Small Bone

[Lee]

Steve: Oh, I'm sure that Charles is having a field day with all the processing power that he now has at his disposal to calculate the wargame itself that is running under the hood. And I'm certainly glad to hear that CPU power has gone up so much that it has made the combat calculations not much of a problem. I understand that stuff as it relates to 3D, since I play FPS's all the time and know what kind of power it takes to run those games, but it's much harder to guess how much processing power combat-related algorithms that were previously out of reach take unless you are very familiar with exactly what's involved in that sort of thing.

One of the things that Charles pointed as being particularly costly in terms of CPU power was accurate calculation of machine gun grazing fire. Have CPU's gotten to the point yet where he has included that in the CMII engine?

By the way, the graphics do indeed look great. From the few screenshots I've seen, it looks fairly close to Battlefield II graphic levels, but in a intricate wargame with a super fine level of granularity in a highly realistic combat model. Which is a very impressive feat! You'll need those graphics optimizations, I'm sure.

[Battlefront.com]

LOF is traced for each shot, so yes... grazing is inherently in already.

Some of the speed benefits come from the new underlying way the map works. I've outlined this in other threads. Um... try searching for "Action Spot". I'm pretty sure that should do it.

Yes, we think our graphics will look pretty good compared to BF2. In fact, in some ways we expect it will look superior.

Steve

[C'Rogers]

In order to do some things we can't do others.

But I was told I could have my cake and eat it too .

Like everyone else here sad to see random maps gone. But after crying myself to sleep ... I mean thinking on it overnight, don't think it will be a huge deal.

However is it possible that random maps will make an appearance in future titles?

[Battlefront.com]

C'Rogers,

But I was told I could have my cake and eat it too

Actually, you will get to have your cake and eat it too. However, the little frosting decoration you were hoping for is not there

However is it possible that random maps will make an appearance in future titles?

I'll never say never on this one, but honestly... I doubt it. I know how much work it would take to get even a crappy random map generator going and that just seems to be a bad investment of our time.

Steve

[Other Means]

Steve, permit me to copy this from one of my posts in the ToW forum about pausing in RT

{quote}

The arguments go..

Against pause: Could you do this in real life? Not with the amount of co-ordination you have, therefore you should not have a pause and you have to give orders to each unit.

For pause: Could you do this in real life? Not with the amount of co-ordination you have, but yes, you could give orders to the section leaders to do something at a specific time, and each man thinks for himself so you don't have to give everyone orders. Therefore introduce a different mechanism to ensure real-life results.

I'm in the "for pause" camp, as I think although we're in an un-natural situation by being in a gods eye view, limiting what can be done by how many units you can click in a certain time is a bad counter to it, so another mechanism should be introduced.

If it was a perfect world, this would be limited by the command net, or by being able to make a plan where you have all units do certain things at specific game times, however, this may not be a fun dynamic and is already too complex for the player and game system. So introduce command delays for units, based on the units morale and experience, while allowing as many orders as you want to be given by having a pause.

And of course, this means you can get another beer or have a pee.

{end quote}

So my basic point for ToW and CM:SF is that the mechanism of not being able to give orders when paused being *also* used to create a command delay for your units is an artificial conflation of 2 very different things.

You can't give orders becuase you can't assess the specific units needs and needed orders fast enough, i.e. clickfest

And

The real life situation of the unit not knowing what to do within the time frame.

It leads to situations where a real-life unit would know *exactly* what to do, but you as the player cannot do it as you're doing something else.

It does depend an awful lot on the AI, but programming an AI for a dynamic system is extremely difficult, you know this better than us.

Therefore, there should be a mechanism to assess and give correct orders, while introducing a mechanism to ensure the real-life time-frame for order propagation is in place.

IMHO

Of course, you're goign to play test it and follow the path you've described anyway, but please keep this argument in mind.

Cheers.

