Eastern Front after Normandy ;) ?

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Ok…this is more straight lobbying…. I am hoping that the third game in the series will be a return to the Eastern Front.

I am glad the team have taken a break by doing modern, contemporary warfare. I like the idea of having a different set of toys to play with and more importantly the guys at Battlefront were temporarily bored with WWII. Needed a break. Of course I would have gone for Cold War Central Front…. but life is not perfect .

For me though the Eastern front is the true “war to end all wars”. Many share this view for the obvious reasons of the scale, in numbers and geographical area, but also because the operational art was taken to its ultimate heights. Anyway… all have heard it before.

If the third game were to be the Eastern Front it will have been seven or more years since the last Eastern Front outing for CM and us fans of the setting are suffering withdrawal symptoms .

Hoping Battlefront will crack out the two most popular setting for wargames in their second and third outings with the new engine and then return to more niche market settings that may be their own favourites.

And by the way…. please, if we do get an Eastern Front setting… nothing too niche… no… not the Finns or early war . It is time for some mainstream WWII settings…. in my very prejudice view. With later modules you can do the niche Eastern Front settings.

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[Michael Dorosh]

Already discussed, already decided.

Poland, Finland, and the Axis Minors.

Your definition of "niche" may not be purposefully offensive, but is offensive nonetheless. :mad:

But seriously, don't you have anything better to do than lobby for the second sequel of a game whose original installment hasn't even seen the light of day yet? :confused:

[JonS]

Happy New Year Kip

[kipanderson]

Jon,

Happy New Year… hope things go well…also hope sometime to have a re-run on the lines of CMMC with your involvement… .

Michael… niche is in the eye of the beholder…

As I know you saw I lobbied for many years for a very niche setting, NATO Central Front, without any success.

The reason I am no fan of early war Eastern Front is that the Soviets were too like a militia. The difference in quality too great. (This is also my major reservation when is comes to CMSF, a lack of balance.) During the first period of the war, up to late November ’42, the causality ratio Soviet to German was close to 6:1. By ‘44/’45 it was down to 1.7:1.

My favoured period for wargames is the Battle for the Ukraine, August’43 to end of April ’44. The Korsun operation February ‘44 getting my top marks as the one to go for. By this time both sides were good at what they did at all levels. The Soviets had the operational edge, the Germans the tactical edge but both were good enough to compete at any level. The equipment difference was not overpowering either, in terms of quality. The great majority of panzers were the MarkIV, Soviet tanks T34/76. In defence against armour the StugIII was dominant, but so were Soviet AT brigades when attacked by panzer units. I will not bore you with more ranting… but all in all everything is beautifully set up for good gaming… in my prejudice view .

Anyway, I remain optimistic that we will get a mainstream setting, for want of a better term, in the first outing of the Eastern Front. Also optimistic that Battlefront will crack out an Eastern Front CMX2 game soon.

All the best,

Kip.

[Battlefront.com]

Hi Kip,

It is time for some mainstream WWII settings

Well, that pretty much does in the Eastern Front Yes, many hardcore wargamers think the Eastern Front is the be-all-end-all front to fight on (and I am one of them), but apparently nobody else cares. Sales for CMBB were good, but not equal to CMBO (that was somewhat expected). If we had not had a cult of personality behind us, which led to lots of people buying CMBB simply because it was CM or to support us, I think sales would have been significantly less than we would have liked.

Like it or not, every wargame company I've ever spoken with agrees that the Eastern Front is in and of itself a niche. I understand why that is from a sales/marketing standpoint, but good golly Ms. Molly... I don't understand it from a wargamer's perspective!! The Eastern Front is by far the most interesting tactical, operational, and strategic setting in all of modern warfare. It's got it all! Well, except for broad appeal

Will we go back and do an Eastern Front setting for CMx2? Probably. At least I would like to. But we'll just have to see what the future holds for us.

Steve

[Sequoia]

It could very well be the 3rd game will be pre-twentieth century. I don't think Battlefront has decided.

[kipanderson]

Steve, hi,

My first reaction is to be somewhat shocked to hear you say that the Eastern Front is not as big a seller as any other wargame setting. However…. once I have collected myself and what little brain I have kicks in I do realise that to most CM purchasers CM is probably no more than a great computer game. Thus they want to see the US winning WWII… and why not .

I long ago realised that even by the standards of CM fans I am a bit odd in that I play no there PC/consol games of any sort. If CM were not so good that it is a form of military history I would not be interested… I buy lots of wargames, but the others only get a couple of plays then get binned. (BTW another small company…who’s name I forget , produced an ACW series called Take Command that did the ACW outstandingly… only other wargame company that has so far come even close to CM…) Anyway… when I stop and think about it I do get the point.

Happily… when it comes to the Eastern Front I can see that your heart is in the right place . Given what I have seen of you and your chums over the years…if you like a subject it will happen… I remain optimistic… mind you I was optimistic about NATO and the Central Front happening too… I am beginning to worry myself now .

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

PS.Just a quick follow up… the small company that produces the great ACW game are called MadMinute Games. The environment is not nearly as challenging as the subjects covered by CM but they do what they do outstandingly .

http://takecommand.wargamer.com/

[ January 14, 2007, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: kipanderson ]

[Sgt Joch]

It's unfortunate, since the eastern front is also my favorite WW2 theater and I have been playing CMBB almost daily since 2002.

But is the problem the setting or the complexity of the game? IL-2 has been very successful and it started out purely as a eastern front air war simulator.

