Can't buy troops????

[JasonC]

Razer - the option to buy lots of RPGs - and less relatively useless (against vehicle mounted Amis at least) AK armed infantry - is exactly the reason I want selectable forces.

I don't care if there are no prices or if they aren't balanced perfectly. I still want to be able to *try different tactics*, and different tactics mean different force mixes. Not cookie cutter force mixes.

I want to be able to fight with sniper rifles and a 120mm mortar spotter and a few ATGMs, if I think that will be more effective. Or with pure M-1s, nothing else. (If that works poorly, fine, I want to find out that it works poorly - that would be the whole point of trying it).

I want an unconventional threat to occasionally actually be unconventional, in other words. One RPG per 8 guys with AKs is extremely conventional. Cookie cutter enemies do not *stress* tactical doctrine the way freely selectable forces do. How a doctrine works when the enemy behaves exactly as expected is not a test.

My major interest in the whole subject is to try out threat tactics to find counters to current US doctrine. Because having a brain means we get to let our hypotheses die in our stead, as a smart guy once put it.

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by JasonC:

My major interest in the whole subject is to try out threat tactics to find counters to current US doctrine. QUOTE]

Jason has joined the intifada

[Battlefront.com]

Ryan Crierie

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.

When someone makes a position about something, one should expect that someone may respond in disagreement. Especially when it is an opinion. You've expressed your opinions, we've disagreed (at least to some extent) with them. Are you saying there is something wrong with that?

David Chapuis,

I also understand that what I intend as feedback on "my wants" can easily be viewed by the designers as criticism.

Not taken that way at all. And criticism is healthy. Criticism mixed with a condescending attitude is unnecessary and counter productive.

Vanir Ausf B

It is a mischaracterization to say this of everyone concerned about the new QBs.

It's always very difficult for me to address 20 or 30 individual posts at one go without some amount of generalization. I certainly don't think there is one monolithic point of view about the QB stuff any more than anything else. Some people have even voiced support, or at least ambivalence, at the removal of the point purchase system. There are all kinds of views here.

I think it's perfectly legitimate for us to ask of CMSF "what's in it for me?"

Very! All I am asking is for those people, when they ask the question, to look at what the game offers and see if perhaps it has something to offer even though it isn't EXACTLY like before. Or to at least understand that we don't make major changes without good reason. People can disagree with the "good" part of that, sure, but if it is understood that the decision has a reason one might become curious to know what it is and consider that it might be for the better (even if not for that individual person. We can't make EVERYBODY equally happy).

In the years I spent playing those games you could count the number of premade scenarios I played on one finger.

Which is one reason we put so much design energy into the scenario editor. You see, we feel that most people played QBs all the time because the handmade ones weren't all that different. I played QBs almost exclusively myself.

Panzer76,

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.

And then when we gave you what you wanted, what you were complaining needed to be fixed, there was a total howl from CMBO gamers that we changed it. People were saying it "ruined" the game. Nothing wrong with my memory

Then, CMBB came, and lo and behold, the HMG was "fixed" but YOU never admitted anyting about it being broken in CMBO.

At the time we felt the abstraction (and it was an abstraction) worked, so yeah... we defended it. And when we fixed it and took a TON of crap for it we absolutely said it was broken in CMBO and that is why we fixed it. How could we possibly have said to people, who were complaining about the new MG behavior, "Yes, we had it perfect in CMBO and changed it in CMBB for the heck of it, now we refuse to change it back because we like making arbitrary decisions".

It was hard to talk about it with

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

Not a problem. "you" were right. We changed it even though at the time we thought it was fine. Then we took a mountain of crap for changing it, but we stood our ground and kept the change in. Isn't that a good thing? Or should we have just left it alone out of pride and skipped the abuse?

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

So you remember the public outcry when CMBB's demo came out and people couldn't rush their SMG units at MG positions?

One of the problems you guys have to remember is we do not have a monolithic customer type. Everybody is a little different and often the opinions are contradictory. We had impassioned arguments for the improvement of MGs in CMBO, we had impassioned arguments against those improvements in CMBB. There is absolutely no way we can do anything without someone having a problem with it. That means we have to pick and choose who to make happy and who to piss off. We understand that. It would be nice to at least have some understanding that perhaps you might be the one that we had to piss off. It's nothing personal, it is just an unavoidable byproduct of making a game that is played by tens of thousands of autonomous individuals, each with their own point of view.