[Bruce70]

From the beginning I thought that moving to a RT engine was the wrong move for a number of reasons. However, bit by bit Steve and others convinced me that RT was the way to go and I was really looking forward to it and even thought that it was unlikely I would play WeGo even if it was included.

Now in the space of one thread my opinion has once again completely reversed, and I believe that my initial opinion was correct. At least WeGo is in so hopefully the compromises that have been made for RT wont impact too much on the WeGo game.

[Bruce70]

Other Means: I think the idea is that with no pause during RT you can only give the *direct* orders of one officer. Obviously when you give an order in RL there is no command delay. In a multiplayer team game there where there is a player for each significant officer, no command delay is needed as this will be a fact of RL (i.e. imperfect communication between players on the same team).

However, in a single player game (or 1-on-1) the "no pause / no delay" argument is just plain ludicrous. The player is expected to play the part of on officer for a short time, giving orders in RT, then flit across the battlefield to another officer and give their orders. The problem is that while you are issuing orders for one officer, all the others are doing nothing! To make this work you either need 16 players per team, or a VERY good AI that can handle things when you are not in direct command. Battlefront do not seem to be especially interested in improving the AI, and AIUI it will be a while before the game supports 16 players.

[Battlefront.com]

Other Means,

It leads to situations where a real-life unit would know *exactly* what to do, but you as the player cannot do it as you're doing something else.

There is no way around this at all, except by taking the player out of the loop entirely or giving him such a tiny number of units (like 1 or 2) that it isn't noticable most of the time. Therefore...

People that have trouble letting things go will not like RealTime Mode in CM, just as the likely don't like it in general. There isn't anything we can do about it. At least not fundamentally. Giving people the ability to issue orders during a Pause is exactly what WeGo is. So if that's what you're after, then play WeGo and leave RealTime to people who want to play it that way.

Bruce70

Now in the space of one thread my opinion has once again completely reversed, and I believe that my initial opinion was correct. At least WeGo is in so hopefully the compromises that have been made for RT wont impact too much on the WeGo game.

On the contrary, the underlying RT engine makes WeGo a LOT better than it was in CMx1. For example, no artillery strikes coming as your guys are frozen in time at 60+ seconds, no difficulties for us to carry over effects from one turn to the next, no limitations on a myriad of other things that we ran up against when trying to make improvements to CMx1.

What we are trying to NOT do is "pollute" RealTime with WeGo conventions. Trying to make one behave more like the other is counter productive.

The player is expected to play the part of on officer for a short time, giving orders in RT, then flit across the battlefield to another officer and give their orders. The problem is that while you are issuing orders for one officer, all the others are doing nothing!

Allowing people to issue Commands during a Pause doesn't inherently fix that. All it does is turn RealTime into WeGo with variable length turns and no Command Delays. The latter we could fix, but why bother? Then it is exactly like WeGo.

Battlefront do not seem to be especially interested in improving the AI,

No, Battlefront is not capable of improving the AI without a couple million Dollars in R&D funds and probably 5 years to do it in. Then, when all of that money and time is behind us, we'll have a game that won't need the player at all. Not sure what the fun in that is

Guys... this all comes down to this. We are offering two flavors of cake... chocolate and vanilla. You have your choice about which one to eat, on a meal by meal basis. Anybody arguing that we should make the chocolate cake taste and look like vanilla cake, or vice versa, is missing the point of having a choice to begin with.

Steve

[dan/california]

Please add chocolate, vanilla, and caffeine to Charles's IV/nutrient solution and finish the &*(&*(&*&(()%#@#())(^&$ game!!

This will be an outstanding argument to have with module 2 on my hard drive. then we can argue about what is wrong with how it actually plays. All effort at this point should be for a great player matching server that will ensure that there are lots of people to argue with. :cool:

[aka_tom_w]

We are offering two flavors of cake... chocolate and vanilla. You have your choice about which one to eat, on a meal by meal basis.

