aka_tom_w Posted June 9, 2005 Author Share Posted June 9, 2005 "Ryan Crierie Member Member # 6505 posted June 09, 2005 04:43 AM I'm very skeptical of this entire "module" experience; I want a very comprehensive game right from the start; that's what I love about CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK" OK..... To be honest I felt exactly the same way at first when the whole "module" system/concept news was released. Then Steve said: "You have ALL been SPOILED rotten!" AND "That old CMBO/CMBB/CMAK business model is not sustainable." So that means modules are the new game delivery medium, like it or NOT it looks for sure like that is NOT going to change. At this time we have no idea what is going to be in those games or modules or exactly when they will be released but we can count on a game coming out first with 2-3 modules for it to follow (maybe one every 6 months if we are lucky) If this new module business model is sustainable and BFC really profits from it then, we should be lucky they plan to stay in business AND NOT sell out to the likes of Micro$lut or Electronic Arts and that they will continue to offer games we really want because we must all admit we are a VERY small niche market and so far as I can tell ONLY BFC likes to develop, design, sell AND play, the EXACT kind of games we REALLY want to buy and enjoy! Far enough? -tom w [ June 09, 2005, 04:54 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Watson Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Seriously, I think modules will rule. I love CM1 for the comprehensive OOBs, but what you gain in breadth you lose in depth. In CMAK Allies for example, for a particular nationality at a particular moment of the war, infantry types are often kind of limited. I'm guessing, 1:1 representation will make the new game comprehensive in a whole diferent way. Scenario designers will be able to get into the nitty gritty of platoon and squad composition in a way that doesn't exist now. And with the popularity of Western Europe WWII, I predict sheer demand will result in 10+ modules, each far richer in detail than an equivalent slice of CMAK/BO. ...that doesn't sound like it will suck... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Plus it seems to me that the turnaround time will be an important factor. So CMx2 Module 4 is "CM: War of Spanish Succession, a Tuesday" and that bores me to tears. I wait 6 months (or whatever) for the next title and buy that one instead. Heck, I played CM:BB for 6 months and I didn't even like it. I don't know that the new business model will be perfect, but I don't think it would be horrible either. -dale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 The short delivery time, and greater varity of games, should not be brushed aside by the anti-Module guys so dismissively. Think back to CMBO's release... We asked you guys if you wanted CMBO without TCP/IP play now or in 4-6 months when TCP/IP was complete. The resounding cry was NOW! And so we did and nobody complained. Yes, the usual paranoid folks did go on a bit about us failing to deliver... but as always they were proven wrong. If we could have offered you guys CMBB a year earlier but with only the Germans on the Axis side, how many of you would have said "that's fine with me!!"? Even if we didn't add the other Axis countries later on I think people would have been fine with it, especially the ones that didn't care about CMBB and were waiting for CMAK (i.e. they would have got CMAK a year earlier). The "I want it all" folks are simply being short sighted and selective in seeing what this new strategy has to offer. It isn't like we're saying that we're going to repeat CMx1 all over again but force you to pay 3 times as much for the same content. Instead we're saying you'll be getting a more involved game experience, within a shorter period of time, with more choices available, in a shorter period of time. It really is a win-win strategy. At least for 98% of our customer base. Can't please everybody I like that old Russian proverb! I might even make it my first sigline ever. BTW, I look at some of the people on this Forum as being equivalent to Captain "Wrong Way" Peachfuzz from the Rocky and Bullwinkle Show. To know which is the right direction all you need to do is listen to whatever he says and do the exact opposite. Not tht we have any need of asking for directions Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: ...It had all the kinds of features that people want, but when combined together the end product sucked. Others have pointed out game developers that have gone this route and been creamed (MOO IV wasn't mentioned )Because it's still too painful by half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steiner14 Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 It is very bad news to hear, that still no TXT-export option is planned. First, the argument, that it would allow reverse engineering to hack the encryption is not valid at all, if the exported TXT-format has nothing in common with the encrypted one. Secondly, it is already very easily possible to cheat, Steve and it has nothing to do with encryption of the files: ammunition load and type, armor angle and thickness, gun-type/calibre, crew experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 I've been playing the CM series for quite a while, played all sorts of folks, and have only come across one single time I thought a fellow had a cheat going. Never played the guy again, (I suspected roops "teleported"). Since generalizing from one person's experience is usually a bad idea, and at the risk of sidetracking the thread, are cheats in PBEM more common than I believe they are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellfish Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 I look at it this way - I paid $45 for CMBO five years ago. Did I get my moneys worth? Of course. $45 is equivalent to dinner and the movies for two people on a Wednesday night. By all rights, CMBO could have retailed for nearly $1000 and it still would have been worth it (if I could have forseen playing it five years later). What the module system does is capitalize on that. If I buy a game at $45 and a module every few months for $20 to bring it to the width and beadth of CMBO (figure the game and three modules for $105 total to get to that level) and it'll still be worth it. By all mean, BF.com deserves that money. Everyone wins, still, though us players lose a steal of a deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yair Iny Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Steiner14, If one has the opportunity to take unlimited clear text and encrypt it using a symmetric key based algorithm (i.e. not a one-time-pad type), and he knows the algorithm, then it is very possible to find the actual key. Now since, BF would be wrong to base their security on hiding the algorithm (it is always easier to figure out the algorithm than the key), then if they are really concerned with people decrypting the