Steve's recent CMx2 Bones

[flamingknives]

I like how there is this assumption that the outspoken ones are somehow important.

You're no more important than the rest of us, fella. And, to voice my opinion, retail management drops you down a notch or two. But as an engineer, I would say that.

My own, albeit limited, experience tells me that with a technical product, sometimes you've got to tell the customer that they're wrong. If you don't, that'll bite you on the arse as surely as falling brick will hurt if it hits you.

[Edit: Oh, and I get nr. 100.]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

http://www.sonic.net/~bstone/archives/020804.shtml

That's cheating, you know. Not sportsmanlike at all. The Queen wouldn't approve.

Michael

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

http://www.sonic.net/~bstone/archives/020804.shtml

That's cheating, you know. Not sportsmanlike at all. The Queen wouldn't approve.

Michael </font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

http://www.sonic.net/~bstone/archives/020804.shtml

That's cheating, you know. Not sportsmanlike at all. The Queen wouldn't approve.

Michael </font>

[throwdjohn]

personally i find britney not very attractive, but her vapid and, for lack of a better word, cuntish (is that even a word?) behavior makes her less attractive than cher. and im talkin 2005 shemale cher too, not the semi attractive one.

[junk2drive]

Can we trade you for sticking us with Celine?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

http://www.sonic.net/~bstone/archives/020804.shtml

That's cheating, you know. Not sportsmanlike at all. The Queen wouldn't approve.

Michael </font>

[A.E.B]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

I like how there is this assumption that the outspoken ones are somehow important.

You're no more important than the rest of us, fella. And, to voice my opinion, retail management drops you down a notch or two. But as an engineer, I would say that.

My own, albeit limited, experience tells me that with a technical product, sometimes you've got to tell the customer that they're wrong. If you don't, that'll bite you on the arse as surely as falling brick will hurt if it hits you.

[Edit: Oh, and I get nr. 100.]

Dodging the onset of "Britneyitis".

This is a good point. Exactly how much weight does the hardcore carry in the real world of computer game sales?

To move away from BFC and CMX, it was interesting to see similar claims made over another long running computer game series - the Total War franchise.

Basically, like CMBO, Shogun:TW came out of left field. While by no means a perfect game, it rapidly built up a following based on word of mouth and industry reviews.

When Creative Assemble announced the development of Medieval:TW, there were distinct rumblings about how "messing" with certain elements would doom the TW franchise.

When the demo hit there was a muted uproar - muted due to the far smaller internet community back then - and a small self-appointed group of the hardcore declared that MTW would be a commerical disaster and that CA would be justly driven out of business by the failure to listen to them.

This didn't happen.

Move forward to CA announcing Rome:TW. This time the internet community and the fanbase was much larger, so the rumblings were much louder. Again people predicted that straying from the MTW path would ruin the game.

When the demo hit there was an explosion of outrage over the changes that - yet again - a small self-appointed group of the hardcore - didn't like. Again it was predicted that the game would be a failure and that CA would justly die for this.

Again this did not happen.

All three games - Shogun, Medieval and Rome - have their flaws and none are beyond improvement. But each new addition to the TW franchise has been a success.

I am sure that there were people who bought earlier TW games who didn't buy later TW games, but they were massively outweighed by both return customers and new customers.

Simply put - how many of the tens of thousands of potential customers of a computer game get to see or even be influenced by the opinions of the fanbase?

My guess is that potential buyers are far more influenced by past game history, reviews, word-of-mouth by other gamers, and even the attractiveness of the packaging.

Another game I can think of demonstrates where the reverse happened - the hardcore broadly approved of the changes - is the Stronghold Series. Stronghold 1 was a flawed but still highly enjoyable game. Firefly listened to feed back and the proposed Stronghold 2 seemed to be what every Stronghold 1 fanboy could want.

One small problem, Stronghold 2 stinks. Word of mouth and negative reviews consigned this game to the discount bin within a month of its release.

So in the end CMX will be judged on its individual merits.

A.E.B

[Kip Watson]

I'm like most people - you tell me something is going to change and my first reaction is 'Oh no, it's going to change!' and then 2 days later I can't wait for the change to actually happen...

So it's more than 2 days later now, and the thought of modules sounds really cool. I like the idea of a series of snapshots of interesting periods in the war done with nice attention to detail and with scope for very accurate, detailed and specific scenarios (I have a mental image of Scots troops wearing kilts when I say that, please tell me it's not sexual!)

