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

[Ardem]

Originally posted by dalem:

Sounds to me a little like the ASL run.

ASL rulebook released with Beyond Valor - gave us the basic rules and 90% of what we needed to fight the Germans against the Russians. Then a series of modules that each added some rules or refined extant rules while bringing us a new "front", time period, and/or participant.

Seems familiar, seems reasonable, seems yummy.

-dale

Yup also a ASL graduate, but atleast with ASL you were able to mix and match maps and OOB equipment and rule sets, do you think you can do it with this range, to me it sounds too much like the Battleground Series PC Game, where you you got new modules of the same engine with OOB but they were all autonomous. Meaning no switching and matching OOB. The series lasted about 3 games worth then someone else filled the role better with a bigger OOB.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Ardem:

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

Sounds to me a little like the ASL run.

ASL rulebook released with Beyond Valor - gave us the basic rules and 90% of what we needed to fight the Germans against the Russians. Then a series of modules that each added some rules or refined extant rules while bringing us a new "front", time period, and/or participant.

Seems familiar, seems reasonable, seems yummy.

-dale

Yup also a ASL graduate, but atleast with ASL you were able to mix and match maps and OOB equipment and rule sets, do you think you can do it with this range, to me it sounds too much like the Battleground Series PC Game, where you you got new modules of the same engine with OOB but they were all autonomous. Meaning no switching and matching OOB. The series lasted about 3 games worth then someone else filled the role better with a bigger OOB. </font>

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Ardem:

One thing I hate is lack of customisation, we have a great community of modders and scenario developer. If BF wish to hamstring them to get more bang for buck and narrow the ability for unti selection or creation of unique ways of playing CM, then it won't be long till another company out there fills the gap.

Like they could have done at any point in the last 5 years?

There are lots of FPS games out there - they need such total conversions to give them an edge.

[jacobs_ladder2]

Originally posted by Ardem:

PS Pacific War will suck, like all other pacific war games.

Have you played Uncommon Valor or War in the Pacific from Matrix Games?

[Battlefront.com]

flamingknives wrote:

There are lots of FPS games out there - they need such total conversions to give them an edge.

That's our opinion too. Mods are necessary for those games to have any sort of staying power. For CMx1 Mods were a wonderful way to enhance an experience that was already good enough to stand on its own for a long time. If CMx1 were not modable at all people would still have bought it for sure. I think the same can be said for the leading FPS games out there too, but as soon as the next FPS came along they would jump to it.

BTW, we're now 8 years out from starting CMx1, and there is still nothing that compares to it. The latest crop of WWII non-FPS games on deck show no signs of changing this at all. The likely best of the bunch is certainly RPS geared compared to CMx1.

Now, as for "completeness"... I know how you guys feel. I *love* playing as the Romanians or Hungarians... but I also know I am very much in the minority. Will we ever ship a module type program that supports these minor countries? I hope so, but I really can't say for sure. We'll just have to see how things go.

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

Steve,

Has BFC considered a subscription approach to game design allocation? I think this question has been raised before but I don't recall an official response.

What I am talking about is that BFC would propose a game or a module of an existing game that they know is within their capabilities and would promise to make it if a certain level of buyer response is forthcoming, i.e., front some cash. If enough players respond to give an indication that there is enough interest to make it an economically viable project, the checks (figuratively speaking) are deposited and work proceeds. The assumption is that for every person who is willing to put some money up front, there will likely be several buyers who come on board after the game hits the market. This approach not only gives BFC a little working capital while a game/module is in the works, but also allows it to gauge buyer interest and make a rough guess as to future sales. This is not to say that precise predictions are possible, but at least you'd not be totally shooting in the dark.

Michael

[Zimorodok]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Our first WWII ETO game might be just Normandy between Americans and Germans from this date to that date. You get it into your hands after only 12 months of development instead of 24. You have a blast with it... then 6 months later maybe there is a "module" that is released that offers something different... like Commonwealth in Normandy from this date to that date. Price is lower than the full game, but the full game is required. The "module" can be done by an auxillarly development team which allows us to keep going forward on the next title.

Maybe this is obvious, but would these "modules"

interact with each other? Would we, after buying the Commonwealth module, be able to play Brits and Yanks vs Fritzes or some such? Or would they be as separate as CMAK and CMBB, but running off of the same engine?