files, they would indeed be wrong to allow people to create unlimited cleartext. Seems to me, though, that there wouldn't be too many people with the will and the means to brute-force crack the key for the PBEM encryption, so if other benefits are seen by BF in keeping an open format, then they would be better off doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dschugaschwili Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Originally posted by Steiner14: It is very bad news to hear, that still no TXT-export option is planned. First, the argument, that it would allow reverse engineering to hack the encryption is not valid at all, if the exported TXT-format has nothing in common with the encrypted one. The exported file would have to contain the same information as the encrypted file. This is already a security risk because cryptoanalysis is much easier if you know the plain text. And the exported file would contain information about both sides' units, which is obviously not acceptable in an ongoing PBEM game. So the argument is certainly valid. Secondly, it is already very easily possible to cheat, Steve and it has nothing to do with encryption of the files: ammunition load and type, armor angle and thickness, gun-type/calibre, crew experience. How do you cheat that? By hacking either a savegame file or the game executable. If you know how to do it, fine. Remind me to not play against you in that case. Dschugaschwili Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 We can't ever prevent hacking. We also can't ever prevent pirating. And we certainly can't prevent people from being weenies What we can make things more difficult for cheating, pirating, and being weenies. Having a clean, open source TXT file is like a hot chick going naked into a prison with all the doors open and the guards gone home to watch a ball game. If you think for a single second that that woman has a chance of coming out alive (not to mention with her dignity intact), think again. Putting out an open text file is about the same as this scenario. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gpig Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 What if she had super powers? Would you make a game like that? Gpig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbott Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Originally posted by Gpig: What if she had super powers? Would you make a game like that? Gpig LOL! My wife read Steve's post and yours. She commented "and you guys are grown men?". LOL, Thanks G, your killen' me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Originally posted by Gpig: What if she had super powers? Would you make a game like that? Gpig One can only hope Kwazy Dog's human 3D models improve appreciably in that case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Odds on a Dieppe module with Canucks without hideous deformities have just gotten longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Abbott LOL! My wife read Steve's post and yours. She commented "and you guys are grown men?"Tell her my wife wonders the same thing about you too Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 "CMx2: Blondes to Brunettes" Bring it on! And it's a win-win for everyone - we get to act like 8 year-olds and Steve doesn't have to worry about any lip from us, 'cuz ain't no way any of us grogs or grog-lights know chicks like we know mantlets and shatter-gaps. -dale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Originally posted by dalem: And it's a win-win for everyone - we get to act like 8 year-oldsSeems like the same ol' same ol' to me. Neener neeeeener neeeeener!!! *razz* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steiner14 Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Originally posted by Dschugaschwili: The exported file would have to contain the same information as the encrypted file. This is already a security risk because cryptoanalysis is much easier if you know the plain text.That is not true. The exported file doesn't have to contain the same information. You simply don't know, what information the encrypted file with all data has. Additionally the format of the data can be completely different. Secondly, if someone argues with cryptoanalysis-theory, i want to mention, that we already know, what information any PBEM-file contains. No one needs a plain TXT-file for that. The TXT-exportwould only summarize certain aspects of a finished battle. If someone is really interested in hacking the encryption, it is not that hard, with all the information and with accessible computer's memory, which contains the encryption-algo. And the exported file would contain information about both sides' units, which is obviously not acceptable in an ongoing PBEM game. So the argument is certainly valid.It is not valid, since the computer's memory contains ALL data unencrypted... How do you cheat that? By hacking either a savegame file or the game executable. If you know how to do it, fine. Remind me to not play against you in that case.See above. Don't worry. I don't cheat, because it's impossible, i don't cheat, because it's simply no fun to play in "god-mode". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurtz Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Tom: Thanks for compiling all info. I just want to say that I'm fully confident we'll get a good game. Battlefront brings us Combat Mission and we'll buy it and play it. If they don't come with anything new we'll continue to play the older titles. If CMBO never had been released I would still play the beta demo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Whatever we say doen't matter much, lets wait and see when we get the demo, and then we can whine or salute BFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ExplodingMonkey Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 How bout some screenies for a start? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted June 12, 2005 Author Share Posted June 12, 2005 Originally posted by ExplodingMonkey: How bout some screenies for a start? there was another bone some time ago that said there would be nothing ready to look at until mid to late summer. its still too early if it is "still too early" by this September then I would expect to see some grumbling here on the board for now it is still "officially" too early to expect to see anything... ok? -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffsmith Posted June 12, 2005 Share Posted June 12, 2005 Don't you mean INCREASED GRUMBLING ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dschugaschwili Posted June 13, 2005 Share Posted June 13, 2005 Originally posted by Steiner14: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> And the exported file would contain information about both sides' units, which is obviously not acceptable in an ongoing PBEM game. So the argument is certainly valid.It is not valid, since the computer's memory contains ALL data unencrypted... </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts