Can't buy troops????

[Janster]

Harsh tones from me, but you must be able to understand the sheer AMOUNT of hours that Combat Mission Normandie and Barbarossa brought me and my merry gang of CM'ers here.

When I remember the fun of the multi-part battles we used to have..and the buying part where I had to think HARD on what to get, and what just sounded cool to have.

Now, multi-part campaigns are no more for MP play, neither is ability to choose my own units.

And neither is random maps....

now its all pre-designed squads/companies, that we play with.

That might be fun a few times, but it will get OLD VERY fast ..

Please, you gotta accept these facts.

Janster

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by Childress:

Agree with Tom! As if real life commanders can cherry pick surgically appropriate OBs on the fly. Puhleeze. This is a tactical game,after all, reflecting rapidly changing conditions. Now that the purchase screen has been deep sixed players may consider learning to improvise and 'make do' like in RL.

Umm, let me highlight the most important part of this post:

Originally posted by Childress:

<small>Agree with Tom! As if real life commanders can cherry pick surgically appropriate OBs on the fly. Puhleeze. </small><large><large>This is a </large></large><small>tactical</small><large><large> game</large></large><small>,after all, reflecting rapidly changing conditions. Now that the purchase screen has been deep sixed players may consider learning to improvise and 'make do' like in RL.</small>

There. That's it. This is a game. For the vast majority of us, it is nothing more than an opportunity to play and have fun. It is not a military training tool (though it can be that, to a limited extent); it is not an opportunity to exercise our armchair general skills and prove that we can do better than the professionals in the field (though an element of that exists, too); it is a game. It is a piece of entertainment software. That is why we buy it -- and it is why, developer preferences aside, it is important to understand and, to some extent, cater to the desires of the customer base.

Steve

[ July 28, 2007, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: MrSpkr ]

[Panzer76]

Well put MrSpkr

[Razer]

Excuse me. Reading this almost puts me in a state of rage. I don't want specific shopping in QB's. You seem to want that. Fine, but how MUCH time would that take to implement? I'm perfectly fine with having "preset" formations, because I find ALL the fun in using what's at hand and defeating the enemy slowly. So chosing formation / quality is not enough for you? You want to nitpick, add a unit here and remove one there? Is that really THAT MUCH FUN?

If you think so, fine. That's your opinion. But if you can't enjoy the game without having your shoppingspree in QB, you're not really appreciating the game at all. How are you going to stop someone from just buying RPGs for an example?

Enough of my opinionbased ranting and to the facts. Martin has said that the C&C model would suffer + it'd take alot of time. To me, I'd rather have them working on modules / CMx2 WWII than trying to get a good shoppingchart ready for those who want to add slight variation to an already variable and stable system. Cheers man, cheers.

[thewood]

Okaaaay...I guess that is a vote against. That is the second post with rage or anger mentioned in regards to WEGO TCP in less than two minutes. A new world record.

edit: sorry, this wasn't about WEGO, but did include rage

[Madmatt]

Originally posted by DocMcJansen:

Couldn't say it better Exel!!

Some things that made CM so great are lacking in CMSF...

This is a true statement and it was designed to be that way.

Let me explain.

Yes, some of the things that were in a TEN YEAR OLD design which made that TEN YEAR OLD DESIGNED GAME great are not in CMSF. They have been replaced with all NEW things designed to make this NEW game great.

I know its asking a lot for you guys to see CMSF not as a evolution of the old CMx1 games but rather as a completely new design and game, but once you do, you begin to understand the approach we have taken with CMSF much better. Give it time, I helped MAKE this game and it took me a while to see that for myself!

Thats not to say we can't add some of those old great things that everyone loved back in. I mean sure, if it ain't broke don't fix it but that's only applicable if the part being talked about NOT fixing, still fits in the new machine.

Madmatt

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by Razer:

Excuse me. Reading this almost puts me in a state of rage.

Obviously you need help with reading comprehension

[Cheeba]

Originally posted by Razer:

To me, I'd rather have them working on modules / CMx2 WWII than trying to get a good shoppingchart ready for those who want to add slight variation to an already variable and stable system. Cheers man, cheers.

