I quit...CM too unrealistic

[Flipper]

I remember a long time ago I was reading an article in S&T or some such other military pub an the designer of squad leader john hill I think his name was said "on a scale of 1 to 10 in terms of reality the BEST GAME would probably check in at a 3 " chew on that....I know I did, big expectations always lead to frustration.Don't cry things will get better.

[ May 27, 2002, 09:48 PM: Message edited by: Flipper ]

[jeffsmith]

Michael,

Sometimes its not what you say its how you say it

The first post in this thread while CONTAINING valid points seemed to be more about complaint and rancour

Yes, these points about a wider scope in CM have been brought up before and will be again.

The fact that you support the validity of his points

(while not resorting to his tone or seeming intent)

yet you don't have "a dozen yellow lines" focussing on you; shows that the board can accept dissent and divergent view.

Its just how they are presented which will invite rapid response

[Battlefront.com]

Nac4

Consumers don't effectively incite change and improvements in firms by striking out on their own, especially in this industry.

Well, you won't find being insulting, narrow minded, or speaking of things which you do not fully grasp because you have not designed and made your own game is a way to incite change and improvements.

If our customers continually asked us to make Panther tanks never get killed by Shermans (God only knows how many actually have done this!), does our repeated and lengthy defending of our positions mean:

a) that we are lazy and don't want to listen to our customers to give them what they want

that we might POSSIBLY know what the heck we are talking about when we explain our position

I would strongly advise considering point B.

We do not blindly say "no, we won't do this or that". Instead we use our vast grasp of wargame design and development realities to understand WHAT the user requests will take to impliment and if they would actually like the end result. The old saying "be careful for what you ask for, because you might just get it" is no less valid here than elsewhere.

We "resist" many of the suggestions made because we have thought them over very carefully and understand, better than ANYBODY out there, what the suggestions add up to. Playing a game is a whole different experience than designing one, and another world apart from the experience of actually making one. Anybody that can not recognize these plain and simple facts, as well as the obvious deep consideration we give suggestions, is quite honestly nobody with anything valuable to add to this discussion.

Quick test to anybody that doubts that we know what we are doing... can anybody point me to a commercial wargame (or military one for that matter) which does everything we Nac4 has asked us to do and do it to a standard which leaves few bitching about the end product? Anybody? Just one example is all I am asking for. Anybody?

If it doesn't exist, perhaps there is a reason or two? And perhaps we might have explained them but some people choose not to read/believe them? Me thinks so.

Steve

P.S. We have been in touch with 2 or 3 groups interested in using our file format for external programs. The ideas, thus far, have been rejected because it is impossible for an outside program to interface with CM without us making some fundamental code changes. It would also require a LOT of our time to document and explain what each tidbit of the file is. So until we are confident of a partnership that can work, we will withold the file format to prevent the risk of cheat programs.

[Battlefront.com]

Tarqulene,

If you start criticising a developer for the games they _aren't_ making, you really need another hobby.

Well put Critics are a dime a dozen. It is a cheap and easy hobby to get into. The entry into this field is the ability to communicate in a given language. However...

A critic that can identify concise problems and straight forward solutions... they are worth their weight in gold. There are many people who have made suggestions which we have, without hardly a second thought, coded up. On that VERY day in some cases.

But bashing us for not making a game we had no intentions of making (or ability in some ways) is rather unfair to the extreme. I don't go to a person's place of work and hurtle insults about the things you aren't doing or the ways you aren't doing things to my personal liking, especially when I haven't a clue what his/her job entails. So why should people feel free to do it to us?

Steve

[Panzer Leader]

FIrstly, it is important to note that the post, while having some valid points, indeed was basically accusing BTS of not knowing or caring what there customers wanted, and perhaps more important, not knowing what a successful wargame should include. Definitely rude and insulting to a group of people who should be daily showered with accolades for their successes.

Now, to try and decipher his intent (if it isn't basic derision) I think it is safe to say he is wanting and hoping for a campaign game, saying one is both mandatory to a successful wargame, and two, wanted by the majority of consumers.

I can't even agree with this, although I personally agree with his intent. To me, a "larger picture" definitely adds to my enjoyment of the game and I would just die for the ability to play SOLITAIR extended operations and even multi-mapped campaigns. My particular dream is to devise a campaign game depicting (historically) Grossdeutschlnd throughout Barbarossa. I will have to be content to devise a group of unconnecte scenarios. Too bad.

I do think a sizeable amount of CM fans want a campaign game though, and I hesitantly disagree with BTS' position that we are a minority.