Zimorodok.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

This is not to say that precise predictions are possible, but at least you'd not be totally shooting in the dark.

I would wager this is next to worthless to make business decisions on.

[Michael Emrys]

Oh well, it was worth a try.

Michael

[Kellysheroes]

I vote going backwards instead of forwards to modern warfare or hypothetical cold war battles. I have no interest in it and thus wouldn't buy the product as I think the majority would follow suit an only a handful would really take interest and purchase it. It would be a loss in sales and profit for BG I believe.

Anything WWII and pre-WWII I would buy. It's the history I have studied and loved, so, that is what I expect BG to do. Make what is most known about and enjoyed most by the majority of wargamers.

WEEEEEE I just read NO COLD WAR in the top 5 games already selected for development. YAY, let's hear it for the BF developers for not doing something silly like a cold war game.

[ May 28, 2005, 06:58 AM: Message edited by: Kellysheroes ]

[Ardem]

Originally posted by jacobs_ladder2:

Have you played Uncommon Valor or War in the Pacific from Matrix Games?

I viewed both those games but just doesn't give me the excitement of say the eastern front. I should say suck for me. <smile>

Don't get me wrong, I love CMx1 to death I have all three products and been playing for some time. Agreed the the games did stand on there own but that was due more to the scope look at the community.

We got modders for enhancing graphics, we have scenario designers, we got meta campaign gamers and also tourneys to suit all different sytle of play.

I want to continue that experience with CMx2, I want it to be fantastic, I don't want for it to come out as another glossy candy wrapped package like so many other games on today market and die in 12 months time because we can only play 'battle of the buldge' (example) over and over again. I would like cmx2 to be able to continue the communities above to keep playing it long into the future.

I am concerned if we loose scope, we will loose some the communities mentioned above cause the ability to do any of these were lost.

Perhaps I am passionate about the CM series, but isn't that a good thing <smile>

[Pugilist]

Originally posted by Kellysheroes:

WEEEEEE I just read NO COLD WAR in the top 5 games already selected for development. YAY, let's hear it for the BF developers for not doing something silly like a cold war game.

Could you point me to where this was said? Thanks.

[Kellysheroes]

And what do we want to do? Well, we do want to make a whole range of cool games other than WWII. [unfortunately for Cold War aficionados, Cold War isn't on our Top 5 list. And since we don't have a list beyond the Top 5, Cold War is effectively not even on our radar screens. And even if it were #5, at roughly 8-12 months of development time per title... CW would be a long, long ways away even if we promised right here and now that it would be the 5th game of the series (which I am most certainly not promising ).] Quoted by STEVE Battlefront Admin

It's on page 6 of this thread if you want to oggle it yourself.

[Pugilist]

Thanks Kellysheroes, I thought I had read through the entire thread.

That said, a non-cold-war game always seemed obvious to me given BFs propensity to stick to history. In my mind one way to whittle down the statistical pool of potential top-5 titles is to only include historical wars/theaters. Removing cold-war-era wars and theaters still leaves you with a large number of marketable options, but far less than "anything".

For pure marketability, appeal, range, and depth, something modern and relatively recent seems the obvious choice in my mind.

[jacobs_ladder2]

Originally posted by Ardem:

Perhaps I am passionate about the CM series, but isn't that a good thing <smile>

It's a very good thing. I just thought that you had had bad luck in the games you have tried. War in the Pacific is definitely not for everyone. Damn good game though. Unbelievable, really.

Cheers

Paul

p.s. I agree. The CM community is hard to beat.

[mchlstrt]

I agree w/ kipanderson's point about the range of Mods being a concern, & I'm a Modder.

Having said that, the Modding, Scenario Design, etc. parts of this Community are very important in making it what it is. While that may not directly translate directly into big numbers for sales, it's an important 'Street Cred' factor. A direct effect of that indirect effect (!?) is me buying 4 copies of various CM iterations as gifts, & causing at least 5 more to be bought by others, leading to at least 3 people who are impressed enough to report 'passing it on' to still more folks. Plus whatever unreported effects my preaching has had. I'm sure I'm not unique in this.