And I tell you what else, the idea of a 'near future' game is just so cool. For one thing I think it's safe to assume we can rely on BFC to produce something that's more likely to be based on realistic speculation than way out sci fi, and if so just imagine:- aerial drones, robot drones, metal storm, rail guns, head up night vision displays, computersied HQ command vehicles, GPS jammers, those large-calibre-shell firing guns off Showtime, and the personal Rail guns from that cool Schwartzenegger flick - and that's not even including tanks and helicopters...

I think that would absolutely rock!

[Mace]

Canon - a rule or especially body of rules or principles generally established as valid and fundamental in a field

I think some form of equipment 'canon' or guidelines may be needed to ensure equipment attributes/settings are consistant across modules.

For example, you would hope that the PzKpfwIV Ausf G has the same attribute settings in all modules in which it appears.

This at least is required to prevent grognards rioting more often than they do now.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Mace:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Canon - a rule or especially body of rules or principles generally established as valid and fundamental in a field

I think some form of equipment 'canon' or guidelines may be needed to ensure equipment attributes/settings are consistant across modules.

For example, you would hope that the PzKpfwIV Ausf G has the same attribute settings in all modules in which it appears.

This at least is required to prevent grognards rioting more often than they do now. </font>

[Dschugaschwili]

Originally posted by Kellysheroes:

It is very true the outspoken are a minority in just about all cases, but, the hidden factor behind that, the outspoken minority have many friends in the "silent majority" as well.

This still doesn't make the outspoken minority representative of the silent ones.

Many silent ones (including me) do not have a shelf full of WWII books at home. They don't scream "my life is ruined" if the Panther's front upper hull armor slope is off by 0.5°. They wonder why there are dozens of infantry formations that are essentially equal except for the name. They only get confused by a dozen PzIV versions when four of them would be quite enough from a gameplay perspective. They bought CM because of the depth of the gameplay, not because there are 900 unit types in the game or because the cross-country speed of American half-tracks is modeled accurately. Many of them don't even care about the game setting as long as the game seems balanced and is fun to play.

It's no wonder that the silent ones are silent most of the time. They don't have the knowledge necessary to participate in a discussion about armor failure of high hardness plates against large caliber shells. And they don't care anyway. They will complain about invincible über-tanks in certain time periods because the game doesn't appear balanced then, not because some gun/armor is under-/overmodeled.

And they will take a look at the CMX2 demo, be impressed with what Battlefront has accomplished, and then buy the game. All because the game will be fun to play, not because they will have tested the penetration capability of the Sherman 75mm gun against the PzIV front plate to see if it matches their books.

As a member of the generally silent ones, I can only say:

Steve, please give us space lobsters anytime.

Dschugaschwili

[Nicdain]

I agree with Steve when he says that the new concept for CMX2 - games expanded with modules - will be better both for them and for us. Anyway I would like to add my 2cents on the subject. CMX1 gave us the possibility to re-create virtually any battle among almost all the nations involved in WWII on three main theatres. This is, imho, a very attractive feature. It is true that 90% of the time battles will be between US and Germans or Russians and Germans, but for some WWII buff it could be of interest to recreate a battle between say Belgians and Germans in 1940. So, my opinion about modules concerning WWII is that, one after the other, they should cover all the armies involved in the conflict, not a limited number. So if the first main game is about Americans vs Germans in 1944, it could be interesting to have a certain number of modules, coming out every x months which, together with the main game cover all WWII in terms of armies and theatres.

Or I am asking too much? :confused:

Anyway, I can't wait to see what CMX2 will be like. I believe Battlefront will astonish us like they did with CMX1

[Barrold]

First I would like to thank Tom for the compilation and of course commend Steve for entering the pit and making clarifications and rebuttals.

I have to think that the distribution model BFC has used would tend to give them some valuable marketing information that is driving part of their current strategy. They alone know how many units were sold and they alone know what percentage of sales are from active forum members. Added to this is the numbers coming from their retail distribution agreements with CDV.

Even so while the input of the members here has repeatedly been highlighted as an important sounding board and the fact that the new members of the development team have been recruited from our midst, it is solely the leadership province of BFC to use their information in the way that best makes sense for their continued success.

AEB makes an excellent point about the TW franchise above. Since the most vociferously negative voices could simply be cranks living in their parent's basement, it is plain silly to affect changes or adopt a plan that does not make business sense. These very same voices are likely never to be happy anyway and would complain if they were hung with a brand new rope.

If their product meets their vision, they will be leaders once again bringing along an increasing group of followers to their products. BFC has a good track record thus far and I look forward to hearing more about the development process and the upcoming product.

What I would like to experience is a line of games that allow each succeeding module to infuse previous modules with a refreshed sense of that initial thrill of the first games. From what I gather of the intent of the new product, I can certainly see where this effect would be possible. I think it's a good business model that should bring in an ample revenue stream into the future provided that the game is solid, relatively bug-free, accessible, and engaging.

