What a difference about 2 years makes

[sandy]

3 CM games released to date, dozens of awards including 3 PC Gamer Strategy Turn Based Game of the year awards (2000,2002,2003) plus a Computer Gaming World Wargame of the Year award (2002). Games that have been sold in virtually every single country on Earth. All of it, based upon an unproven game concept and idea and a vision by a virtually unknown, small software company. And now we stand, on the cusp of the next generation of wargaming realism and fun.

Those of you who trusted us before were rewarded with games that met or surpassed your expectations. Those of you who doubted us and complained? Well you got the same damn gameplay and still loved it!

So, maybe, just maybe WE KNOW WHAT THE HELL WE ARE DOING!

The above was posted by BF about 2 years ago - where is the vision now?

[Martin Krejcirik]

It hasn't changed - they still know what they are doing

[sandy]

From what BF has said the force selection will be more flexible and customizable than CM1. The replay value came from the QB system, which I expect to be improved after 9 years of development.

Above is another amusing little post from the same thread in 2005 (not posted by BF, but by a "fan" - not me)

[ August 26, 2007, 01:21 AM: Message edited by: sandy ]

[Mace]

So you don't like CMSF eh?

[sandy]

Check my previous posts...

I bought it to support BF, but very disappointed in what I downloaded (no physical game yet received).

QBs are worthless at present - a critical failing.

No need to repeat all the bugs that need fixing.

Move to RT a serious design flaw for serious wargamers (done for understandable marketing purposes).

I don't mind RT being there as an option for those that like it. But result is worse WEGO than before. (Yes, I have tried RT and I don't like it).

But RT seems to be more important than WEGO and impacting on interface, multiplayer, etc; wrong way round.

[Martin Krejcirik]

Sandy, use this:

[ QUOTE ]to quote some text[ /QUOTE ]

(without extra space in the brackets).

[bartleby]

Originally posted by sandy:

Move to RT a serious design flaw for serious wargamers (done for understandable marketing purposes).

Is that necessarily so? WeGo does let you maximize your planning and study the situation in depth, but is that something that "serious wargamers" must have? I like real time because it forces me to economize my attention and treats thought as a scarcity. The UI needs some work to be up to that, sure, but that can be fixed. It's not a worse style of wargaming, just different.

[sandy]

bartleby

It is a matter of taste and opinion, and I can understand that you may prefer RT - I have seen enough posts saying this. Nevertheless I have seen more posts agreeing with my opinion on the value of WEGO.

The message I get is that the BF established customer base (people posting here) overall prefer WEGO to RT. The other message that I get is that BF know this and don't care. They feel thay can make their fortune since their old fans will buy anyway, and many new RT players ("new" customers rather than their core fans from CM1), will buy because it is RT. All this I understand and accept - I just want the original WEGO gameplay to be still there as an option.

I do not enjoy working under time pressure.

I do enjoy reviewing and understanding the action from multiple perspectives and views.

RT play does not permit me to do this.

If you want "economy of attention and thought" (which I do not), just limit your time available for orders (with a timer, either built into the game like a chess clock, or an external one).

Or play RT.

But I like to think and play in WEGO fun time, not adrenaline twitch RT no-fun time

[ August 23, 2007, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: sandy ]

[Mord]

Originally posted by sandy:

The replay value came from the QB system, which I expect to be improved after 9 years of development.

I don't agree with that, I had hundreds of hours of replay value from playing user made scenarios (which there were a zillion), adding and switching out mods, and dicking around with the editor. I maybe played all of two QBs out of 3 versions of CMX1. Hell, CMBO was on my hard drive for two years straight and a day didn't go by without me doing something involving it.

And while I am running my jaws I have to say that it was the best money I have ever spent on any gaming software, ever.

So, I can understand a lot of you guys missing an important aspect of the CM you loved but I have to disagree that it was where all the replay value came from.

Mord.