However, that said, the game is still the best tactical WW2 simulator in existence, miles beyond its nearest competitor which I would claim is Steel Panthers: WAW. That game, though is made out of out-dated 2D hex system, and its underlying programming is no match for the accuracy of BTS as far as penetration/LOS/ movement/morale/ and just about every other factor.

Incidentally, while bringing up that game, how, Steve, would you rate the Mega-Campaings designed for that game? They seem to fit the bill for what our friendis clamoring. Wouldn't you say that it was successful at melding both the tactical and operational into one smooth system? The problem with it is the out-dated game it uses. Too bad.

And finally, WOW! Moon, what you are saying is news to me! The last time operations were alluded to on an official level was a year ago in the first Q&A where Steve saifd their would be minor adjustments to operations but nothing substantial. My mouth is whetted by this tease!

[rucrazee]

And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow; a poor player, That struts and frets his hour upon the stage, And then is heard no more: it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.

Shakespeare

[Yosoce]

Just once I want the guy who gets flamed with dozens of "then make your OWN game!"s to actually make his own.

Oh wait, thats what every single game designer out there did. Made his own game.

You shouldnt flame someone just because he has ideas and assume he will never actually use them, maybe he will.

[Pzman]

CM is unrealistic... man I have been fooled by BTS over the last two years.

( Just joking )

If you want campaigns play Steel panthers world at war...

[ May 27, 2002, 09:22 PM: Message edited by: Panzerman ]

[jeffsmith]

Originally posted by Yosoce:

Just once I want the guy who gets flamed with dozens of "then make your OWN game!"s to actually make his own.

Oh wait, thats what every single game designer out there did. Made his own game.

You shouldnt flame someone just because he has ideas and assume he will never actually use them, maybe he will.

Talkers vs Doers

Talkers post Vitriolic Notices on BBS full of criticism and complaint

Doers Shut-Up then Roll-Up Their Sleeves and Get to Work !!!

When they have something to announce about that work...

THEN they post

[ May 27, 2002, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: jeffsmith ]

[Battlefront.com]

Panzer Leader,

I do think a sizeable amount of CM fans want a campaign game though, and I hesitantly disagree with BTS' position that we are a minority.

I don't think a minority of players want a campaign game. However, I think a minority of players would be happier if we diverted resources to make one instead of improving the core tactical simulation and/or core game system and/or expanding to other theaters. In other words, I don't think a majority would be happy with the end result even if that same majority asked for it.

Incidentally, while bringing up that game, how, Steve, would you rate the Mega-Campaings designed for that game?

I've never had the chance, or frankly desire (sorry, gave up on SP a long time ago for other reasons), to see how this is done. BUT, inspite of the thoughts that started of this thread we are constantly evaluating our options. If we can figure out a way to expand the scope of the game without risking the very reason people want to play it in the first place, we will certainly give it serious consideration.

I think what we are seeing here with Nac4's post is the predictable outcome of someone who has read all the arguments pro/con and can not figure out how to combat the practical cons we raised. So instead, he hits us over the head with a virtual hammer out of frustration for not figuring out a better pro argument to sway us with.

And finally, WOW! Moon, what you are saying is news to me! The last time operations were alluded to on an official level was a year ago in the first Q&A where Steve saifd their would be minor adjustments to operations but nothing substantial. My mouth is whetted by this tease!

We made "minor" adjustments (hehe... or so it started out as!) which basically change the nature of Operations for the better. Not the Holy Grail, but something which should make Ops mentality players much happier.

Yosoce,

Just once I want the guy who gets flamed with dozens of "then make your OWN game!"s to actually make his own.

It would be nice to see, wouldn't it

Oh wait, thats what every single game designer out there did. Made his own game.

True. But until we did, and proved ourselves capable of doing it well, our voices lacked credability when arguing about certain aspects of game design and development. That is the point of reminding game players that it is easy to cast stones unless they are also game producers.

You shouldnt flame someone just because he has ideas and assume he will never actually use them, maybe he will.

It is a safe assumption. The world wide game market is numbered in the many millions at any one time. Yet the number of game developers is numbered in the hundreds per year. The number of game developers that produce GOOD games is probably well under 100. The number GREAT ones, of all game types, is probably numbered on one or two hands. Let's just say I wouldn't want to bet anything of value that Nac4 will beat the odds. If he does, I will pay up by buying his game. But until then... statistics speak a truth of their own...

Steve

[ May 27, 2002, 09:36 PM: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[The_Capt]

Now hold on here...

I am still not sure just what this fella is looking for.

I think he is using an "artillery argument" by dropping rounds everywhere in the hopes of hitting something. Nac4 obviously feels very strongly about something but I am not sure what.

I guess if you are going to point out problems you should offer solutions and I do not see much of that.

If you want a Tactical engagement in the shadow of a "higher conflict" then changing how victory is determined would seem to be in order.