I'll have BOTH, with thanks !

(one at a time of course, may I have the chocolate first?)

-tom w

[Bruce70]

Steve

No, Battlefront is not capable of improving the AI without a couple million Dollars in R&D funds and probably 5 years to do it in.

Well I did send you guys an email a while back about possible research collaboration on AI that wasn't going to cost you much at all, but I didn't get a reply.

As for the RT/WeGo situation, if RT has added to the WeGo experience then I will be very happy, thanks.

[metalbrew]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Guys... this all comes down to this. We are offering two flavors of cake... chocolate and vanilla. You have your choice about which one to eat, on a meal by meal basis. Anybody arguing that we should make the chocolate cake taste and look like vanilla cake, or vice versa, is missing the point of having a choice to begin with.

Steve

I don't want to try and chase the analogy, but I do understand your point.

If BFC posts an announcement that PBEM is definitely included, then I don't so much mind that effort was put towards realtime gameplay. However, if the opposite is true, it bugs me. How much it bugs me I don't want to say, but it's a lot and I don't want to lose PBEM to make room/time for BFC to implement a game mode I'll never play (realtime).

In another thread I read a post from Steve @ BFC in which he said PBEM was a feature used by a small number of game fans. I can't guess what the number is, but I guarantee that the fans that PBEM are your core fans - the same guys/gals that take the time to fawn and flex over a wargame with a total of 5 screenshots released in a 2 year period.

I hope this makes a point without sounding rude but I'm just frustrated reading all the "maybe we'll include PBEM" posts.

Steve

[Thomm]

*Sigh*

So no orders during pauses.

Anybody thinking about the restrictions this places on the unit count and size of the battle??

By the way: the game below claims that one can play it both in RTS and FPS mode ...

[Other Means]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Other Means,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It leads to situations where a real-life unit would know *exactly* what to do, but you as the player cannot do it as you're doing something else.

There is no way around this at all, except by taking the player out of the loop entirely or giving him such a tiny number of units (like 1 or 2) that it isn't noticable most of the time. Therefore...

People that have trouble letting things go will not like RealTime Mode in CM, just as the likely don't like it in general. There isn't anything we can do about it. At least not fundamentally. Giving people the ability to issue orders during a Pause is exactly what WeGo is. So if that's what you're after, then play WeGo and leave RealTime to people who want to play it that way.

</font>

[aka_tom_w]

yup that's interesting: (PC only)

web page field ops

Strategy Informer: We are really interested in the main feature for Field Ops, where you are able to jump from RTS mode to FPS mode at any given time. Could you please give us some information about this feature and let us know what it's like?

Mourad Majeri: This feature is very easy to use. The first time you play it, you won’t believe it! When you are in RTS view with one of your units selected, you simply have to press one key whenever you want to switch the camera/mode in FPS views (the camera slides in real time into the first person perspective). The player decides when he wants to switch in FPS view or RTS view depending on the situation/event that he has to handle, but also depending on his own skills and preferences.

hmm

web page Field Ops Previoulsy known as "Ghost Wars" so said the web page that had it listed (this link is the official home page of Field Ops)

-tom w

[ October 05, 2006, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Kineas]

A wargame publisher company, similar to BFC categorizes their games by "play style". They have 4 categories:

- turn based igougo

- turn based wego

- realtime

- realtime pausable

The 4th is a distinct genre, and you can check the cool games using that design. I don't know whether it can work in multiplayer.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

in hot situations, or with more units, players will just have to:

1. hit pause.

2. check the situation of the first unit while game is paused.

3. unpause and issue the command(s) for the unit as fast as possible.

4. pause the game as fast as possible.

5. navigate to another unit and check its situation.

6. unpause and issue the command(s) for the unit as fast as possible.

7. pause the game again as fast as possible.

8. go back to number 5 and repeat until there are no more units that need change of orders - you can now let the game run free for at least 15-30 seconds.

sounds like fun!

