are entirely different beasts.

Dale, I think I missed your earlier post but our stratey is not like Avalon Hill's SL/ASL strategy in some respects. You need a base game and can purchase modules that are of interest to you. That is similar to SL/ASL. The difference is that the modules will be priced according to how much gameplay is offered and what expenses we had to go through to make it happen. For example, if we released an Italian Module for the Eastern Front, there would not be that much too it and therefore it would be priced pretty low. Of course, such a module would likely be a poor seller so we wouldn't do it in the first place, but it does illustrate how we think about this.

As far as I am concerned Random Battle Generator is just another name for Quick Battles.

Steve

[Agua]

Originally posted by Kellysheroes:

And yes, I see some people must have "exact wording" when I say random I'm talking about Quick Battles setup with random everything. The best games I've ever played.

Personally, I wouldn't go as far as "best I've ever played", but I definitely enjoyed random everything QBs; having to "make do" with whatever units you were provided is quite a challenge.

[Battlefront.com]

Just please... let me fight another war

We feel the same way. 9 years of doing nothing but WWII was OK, but 9 more is out of the question. The new engine allows us to do both WWII and other stuff, so everybody should be happy. Especially us

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

I really don't have the time to read through the whole thread, as I'm at work and not chained to my desk, but here's my $0.02...

I'm tired of WWII games. Seriously... how many times can you fight in the Battle of the Bulge or on Normandy before you get worn out? I've taken Shermans against Panthers, Cromwells against Tigers for years now. I know exactly what'll happen if I take a platoon of M4s against a platoon of PzVs. I know how to assault buildings with an MG42 in support. I know the feeling of exquisite glee when your M5 light tank kills a Tiger with a totally lucky shot to the rear.

How many times? Until it's been done extremely well. To date it hasn't.

[M1A1TC]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Just please... let me fight another war

We feel the same way. 9 years of doing nothing but WWII was OK, but 9 more is out of the question. The new engine allows us to do both WWII and other stuff, so everybody should be happy. Especially us

Steve </font>

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Just please... let me fight another war

We feel the same way. 9 years of doing nothing but WWII was OK, but 9 more is out of the question. The new engine allows us to do both WWII and other stuff, so everybody should be happy. Especially us

Steve </font>

[junk2drive]

Random MAP generator is what I think people are confusing with the word random.

Random battles "QB" with player made maps vs QB with "random generated map"

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Just to reinforce what some others have said.

It is hugely important that BFC start to make real, serious money or one day Steve and Charles will jump ship… and that would be a very bad news. The end of civilisation as I have come to know it… really…

As I never tire of telling my wargame chums there is CM, and there is nothing else. Five years after CMBO was released. One of my favourite sayings is that “no one has a monopoly on genius”. I was wrong .

Ok…there must be other groups out there that "could" also produce quality wargames. But the fact that no one has, to the standard of CM, means it is both very challenging and not that financially rewarding relative to the skills and effort required. So if BFC have come up with a strategy for making more money, this is a very good thing .

Of course, it is easy for me to say all this as the bones thrown by Steve are all adding up to the type of CMX2 I was hoping for.

On the subject of the scope of each title I can not see how CMX2 could both have a hugely improved graphics engine; terrain, men and vehicles all modelled in far greater detail, “and” still cover an entire front in each release. Even in the enlarged niche they are aiming at, they could never justify the man hours.

All the best,

Kip.

PS. When I say no one else has produced a quality wargame to CM standards, MadMinute Games with Civil War Bull Run deserve an honourable mention… it models smoothbore combat stunningly.

PPS. Just to show how people differ… I do not even know how to use the Quick Battle generator works… have no interest in it… game maps based topographical maps, plus realistic scenarios is all I play. Hence my questions on editing, the answers to which have put me at ease .

[hellfish]

Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Just please... let me fight another war

We feel the same way. 9 years of doing nothing but WWII was OK, but 9 more is out of the question. The new engine allows us to do both WWII and other stuff, so everybody should be happy. Especially us

Steve </font>

[Tarkus]

Eh, I don't know about you guys, but after reading this thread, I REALLY wonder what will be the intial theater/era BFC pick for their first title.

The mystery grows thicker by the post now. Seems to me it can be just about anything...

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Dale, I think I missed your earlier post but our stratey is not like Avalon Hill's SL/ASL strategy in some respects. You need a base game and can purchase modules that are of interest to you. That is similar to SL/ASL. The difference is that the modules will be priced according to how much gameplay is offered and what expenses we had to go through to make it happen. For example, if we released an Italian Module for the Eastern Front, there would not be that much too it and therefore it would be priced pretty low. Of course, such a module would likely be a poor seller so we wouldn't do it in the first place, but it does illustrate how we think about this.

Ahh okay. I was thinking in generalities too - not specifics like pricing. And certainly not ASL's release timeline!

So let me confuse things by asking another question relating to an old game that half of us have never heard of.

Back when 360 and Atomic were releasing the V4V series, we got 4 games in relative quick succession - Utah Beach, Market Garden, Velikiye Luki, and Gold, Juno, Sword. Eventually (I think it was GJS) all of them got pulled into a master menu whereby I start GJS and can choose which battleset, etc. They are not cross-functional, they are just different games with almost-identical engines accessible through a master menu.

If you can/will answer these -

1) Is that the kind of connectivity you are aiming for with CMx2 modules - separate games and master menu?

2) Is that the kind of "breadth" you are aiming for with CMx2 modules - bigger than "St. Lo" but smaller than "Normandy 1944"?

Thanks!