In scenarios one gets a briefing and if one could only have ones performance linked to actual performance (resources spared, mission objectives met) as opposed to the usual flag grab. It would seem to go a long way to "setting the scene" and I would hope a damn sight easier than designing a whole other freakin game engine.

As to "gamey force mixing" well that is just silly. If you want to play hardcore with only historical units then do so. Play scenarios where points are not controlled.

It seems to me that tweaking the victory conditions or even revisiting how they are calculated might address a lot of his (and the silent masses behind him's) problems.

Now if Nac4 is asking for a whole level up from CM where Ops are played out and Tac engagements are then "done from above"..well I would say build it and they will come. The number of 3D Tac Wargame Engines is doing nothing if but increasing so finding a "ground floor crew" should be too hard. The question is selling it to them. Something Nac4 does not seem to have a "nack for" (HAHAHAHAH..sorry I couldn't resist)

I think BTS has found their niche and if this is where they want to stay then they will live or die by the decision..seems like good enough reason to let them build what they will.

I for one still do not think the Tactical Engine is complete or "perfect", so if they want to improve that then it makes a whole lot of sense to me.

[Frenchy]

Perhaps what is needed is not so much a change in design of CM, et al., that incorporates a campaign simulation, but an add-on, produced by BTS that is a seperate program but other CM games must be owned to play it.

I haven't a clue how this would be done, but BTS knows the code and its limitations; perhaps a team, under BTS guidance? Keep it in house...

But the bigger question; is it ecomomically beneficial to put in the man hours to produce something of this nature? BTS is a business and despite theirs and our love for the genre they must be able to make a profit. Otherwise no CM...

As for me personally, I just don't have the time to play campaigns. I have little time to play the operations to completion. I am a 30 - 45 turn battle man. As a TV producer, married and raising three kids my leisure time is at a premium.

Just my 2 cents worth...

[ May 27, 2002, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: Frenchy ]

[Nac4]

I just thought I'd reiterate a few of my points, for those who have been distracted by the excitement of joining the hordes of flamers.

CM is a wonderful product, it is the best on the market for what it does. Though not entirely realistic or historical based on the absence of operational repercussions.

The market for an operational level tie-in is much larger than BTS would have you believe. And the work would be less. CMBB is BTS's answer to captilize on a cornered market. The have redressed an essentially identical product, rather than gaining consumer confidence and creating something as unique as CMBO was.

I never referred to BTS as morons. Though I discredit their genious. Many of you must have a certain vested and personal interest in their work to defend against criticism as you do. Has BTS gone public?

BTS has no authority to question my expertise on the subject on which I write. You would do better not to chastise or attempt to alienate those who you do not know.

BTS has repeatedly detracted from criticm even as far as equating it with masterbation. This attests to their resistance to healthy dialogue and the amount of time the spend alone on the computer.

I don't think that asking for an operational level supplement is akin to asking that Panther's never get killed by Shermans. Your "Fuzzy Logic" may work on your flamers but not here.

If you market a game as realistic or historical, it should be.

If you open a dialogue with consumers you should be prepared to deal diplomatically and judiciously with your detractors, not like a 20 year old college student.

I thank the few who were brave enough to support my ill-written paragraph.

I don't post because nothing has mattered to me as much as this.

I want to know if BTS is planning to do anything in the operational arena at any time.

I hope there were enough breaks in the above text for those of you who have difficulites reading long strings of words.

[Frenchy]

Nac4, what do you do for a living? Are you a programmer? Your recent post suggests that you may be:

"BTS has no authority to question my expertise on the subject on which I write. You would do better not to chastise or attempt to alienate those who you do not know."

Enlighten us...

[Panzer Leader]

The market for an operational level tie-in is much larger than BTS would have you believe. And the work would be less. CMBB is BTS's answer to captilize on a cornered market. The have redressed an essentially identical product, rather than gaining consumer confidence and creating something as unique as CMBO was.

Dude, are you DRUNK?? It is the FREAKING East Front for god's sake, not CM Episode 2. They are fulfilling their commitment to portraying tactical combat in WW2 on the grandest front of them all, not some lack-luster wave-riding sequel.

I thought we were trying to get away from the vitriol of your first post and focus on some constructive dialogue, but there you go, making even more ridiculous statements with even less granules of what one might consider constructive.

Have you ever listened to some one and found yourself nodding and agreeing until they say something so outlandish and ridiculous that it even manages to discount any worthwhile thing they may have earlier said? That's how I feel listening to this guy...

[Nac4]

For the sake of anonimity and unbiased posts I'll let you infer that one. I will say it would take some mental retooling to attempt to modify CM.

