Grog and the Car Designer - A Parable

[Wartgamer]

Does this website do surveys? I would like to see a survey of questions like the following:

1. If the future CM type product does not include PBEM, would you buy it?

A. Yes

B. Yes if the demo is great and offsets any PBEM needs I have

C. No even if the demo is good

2. What time 'chunk' do you feel captures WWII gaming at CMs level?

A. 1 minute

B. 30 seconds

c. Different for different command capability. Vets being 30 seconds Conscipt 2 minutes, etc.

[Battlefront.com]

Some of you guys still don't get it. Not surprising First of all, a bit about the previous three CM products...

You knew what you were buying before you bought them, or should have because of all the info (including demos) that is readily available to you for free. These products delivered exactly what they promised, and a HELL of a lot more. They are FINISHED products in every sense of the word, not to mention compared to the unstable and buggy trash that is usually tossed out and abandoned by other game companies. Therefore, it is impossible for us to abandon CMx1 because it is finished. Anybody that thinks that we have in some way under delivered and failed to meet reasonable end user obligations need to get a grip of reality before posting again. Did you guys get every single last thing you asked for? Hell no... we'd still be working on CMBO if that were the case. And even then I'm sure someone would find something to bitch about

The other thing is that some of you are completely clueless about what a code base is like to work with. CMBO took about three years to make, yet CMBB took us TWO YEARS to create even though the changes were relatively modest in terms of the actual game simulation itself. CMAK took us a year and had very few simulation changes. This is because once a code base is made it becomes very, very difficult to do anything other than what the original design foresaw. The fact that so much was done with the CMx1 engine is nothing short of amazing, not something to be criticized. Few developers could ever had made the engine to begin with, not to mention heap hundreds of features requested by you guys that we never, ever thought of when the core was created.

I have said many times that CMx2 is an entirely different game system. It is. Yes, it might have 4 wheels, an engine, and a steering wheel like the last model and therefore it is still a car (wargame). But the last model was a 1960s Mustang and the new model is a top of the line Ferrari with all the bells and whistles one can imagine. To say, to even THINK, that it is possible to take a Mustang and "tweak" it into being a Ferrari is just nonsense.

Now, for those of you who are still having a hard time grasping the parable. Grogs, as in Grognards, are not just people that have specific views on historical details. They are also people that have specific views on everything wargame related. When we describe something they are generally the fist to come in and attempt to belittle (super negative) or challenge (trying to be constructive) the suggestion. Doesn't matter if we say "we're going to do 1:1 simulation" or "we want to simulate a MP40 with 2 magazines of 80 rounds each", you can safely bet any amount of money that a Grog will be right there to sound off In other words, Grogs like to think they know how to make great wargames as well as the details within the wargames. This can be seen in the two long 1:1 simulation threads.

The transmission analogy tossed out above, as well as the factory construction, are excellent ones. When the Grogs complain about the gear shifting they base their opinions on what they believe is the problem instead of a learned engineering study. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong. Often we find their proposed solutions to be wrong, unless it is something very simplistic like how many rounds of ammo a standard MP-40 gunner had on him (even then they usually bicker about what the ACTUAL amount should be ). Grogs, therefore, are good sources of information SOMETIMES, but clearly need to be ignored very frequently. Especially the type that tried, in vain, to prevent CMBO from being 3D and hexless. I'm not surprised that this point keeps getting overlooked by some. The Grog track record on big picture stuff was THAT horrible, in terms of the pre-CMBO discussions, it really can only be ignored by the Grogs.

In short, the CMx1 code base is a dead end. We squeezed all we could out of it, but nothing more can come from it that is worth making. Anybody who thinks along the lines of "all you'd have to do..." are just clueless and should stop beating a horse that is already dead. Such people are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and... oh yeah... wrong We, the people that know what the heck we are doing, understand fully that we need to start from scratch with a new codebase. The horse is dead, move on.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Quick comment... anybody that thinks that CM is 85% of what it should be are forgetting that it probably 300% more than what people imagined it could be and 1000% more than what other similar games are. So yes, CM is incomplete, but it delivered far more than was expected of it and it has no peers. If that isn't good enough for someone, well... don't expect to be taken very seriously.

Steve

[Guest BigAlMoho]

I fire up this game 4-5 or more times a day and everytime I do I am really and truly pleased with the 80% that was delivered, otherwise I wouldn't play the game so often... But, every time I fire up the game I am also reminded of the glaring omissions that have been discussed here over and over... So, my experiance with the game is colored by this fact...