Steve

[ July 28, 2007, 10:41 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Battlefront.com]

Ryan Crierie

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

That's ridiculous. Look at any car on today's market and then look at the one with the same name on it that was made 8 years ago. I bet you there are more similarities between CMBO and CM:SF than between those two cars

Ryan, I am not slamming you here. What I am doing is pointing out the "baby and the bathwater" syndrome you are voluntarily ascribing to. CM:SF is absolutely a new game. Ground up design from fresh code. There were some major paradigm shifts, some small changes, but a LOT of it is exactly the same. And I think the vast bulk of changes we made you would agree are positive. So singling out a few features we changed that you don't agree with should not be taken out of that broader context. I'm not saying you have to LIKE the changes we made, I am just asking you to have some perspective about it. It could kill off all interest in the game for you, understood. The MG changes we made (supposedly) killed off a lot of interest in CMBB. Heck, the Eastern Front theme killed off a lot of interest right there (I still have people tell me that).

Be upset there is a change you don't like. Tell us that it is so bad that you hate everything else in the game. Fine, I can accept that. But when you make statements like we shouldn't be using Combat Mission as its name... well, you're not exactly making your point of view more valid by doing that.

Steve

[Janster]

Yeah, I have some real issues understanding this noe TOE thingie they got going.

Obviously this game is a step towards the hardcore...

But oi, but seemingly your trying to reinvent the wheel, and ignore ANY lessons learned from previous Combat Missions.

This is can be very dangerous...and suddenly you have a Master of Orion III thing going, where nobody understands where your going.

Quick Battle and buying units was THE core of Combat Mission...

Scenarios sucked and I didn't like preset forces.

As for how units work together in war, and stuff... Dudes, its sometimes called Battlegroups and stuff, thats where war gets nasty, and you use what you have at hand.

It's ridiculous to say that, oh noes, sorry, but these units only play with these other units...but not with those units...sorry.

But seriously ..don't you think you've seriously gimped your Quick Battles???????

I've tested the diffrent forms, its NOT that many diffrent troop layouts...

And why I can't have that -1- Abrahams as fire support in a scenario is just not going well with me...

Command and control is not that rigid that they won't deploy a single Abrahams, or for that fact, use one that is AT HAND.

I doubt they will go...OH NOES; it doesn't fit with the TOE, so you can't come and play with us.

Silly silly

Janster

[dalem]

Originally posted by 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

So you're saying you didn't anticipate this reaction from parts of your core base? That you don't have a canned response available? For shame.

-dale

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

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

The above is an answer I can live with, if not like. Steve, your customer-facing interaction still sucks, but at least you can be provoked into honesty.

When will you sell the CM code to someone to roll around in?

-dale

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

One of the problems you guys have to remember is we do not have a monolithic customer type.

And Steve, one of the things that you have to remember is that BTS/BFC has never been particularly skilled at handling customer criticism/analysis, as much as you invite it.

I've been "here" since the "Computer Squad Leader" days. Convince me to buy your new game, Sir.

Or not. But don't pee down my back and tell me it's rainin'.

-dale

[Battlefront.com]

Dale,

So you're saying you didn't anticipate this reaction from parts of your core base? That you don't have a canned response available?

You Pengers never can get anything quite right, can you? Yeah, I anaticipated the reaction, but no I didn't have a canned response ready. You get 50% marks for correctness. Sorry, too low to qualify for the door prize!

The above is an answer I can live with, if not like. Steve, your customer-facing interaction still sucks, but at least you can be provoked into honesty.

That's OK, your developer-facing interaction still sucks, but at least we can provoke you into taking a "wait and see" attitude

When will you sell the CM code to someone to roll around in?

We're capitalists, so the time is whenever someone wire transfers enough money into our bank account and gives us their mailing address

And Steve, one of the things that you have to remember is that BTS/BFC has never been particularly skilled at handling customer criticism/analysis, as much as you invite it.