BTW I love your site. One of the finest of its nature. A while ago I attempted and operational level campaign using CMMC rules to reenact Operation Nordwind. I was on your site several hours researching. Very comprehensive. Thanks

[Panzer Leader]

Oh, Steve, thanks for the reply about campaigns. Yes, I was pretty excited a few months (years?) ago when there was a discussion I call the 'command line' discussion, where a few people proposed that by allowing CM to start a game by reading a set of variables from a text document, and in turn to end a game with a similar set of values dumped into a text document. That, to me, sounded like the perfect way to blend CM with a "Campaign Element" but sadly, nothing more was heard of the idea.

I believe that it was determined to be A LOT of coding in order to get the front-end and back-end of CM to be capable of doing this. Is that the bottom line here?

Really, that system still seems to be the best to me, since there doesn't have to be any "second layer" added. It would be a separate or third-party program that could read a battles results, and in turn, do its calculations, or take its input from the player, or whatever, and then spit out the variables to be plugged into and set up the next game.

[Frenchy]

NAc4 - if you are referring to my Trailblazer site, thanks.

[Nac4]

No, I'm not drunk. The "grand" nature of Eastern Front has no bearing on the CMBB player beyond aesthetic and a few engine refinements. The nature of the "grandest front" will have absolutely no effect on CMBB because there is no front present. Its a scenery change. Can't wait to see what sets they've built for ACT III. Come on, wake up. This is just like EASports releasing a new Fifa or Madden game every year for the lastest uniforms and rosters without largescale improvements. How do you argue against "wave-riding"

[jeffsmith]

Hubris Requires No Ethanol

[Nac4]

I was referring to the trailblazers site.

[Louie the Toad]

As one who has brought up the topic of Operational Overlays at least twice before...

I have this to say:

If I knew how to develop an operational component for CM that I so much desire, my strategy and tactics to get this done would include:

1) To privately remind CM of all of the posts on this topic, indicating there is a lot of interest and convince them that this would be a great move, both for 'the sake of the game' and financially.

2) Offer my services, either contractually or voluntarily to get the job done.

But, that's just the Toad way.

[Frenchy]

Nac4 - gotta disagree with ya on your last post. There are a bunch of us waiting for CM:BB for the simple fact of fighting battles at the tactical level, irrespective of that fact that there is no grand operational/campaign engine built into the design.

The game is a tactical representation. As you have stated in a post a few minutes ago - it will take some reworking for a campaign/operational implementation.

I happen to enjoy the game the way it is and am eagerly waiting for CM:BB.

To take your argument further, many boardgames are pretty much useless with out the backdrop of a campaign or operational simulation of the entire front - Squad Leader, ASL, Panzerblitz, PanzerLeader, Tobruck, et al or not realistic nor historical based on your original post. They try to be based on the scope of their design, ie the tactical level.

Same goes for CM, on the tactical level, it's the best there is anywhere.

[Panzer Leader]

Originally posted by Nac4:

No, I'm not drunk. The "grand" nature of Eastern Front has no bearing on the CMBB player beyond aesthetic and a few engine refinements. The nature of the "grandest front" will have absolutely no effect on CMBB because there is no front present. Its a scenery change. Can't wait to see what sets they've built for ACT III. Come on, wake up. This is just like EASports releasing a new Fifa or Madden game every year for the lastest uniforms and rosters without largescale improvements. How do you argue against "wave-riding"

What about the men and weapons involved? NO this is not EA Sports, maybe that's where you're confused. You do know that WW2 really happened, right? This is not Tribes 2, this is a game that is driven by its accurate depictions of the SOLDIERS and their WEAPONS and EQUIPMENT involved, so any reasonable person would realize that a main difference between the two games is that, for example, we will have T-34s, Italians, Finns, and panzer 3s.

What are you saying, that because combat was the same, i.e. shooting bullets at each other, whether they be US or German, or Soviet, or Red vs. Blue, that both games are the same? I don't understand :confused:

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Nac4:

No, I'm not drunk. The "grand" nature of Eastern Front has no bearing on the CMBB player beyond aesthetic and a few engine refinements. The nature of the "grandest front" will have absolutely no effect on CMBB because there is no front present. Its a scenery change. Can't wait to see what sets they've built for ACT III. Come on, wake up. This is just like EASports releasing a new Fifa or Madden game every year for the lastest uniforms and rosters without largescale improvements. How do you argue against "wave-riding"

The promised improvements of MGs alone will be worth the price of admission. There have been many other changes to the CM engine that will have drastic effects on gameplay. Of course, to be honest, none of us can comment properly until we've actually seen CMBB.

The same goes for you, my son.

I hereby withdraw my support for you!

[ May 27, 2002, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]