For my part, I am not trying to effect any changes to the abandoned code base... and, I am certainly no Grog and probably not very smart but what I most want in the new game is the lack of feeling like there is 20% missing...

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Quick comment... anybody that thinks that CM is 85% of what it should be are forgetting that it probably 300% more than what people imagined it could be and 1000% more than what other similar games are. So yes, CM is incomplete, but it delivered far more than was expected of it and it has no peers. If that isn't good enough for someone, well... don't expect to be taken very seriously.

Steve

If it's "good enough" why are you redoing it from scratch?

If you're not happy with it - why should we be? :confused:

[PseudoSimonds]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

Quick comment... anybody that thinks that CM is 85% of what it should be are forgetting that it probably 300% more than what people imagined it could be and 1000% more than what other similar games are. So yes, CM is incomplete, but it delivered far more than was expected of it and it has no peers. If that isn't good enough for someone, well... don't expect to be taken very seriously.

Steve

If it's "good enough" why are you redoing it from scratch?

If you're not happy with it - why should we be? :confused: </font>

[Guest Mike]

Hmmm..OK - I'm late to this, but I gather that you guys are still mostly thinking about trivial stuff...

OK - here's some things I'd liek to see in a new game:

1/ the ability to see the action from the position of any single soldier on the battlefield - including the drivers, gunners and PILOTS! (Not sure how you'd do pilots without giving too much away to the player - but it'd be nice!!)

2/ Modable units and no hard-wired limits to the number of vehicles/guns/troops types or anything else that the engine can handle.

3/ The ability to handle WW2 +/- 50 years - so including WW1, russo-Japanese War (10th anniversary of it starting this week!!), Balkan wars, Boer war even, various Israeli/Arab & Indo-Pakistani conflicts - maybe even the battles in Angola??

4/ A different campaign system - I quite like operations and I'd like to see something like them kept, but I'd also like to see a grand campaign system where the player can drill down to fight the battles generated by a larger campaign he's playing - sonething like the Total War series - only lots better of course!!

Are those the sorts of ideas you're after?

[Battlefront.com]

Al,

I fire up this game 4-5 or more times a day

I'd say we over delivered if you can still do that even though it is so deeply flawed.

But, every time I fire up the game I am also reminded of the glaring omissions that have been discussed here over and over... So, my experiance with the game is colored by this fact...

Since no simulation of reality will be perfect, or "complete" as you call it, then you will never be fully happy with anything we put out. Surely you must understand why, combined with how much you play the games, we're not killing ourselves (which is what sticking to the current codebase would do) to fix what you think is missing? And did you ever think that the 20% you see missing might not be the same stuff someone else finds lacking? Or the fact that people generally can't even agree on the way to make something work right? Even if we did everything in our power to please you, and I don't think we can, I doubt we would please everybody.

For my part, I am not trying to effect any changes to the abandoned code base... and, I am certainly no Grog and probably not very smart but what I most want in the new game is the lack of feeling like there is 20% missing...

That's glass half empty thinking. What other wargames gave you the 80% or better complete feeling? So why not be happy with what you have and not allow negativity to soil your enjoyment? You can still want more without undervaluing what you already have.

Dorosh,

If it's "good enough" why are you redoing it from scratch?

PseudoSimonds said it pretty well. Or to put it another way... if SL/ASL was "good enough" for the time you were playing it, why are you even remotely interested in CM? You do realize that the technology we had available 7 years ago limited what we were able to achieve, don't you? Or do you think our ideas were only as good as the hardware of the day? Even after we complete the CMx2 engine we'll still be saying to ourselves "man, I can't wait for there to be x and y technology so we can do z". I'm still waiting for 300 dpi monitors to become a commercial reality, but for whatever reason they are still in the lab and not in mass production.

If you're not happy with it - why should we be? ?

Who said anything about us being unhappy? We are ecstatic about what we have done. CMx1 turned out better than our wildest imagination of 1997/98 timeframe could have predicted. But do we think it is perfect? No. Do we think we can do better? Yes. So instead of sitting on our asses milking our first engine to death, we're pushing forward and attempting to one up the best wargame out there. Yet you're sitting here telling us to NOT try. It would be like telling the Ford company to stop at the Model T and never, ever do more than add stuff like cup holders. Horrible, narrow minded, defeatist attitude to take.