Surely it's a little early to be even thinking about additional modules at this stage? There's still quite a few kinks to be ironed out it seems, and all people are doing is trying to offering suggestions as to what they'd consider key features they'd like included in the game. I don't see what you're getting so riled up about.

I think building as solid and expansive a foundation as possible would be the right way to go. A 'unit shopping' system might be seen as overkill or unnecessary by quite a few members now, but you'd be mad to think that people won't be absolutely screaming for one in CMx2 WWII, so why not consider working on it sometime in the near future? That way they'll always have it to use again in future modules. Just a thought.

I can understand perfectly how it's not a priority, for all the reasons mentioned, but I'd be a little disappointed if it never made a showing.

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by Madmatt:

Let me explain.

Yes, some of the things that were in a TEN YEAR OLD design which made that TEN YEAR OLD DESIGNED GAME great are not in CMSF. They have been replaced with all NEW things designed to make this NEW game great.

The problem is that is not an explanation. And the explanations that have been put forth are lacking. If there was a good explanation that was presented so we could understand, I dont think there would be such an outcry.

for example, Steve has pointed out that you cannot rewind during realtime and that you cant have the VCR setting during the first play through of WeGo. He has explained why, and people are understanding, even if it is slowly.

The explanations for not putting QB selection pretty much add up to - IMO - "we didnt think it was necessary."

(Yes there have been some other things that might have made it hard or different or take time - I think everybody gets that. Its the "you dont really need it" that I personally dont understand. But I have agreed to consider for two weeks and address the issue again - if I have a revelation in that time I will publicly bow low in humiliation)

Originally posted by Madmatt:

I know its asking a lot for you guys to see CMSF not as a evolution of the old CMx1 games but rather as a completely new design and game

And this could be read as insulting if one wanted to.

[Madmatt]

Fair enough, and give us time and many of those explanations and justifications WILL BE COMING OUT, its just that we are a little busy at the moment trying to juggle our obligations on the forum, handling tech support, sales support, demo support AND planning for the next patch all at the same time.

Granted, thats no explanation either, but what you asking for is detailed, in depth core design stuff and thats takes a while to come out properly (and i type slow!).

Not only that, but we also want to hear and see not just what you guys LIKE but what you DON'T like and we like to see how and why you justify your statements. We assess that info internally and will and have in the past used that to shape future design decissions.

My comments above were meant to try and put things in context though and I realize that my perspective on the game and yours come from two different places.

Nowhere are we telling people to NOT have these types of discussions, we are merely asking you to try and put some things in context.

Trust me, there are plenty of things that WERE in CMx1 that we WILL put into CMSF and future CMx2 based games in the future and as time passes we will be dicussing that much more in detail.

On the other hand, some of the stuff you knew and loved in CMx1 won't go into CMSF and the more you play the more you will also come to understand and see that for yourselves.

This isn't the first time we have shifted the paradigm you know... we do know what we are doing and have faith that our customers will come to understand this as well, even if ,like we had to do back when CMBO was released, they come with us kicking and screaming at first.

Madmatt

[Battlefront.com]

I typed up a longer response and decided to use most of it for a different (broader) discussion about why we deliberately left behind CMx1 features we knew people would miss. Instead, for this thread I will say this:

We'll look again to see if there might be some way to cross bread the outdated (and harmful to CMx2) QB system with the new CMx2 philosophy and game engine. We've been over this many times before (including on this Forum) and I don't think there is much chance of doing anything for now. Maybe we can come back to this in 6 months when the game isn't mere hours hold and the full weight of the philosophy and feature shift has sunk in. The general first reaction of a gamer is to hate change, so we can't take the first reaction very seriously. Some of the loudest voices here don't even have CM:SF so they are, to put it mildly, speaking in utter ignorance and therefore more reason not to take the complaints too seriously.

This is, therefore, not the time to be having a constructive conversation. Simply put, you guys don't know enough to contribute in a meaningful way towards a possible way forward. You're stuck in the past and spiteful at the moment. Hardly a constructive atmosphere.