[bartleby]

Originally posted by sandy:

But I like to think and play in WEGO fun time, not adrenaline twitch RT no-fun time

Sure. I like to play WeGo too, and ideally CM:SF would have both options available. I just object to the notion that real time is a lesser option.

[MarkEzra]

Opinions vary

[C'Rogers]

Opinions vary

Opinions do vary but what I think the following can be said ...

WEGO isn't as good as it used to be (my opinion).

Quick battles aren't remotely as good as it used to be (my opinion again but think I am fairly solid on this).

Real time is a nice new option.

Scenarios are even better.

Depending on what you weight the importance of the above depends on how you see the game.

[carlR]

I too prefer WEGO (whilst having no objection to RT being included for those who prefer it) and would like it to operate in the same way it did in CMX1. Have BFC commented on this? Is WEGO going to be patched to what it used to be?

[SKELLEN]

Originally posted by sandy:

From what BF has said the force selection will be more flexible and customizable than CM1. The replay value came from the QB system, which I expect to be improved after 9 years of development.

The QB system was and is fun sometimes although the random nature of the maps leaves a lot to be desired at times with regard to direction of roads and house positions etc, etc, however I can see why people miss this option in the new game.

Obviously the QB system could be improved after nine years but by then CMX3 will be the latest thing no doubt and so the cycle will continue - in relation to missing features, bugs, and new features no doubt, so it is a catch 22 situation for BFC - damned if they do and damned if they don't I guess - nature of the beast.

[Battlefront.com]

Yet another "my opinion means more than anybody else's" thread? What a surprise

A reminder that I've said, since the beginning of Battlefront's existance, that it is impossible for us to please all people all the time so we don't even try.

We still know what we are doing and just because some people are bent out of shape that there are no hexes doesn't mean they are right. Oh wait... sorry, that was a different group of people that said we didn't know what we were doing. So easy to get people who think they know best confused

Steve

[Bahger]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Yet another "my opinion means more than anybody else's" thread? What a surprise

A reminder that I've said, since the beginning of Battlefront's existance, that it is impossible for us to please all people all the time so we don't even try.

We still know what we are doing and just because some people are bent out of shape that there are no hexes doesn't mean they are right. Oh wait... sorry, that was a different group of people that said we didn't know what we were doing. So easy to get people who think they know best confused

Steve

I think this is an unnecessarily irritable response to a cogent and well-argued post.

I'm with Sandy a hundred per cent and I do not believe he is posting in order to assert that "his opinion means more than anyone else's".

I believe that, whatever the difficulties with the earlier releases of CMx1 games, BFC always had a very clear conceptual vision. In the case of CMSF, however, I believe that there is a disconnect between the vision and the level of execution needed to realise that vision. In other words, the game cannot live up to its basic concept yet, and nothing in 1.02 disproves this. It is wishful thinking on BFC's part to assume that, with pathfinding and tacAI in their current, lamentable condition, the game can be a decent representation of modern-day MOUT. As I've argued here before, a certain level of imprecision in pathing, tacAI and the following of orders can be imagined away in a WW2 theater as "fog of war", but in modern assymetrical warfare where Bluefor's greatest asset is speed, effective comms and precision of movement and fire, effective tacAI and pathfinding become very, very conspicuous by their absence. I've said it before: BFC should wipe the slate clean and admit to having failed in this respect so that consumer confidence can be rebuilt on a baseline of credibility. Saying "well it has its weaknesses, we admit that, but, really, you guys are expecting too much and/or a different game" is an understandable but stubborn and wrongheaded move by the developers. The game is broken and cannot live up to its stated conceptual goals. For all its teething problems, CMBO did not fail in quite the same way.

I understand Steve's argument when it comes to features that consumers expected to be implemented differently, such as WEGO and quick battles, yet, again, there is an atmosphere of denial and spin here: People complain about the implementation of WEGO and QBs not because they are different from what they might be used to but because they are not nearly as much fun or as well executed. WEGO in CMSF is a kludge.