-dale

[Kellysheroes]

Maybe the first module will be the land battle for Guadacanal, now I could go for that. They never did any Pacific War stuff, so even though still WWII it would be a totally new theater of operation. Yes, my vote goes to Guadacanal. Who's with me? heh

[Battlefront.com]

I can state that we have an unofficial list of our Top 5 subject matter for CMx2. As I've stated pretty clearly, not all are WWII I'll at least go so far as to say that contemporary (i.e. current/near future) combat is on there as well as Space Lobsters. And no... I am NOT kidding about the latter Sure, it might be called something different, and there might not be any lobsters in it, but it will be good none-the-less I've trotted out lists of other possible game settings in recent days, so there is even more food for though there (things like D&D, US Civil War, Ancient, etc.). The cool thing about the new engine is we don't have to worry about what we can't do.

Having said all that... I do agree with Dorosh that as long as there is significant innovation, there is always room for more WWII games. As good as CMx1 is, and as supierior as it is compared to the others before it, we can do better. And will We're just not going to dedicate 9 more years of our lives to doing it to the exclusion of all other things.

Kip, it isn't so much about the money as it is the creative burnout and frustration levels. If someone offered us a boatload of money to spend the next 9 years doing nothing by WWII we wouldn't likely sign on the dotted line (OK, if it was a billion Dollars... maybe ). We'd rather make less money and have more creative outlets. Fortunately we feel that our strategy will not only give us mental and creative relief from WWII, but it will also net us more money (or at least not less). And we'll STILL do some WWII stuff in the mix, while at the same time releasing games much faster. It really is a win-win situation for everybody.

Dale, the way I picture it when you get a Module you'll never know you even have it. What I mean is when you boot up the game instead of seeing only the Americans to choose form you might now see Canadians and Brits. A look at the scenario list shows more "stock" choices than what came with the original game. In other words, it will feel just like CMBO does now.

And yes, bigger than St. Lo, smaller than all of Normandy 1944 is probably right. You might be able to play all of Normandy 1944 from one perspective, just not from all. We'll just have to see since we haven't made any firm plans about this yet.

Again, the deciding factor will be overall gameplay. And to judge that we need the game pretty much done. That's when we'll know how important qunaity is.

Remember that some of the best games out there, the ones we've played and loved the longest, lack significant features and yet are still fondly thought of. My personal top wargame of all time is Grigsby's War in Russia, as played on my Atari 800. The game was a 64 bit game with no sound, no graphics worth mentioning, no editor, only 3 or 4 scenarios, no TCP or LAN play, and certainly no "random" battle generator. Yet even though I paid $80 for it (yes kids, that is how much your elders used to pay for computer games!) I got 10 times my money's worth out of it.

My point is that gameplay is the deciding factor as to what the value of a game is. Sometimes the gameplay comes from breadth, sometimes depth, and rarely both. I say rarely because few games are both broad and deep to start with, even fewer of them are any good. So when I hear comments about how the game will suck if it doesn't have x, y, or z I can't help but conclude that such comments aren't meaningful to us. Not yet, anyway. AFTER we release a game if we get that sort of feedback then we'll know we screwed up

Steve

[dalem]

Haha! I am still SO inside your head, Steve!

Seriously, I think I see what you mean about the intended style of overarching interface.

And yes, I still play the V4V games myself, as "featureless" as they may seem these days. A great game is a great game forever.

-dale

[Michael Dorosh]

Well, I hope you well be getting even more input from "the community" when it comes to the smaller modules. Perhaps the way scenario designers are doing battles and ops now, they can be bringing their talents to modules? Like if Kingfish reads up on TOTALIZE and then provides the OOB, maps, etc. for a TOTALIZE module - which would include historical OOB, what ifs, historical maps, perhaps a CD-ROM section with historical photos and after action reports, etc.?

I'd love to work on something like that for SCHELDT FORTRESS NORTH basically 2nd Canadian Infantry Div vs. KG Chill and a couple German Inf Divs. Get one or two designers doing the maps from original wartime maps (I've been researching the South Beveland area and our regimental museum has maps for the entire are 2 Cdn Div fought over from 1 October 1944 to 1 November 1944), work out historical OOB, air and naval assets, etc. Release it as a "module" - interested designers could do a lot with a simple map and force editor - though again, you'd have to guage what the market will bear.

You're suggesting, Steve, the core game would enable module developers to do this kind of thing, yes? Just plug in actual terrain maps, variables for campaign type data (reinforcements, support, weather), and of course unit specific data (including 3D models and etc. which would be hard coded) and away you go?

[ June 03, 2005, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Kellysheroes:

In essence we'll still be getting the same "value" for our $$ in cost, but, we probably won't get the "longevity" of each game like we did CMBO/CMBB/CMAK that's the kicker and that is what will turn some consumers off to the new idea of module based games vs full theater of operations and all those vehicles, infantry, etc. etc. all in one package.

Actually, if I understood the module concept, they add on to the existing game. So, new module comes out, I don't though the old one in the drawer, I keep playing with additonal capabilities.

Just in case I misunderstood Steve, here's my take on what he's said...

There's The Engine - the underpinings of everything

There's The Game - Era specific... WW2, Cold War, Space Lobsters, whaterever

There's The Module - Narrow focus addons to The Game. Normandy, Battle of the Bulge, Austerlitz, whatever.

So, we get a game with vastly more play options followed by modules that extend the unit possibilities.

I really don't see what all the whining's aboot

[Pzman]

Other than having to buy the upgrades every 6 months, nothing really.