If "skillful" is letting some customers dish it out without any constraints... we are definitely have problems there. I personally define skillful customer relations as figuring out which customers think that their $45 or $55 gives them the right to be abusive and then sorting that customer out. If someone whose dishing it out turns out to not be able to take it, well... everybody here is better off with them gone. That way we can have a real discussion without the flying spittle. So "skill" must be seen in relation to the desired end state. My desired end state is to not let the vocal abusive types rule the Forum like they do other Forums.

Steve

[ July 29, 2007, 12:26 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />When will you sell the CM code to someone to roll around in?

We're capitalists, so the time is whenever someone wire transfers enough money into our bank account and gives us their mailing address

Steve </font>I've got five bucks and a lap dance from my cousin I can offer. Game?

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Dale,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />So you're saying you didn't anticipate this reaction from parts of your core base? That you don't have a canned response available?

You Pengers never can get anything quite right, can you? Yeah, I anaticipated the reaction, but no I didn't have a canned response ready. You get 50% marks for correctness. Sorry, too low to qualify for the door prize!

The above is an answer I can live with, if not like. Steve, your customer-facing interaction still sucks, but at least you can be provoked into honesty.

That's OK, your developer-facing interaction still sucks, but at least we can provoke you into taking a "wait and see" attitude

When will you sell the CM code to someone to roll around in?

We're capitalists, so the time is whenever someone wire transfers enough money into our bank account and gives us their mailing address

Steve </font>

[Battlefront.com]

Normal Dude,

I've got five bucks and a lap dance from my cousin I can offer. Game?

Depends on who your cousin is. If it is Selma Hiyek... well, if you have another cousin who is a good divorce attorney, I'll talk to Charles and see what he'll say! you can keep the $5, though. I'm a better tipper than that

Dale,

Seanachai left my house tonight with booze un-drunk and cigars un-smoked, so forgive my impudence. And I'm DL-ing the demo now (although I don't expect my Olde Video to be able to handle it) so in a few threads I may be reversing the cut of my jib.

Wait a sec! You dare criticize my behavior at the same time you have Senachai in your OWN HOUSE? You, sir, have lost any credibility you might have had (I'd have to ask around if you had any, so I'll get back to you on that)

Wish me Luck, sir!

Luck wished!

Steve

[imported_Major_Jerkov]

Originally posted by Exel:

but so is the new World in Conflict.

Just had to add that even the beta testers for WiC are already bored of it, its longevity is already decided. Much like GC2.

[Battlefront.com]

Major_Jerkov,

To be fair to WiC, and any game, beta testers are almost always bored with the game FAR sooner than regular customers. If you were ever a tester (especially an inhouse) tester, you'd understand why It's a high burnout job. We're fortunate that we have a huge pool of quality testers to choose from, but it still doesn't change the fact that we burn ours out too.

That being said, I don't know squat about WiC so I'm only commenting generally.

Steve

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

[QB] Normal Dude,

Depends on who your cousin is. If it is Selma Hiyek... well, if you have another cousin who is a good divorce attorney, I'll talk to Charles and see what he'll say! you can keep the $5, though. I'm a better tipper than that

Well she's a professional stripper and pretty darned hot to boot. No legal skills though, although she CAN do interior design. And I'm sure she would kick my ass if she read this.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Wait a sec! You dare criticize my behavior at the same time you have Senachai in your OWN HOUSE? You, sir, have lost any credibility you might have had (I'd have to ask around if you had any, so I'll get back to you on that)

Darn it! Hoist by my own petard!

I always knew that having Seanachai within drinkin' & smokin' range would be my undoin' some day.

-le dale

[Exel]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

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. -- 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.

So you want a strict, realistically structured TO&E. You don't want players to pick a random mix on units. Fine. But why don't you let us pick our units within the strict TO&E you've defined? Why leave it to the computer to choose at random and take out the strategy of unit selection away from the player?

Allowing player to select units doesn't mean that you must allow them to choose whatever they want. You can limit to options to the set TO&E. Likewise having a strict TO&E doesn't mean that you have to leave the unit selection all up to the computer to decide (randomly) as it is now. It's not binary on or off, there's a middle ground: Allow unit selection, but limit what you can select.