[Battlefront.com]

Sumac,

If BFC posts an announcement that PBEM is definitely included, then I don't so much mind that effort was put towards realtime gameplay. However, if the opposite is true, it bugs me. How much it bugs me I don't want to say, but it's a lot and I don't want to lose PBEM to make room/time for BFC to implement a game mode I'll never play (realtime).

I won't revisit the 50 pages of discussion about this point. Simply put, you're oversimplifying the argument (just as the PBEM bigots did back then ). The entire game, as a game and as a sim, has been VASTLY improved by making the core of it RealTime. Allowing people to actually play it in RealTime is a freebie feature. The point is that we did not make the decision to structure the game like we did so we could get a RealTime option... we structured it so that we could get the best game and sim possible.

In another thread I read a post from Steve @ BFC in which he said PBEM was a feature used by a small number of game fans. I can't guess what the number is, but I guarantee that the fans that PBEM are your core fans - the same guys/gals that take the time to fawn and flex over a wargame with a total of 5 screenshots released in a 2 year period.

I can say for sure that we'd have more customers (and make more money) by having a RealTime game without PBEM than having a WeGo only game with PBEM. Sorry... that's just the way it is. I don't care now, as I didn't care when we had the first bunch of contentious debates, if you believe this or not. What you believe doesn't matter to us as a game designer and publisher. Our sweat, labor, and future are on the line here, not yours.

Now, does this mean we are purposefully ignoring what you core guys want? Absolutely not. We're just not going to be convinced that you are the most important thing to consider. If you guys were the only ones that bought the original CM we probably wouldn't be in business right now. So instead of complaining about the fact that you are a minority customer (and you are), you should be expressing thanks that we have figured out a way to give you the best wargame experience AND attract a much larger audience that makes it possible for you to have it in the first place. So yeah... if we have to make a decision that is going to disappoint one crowd or the other, the choice of which way to go is plainly obvious. Fact is, however, that the game (with or without PBEM) is far better than CMx1, so I don't see any reason for complaint. Especially because PBEM is likely to be included anyway.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

OtherMeans,

But there is a way to get around the players attention being split over time, and this is to let them spend as much time as they want to give orders, i.e. pause the game and give orders.

Otherwise called WeGo This is the point I've been making since the start.... you guys are asking for us to turn RealTime into WeGo and you already HAVE WeGo. So what's the problem?

The thought that it's then a type of we-go with variable turn lengths is said like it's a bad thing.

It is, because it destroys what RealTime is all about to give you something that you basically already have with WeGo.

To me, this would be the ideal way to play. Let the game go on while nothings happening, pause it when you need to to give a lot of orders and introduce command delays that mirror the command net.

I don't think this is nearly as fun as it sounds. It is also impossible for anything other than single player mode. Therefore, we're not interested in supporting this at the moment. However, as I've said before we'll see what happens when we start Beta testing. For now all I can say is that based on my experience with other games and CM:SF in its current state that this sort of thing is not necessary.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Kineas

The 4th is a distinct genre, and you can check the cool games using that design. I don't know whether it can work in multiplayer.

Correct, it is a distinct type of game. It requires a lot of "artificial" game constraints and tons of play balancing all on its own. That's why we aren't considering it I theory it can work in multiplayer too, but it is a lot harder to do that than single player. With single player only there is a lot more flexibility in how things are done than when you have other people sitting on the other side waiting for the other player to do stuff.

undead reindeer cavalry

sounds like fun!

Which is why you'll probably only play the game in WeGo. Some people simply don't like RealTime... that's fine. Don't forget that a lot of people don't like WeGo. Probably more people hate turns than hate realtime play, BTW. We're including both so neither should be unhappy.

Steve

[Darkmath]

Will there be any restrictions on the number of units available on the battlefield?

I mean, large scale battle or Op. (more than 1 battalion with support elements) will be possible?