BDH

[Speedy]

Just set the game in 1812-1814 then you should be able to do the entire eastern front again.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Kip Watson:

And I tell you what else, the idea of a 'near future' game is just so cool. For one thing I think it's safe to assume we can rely on BFC to produce something that's more likely to be based on realistic speculation than way out sci fi, and if so just imagine:- aerial drones, robot drones, metal storm, rail guns, head up night vision displays, computersied HQ command vehicles, GPS jammers, those large-calibre-shell firing guns off Showtime, and the personal Rail guns from that cool Schwartzenegger flick - and that's not even including tanks and helicopters...

I think that would absolutely rock!

Realistic speculation, and you have Eraser railguns in it? That much kinetic energy (close to the speed of light? please.) would forcibly remove your arm from your shoulder should you try to fire it.

[BigDog944]

Great thread. Thanks everyone, and especially tom_w and Steve!

First off, I agree with Steve that we have been exceptionally spoiled by the Combat Mission games. The depth and breadth achieved may be a long time coming before it is equalled in another game. BFC has earned my loyalty and money because of their hard work and excellence.

The problem I have with the module system as Steve has described it though, is that it almost assures that any future CMx2 game released by BFC will never again cover the breadth of CMBB or CMAK. Have they not lost something here? I understand that they are saying it is not economically viable to produce the same breadth in future games, nor even possible without Steve and/or Charles going insane! By these facts alone, BFC is admitting that they will never match CMx1 in breadth, and so they are betting everything on having superior depth to CMx2, and thus when taking depth and breadth together CMx2 will be the superior game.

My point:

Is it possible for BFC to open the door to additions in the breadth department to 3rd party modders and developers? The model I'm thinking of is how 1C:Maddox games handle additions to the IL-2 Sturmovik line. What started as a study sim of Eastern Front air combat has over the years turned into a very, very broad WW2 flight sim. The wonderful thing is that a number of the additional planes and variations added over the years have come from third party modellers. They create the 3D models of the planes, and the ones that match 1C:Maddox's quality standards are compiled into the closed game engine for release in a patch. The strength of doing it this way as opposed to allowing models to be directly imported into the game by the users is that by going through 1C:Maddox and only released as a patch is that the quality and accuracy is always high, and every player of the game has exactly the same plane data, thus eliminating "cheating."

Could something like this be done by BFC for CMx2? One of the issues with the way 1C:Maddox does it is they tend to release their add-ons as free patches, which isn't great on a financial level for the game developer (it rocks for me!). They do have major releases sold in boxes (AEP, Pacific Fighters), but a large portion of the game content has been added for free. Is there not a way for BFC to take the best of both business methods and combine them? For example, the CM community has a number of very talented artists and many knowledgable WW2 grogs. If they were informed about what was required to add a new vehicle or other unit to the CMx2 engine, they could do the modelling, create the skin art, collect all the required data and then submit this to BFC.

When BFC has enough new content, they could produce a new module that they could either sell, or give away for free (or at nominal cost) as a gift of appreciation to the community. Of course BFC would need to "direct" this creative effort somewhat, in terms of saying "Modders, don't waste your time on Normandy Commonwealth kit, that's our territory." or "Norway 1939 is fair game!"

I hope I've been clear enough to get my idea across. I think if BFC followed a path like this over the next number of years, we'd eventually be gifted with a game that exceeds the CMx1 series in both breadth and depth. We'd all be in gaming heaven!

[MikeyD]

I wonder if the 'modules' willl be sequential. By that I mean if we don't pick up module 2 (Hungarian armor, let's say), will that interrupt the chain and make a future module 3 unusable, because the 3rd batch of scenarios would be using module 2 artwork?

I believe they've already announced a future T72 module with extra scenarios and a new tank type. We'll have to see how modules are handled by that game for a hint on how CMx2 might handle them.

[MikeyD]

Here's something interesting. A new screenshot from the Russian makers of that T72 game. Looks to be a Golan/Lebanon game.

According to BFC it probably won't see the light of day for well over a year, and might or might not be distributed by BFC when it does (they'd much prefer something more WWII-ish). But the screenshot brings hope to those of use praying for a decent modern warfare game someday.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Battlefront.com

Administrator

Member # 42

posted May 19, 2005 01:20 PM

CMx2 allows us to, in theory, do all of the following game settings, each of which could constitute many stand alone games (i.e. setting is too big for one game):

100 Years War

Medival

Ancient (European)

Ancient (Asian)

that's more than enough - get on with it will ya!