[Exel]

One thing about unit purchasing that has so far gone unmentioned..

Unit selection has the huge advantage of familiarizing the player with his units before deployment. He knows what he has to work with and can check stats on units previously unknown to him. Even if there's not a whole lot to select from (restricted TO&E) the player can still assess his organization before getting to the game.

This is especially important when there is no unit encyclopedia in the game, and the manual only gives the very basics of unit descriptions (and without in-game graphics). So even if you wont make a full unit purchase system, please consider to add a TO&E chart or unit roster of some kind to the QuickBattles force selection.

[Fetchez la Vache]

Agree with Exel concerning unit rosters.

I just tried to play a QB as Syrians. Spent 10 minutes carefully setting up my small regular medium infantry (I think) consisting of an AT troop, a MG troop and a couple of BMP1's.

Start the battle. Six M1A1's come charging down the streets!. My sole AT-4 refuses to fire. Ditto the BMP's. I get wasted.

I can easily handle not purchasing troops bit by bit, but I need some idea of what I'm getting myself into before I spend time setting things up!

[JasonC]

In re "intifada" - "Know the enemy and know yourself, and you can fight 100 battles with no danger of defeat."

Pretending existing doctrine is invincible by stacking the deck with a mindless, unadaptive enemy isn't tactics, and that way lies sorrow.

[moneymaxx]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Ryan Crierie

That's ridiculous. Look at any car on today's market and then look at the one with the same name on it that was made 8 years ago. I bet you there are more similarities between CMBO and CM:SF than between those two cars

Funny I wanted to use the same argument against your position. I learned driving 20 years ago in a Volkswagen Golf and though todays VW Golf are far more advanced, generally the controls and buttons are mostly the same, work the same and are at the same place. I own a SEAT Ibiza (Volkswagen group as well) and yep, same controls.

Well, this thread explains quite well what I mean Some CMx1 things I miss

[pad152]

Well I too would like to purchase my own units, but I'm not sure I can top the free stripper!

[LuckyStrike]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Simply put, you guys don't know enough to contribute in a meaningful way towards a possible way forward.

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

I find these quite surprising. As a customer, the elimination of random maps and a unit purchase system (no, we don't really need costs, I just want to be able to set up specific tactical matchups) has very seriously reduced my current and without doubt future enjoyment of the game. The random matchups in the current QB generator are limited and repetitive. There are a very small number of scenarios included with the game. OK, so I could play TCP/IP, oh wait now its only real time, and the user interface is, in a word, horrible.

OK, its been stated that CMBO etc were 10 year old designs. Maybe so, but in many ways they were actually 10 years ahead of their time.

If you were going to make the move to RT, the interface should have been as clean and as one-step as possible.

I regularly play CM with several others via PBEM and TCP/IP. They are all very unhappy with the lack of QB variety and unit purchase. The concensus is that RT TCP/IP is virtually unplayable with larger force sizes...so we won't be.

Clearly CMSF is fantastic is many areas, but I think you are going to get a hard time from games reviewers, and you can't just dismiss them by saying they 'don't know enough to have an opinion'. These people are your customers, that's all they need to know.

[ July 29, 2007, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: LuckyStrike ]

[Cornfleek]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

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.

Steve,

IMHO you should step away from the keyboard for a bit and stop focussing on the forums. Basically what you're saying is that your customer doesn't know what he/she wants and that you do.

This same type of responses came forward during the ToW release, where unhappy customers were told that they were wrong and it was a great game and such.

I'm very exited about CMSF, and think that you'll make it into a very enjoyable (and hopefully replayable) series. But please refrain from posting if all you can say is that it's no use discussing these type of things.

You should be more grateful for the customer feedback you are receiving, be it negative or positive. A lot of companies would kill for this type of customer interaction. And in case you're not able to discuss topics with us since we are stuck in the past and such, just don't post.

[Commissar]

Originally posted by Major_Jerkov:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Exel:

but so is the new World in Conflict.

Just had to add that even the beta testers for WiC are already bored of it, its longevity is already decided. Much like GC2. </font>