CMx2, overall, has more game features, designer flexibility, art, graphics, sound, and long term potential than CMx1 ever had. So yeah, there are some CMx1 things that aren't there, but focusing on that is like looking at a 1/2 full glass of Pepsi and a full glass of Coke and calling the glass of Coke "half empty" because it isn't Pepsi. The person complaining might believe that Pepsi is better, but he'd be wrong to say that the glass of Coke has less appeal and less value than the half glass of Pepsi. Personal opinion does not equal factual analysis

Steve

[Fetchez la Vache]

Personally I'm not too bothered about a lack of QB purchasing in this game because, to be honest, the range of units isn't big enough to require it. The options given in the QB setup are enough to give plenty of variability for the conflict type being modeled in CMSF.

However I'm a bit concerned about this lack (relative to CMx1) of unit modeled in the game. This is fine for the modern warfare this first installment of CMx2 represents since in this timeframe there simply aren't that many different types of units. But I do wonder what this means for my personal enjoyment of the future WW2 modules since it's partly the shear variety of units which attracts me to that timeframe. I'm just hoping that future modules will somehow be "merge-able" so that multiple modules will allow the range of choice there was in CMx1.

So my take is that I'm happy with the limited choice I'm given so far, in the hope that future modules will keep expanding things. CMx1 games were a stack of beer slabs, whereas CMSF appears to be more of a tasty red wine - quality vs quantity?

[Battlefront.com]

David,

The problem is that is not an explanation. And the explanations that have been put forth are lacking. If there was a good explanation that was presented so we could understand, I dont think there would be such an outcry.

Oh, there I totally disagree! We have people here sounding off who haven't even played CMx2, yet they are convinced that without it the game will suck. Hard to explain to people all the reasons why it doesn't work for a game system they haven't even played. Like explaining to a blind person why color is better than black and white (unless it is a classic film orginally made in B&W, then colorizing it sucks! )

-----

I can assure all of you that CMx1 style QBs were not tossed aside because "we didn't think they were necessary". They were not included because they weren't seen as compatiable with the rest of the game and the philosophy at its very core.

The easiest most simplistic way to put it is this. CMx1 was generic combat, a virtual sandbox with no soul (big heart, no soul). The way units were purchased was part of the reason for that. Accept it, reject it, I don't care. A game is as much art as anything else, and our atristic vision for CMx2 was not to remake CMx1 with better graphics.

The major reasons QBs changed from what they once were:

1. The importance of Command and Control (C2) for the very core of the game. Everything unit related revolves around C2, though Relative Spotting is probably the most relevant. Therefore, units need to be in a structured TO&E, not some slapped together hodgepodge of random units.

2. The unit point system of CMx1 never worked acceptably. Grudgingly most people stopped complaining about it after a couple of years when they realized we didn't care about the endless griping.

3. Despite CMx1 being a game, it was also a historical study in WWII warfare. Some people don't care about it, but judging from the harsh reaction we received when we announced CM:SF... the historical element of fun in CMx1 is obviously hugely important. Having a system that allowed a person to buy buttload of M5A1 Stuarts to take on a horde or Pumas never sat well with us. Worse, there were tons of people that didn't understand how forces were put together in the real war. Strict TO&E was necessary to fix that.

4. The last thing we want to do is get into flamewars with people about why a T-62M is 124 points and an Abrams is only 232, when in fact a single Abrams can destroy 30 T-62s (it could probably kill more, but it only has so much ammo!). Because that is exactly what we were faced with. So you will have to forgive us for not wanting to jam forks into our eyes and bash them into our brains by pounding or heads on our keyboards. I'd much rather sit here, day after day, telling you all that you can't have a CMx1 unit purchase system than to go through the years of crap about how it works. Sorry guys... that's the "be careful what you wish for" element of this design decision.