Having good 'Word of Mouth' happening for you is becoming rarer & thereby more valuable in the current Marketing climate, & it would seem BF should do their best to protect & encourage it.

They've carved out a nice 'Quality' niche for themselves. They still have to make choices & compromises, but if they do it right they get to not do hack work, which is enviable. As to the 'Money Grubbing' side of these calculations, they should please make sure they grub enough to keep doing this.

IMO,FWIW,etc.

strt

[Battlefront.com]

We do have to be quite careful in the subject matter and scope we choose for each title. We want to make sure that you guys get something that is still fun to play by the time the next module or full title comes out. If we start out with an idea for the subject and scope that later on in development seems to be too narrow... then we'll widen it out a bit. But the days are gone when we'll release a game that people can play for 2-3 years without getting bored of it. Fortunately, with quicker release schedules the need for a game that has 36 months of playtime in it is made unnecessary.

As for the modules working with each other... yup, that is the thoght. Let's say you get a WWII ETO game that is limited to Battle of the Bulge, US vs. Germans (specific unit types). 6 months later we release a Normandy modlule that allows you to play US vs. Germans (specific unit types). The latter will simply add options to the game you already own, kinda like CMBO. Another module comes out that supports Commonwealth for both Normandy and Battle of the Bulge. Now it really is like CMBO. Yes, it took three releases to get it to that stage, but in the mean time other games have been released and others started.

Every development strategy has its tradeoffs. The CMx1 strategy was to make a "mother of all fronts" game and then move onto another front. Downsides to this were:

1. Looooooong waits inbetween titles

2. Modest improvements to the game engine (game stuff and graphics stuff)

3. No other CM type products for any other theater, time period, or what have you

4. Players not interested in a particular front had even longer wait times for a new game of interest

The new strategy fixes all three of four problems, but of course has its own tradeoffs:

1. More narrowly focused content per release

2. Less chance of a full "mother of all fronts" type game, even with modules

3. Need to reinvest in the game every 6 months or so when a new module comes out (if interested, otherwise it can be skipped).

These all seem to be reasonable tradeoffs for the new flexibility, game engine improvements, and general boradening of the CM community (i.e. not JUST WWII nuts ) that will be gained from it. Obviously we'll all have to see if the new strategy works the way we think it will. Great thing about being independent is that we can make adjustments without having to win a Publisher's OK:)

Steve

[ May 29, 2005, 07:01 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Ardem]

I do appreciate you direct involvement in this threat steve it would be very easy to turn away and ignore all that is being said.

If the three games interlink, then I be happy to purchase the all 3 titles.

But if they don't, like CMBO CMBB and CMAK are standalone games and you can't play US units against the russians, then I would be hestitant.

I be even happy to purchase 'unit packs' cause in effect thats what we are purchasing unit models. Hopefully we still have a full scenario editor to make our own maps or atleast an ability if we have to use 3D mapping programs.

As you say, these are to be modular releases that interlink awesome, it is not the money i am concerned with, it is the ability for each title to interlink, and the ability of scenario designers to continue the great work and fun. In itself that half the reason I purchased the CMx1 titles is scenario design.

[ May 29, 2005, 06:13 PM: Message edited by: Ardem ]

[kipanderson]

Steve,

It all sounds great to me… all I heard from your bones at he start of year, plus the latest on modules is spot on for my very strongly held hopes for CMX2

However, there is just one small-ish concern… the editing ability. You said there will not be editable operations, that is the new type of operations with what I would understand as “events”, conditional objectives and such. However, will there still be as much editing freedom in what we now know as battles?

One more question… well more lobbying than anything else .

My favourite way to play CMX1 is Static Operations. I am currently building operations in CMBB, and in CMAK using the new NWE mod for both Ardennes and Normandy. All from topographical maps. The reason I am such a fan is that, in my view, Static Operations very closely model real world “battles”.

In the real world, from all my reading, a typical battle of CM scope and scale will often have taken 2-6 hours, or even all day. Say for a medium size village on a 3km x 3km map. Within the 2-6 hour “battle” there would be two or three pushes/assaults separated by pauses of an hour or so. During the pauses casualties would be recovered, ammunition brought up and so on. Static Operations model this outstandingly… I am addicted .