When we did CMBO we were one upping other people's products, but since nobody has beaten CM that means we have to beat ourselves. If we were an entirely different company talking about how we were going to blow the doors off of CM, and you had some reason to believe that we could, what would you be saying? "Don't bother... just buy Battlefront's code base and make a few tweaks."? I very much doubt it. So why should we have to avoid doing better simply because we've already achieved something great? It would be like telling the Ford company to stop at the Model T and never, ever want ANYBODY else to do more than a Model T with cup holders. That is pretty illogical and counter productive thinking.

This kind of nonsense thinking would have precluded CMBO from being made in the first place, which is the thing you (and others) keep avoiding dealing with. Don't fear change... change can be good. CMBO is proof of that.

Steve

[ February 16, 2005, 08:17 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Wartgamer]

And change can be good again. As in the change in the very flawed CMBO modeling being revamped in CMBB. Were these changes implemented due to internal directions or from an outcry from external 'Grogs'?

You seem to have an disdain for many of your customers and other game designers.

Change is good. Evolution depends on it. But natural selection determines if haphazard change is really good.

I have a quick question: If PBEM is possibly left out, how are you going to playtest the game?

[jeffsmith]

the 2004 Mustang was based on the Ford Fairmont "Platform"a design over 25 years old

was it a pretty good car Many people would say it was

But Ford decided that there was nothing more that could be done to improve it

So the 2005 Mustang is based on a Brand New (or Newer) "Platform"

Is it a better car ?

All of the reviews I have read say it definitely is better

But its still a Mustang

[jeffsmith]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

Snip

You seem to have an disdain for many of your customers

Snip

If the Service BFC provides its customers amounts to Disdain

More Companies should have Disdain for their Customers

[Wartgamer]

I am commenting on this persons remarks about 'Grogs' and other game designers (the squad leader guys) that he has made.

Please don't confuse that with the Service that BFC might provide with broken CDs, patches, etc.

[Jasper 2x]

Wartgamer get a brain

[Wartgamer]

Are you a Brain Grog?

[Gpig]

(reads Steve's latest posts)

*inspired*

(goes to bed happy)

[Battlefront.com]

How can we test the game without PBEM? Er... by playing TCP/IP or solo? Nah... that would be too simple.

I only have disdain (as Wartgamer called it) for those who make it plainly obvious to me, and to the majority of people here, that they deserve it. Grognard... do you know what the term means in French? Complainer. In its worst form, a Grog is someone who ONLY KNOWS how to complain. Complaining without any sort of frame of reference ceases to have value. Kinda like someone complaining to Ford that they have to wake up every day and drive 2 hours to work instead of just teleporting there. Is it Ford's problem that the worker has chosen a job and home that are so far apart? Is it reasonable for Ford to be chided for not developing something that is impossible (at the moment anyway) to produce? No. This sort of thing is just childish behavior, not the stuff of rational discussion. I have about 10 years of experience dealing with this sort of mindset and feel quite confident that I am dealing with it in the only way possible. Well, other than playing empty lip service to it.

As for disdain... nah... I don't really feel that way towards the worst of the grumbly Grogs. I honestly feel sorry for them. Going through life all bummed out and unsatisfied like that must suck. I'm a glass half full kind of guy. In fact, if there is just a drop of watter in the glass I am the type to say "well, at least it isn't totally empty". That doesn't mean I am satisfied with a half empty glass, just that I do not disregard what I have so easily as some do.

Was it the Grogs that were responsible for the CMBB improvements? In part, sure. They were some of the people that were asking for improvements. But guess who actually came up with the design changes? Not the Grogs... us. The Grogs, in fact, were completely and totally off base as to what needed fixing. I remember telling them what our fixes were and many were CONVINCED that we had it wrong and that the changes wouldn't do squat. Instead they dwelled on their own suggestions. We ignore them because we knew how the game worked under the hood, and therefore we knew what had to be changed. So... another good example of Grogs not being useless, but not being nearly as useful as they think they are.

Don't get me wrong... Grogs are a very important part of the game development process. But through years and years of experience, we have figured out when to listen and when to not. And when they figure out that we've put them into the "do not listen to" category, they go into tantrum mode. This is the long established pattern on this Forum.

Steve

[ February 17, 2005, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Wartgamer]

If a game designer doesn't listen to a Grog in the woods; Does he make any sound?