Actual technical spec. of the PC are still a problem to run those kinds of battle?

About the PBEM,although I never used it, I wonder how much would be the size of a PBEM file?

[metalbrew]

Steve, thanks for the response. Before I decided to comment, I did take the time to read all of the old thoughts about PBEM (including the ridiculously long 1:1 thread from a year ago). Please, keep in mind that all of my comments below are tempered by your comment that PBEM is likely to be included.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Sumac,

I won't revisit the 50 pages of discussion about this point. Simply put, you're oversimplifying the argument (just as the PBEM bigots did back then ). The entire game, as a game and as a sim, has been VASTLY improved by making the core of it RealTime. Allowing people to actually play it in RealTime is a freebie feature. The point is that we did not make the decision to structure the game like we did so we could get a RealTime option... we structured it so that we could get the best game and sim possible.

Well, I honestly don't think I'm oversimplifying the problem. People want their opinion heard if they chose to voice it, so please understand that I'm not happy to be brushed aside so easily and labelled oversimplifier. The difference of opinion is rooted in the level of your passion for PBEM vs. my level of passion for PBEM. To me, there simply is no game without PBEM. This degrades the CM experience to the point where it's no longer a game I'd care to play.

My feeling about the amount of time you and others have spent talking about PBEM is that it should be obvious at this point that it's something your customers prioritize very highly. PBEM as a feature stands right beside WeGo in importance, and I disagree that this can be reduced to how many customers use PBEM vs. those who don't. For every 1 PBEM game I've played, I've also played 100 quick battles. I wouldn't play Combat Mission at all without PBEM. The quick battles are just a way to model and learn more about units and behavior. This doesn't mean that my 1:100 ratio means I prefer QBs, I wouldn't take the time to QB if PBEM wasn't available to test my skills against a human player in a 2500 point battle over 2 months. TCP/IP, LAN, Hotseat do not offer the same experience.

I have read more than a few posts from you along the lines of: "are you implying we should reduce the capibilities of the game just to include PBEM?". My response would be: no. I don't see the feature set vs. PBEM as a mutually exclusive discussion. I want all the features of the CMx1 games and all the new snazzy stuff you'll give us. Customer mentality is like that, you can't take away something people already have grown comfortable with.

I can say for sure that we'd have more customers (and make more money) by having a RealTime game without PBEM than having a WeGo only game with PBEM. Sorry... that's just the way it is. I don't care now, as I didn't care when we had the first bunch of contentious debates, if you believe this or not. What you believe doesn't matter to us as a game designer and publisher. Our sweat, labor, and future are on the line here, not yours.

This is certainly where the rubber meets the road. Do you feel your marketing efforts are better or worse after going through 2 years of carrying around the black-eye of "the PBEM" issue? I think it's a fair question, and I mean no malice. They say that there's no such thing as bad press, but as I get older as a consumer I realize this has caveats.

Upsetting the core fans has larger effects than you're publicly giving credit. In an imaginary world 7 years ago, do you think BFC sells games to the vast silent majority without the word-of-mouth from the fans?

Now, does this mean we are purposefully ignoring what you core guys want? Absolutely not. We're just not going to be convinced that you are the most important thing to consider. If you guys were the only ones that bought the original CM we probably wouldn't be in business right now. So instead of complaining about the fact that you are a minority customer (and you are), you should be expressing thanks that we have figured out a way to give you the best wargame experience AND attract a much larger audience that makes it possible for you to have it in the first place. So yeah... if we have to make a decision that is going to disappoint one crowd or the other, the choice of which way to go is plainly obvious. Fact is, however, that the game (with or without PBEM) is far better than CMx1, so I don't see any reason for complaint. Especially because PBEM is likely to be included anyway.

I've read a few posts from the PBEM advocates along the lines of: "no matter how large the PBEM files are, please include the feature anyway and we'll figure out how to make it work". That's how I feel too, bandwidth is so cheap today that we'll find a way to make it work. BFC doesn't seem too worried about whether the fans will have the hardware to run CM:SF, you guys know people will do what they need to do to overcome this hurdle if they want to play.

