Wepps Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 I'm a yank here, just stumbled across your CMBO product the other day and thought, well, why not give it a try? I never heard of it before, but it looked very good, and the people I went and saw posting had nothing but good stuff to say, why not? In 36 hours it arrived at my door. Since then, I have had my faith in mankind restored, at least as far as this goes. It was so easy to install, I couldn't believe my eyes when I lit up a smoke, took one drag, and it was already done! Wow, even went into my system where I asked it to! Well, time to go download the tons of patches. NONE? I don't need the patch, it says! These two issues right here had me practically doing backflips. A gaming company that actually is interested in making things EASY for their customers? What kind of thought went into this? Let's find out.... So I loaded up and started to play the tutorial. Very easy to use, and very easy to learn. What's the drawback? There must be something... So I decided to create my own battle. What, that's it? It took me all of 5 minutes to figure it out and build a fight, and I never once went to the manual! MY GOD! Then I actually fought the battle, and it was like a dream. I was able to accomplish the objectives and win a tactical victory even though I had only played the game once, because of my background in tactical issues and how to win a fight. I didn't have to fight with the interface, the manual, or anything, just the Wehrmacht! It was realistic, easy to play, I even went and made deliberately bad decisions to see the results of that aspect of the action, and they were right on, very accurate representation. KUDOS to you guys for the best, the absolute finest, wargame I have ever seen! I can't tell you enough how much your efforts are appreciated. You really know what your customers want and actually give it to us! I got this product in the mail yesterday, and now have already ordered CMBB to get my Eastern Front fix, along with the strategy guide (which I am confident is leaps and bounds above Prima stuff). It's about time we had real geniuses providing our needs! THANKS AGAIN! A VERY satisfied customer! (who is also very critical of products) -------------------------------------------- I want this public, because it means a great deal to me how I feel about a really fine product that we have here. I only wish I knew about it sooner. Just ordered CMBB now, can't wait to start collecting commy prisoners! Okay this is useless info, so I'm going to settle down now, open a nice cold beer, and level a town in Belgium! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ng cavscout Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 Great isn't it? Welcome to the deep end of the Gene Pool. I have played only a few games as much, or with as much enjoyment as these two. They are The Operational Art of War, and Operation Flash Point. That is it. Out of the over 100 computer games I have bought, only 4 are worth anything approaching "classic" status, at least as far as I am concerned. [ August 14, 2003, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: NG cavscout ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ng cavscout Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 double [ August 14, 2003, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: NG cavscout ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelWeenie Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 Just wait until you get CMBB! Not just prettier graphics, but the game engine is greatly improved, too! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reinald@berlin.com Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 Despite having paid hard earned money for the games I'm still grateful to them for having published such perfect products. BO and BB are the only computer games I play. Dropped Close Combat the very day I got my CMBO CD. I didn't like the strategy guide tho and consider it to be quite ****ty. Not only in writing style but also content-wise. Am furthermore kinda bothered with the concept of CMAK I have to admit. Looks like they take up others' bad habits of publishing something as a full game that isn't more than an add-on. Did anybody say Atomic? Multi-turreted tanks and dust clouds do not justify another 40 or so bucks IMHO. [edited: typo] [ August 14, 2003, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: reinald@berlin.com ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted August 14, 2003 Share Posted August 14, 2003 Multi-turreted tanks and dust clouds do not justify another 40 or so bucks IMHO. Which is why CM:AK is going to be cheaper than CM:BO or CM:BB, at least according to the FAQs Even so, 40 dollars is still less than I've paid for games that I've got less than one percent as much playing time out of, and less than I've spent on a night out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rokossovski Posted August 15, 2003 Share Posted August 15, 2003 Given the high quality of the products that Battlefront puts out and the extra care they put in (big, thick manuals etc) I'm perfectly happy shoveling money their way any chance I get just to encourage them to keep doing their thing. I'm in awe of both Battlefront's games and the demonstrated integrity of how they do business. - Rokossovski 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Chapuis Posted August 17, 2003 Share Posted August 17, 2003 Another thing that is different from say a FPS expansion or typical RTS stategy expansion (like Age of Empires) is that BTS has to spend a lot of time researching historical weapons/vehicle information - not only from previous time periods than CMBO, but also from new nationalities. They arent going to just slap new skins on Russian tank data. In my opinion, what you are describing is if they would charge you for a CMBB expansion where they added more vehicles and more scenarios to the same game. I cant wait to send my $40 to BFC for CMAK. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeauCoupDinkyDau Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 Originally posted by flamingknives: I've paid for games that I've got less than one percent as much playing time out of, and less than I've spent on a night out. Does your wife know you're still spending on those "working" girls? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 Originally posted by Vader's Jester: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by flamingknives: I've paid for games that I've got less than one percent as much playing time out of, and less than I've spent on a night out. Does your wife know you're still spending on those "working" girls? </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joachim Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 Originally posted by reinald@berlin.com: Am furthermore kinda bothered with the concept of CMAK I have to admit. Looks like they take up others' bad habits of publishing something as a full game that isn't more than an add-on. Did anybody say Atomic? Multi-turreted tanks and dust clouds do not justify another 40 or so bucks IMHO. [edited: typo] You don't have to buy it. If you think CMAK is CMBB in the desert with the same engine - stay at the Ostfront. OTOH for all those potential customers that missed out on CMBB because it does not include the yanks - they just have to pay the full price. Gruß Joachim 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 Originally posted by reinald@berlin.com: Am furthermore kinda bothered with the concept of CMAK I have to admit. Looks like they take up others' bad habits of publishing something as a full game that isn't more than an add-on. Did anybody say Atomic? Multi-turreted tanks and dust clouds do not justify another 40 or so bucks IMHO. [edited: typo] How about you wait until you see the demo before you jump to conclusions? To compare BFC to Atomic is just ludicrous. BTW - you seem to have no conception of the importance of dust (i.e. visibility) on the battlefield. How do you think this will impact on the borg spotting in the game? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzertruppe Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 Lets see.......I have gotten hundreds, if not thousands of hours from CMBO and CMBB.....40 dollars for CMAK?........how about my left nut? If I ever win the lottery Steve,Dan,Matt,ect..you guys all get to pick out new Ferrari's! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fredrock1957 Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 $40 for CMAK.... Thats a steal... I spend $40 on a 14yr old bottle of Oban every couple of days..I thought that was my only addiction in life... Then I got CMBO and CMBB and I became a new kind of addict... Hey Panzertruppe not only would the Ferrari's get the boyz around the map quicker They are also always in hull down postion while going 200mph... And for all you non-addicts the Oban only affects my LOS for a turn or 2 :cool: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobear Posted August 23, 2003 Share Posted August 23, 2003 Originally posted by NG cavscout: Welcome to the deep end of the Gene Pool. I have played only a few games as much, or with as much enjoyment as these two. They are The Operational Art of War...Better not use the diving board in that case. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandelion Posted August 23, 2003 Share Posted August 23, 2003 I don't see what's ludicrous about comparing Atomic with BFC. The BFC have themselves never claimed anything but the fact that the CMAK uses the same engine as CMBO and CMBB. Au contraire, Martin clearly states that the engines are the same in a recent thread. So I think we can safely assume that CMAK will indeed be using the same engine as the others. Reinald writes exactly this, and that he finds it problematic in view of the insistence on charging full price. Playing the Demo cannot reasonably reveal any other fact than that which he has already pointed out - that the engine is the same. Thus has no bearing on his simple and clear cut argument. I feel he has a valid point. It will amount to nothing, because the BFC will still release the CMAK using the same engine and same full price, but at least Reinald has given some critical opinion a bit of air in here. Atomic was a skilled team. Ultimately, it was a commercial company turning a profit (or failing to). They used some less honourable methods doing that. But I can't see it as being morally more revolting than the BFC making a buck out of volounteer unpaid modding the way they did, nor do I see what the difference is between their expansion modules and those of the BFC. It all seems pretty much the same to me. Irreverently Dandelion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
easytarget Posted August 23, 2003 Share Posted August 23, 2003 since we're all participating in a free market place we all have the power to individually decide for ourselves whether CMAK is worthy of purchase no real mystery in that strikes me as so obvious as to hardly warrant mentioning certainly not worthy of being called out for special praise as if something astoundingly brilliant had been observed 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobnickbob Posted August 23, 2003 Share Posted August 23, 2003 reinald and all who might poo poo this product. So let me get this straight.....I am going to buy CMAK and play this game for months on end , Ok maybe years , and we are talking almost every day.... And I should be upset because they are charging me $40.00 + what ever.... Lets see last time I went out to ONE movie and a bite to eat $20.00 + And one more thing , when some one said they are going to do this right , new armor calculations, troop types , ground conditions , acutely worked into the game and on target.........I wouldn’t doubt it. After playing CMBO and CBBB I expect it will be a different game but feel the same..... just as good , just as fun. As far as the game