From reading threads during the much anticipated CMAK final patch threads, its apparent that whoever at the company that was supposed to be paying attention to anyone (Grog or Not) did not partake in any discussion.

It was funny that when it was released, the PBEM did not work! Thats a Test Jest. Funny huh?

Edit: Testing TCP/IP is going to be much harder than just saying that. Coordinating that will be a hassle. Solo means against the AI? Thats not testing the game. Thats just testing the AI.

[Melnibone]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

If a game designer doesn't listen to a Grog in the woods; Does he make any sound?

From reading threads during the much anticipated CMAK final patch threads, its apparent that whoever at the company that was supposed to be paying attention to anyone (Grog or Not) did not partake in any discussion.

It was funny that when it was released, the PBEM did not work! Thats a Test Jest. Funny huh?

Edit: Testing TCP/IP is going to be much harder than just saying that. Coordinating that will be a hassle. Solo means against the AI? Thats not testing the game. Thats just testing the AI.

Will you be revealing yourself in a puff of smoke?

[Wartgamer]

OK I will get a brain AND a 'Puff o smoke' generator.

[Wartgamer]

Was it the Grogs that were responsible for the CMBB improvements? In part, sure. They were some of the people that were asking for improvements. But guess who actually came up with the design changes? Not the Grogs... us. The Grogs, in fact, were completely and totally off base as to what needed fixing. I remember telling them what our fixes were and many were CONVINCED that we had it wrong and that the changes wouldn't do squat. Instead they dwelled on their own suggestions. We ignore them because we knew how the game worked under the hood, and therefore we knew what had to be changed. So... another good example of Grogs not being useless, but not being nearly as useful as they think they are.

LOL! C'mon. The Grogs do not even have access to a flow chart let alone any code.

You see a Grognard as a complainer. I see it as someone being critical. One of the definitions of Critical is important.

The truth is that customer feedback initiated changes to a very flawed (yet ground breaking) CMBO. Whether you like the tone of the feedback (and feel the need to label people) seems to weigh more heavily on your mind and I guess I feel sorry for you.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Al,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I fire up this game 4-5 or more times a day

I'd say we over delivered if you can still do that even though it is so deeply flawed.

But, every time I fire up the game I am also reminded of the glaring omissions that have been discussed here over and over... So, my experiance with the game is colored by this fact...

Since no simulation of reality will be perfect, or "complete" as you call it, then you will never be fully happy with anything we put out. Surely you must understand why, combined with how much you play the games, we're not killing ourselves (which is what sticking to the current codebase would do) to fix what you think is missing? And did you ever think that the 20% you see missing might not be the same stuff someone else finds lacking? Or the fact that people generally can't even agree on the way to make something work right? Even if we did everything in our power to please you, and I don't think we can, I doubt we would please everybody.

For my part, I am not trying to effect any changes to the abandoned code base... and, I am certainly no Grog and probably not very smart but what I most want in the new game is the lack of feeling like there is 20% missing...

That's glass half empty thinking. What other wargames gave you the 80% or better complete feeling? So why not be happy with what you have and not allow negativity to soil your enjoyment? You can still want more without undervaluing what you already have.

Dorosh,

If it's "good enough" why are you redoing it from scratch?

PseudoSimonds said it pretty well. Or to put it another way... if SL/ASL was "good enough" for the time you were playing it, why are you even remotely interested in CM? You do realize that the technology we had available 7 years ago limited what we were able to achieve, don't you? Or do you think our ideas were only as good as the hardware of the day? Even after we complete the CMx2 engine we'll still be saying to ourselves "man, I can't wait for there to be x and y technology so we can do z". I'm still waiting for 300 dpi monitors to become a commercial reality, but for whatever reason they are still in the lab and not in mass production.

If you're not happy with it - why should we be? ?

Who said anything about us being unhappy? We are ecstatic about what we have done. CMx1 turned out better than our wildest imagination of 1997/98 timeframe could have predicted. But do we think it is perfect? No. Do we think we can do better? Yes. So instead of sitting on our asses milking our first engine to death, we're pushing forward and attempting to one up the best wargame out there. Yet you're sitting here telling us to NOT try. It would be like telling the Ford company to stop at the Model T and never, ever do more than add stuff like cup holders. Horrible, narrow minded, defeatist attitude to take.