Regarding expressing thanks for the games, etc... I'm a customer: my money is how I express my thanks for the games. However, I realize how much time you and other spend speaking with the fan base on the forums. I truly appreciate this time spent and I'd like to say thank you.

Steve

Me too... Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Sumac,

My feeling about the amount of time you and others have spent talking about PBEM is that it should be obvious at this point that it's something your customers prioritize very highly.

Correction... it is a point that a very small, but extremely vocal, portion of our customer base wants us to prioritize. They also don't listen very well, as I will demonstrate below

I wouldn't play Combat Mission at all without PBEM.

And we have people that screamed they won't buy CM:SF because it isn't WWII, so what's your point? If we thought we couldn't do well with a non-WWII game or a game that POSSIBLY doesn't have PBEM in it, then obviously we would have made different decisions. We don't like the thought of losing long time customers, but we aren't sorry for the decisions we've made. We can't please everybody, and we are not interested in trying. It's a fools game.

I have read more than a few posts from you along the lines of: "are you implying we should reduce the capibilities of the game just to include PBEM?". My response would be: no. I don't see the feature set vs. PBEM as a mutually exclusive discussion.

This is the bit where you aren't listening I have said, clear as day, that to ensure PBEM we would have to cut major new improvements from CMx2. So it is a discussion about a major feature set vs. PBEM. Period. Now, as it turns out it looks like we can have our cake and eat it too... but when we had to make the call we had to take the risk that PBEM would be unsupportable. We were willing to take that risk for the greater good of the game (i.e. the feature set), some like you were not. That's what this is all about... one group wanting zero risk and not accepting the consequences of that, and us saying we have to risk a little for a much greater game.

To say it another way, you need to understand that it is a fact that the same features that put some doubt into PBEM being viable are critically important for making CMx2 a huge improvement over CMx1. I'm not talking about pretty graphics either since that has no impact on PBEM. I'm talking about core game and sim features. So to give you an iron clad guarantee that PBEM would be in we would have had to dramatically (and artificially) hobble CMx2's improvements.

Now that it looks really good that we can have PBEM in, don't you think it wouldn't it have been insanely foolish to have listened to the PBEM whiners out of panic and fear instead of going down the path of logical assessment of options and risks? Customers are often their own worst enemies.

Customer mentality is like that, you can't take away something people already have grown comfortable with.

Sure you can. You just have to make sure that the customers lost are outnumbered by those that are gained. It won't stop the lost customers from complaining, but customers complain even when they are happy... so how much weight would you give complaints if your future was put on the line?

This is certainly where the rubber meets the road. Do you feel your marketing efforts are better or worse after going through 2 years of carrying around the black-eye of "the PBEM" issue? I think it's a fair question, and I mean no malice.

Sure it is a fair question, but it also is a question that is phrased in a way that once again demonstrates that you're not seeing anything but what you want to see. First of all, our marketing hasn't really even started yet, so it is impossible for it to have been harmed by anything we have said or not said thus far. Second, what black eye? If you see one it is only because you took a picture of me and used a black magic marker to put one on me From our perspective we have a very small, but very vocal, group of whiners that absolutely can not see the forest through the trees. In fact, I don't even think you PBEM bigots (sorry, if the shoe fits... ) can see a tree at all, rather just the bark of one tree. We took FAR more flak, threats, and genuinely juvenile behavior for our decision to go contemporary instead of WWII. And we don't regret that decision one iota, so if you think having some people with their PBEM feathers ruffled bothers me a bit (especially since PBEM is probably a go), you're once again overestimating the importance of the PBEM or Death crowd. In the end we know it will be much ado about absolutely nothing.