engine goes “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it” Lastly.. Just read THE TRAIL OF THE FOX by David Irving......... Its funny I really liked it but , it was kind of like seeing a well known painting like the Mona Lisa , last super , etc.... from the standing behind the subject , you know from the other side. BNB 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cabron66 Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 Man you guys get defensive sometimes. I love CMBO and am very happy with the changes made to CMBB, but it is OK to criticize. I play CMBO every day, despite what I'm sure it must be doing to my vision, and am really waiting for CMAK so I can use the American and British stuff with the new and improved game features. However, CMBO and CMBB are far from perfect and I see nothing wrong with saying so. I, for one, think the scenario builder is terrible. No sand, very few options for fixed defenses, limited choices for terrain, very oversimplified foxholes, NO TRENCHES and worst of all not a sand bag in sight (no MG nests). Basically rules out doing an kind of good D-Day scenario or any good recreation of an assault on a fortified position. I did make one beach assault scenario, but I had to steal somebody else's sand, rework a lot of BMP's, get very "creative" with elevation and make a huge effort to create a decent shoreline. Looked good in the end, but it all only worked with one scenario and had to be packaged along with it's own little mod that could only be used for that scenario. I hate to criticise the excellent work of others, but being able to do a good beach landing is something that should be possible within the confines of the scenario builder. Have mercy on me, please. I'm just saying is all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandelion Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 Well Cabron, are you not struck by the sudden feeling of walking amidst a band of frenzied taliban, when suddenly it strikes you - and all the rest of the jolly crew - that you shaved this morning? In fact reading your post, I felt a compulsive urge to point my finger at yourself, opening my mouth to give off that horrid sound that Mr Southerland gives in the closing scene of Body Snatchers. :eek: Seriously though, we have a strikingly immature and unhelpful debating climate in the forum whenever critical opinion on the game or the company policies are aired. Few award any eloquence, humble or less humble, the attention it demands, as is quite evident from the above Reinald-stomping excercise. It was not always thus, I recall that the capital lettering-nonsensical-incomprehensible-chant anagrams were once delivered primarily by the "every single detail about this game is complete crap" lobby. As indeed was most of the abusing, stomping and swamping of dissidents. Tides turn, evidently. Now, run for it, I'll cover you from over here Cheerfully Dandelion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 Originally posted by Dandelion: I don't see what's ludicrous about comparing Atomic with BFC. The BFC have themselves never claimed anything but the fact that the CMAK uses the same engine as CMBO and CMBB. Au contraire, Martin clearly states that the engines are the same in a recent thread. So I think we can safely assume that CMAK will indeed be using the same engine as the others. Reinald writes exactly this, and that he finds it problematic in view of the insistence on charging full price. Which is what so far BFC have said they are not going to do. Have you read something contradicting the first statement that CMAK will be cheaper than CMBO and CMBB? If so, please direct me to the statement. I may have overlooked it. Originally posted by Dandelion: Playing the Demo cannot reasonably reveal any other fact than that which he has already pointed out - that the engine is the same. Thus has no bearing on his simple and clear cut argument.Can you please direct me to the CMAK demo? I must have missed it. Originally posted by Dandelion: I feel he has a valid point. It will amount to nothing, because the BFC will still release the CMAK using the same engine and same full price, but at least Reinald has given some critical opinion a bit of air in here.Nope, his opinion is based on a wrong impression about charges for the new product. Thus it is not valid, regardless of how you feel about it. Your feeling does not change the facts. Originally posted by Dandelion: Atomic was a skilled team. Ultimately, it was a commercial company turning a profit (or failing to). They used some less honourable methods doing that. But I can't see it as being morally more revolting than the BFC making a buck out of volounteer unpaid modding the way they did, nor do I see what the difference is between their expansion modules and those of the BFC. It all seems pretty much the same to me. Oh Boy. Do you actually check on something you write before you do so? I am one of the people who happily gives up his private time for no reward to help BFC. BFC always asked for my agreement before providing my scenarios as part of their new ways of distributing their product. Do you have any proof that they did not do the same with the modders and other scenario designers? If so, please put up, or shut up, on this issue. Originally posted by Dandelion: Irreverently Dandelion Foolishly - more like it. If you want to be taken seriously, it really does help to get your facts right. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 Originally posted by Dandelion: Well Cabron, are you not struck by the sudden feeling of walking amidst a band of frenzied taliban, when suddenly it strikes you - and all the rest of the jolly crew - that you shaved this morning? In fact reading your post, I felt a compulsive urge to point my finger at yourself, opening my mouth to give off that horrid sound that Mr Southerland gives in the closing scene of Body Snatchers. :eek: Seriously though, we have a strikingly immature and unhelpful debating climate in the forum whenever critical opinion on the game or the company policies are aired. Few award any eloquence, humble or less humble, the attention it demands, as is quite evident from the above Reinald-stomping excercise. It was not always thus, I recall that the capital lettering-nonsensical-incomprehensible-chant anagrams were once delivered primarily by the "every single detail about this game is complete crap" lobby. As indeed was most of the abusing, stomping and swamping of dissidents. Tides turn, evidently. Now, run for it, I'll cover you from over here Cheerfully Dandelion Strikingly unhelpful is to make bold claims that are completely untrue. To claim that pulling Reinald up on a very silly mistake that gives the completely wrong impression about BFC's product policy is Talibanesque is immature. Edit to add - if by 'the demo' you meant the CMBB demo, then all I can say is that you are making a very broad judgement on very little, not to say, next to no expertise. I know a number of people who no longer touch CMBO. I de-installed it a long time ago. Whether it is the same basic engine or not is completely irrelevant. To all intents and purposes, it is a different, much improved game. Are you sure you are not Lt. Hortlund? I agree that there is a very problematic climate in this forum when people like you feel they can just throw out random claims without checking their facts first. To then try to hide the boo-boo behind some balooney about Taliban is just plain stupid. I had thought a bit more of you Dandelion. Oh well, goes to show I am not the greatest judge of character. [ August 25, 2003, 08:43 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 Originally posted by Cabron66: worst of all not a sand bag in sight (no MG nests). heehee...you think they really existed? Why not ask for Errol Flynn in tights while you're at it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 Originally posted by Dandelion: The BFC have themselves never claimed anything but the fact that the CMAK uses the same engine as CMBO and CMBB.That is true... however, even though CMBO and CMBB share the same engine, that certainly doesn't make them the same. So, given that, what makes you think CMAK will not be unique. Your posts seem to say that BFC is going to just slap CMAK together and chuck it on the store shelves. BFC has never shown a tendency toward that, so I fail to see where you would get that impression. In the words of Oddball, "have a little faith, baby." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 Nothing wrong with being critical about our games. (If you take some time to search the forums, you will find that anytime somebody has to say something meaningful (more meaningful than "this suxx" that is), we listen. Sometimes we cannot change the issue because of an underlying fundamental problem, but often enough we do.) At the same time, however, being critical does not automatically make one's viewpoint correct, and just as people always have had the right to post critical opinions on these forums, other people have the right to disagree. Sometimes one or the other side is plain wrong, sometimes it boils down to different tastes. As long as it remains civilized, we have never locked such debates. CMAK uses the same engine as CMBO and CMBB. But just like CMBB is a whole different tactical experience than CMBO, so will be CMAK. While the 3D engine remains the same at the core, many details are changed to make CMAK a realistic and credible simulation of combat in Africa, Italy and Crete. (If all we wanted was to make gobs of money, we would have released CMAK months ago with a new splash screen and a few new textures. THEN you could accuse us of "milknig the cow".) Dust for example makes a ton of a difference. Remember, it's not only kicked up by moving vehicles, but also by artillery barrages and main gun fire, and as such I've often found surprisingly short lines of sight on presumably "wide open and flat" maps in Africa (and even Italy; dust is not only an African feature), making for an exciting gameplay. Wait for the demo, judge for yourself. (Or in fact, we're planning to show you even before the demo is out in the next bigger BONE... stay tuned). CMAK will be $35 plus shipping most likely, vs. the $45 that CMBB is selling for currently. We felt that this price reduction was needed to account for the fact that CMAK will present less innovation vs. what CMBB (and CMBO) did in their time. As such, we're trying to price the product fairly, and - encompassing three different theaters with totally different terrain features (from African desert to Italian mountains and plains), 8 or 9 different nations, 5 war years, several hundred units, a full featured map and scenario editor - we think that there is plenty enough value for the money. I do not want to comment on the comparisons made between us and Atomic, simply because I don't feel qualified. I have no clue what was going on behind the scenes there (unlike some other folks here apparently?). Certainly just like Atomic (or any other game developer and publisher for that matter), we are a business, and we do what we do for a living. As such the decision to release CMAK is a business decision, and I don't see anything evil about it. The purchase of CMAK is NOT REQUIRED to continue to play CMBO or CMBB. Point is that we would actually PREFER to concentrate on the new engine entirely, but it will take at least one more year for our small team to finish it, and because people keep asking for new titles, we think that the release of CMAK (introducing a new theater, further refining the underlying realism like ballistics and penetration calculations, and at the same time giving some folks their GI's back) is a sound decision for both our business, and our fans. It's either that or NO new CM title this year. Martin PS. Edit for typo [ August 25, 2003, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: Moon ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.