5. No random maps for similar reasons to #4. The map generator in CMx1 was OK, but it struggled. With CMx2 there was no practical way to make decent maps due to the massive increase in terrain fidelity and terrain options. Does this mean we couldn't make a random map generator? No, we can and we still probably will. But it took us 3.5 (or 4, depending on how you count) years to make CM:SF without this feature. Two more months to you doesn't sound like a big deal, but our time never matters to customers except when they wish it to. "WHERE IS THE GAME" is quickly followed by "WHY DOESN'T IT COOK MY DINNER TOO?!?" You're a lovable lot on some days, unreasonably slave drivers most other days.

Ah... there probably are more reasons if I think back on it, but in my opinion that's more than enough already.

Will there ever be a CMx1 style QB system in CMx2? No. It's a dead concept and it simply doesn't work with the new game engine. Period. Deal with it. BUT! Does that mean that we can't figure out something else and prioritize that for CM:WW2 if we can figure out something else to cut (yeah, we have the CM:WW2 feature list mostly done)? Quite possibly. But as I said above, now is not the time. As a group you guys are not being reasonable or rational. Understandable, but still highly unproductive.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Fetchez la Vache,

CMx1 games were a stack of beer slabs, whereas CMSF appears to be more of a tasty red wine - quality vs quantity?

Not quite, but close! Depth over breadth. That's what we've been saying for about 3 years now.

Now that we have the game engine built and the first version released, we can continue to move forward with the design. I for one was never able to play CMBO after playing CMBB because we refused to be held back. And who here remembers the massive, wounded, bloody, outcry from CMBO fans when we introduce things like the improved Machinegun behavior? That was a fairly modest change and people hated it because the German SMG rush was no longer possible.

I think you guys suffer from collective memory failure. You NEVER like it when we introduce something new

Steve

[Ryan Crierie]

Originally posted by Madmatt:

Yes, some of the things that were in a TEN YEAR OLD design which made that TEN YEAR OLD DESIGNED GAME great are not in CMSF. They have been replaced with all NEW things designed to make this NEW game great.

Like the awesome context sensitive right click menus of such:

Oh that had to go, sorry.

I know its asking a lot for you guys to see CMSF not as a evolution of the old CMx1 games but rather as a completely new design and game

Then call it something else, without the words "Combat Mission" in it.

[C'Rogers]

I know its asking a lot for you guys to see CMSF not as a evolution of the old CMx1 games but rather as a completely new design and game

It is kind of hard not to compare a game to another game when they share the same name. If I liked element X in a series I feel somewhat rightly upset if element X is no longer present when the series continues.

I enjoyed the purchase system in CMx1 and did not worry about min/maxing and hope that more randomness if unit selections will be made availble.

There are three different options for spotting (with two being unrealistic), it doesn't seem silly then that there should be two ways to choose units. A realistic and unrealistic option with the later allowing purchasing would seem ideal. There doesn't even have to be a huge worry if the forces are even balanced for the latter, it is called unrealistic.

Will it affect my enjoyment of the game? A little, but not much. But I doubt at the moment that it will last as long on my computer as CM:BB. But time will tell, I realize I am airing my comments early.

[C'Rogers]

Then call it something else, without the words "Combat Mission" in it.

Shoot, you beat me to it.

[Ryan Crierie]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

And who here remembers the massive, wounded, bloody, outcry from CMBO fans when we introduce things like the improved Machinegun behavior? That was a fairly modest change and people hated it because the German SMG rush was no longer possible.

I think you guys suffer from collective memory failure. You NEVER like it when we introduce something new

We don't like it when you completely throw out what works, like right click menus, and the capability to see terrain a far distance away in some detail, and then berate us for not falling over ourselves to worship the new.

In fact, you're making a fallacy here; the addition of Machine gun covered arcs IMPROVED the series; and made Machineguns closer to what they were in real life; a weapon which prevented infantry from assaulting across open fields.

The deletion of a lot of good ideas, like the right click context sensitive menu, in favor of a completely retarded system:

In order to pick what we want, we have to boop through four buttons of menus!

It's not a improvement it's a degradation.