Upsetting the core fans has larger effects than you're publicly giving credit. In an imaginary world 7 years ago, do you think BFC sells games to the vast silent majority without the word-of-mouth from the fans?

Yes. It would have taken longer, for sure, but it would have happened. And no, I am not underestimating the benefits of core fans that are wildly enthusiastic about what we make. It is actually a key component of CM:SF's future marketing too. Having said that, typically an individual customer tends to think of himself as the lynchpin of a product's success or failure. The sort of "make me happy OR ELSE!" mentality. It doesn't matter if he represents 1 out of 10000 customers, he will think that he is the most important thing to consider. That's natural for a customer to think, just as it is natural for us to not put too much credit into such thinking. We know what we are doing and we know that PBEM is not critical for our success. Period.

I've read a few posts from the PBEM advocates along the lines of: "no matter how large the PBEM files are, please include the feature anyway and we'll figure out how to make it work". That's how I feel too, bandwidth is so cheap today that we'll find a way to make it work. BFC doesn't seem too worried about whether the fans will have the hardware to run CM:SF, you guys know people will do what they need to do to overcome this hurdle if they want to play.

Which is why I've always said that we'll likely have PBEM in one way shape or form. The thing that bothers you, and the rest of the PBEM bigots, is that isn't good enough for you. You want an iron clad, 100%, absolutely under no circumstances will it be any other way guarantee. Since we don't like promising things and then breaking promises, we aren't biting on that. Even if we are 98% sure it will be in we won't bite. Unfortunately, that isn't acceptable to some. Doesn't matter because the game will likely have PBEM and it would be a success even if it doesn't.

Regarding expressing thanks for the games, etc... I'm a customer: my money is how I express my thanks for the games. However, I realize how much time you and other spend speaking with the fan base on the forums. I truly appreciate this time spent and I'd like to say thank you.

Thanks, and I mean that. I also mean that you have to take the blinders off and see the world around you more. It might be that PBEM is a make or break feature for you personally, but to extend that to influence your perception of the game design and marketing is a big mistake. You're a customer, you are important to us true enough. However, making you personally happy isn't our top priority. We've got tens of thousands of other people to consider every time we make a decision. We can't forget that.

Look on the bright side... you're likely to get CM:SF with PBEM while those that won't buy anything but WWII have a long time to wait before they get what they want, PBEM or otherwise.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

Thanks Steve!

Thanks for all the time posting and keeping us up to date.

I think this could be repeated:

We've got tens of thousands of other people to consider every time we make a decision. We can't forget that.

AND the real issue is most of those tens of thousands of people, don't post here, don't complain and the majority of them are happy playing solo against the AI most of the time. (I don't have any facts but Steve suggests most folks who buy the game, don't post and rant on the forum (like some of us ) AND most folks play solo most of the time.)

Hey Steve I hope you are keeping an eye on Field Ops, it looks like it has a large budget and is supposedly scheduled for a Feb 2007 release, and they already have a ton of screen shots out:

Field Ops home page

It looks REALLY good but somehow that implies to me that it might lack substance to be a good game to actually play. But it does make me curious.

Thanks

-tom w

[Other Means]

I've had a thought. I've gone quite giddy . If you're playing WEGO, you introducing a command delay of up to a minute on any actions you're doing anyway, which kind of removes some of my support for pause-able orders.

I'd still like to see what happens in the beta testing* though.

With the PBEM issue, I'm very glad to see it should make into CM:SF, it really was a big deal to me. I think you're underestimating its importance Steve. Not to your initial sales but to sales of add-on modules and games using the same engine. From what I can tell it gives a game, or series of games, greater longevity and a wider (older?) loyal fan base.

OTOH, I'm sure you've got some Garner stats or something that back up your calls and at the very least are quite bored of being asked to justify them by people who aren't getting paid out of the money it will earn. So good luck with that

*feel free to send me a copy Steve - I'm an information architect by trade and I'm used to analising and defining process interfaces. Ahh, go on.