When we did CMBO we were one upping other people's products, but since nobody has beaten CM that means we have to beat ourselves. If we were an entirely different company talking about how we were going to blow the doors off of CM, and you had some reason to believe that we could, what would you be saying? "Don't bother... just buy Battlefront's code base and make a few tweaks."? I very much doubt it. So why should we have to avoid doing better simply because we've already achieved something great? It would be like telling the Ford company to stop at the Model T and never, ever want ANYBODY else to do more than a Model T with cup holders. That is pretty illogical and counter productive thinking.

This kind of nonsense thinking would have precluded CMBO from being made in the first place, which is the thing you (and others) keep avoiding dealing with. Don't fear change... change can be good. CMBO is proof of that.

Steve </font>

[Battlefront.com]

There's always one guy on this Forum proving everything that we know about Grogs to be absolutely correct. Wartgamer is the current bearer of that self appointed torch. So... to waste a little bit more of my time, I'll respond...

If a game designer doesn't listen to a Grog in the woods; Does he make any sound?

We listen to more Grogs in one day than other game developers listen to in a lifetime. Well, the few developers are left.

Simple fact... believe it or not, I really don't care:

Through experience we know the value of Grogs as well as their limitations. Grogs, on the other hand, don't think they have any limitations. At least the kind that you are defending so strongly.

I'll ask you this question very directly... were we, Battlefront, wrong to listen to Grogs when they said we should just stick to SL/ASL and not change more than a few little things here and there? Would such a game have been better than CMBO? Unless you say yes to the second part of the question (which would be funny to see), you therefore have to admit that Grogs don't necessarily know what they are talking about.

From reading threads during the much anticipated CMAK final patch threads, its apparent that whoever at the company that was supposed to be paying attention to anyone (Grog or Not) did not partake in any discussion.

Incorrect. We listened and made several patches. What we did was make decisions about what to patch and what not to patch. Same with CMBB, same with CMBO. Grogs just don't "get it" that time and resources are limited and since perfection is impossible, at some point things have to be declared "finial". Otherwise we'd still be working patching CMBO and you wouldn't have either CMBB or CMAK to play with, not to mention the things the CMx2 engine will produce.

It was funny that when it was released, the PBEM did not work! Thats a Test Jest. Funny huh?

Hey, mistakes happen. We're not perfect... go figure. A last minute change Charles did screwed something up, which was fixed right away. Not exactly sure why that is such a bad thing.

Edit: Testing TCP/IP is going to be much harder than just saying that. Coordinating that will be a hassle. Solo means against the AI? Thats not testing the game. Thats just testing the AI.

Once again, a Grog proving he hasn't a friggin clue what he is talking about... yet believes so thoroughly that he does. How many wargames have you developed? I've got about a dozen under my belt with probably upwards of over a million units sold between them all (including the Impressions titles I worked on). For some reason you think that you know better than I? Not a surprise.

You've been very helpful in providing a concrete example of what I've been talking about. Thanks again for validating everything I've been saying about Grogs in this thread.

Steve

[Wartgamer]

I think its a sign of insecurity to come onto your own forum and continue to trumpet your achievements; like we said before, none of it matters a damn. I'll buy your next product based on the demo, not your track record.

I do not mind this as much as the need to belittle other game designers and talk down the attempts that thier own customers (Grog or Not) make to either provide feedback or (God Forbid!) put forth ideas/wishes.

[Wartgamer]

Does one need to have developed a wargame to realize that having testing done with the requirement that both testers be online at the same time is going to be a hassle? Also, will the online play have a impact on the playtesters giving feedback?

And since you are so enamored with car analogies (its a bad analogy too); I have tested many car related products.

Testing is like Sales. Doesn't matter what you are testing or selling. There are principles that are applied.

[Battlefront.com]

Dorosh,

I think its a sign of insecurity to come onto your own forum and continue to trumpet your achievements;

No, it is a sign of frustration when members of an ungreatful, forgetful, narrow minded, clueless group with a proven track record of being wrong and unreasonable yet still feel that they have something useful to say. I don't get it... why are you hear if we think we've done such a poor job and will likely f' things up the next time around too? Do you really have nothing better to do with your life than to go out of your way to be a pain in the arse of others?

What else am I supposed to do when people are coming to our forum to smear our acheivements and pee on the stuff we haven't even done yet? This is a public forum and we have the right to challenge those that choose to challenge us. Especially when they are utterly clueless.

Steve