I am hoping the game will become playable with another two or three patches and I know the devs are working hard and that their hearts are in the right place. My biggest fear is this: If they were as totally convinced, as they appeared to be on the eve of release, that their product was basically sound and if they continue to believe that consumer complaints are mainly the result of misplaced expectations rather than legitimate responses to the broken condition of the game, then CMSF will never really be fixed because nobody at BFC is prepared to admit that it's broke.

I admire your pride in your work, Steve, but the game is broken.

[shafty]

I suppose it is easy to have your opinion lost in the debate. Some people like that, alot of people like this, most of us like the other.

Best thing to do is tot up the proportions that like something and lean towards that if you want to give the crowd what they want. But is what they want really important?

RT isn't a move forward as it has already been done to death by other games. SF is just joining the throng. Where is the money, well it is with RT, quick fix, wham bam thank you mam. Lets go mainstream and really haul it in lads. We are being assured that BF know what they are doing and we really have no idea what we want, but BF do. BF know what we really want, you just don't know it yet so stop complaining about a lost aspect of the game that you really enjoyed, which made you become a CM fan above all the RT arcade click fests that were around and get with the RT programme fgs.

BF is a business, not a freaking charity and they have no obligations towards any game format. They produce a 'product', stick it on the shelves and if you don't like it then don't buy it. If you have already bought it then i suppose you can always try to take it back otherwise tough luck matey. Your money is in their pockets.

Personally I am old enough and experienced enough to know what I like. RT has been around and I have tried it with a few games (there are many about). I have also tried turn-based strategy (also many about). WEGO I have only played with CM (anyone else other than BF ever produced WEGO? either way I have not found any). Which game do you think stood out from the seething crowd and held me?

Times change people and sadly the 'good ole days' are always behind us.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by shafty:

WEGO I have only played with CM (anyone else other than BF ever produced WEGO? either way I have not found any).

Panzer Command: Operation Winter Storm by Matrix is a WEGO 3D tactical game set on the Eastern Front; it was released last year. You can still get the demo on line. The first sequel based on the fighting at Kharkov comes out soon.

I didn't like it much; bought the full game and think I deleted it accidentally after forgetting I bought the download only version. I still have the demo. It is not as flexible as CM - you can't design maps, but you can mod all the unit values if you wish as well as the skins, naturally. You can make your own scenarios, and it looks like they are putting out a random scenario generator now - but you have to use the maps that come with the game, which is still not a great draw.

The game play is a bit different - 40 second turns, and a "reaction phase". Some called it a CM-clone, but with CMX1 gone the way of the dodo, I suppose that is no longer true?

[dalem]

Originally posted by shafty:

WEGO I have only played with CM (anyone else other than BF ever produced WEGO?

The V for Victory and World at War (same thing really) series of games were WEGO. Different scale though (operational).

-dale

[sandy]

I didn't like Panzer Command much either, and after a quick try out I went straight back to CMBB.

(expect CMSF will get the same treatment)

I felt CMBB was much better than Panzer Command despite appearing years before.

[ August 23, 2007, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: sandy ]

[cassh]

Dale - The Atomic V for Victory and World at War were corkers - just wished that something like their UI and game play had been applied to a computerised version of GDW/GDR's Europa series - i'd never have left the house again!

[sandy]

cassh

If you want to play computerised Europa, there are some excellent massive, user-created scenarios for TOAW3

One of them, Fire in the East, is pretty much exactly what you are looking for...

Search on Google for "TOAW" and "Rugged defence" and you will find a great place to download them.

here the link

http://www.the-strategist.net/RD/scenarii/browse_scenario.php

[Charlie901]

Originally posted by Bahger:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Yet another "my opinion means more than anybody else's" thread? What a surprise

A reminder that I've said, since the beginning of Battlefront's existance, that it is impossible for us to please all people all the time so we don't even try.

We still know what we are doing and just because some people are bent out of shape that there are no hexes doesn't mean they are right. Oh wait... sorry, that was a different group of people that said we didn't know what we were doing. So easy to get people who think they know best confused

Steve

I think this is an unnecessarily irritable response to a cogent and well-argued post.