[86smopuim]

did anyone see mention of "we-go"?

For me it's we-go or no-go.

well, ok that's an exageration.

[hoolaman]

Yes CMX2 is WEGO; that's CM's "thing"... the thing it ...erm... is.

[86smopuim]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

Yes CMX2 is WEGO; that's CM's "thing"... the thing it ...erm... is.

sweet!

that's is the one and only smiley you maggots will ever get from me.

now to put on my TNT face

:mad:

[Battlefront.com]

Kellysheroes ,

I see many of you are not aquaited with the REAL business world out there and that "silent majority" of customers that can make or break any business.

If I am not in the REAL business world, then you aren't a REAL customer and so what does your opinion count for? Even if making games, marketing them, and selling them in retail and over the Internet is for somehow less real than making a box of hangers, marketing them, and selling them in retail and over the Internet... what makes you so sure I don't have some sort of background in hangers? I haven't always made games for a living ya'know!

But seriously...

So I wouldn't just go discounting us "minority" forum members so easily.

Oh, I don't. I just discount the relentless repetition of ill informed negativity by a minority of a minority of our customers easily Note that this thread is populated by "minority" customers, yet hardly a one of them agrees with your position. So, a quick lesson for you...

When I see a groundswell of opposition on this Forum I take note. I first figure out if they are just misunderstanding something or if they really are worked up about something real. If they are, then is it something that they really and truly feel is important, or are they just being narrow visioned and, when pressed about larger issues, either retract or amend their opposition. When all of that is done I use years of experience to determine how valuable the feedback is in the Big Picture, which includes a host of issues including marketability.

Instead, when I see a couple of people offering resistance to ideas, when the rest of the otherwise hyper-sensitive minority are fine with (with or without lengthy discussion), I make a special mental note. And that is "make sure we DO NOT do whatever that guy is demanding we do". In other words, some vocal opposition (like you in this thread) help reinforce our decisions instead of cause us to doubt them. Funny how that works, eh?

Word of mouth is the best advertisement or a companies worst nightmare.

Kinda like customers who think they represent more than themselves are their own worst nightmare. The difference is, we know all about word of mouth advertising.

Steve

[ June 07, 2005, 11:47 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Battlefront.com]

Dorosh described a possible "practical" application of the Modlue concept back on Page 3. I'm too lazy to repost it on this page

Will any CMx2 game come close to the breadth of CMx1? I don't know, but I really don't think it is necessary that we do. The greater depth and wider variety of offerings (on the whole) will likely keep people happy and busy. Not that they won't grumble, but they will still largely be satisfied. Kinda similar to those who go on and on and on and on and on and on about some sort of big campaign system... we haven't made one, yet years later these same people are still here and obviously playing the non-meta campaign games we made Stand up guys and take a bow... you know we love ya!

Quality isn't something that I am worried about, though of course it is a concern and a potential management headache. We don't have a plan for Modules yet, in that sort of way, but we've had a lot of experience working with non-Battlefront guys on critical pieces of CMx1, so it's not like we are new to it. And I must say things went along pretty darn'd well. Just look at how much quality is in CMx1 games and then look at the credit list if you don't believe me

Our thinking is that we would set up a Module team specifically for a particular game release. That way when we release another game nobody is negatively afected by it. (i.e. the 1st game gets its Modules without slowing up the 2nd game, yet the 2nd game's Modules are not held up by the 1st's).

Patches for the game are for the Game, not for a Module. If there is some sort of change that is applicable to non-code stuff then we'll release it as its own patch if there is reason too (i.e. download size). Code changes for the Game itself need to go to everybody no matter what. If something like a bug fix is not applicable to one Module, no harm done since it will be ignored. This is to keep the version number the same for everybody, which would be a nightmare for everybody if it wasn't.

The file format is encrypted because we don't want people hacking the file in the middle of a PBEM game. In theory you could some trees to get a better shot, then after the turn is generated put the tress back in. The other player would just assume it was a lucky shot.

We've said it before... locking up and encrypting the game data was done for the good of the game's integrity and the community's enjoyment of playing. Marketing reasons never, ever entered into the decision to keep the code locked up. The same reasoning is valid for CMx2 and therefore will remain (basically) unchanged. When we want you to be able to "hack" something we'll provide direct support for it. Like TO&E/OB changes...

No, you will not get a bunch of open TXT files to play around with. Instead you will have the ability to change things arond in the Editor and/or Setup Phase in some ways, under some conditions, within certain parameters. You won't be able to make a 20 man Hampstertruppen Squad all armed with MG42s for example.

Steve