Any chance at all that we will be able to simulate something along the same lines in CMX2? i.e. with pauses to bring up ammunition and recover to some degree between hour+ long assaults.

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[Brent Pollock]

How long will it be before we begin chanting, "Dutch Trucks Now! Dutch Trucks Now!"

Originally posted by dalem:

Sounds to me a little like the ASL run.

ASL rulebook released with Beyond Valor - gave us the basic rules and 90% of what we needed to fight the Germans against the Russians. Then a series of modules that each added some rules or refined extant rules while bringing us a new "front", time period, and/or participant.

Seems familiar, seems reasonable, seems yummy.

-dale

[kgsan]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

We do have to be quite careful in the subject matter and scope we choose for each title. We want to make sure that you guys get something that is still fun to play by the time the next module or full title comes out. If we start out with an idea for the subject and scope that later on in development seems to be too narrow... then we'll widen it out a bit.

. . .

As for the modules working with each other... yup, that is the thoght . . . .

Steve

Steve's comments are reassuring. My biggest concern with the module approach has been with them slicing the salami too thin. His previous reference to the possibly releasing a US v. Germany in Normandy game with a subsequent module coevring the Brits (which in all fairness may have been an off the top of the head, just to give us an idea, kind of illustration) did not sound very attractive to me. Like many of the other posters in this thread, I found one of the great things about CMx1 was its scope and almost endless replayability.

BFC has good reasons not to want to take such big bites again. A reluctance to tackle the whole east front again in one go, along with all the minors, certainly makes sense, but I hope they don't go too far the other extreme. Being stuck with Americans v. Germans at the Bulge for 6 to 8 months doesn't sound too alluring to this customer, even at a lower price; however, I'll trust BFC to find the sweet spot.

[ May 31, 2005, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: kgsan ]

[aka_tom_w]

" My biggest concern with the module approach has been with them slicing the salami too thin. " !! :eek:

YES

I am EQUALLY concerned!

WELL put:

"A reluctance to tackle the whole east front again in one go, along with all the minors, certainly makes sense, but I hope they don't go too far the other extreme. Being stuck with Americans v. Germans at the Bulge for 6 to 8 months doesn't sound too alluring to this customer, even at a lower price!!"

I am not at all happy with the prospect of being offered a really thin slice of a GREAT game engine, and then being asked to pay again for add on after add on! :mad:

IS that not EXACTLY the marketing strategy that spelled doom for SL and ASL in the board game market? (I could be wrong about that?)

concerned, (that the next BIG then will ONLY present a "thin slice" of something good!)

-tom w

P.S!

Just found this:

"To put this in a way that I think you guys can all relate to... think of all the wargame ideas you've had over your life. Now think about how disapointint and frustrating it is to not be able to play those ideas in actual games of your own design. Now imagine that you make games for a living and have the expertise and ability to theoretically make all of them come to life. BUT... you are tied to a philosophy that allows you to do only one every 9 years. Dontcha think ya might be a little bit jazz'd about changing things a wee bit in order to scratch all those itches instead of gouging one so deep that it leaves a scar? Dontcha?

I'm not saying that you guys don't understand this... but the record of "narrow front" and "module" type games is not all that good. Usually the games aren't really that deep, the modules that exciting, and/or the prices pegged correctly. Guess I felt I had to reassure you that we know this VERY well and will absolutely not be going that route. We like money, but we like making the best games out there far more

Steve"

This sounds like I should NOT be concerned

But we'll see :confused:

Originally posted by kgsan:

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

We do have to be quite careful in the subject matter and scope we choose for each title. We want to make sure that you guys get something that is still fun to play by the time the next module or full title comes out. If we start out with an idea for the subject and scope that later on in development seems to be too narrow... then we'll widen it out a bit.

. . .

As for the modules working with each other... yup, that is the thoght . . . .

Steve

Steve's comments are reassuring. My biggest concern with the module approach has been with them slicing the salami too thin. His previous reference to the possibly releasing a US v. Germany in Normandy game with a subsequent module coevring the Brits (which in all fairness may have been an off the top of the head, just to give us an idea, kind of illustration) did not sound very attractive to me. Like many of the other posters in this thread, I found one of the great things about CMx1 was its scope and almost endless replayability.