I'm with Sandy a hundred per cent and I do not believe he is posting in order to assert that "his opinion means more than anyone else's".

I believe that, whatever the difficulties with the earlier releases of CMx1 games, BFC always had a very clear conceptual vision. In the case of CMSF, however, I believe that there is a disconnect between the vision and the level of execution needed to realise that vision. In other words, the game cannot live up to its basic concept yet, and nothing in 1.02 disproves this. It is wishful thinking on BFC's part to assume that, with pathfinding and tacAI in their current, lamentable condition, the game can be a decent representation of modern-day MOUT. As I've argued here before, a certain level of imprecision in pathing, tacAI and the following of orders can be imagined away in a WW2 theater as "fog of war", but in modern assymetrical warfare where Bluefor's greatest asset is speed, effective comms and precision of movement and fire, effective tacAI and pathfinding become very, very conspicuous by their absence. I've said it before: BFC should wipe the slate clean and admit to having failed in this respect so that consumer confidence can be rebuilt on a baseline of credibility. Saying "well it has its weaknesses, we admit that, but, really, you guys are expecting too much and/or a different game" is an understandable but stubborn and wrongheaded move by the developers. The game is broken and cannot live up to its stated conceptual goals. For all its teething problems, CMBO did not fail in quite the same way.

I understand Steve's argument when it comes to features that consumers expected to be implemented differently, such as WEGO and quick battles, yet, again, there is an atmosphere of denial and spin here: People complain about the implementation of WEGO and QBs not because they are different from what they might be used to but because they are not nearly as much fun or as well executed. WEGO in CMSF is a kludge.

I am hoping the game will become playable with another two or three patches and I know the devs are working hard and that their hearts are in the right place. My biggest fear is this: If they were as totally convinced, as they appeared to be on the eve of release, that their product was basically sound and if they continue to believe that consumer complaints are mainly the result of misplaced expectations rather than legitimate responses to the broken condition of the game, then CMSF will never really be fixed because nobody at BFC is prepared to admit that it's broke.

I admire your pride in your work, Steve, but the game is broken. </font>

[JonS]

Originally posted by Bahger:

WEGO in CMSF is a kludge.

I genuinely do not understand why so many people are saying this.

WEGO TCP/IP is gone (for the moment?). Ok, I get that, although _personally_ that has zero impact _for_me_.

WEGO PBEM is better in terms of fewer emails/turn, but is otherwise the same. Well, apart from the blue bar. But how is this a kludge? :confused:

[rudel.dietrich]

I find the notion that WEGO is somehow for serious wargamers only laughable

I think that tired argument is just being used as a crutch by the crusty middle aged men who would like to keep CM from progressing beyond anything they cannot understand or are not willing to understand

It is the same tired argument that we laugh at now who ask why CMBO did not feature true turns and did not offer hexs

Or the argument that the computer will never replace good old board games

The arguments are rubbish and it is what keeps wargaming buried in the dark ages and continues to make it a niche genre

The biggest enemy of wargames is not 16 year old kids, or huge budget games or even market indifference.

The biggest enemy of wargames is their fans.

The fans who revolt against any sort of change and keep the genre firmly planted in the dark ages.

The genre is not going to grow until developers stop pandering to that very limited fan group.

In 5-6 years we will look back at this and have yet another laugh when realtime is the norm and 2-3 more CM games have been released.

But the arguments and these 'fans' still grate on my nerves.

16 year old kids who love real time games are not the enemy.

Their money is just as good as yours.

And the more of them that play (and more importantly pay for) 'your' games, the better those games will be.

Imagine if BFC had the budget to hire 3 more Charles or a bigger art team or more 3-D modelers

Or give Steve an army of pretty 19 year old interns

So revolting against change and doing your best to drive off new customers is just shooting yourself and your hobby in the foot.

The gap between mainstream games and wargames is just going to grow ever larger.

And that is my two euros

[ August 23, 2007, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: rudel.dietrich ]