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The easiest most simplistic way to put it is this. CMx1 was generic combat, a virtual sandbox with no soul (big heart, no soul). The way units were purchased was part of the reason for that. Accept it, reject it, I don't care. A game is as much art as anything else, and our atristic vision for CMx2 was not to remake CMx1 with better graphics.

I can understand this.

I also understand that what I intend as feedback on "my wants" can easily be viewed by the designers as criticism. So, again, I will pull out my fanboi hat and say I do like that game and have great expectations for playing it for years to come - and concerning this I will play for a couple weeks and see if I cant re-evaluate my stance.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Oh, there I totally disagree! We have people here sounding off who haven't even played CMx2, yet they are convinced that without it the game will suck. Hard to explain to people all the reasons why it doesn't work for a game system they haven't even played. Like explaining to a blind person why color is better than black and white (unless it is a classic film orginally made in B&W, then colorizing it sucks! )

It is a mischaracterization to say this of everyone concerned about the new QBs. The posters in this thread, at least most of them, are not saying the game sucks so much as they are stating that it is not fun for them, or that they don't think it would be. Not the same thing. Some of us, myself included, have not bought CMSF but we did buy the CMx1 games and we know what it was we liked about those games. And all I have to do is read the forum to know that much of that isn't in CMSF. I think it's perfectly legitimate for us to ask of CMSF "what's in it for me?"

I understand and appreciate the explanation for why the QB feature was... changed. I always felt that one of the reasons the CM games were so successful was because they balanced realism and accessibility almost perfectly. Apparenly there has been a conscious decision to make CMx2 more of a hardcore sim and less of a game. Ok, but not everyone who has played CM collects military uniforms and armored vehicles for a pastime. There are many people who played CMx1 QBs almost exclusively. In the years I spent playing those games you could count the number of premade scenarios I played on one finger. You could have shipped those games without a single scenario or the editor and I'd have never noticed or cared. For me the Quick Battles are Combat Mission, and as dalem pointed out the two defining characteristics of QBs have been the random maps and the ability to pick your own units. With these gone I'm left wondering what the reason for including QBs in CMx2 is. From the descriptions given it sounds like the new QBs are essentially user-made scenarios minus the mission briefings.

On the positive side, indications that the random map generator may make a comeback -- hopefully before the WW2 game -- is welcome news indeed. Once all of the modules are out and there are multiple nationalites and US Marines available the issue of playing with the same units every game should be alleviated. All is not gloom and doom. But I do think I'm going to hold off buying CMSF for now and see what happens.

[moneymaxx]

Originally posted by Ryan Crierie:

Yes.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

And who here remembers the massive, wounded, bloody, outcry from CMBO fans when we introduce things like the improved Machinegun behavior? That was a fairly modest change and people hated it because the German SMG rush was no longer possible.

I think you guys suffer from collective memory failure. You NEVER like it when we introduce something new

Steve

What a load of hogwash. I think its YOU who suffers from memory failure. The community told *loudly* after CMBO that your representation of HMG left something to be desired, but you guys defended it in post after post. It was an "abstraction" dotcha know. Then, CMBB came, and lo and behold, the HMG was "fixed" but YOU never admitted anyting about it being broken in CMBO.

Just say it, you were wrong in CMBO, and "we" were right.

So please, dont play us for fools, we were here 7 yrs ago also, and I can remember what happend then.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Ryan Crierie:

It's not a improvement it's a degradation.

Totally agree!

[Flanker15]

I see no reason why a right click menu can't be added in later along with a unit buy system (for the WW2 CMx2 game they will certainly do it).

Right now the game has only just come out, BF is putting its resources into patches and bug fixes. If you really want point buy system you can do it from the scenario editor at the moment.

[Arsenal]

Going ot a bit here but from what I remember there was never a problem with hmgs in cmbo. The problem was the way infantry reacted when coming under fire which made hmgs ineffective. So infantry was the thing changed in cmbb not hmgs. I think from memory the only tweaks to hmgs were to give them covered arcs and a larger area/grazing fire effect. Could be wrong on all of this, I'm sure bts knows.

Anyways, back to your normal program