BFC has good reasons not to want to take such big bites again. A reluctance to tackle the whole east front again in one go, along with all the minors, certainly makes sense, but I hope they don't go too far the other extreme. Being stuck with Americans v. Germans at the Bulge for 6 to 8 months doesn't sound too alluring to this customer, even at a lower price; however, I'll trust BFC to find the sweet spot. </font>

[junk2drive]

I hope it's a build a sandwich. You buy the bread and salami. Add cheese, not by more bread and cheese but don't combine them with salami.

I'm hungry now.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Steve,

Has BFC considered a subscription approach to game design allocation? I think this question has been raised before but I don't recall an official response.

What I am talking about is that BFC would propose a game or a module of an existing game that they know is within their capabilities and would promise to make it if a certain level of buyer response is forthcoming, i.e., front some cash. If enough players respond to give an indication that there is enough interest to make it an economically viable project, the checks (figuratively speaking) are deposited and work proceeds. The assumption is that for every person who is willing to put some money up front, there will likely be several buyers who come on board after the game hits the market. This approach not only gives BFC a little working capital while a game/module is in the works, but also allows it to gauge buyer interest and make a rough guess as to future sales. This is not to say that precise predictions are possible, but at least you'd not be totally shooting in the dark.

Michael

this is how they are doing projects at Multi Man Publishing -seems like a great idea.

[Battlefront.com]

Scenarios should wind up being far more editable in CMx2 than in CMx1. What I mean by that is in CMx1 the designer had only a limited back of tricks to draw from in order to get the scenario to feel correct. Things like objectives, AI behavior, force Order of Battle, chains of command, etc. were sometimes very difficult to simulate for a particular battle. In CMx2 such stuff should be much more controllable.

As for the salami...

Part of the problem is that with each CMx1 game we charged you guys for a couple of slices of salami, but we in fact gave you the whole salami log. Great for you in some ways, bad in others. Specifically, you got to eat for months on end without having to buy any more salami, but the downside is that all you had to eat was salami when you might have liked some ham or turkey too. And that is where I'll end the deli metaphor

The fact is we spent too much time giving to too much stuff that lasted you far too long in terms of replayability for far too low a price. We spoiled you rotton, in other words. Now, we were happy to do that in some ways and in many ways aren't sorry that we did it. However, as we got deep into CMBB we started to see that spoiling you guys didn't come without us making some serious sacrifices. But we were too far along to turn back so we took the extra, unplanned, year and finished CMBB.

With CMAK we were faced with similar problems and decided we could not afford (in all senses of the word) to deliver ANOTHER game like CMBO or CMBB that took 2 years to develop. But we had set certain expectations and therefore were in a pickle of our own making. So we decided to keep changes to the engine minimal instead of limiting the subject parameters (i.e. doing the whole Med Theater instead of something like just Italy or just the Western Desert). This compromise worked out pretty well in that you got a new game in a year instead of two, we finished the game in a year instaed of two , and we were able to start the process of making the CMx2 engine as well.

But CMAK is the last "mother of all front" games we will ever do. It is simply a strategy that doesn't work. Not for us, and not for you. Remember that some CMBO diehards had no interest in the Eastern Front and had to wait THREE YEARS to get CMAK. None of you should have to wait three years to get new product from us.

So, what we are going to do is the sensible thing. Instead of giving you a game that is replayable for 2-3 years while you wait for the next title to come out, we'll give you something that is playable for probably 6 - 18 months, depending on interest level, not inherent replayability. Not everybody wants to play the same theater for 2 years you know For those that do we'll have Modules to extend and enhance replayability while at the same time releasing completely different games. Which, for all you know, you'll want to play more than the one you bought 6 months earlier.

OK, I'm rambling now So to sum up...

1. You're all spoiled rotten

2. Long development times are BAD for everybody in the long run.

3. We can not (or more accurately, will not) retain a business model of "mother of all front" games released every couple of years.

4. You're going to see less replaybility with each title, but what you get will almost certainly be better than any other one time purchase game out there (of any genre)

In short... there will be whining and griping... but in the end it is good for everybody. We're more certain of this than anything else we've ever been sure of. And we've been sure (and correct) about a whole lot of stuff before

Steve