[Pvt. Ryan]

Steve, you guys are artists. The prospects of financial gain should not determine your next masterpiece. The money will roll in when you're dead.

[Sequoia]

I've thought it might be interesting if, rather than do The Bulge as the second WWII game -which is probably the front runner, do March to May 45 "End of the Reich".

U.S. first, then a British/Commonwealth module, followed up by a Soviet module. You'd get all the late model armour in the game which I think would be an appealing selling point.

[KNac]

What we need, is more REAL competition for BFC, as most of us can affor more than one game each 2 or 3 years, and more if they are like CMX1/2.

Too much homework for a small company like BFC.

p.s: and i play fps and rt"s" too lol

[Battlefront.com]

There are two problems with the Eastern Front, from what we can tell. First is connection to it. Americans specifically think of BOTH the Germans and the Soviets as "bad guys". They don't see the Eastern Front as a titanic struggle between good and evil, but rather evil and evil. I think that's splitting hairs, but my own opinion applies only to me Americans tend to want to play wargames with American forces in them, so that's a negative. Lastly, the battlefields of Normandy, Arnhem, etc. are familiar (even if superficially) to American gamers. Battlefields of Kharkov, Crimea, Cholm, etc. are not. Sure, they might recognize Stalingrad, Moscow, etc., but they are not likely to know about the details like they would St. Lo or Bastonge. In short, Americans have little sense of the places and flow of events on the Eastern Front and the sort of emotional connection to it compared to the Western Front.

Contrary to the presumption that this is just American snobbery, it would appear that Europeans fit into this mold too. We've got the direct and retail sales numbers to back that up with So yeah, apparently Europeans have similar problems with "good guys" being absent, terrain being unfamiliar, places being too "foreign", and a lesser sense of the connection of events on the Eastern Front to each other. The Germans, traditionally, have been shy about this part of their military history. At least if they play a Western Front game they can claim they are playing it as the Americans and therefore nobody should give them a hard time. Not true on the Eastern Front Things have changed a lot over the years, though. Back in the 1970s a friend of mine in Germany said you basically would be kicked out of the country if you so much as mentioned you thought war interesting.

The second reason is the breadth of forces involved. Even forgetting about the secondary countries involved, the amont of equipment and forces for both sides is HUGE. Gamers apparently want a much smaller set they can become more familiar with instead of finding themselves adrift with a force of PzIV Ds with addon armor and wondering what the heck they have and what the heck that Soviet tank 1000m away is all about. Some wargamers operate on the "more is better" principle, others work on the exact opposite. We suspect the majority, in fact, would rather less than more.

Again, the above are not my personal opinions about what I want out of a game, rather my experience with what the bulk of wargamers want out of a game. I don't have to agree, but I do have to live with the reality

Steve

[Elmar Bijlsma]

So instead you bring us a fictional Syria v USA setting, a bad guys versus the worse guys. But that's just this Euro-weeny his view. Say, how popular are foreign wars in the US right now?

There'd better be a damn good demo, Steve.

[flammenwerfer]

What about the Russian wargame market?

[Sirocco]

The thing about CMx2 is it's tight focus, and that would allow a "Stalingrad" or "Kursk" game, rather than an "Eastern Front" game. It's a subtle difference, but an important one.

[junk2drive]

Originally posted by flammenwerfer:

What about the Russian wargame market?

They have TOW

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Sequoia:

It could very well be the 3rd game will be pre-twentieth century. I don't think Battlefront has decided.

Quite.

[Baron von Beergut]

On one hand I'd say the answer to the debate of which is more marketable, East or West Front WWII would be solved by doing something like SPWaW that just covers all fronts and forces. But then that creates the problem of putting in all that variety of forces.

But as someone else pointed out, it seems bogus to have the alternative be a ficticious war between the US and Syria. If one wanted modern weapons why not something more likely as in a war of Israel against it's neighbors and if you want US then throw them in that. Or I would think a war vs North Korea another more likely scenario than Syria. It just does not to me sound like a marketable game except for the selling point of being a new game engine and us wanting to support the company in hopes of something better later.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Baron von Beergut:

On one hand I'd say the answer to the debate of which is more marketable, East or West Front WWII would be solved by doing something like SPWaW that just covers all fronts and forces. But then that creates the problem of putting in all that variety of forces.

But as someone else pointed out, it seems bogus to have the alternative be a ficticious war between the US and Syria. If one wanted modern weapons why not something more likely as in a war of Israel against it's neighbors and if you want US then throw them in that. Or I would think a war vs North Korea another more likely scenario than Syria. It just does not to me sound like a marketable game except for the selling point of being a new game engine and us wanting to support the company in hopes of something better later.

I would far rather buy a fictitious present day game like Syria-US than I would a real present day game such as Iraq-US, or worse, Israel and their naughty neighbours. *shrug* To each his own.

Hey, if it invites other "niche" consumers into the CM fold, I am all for it. Maybe they'll even stick around for the Poland 1939 module and be converted to Second World War CM. That would be optimal for the community.

[Cpl Steiner]

Surely any game can be a financial success, no matter how niche, if it is priced correctly?

BFC should make the game if it interests them and then set the price to reflect the anticipated sales levels. If CMBO sold 3 times as many units as CMBB then charge double or treble the price for the CMx2 Eastern Front game.

I for one wouldn't mind paying if it was a genuinely good game and not just a niche market rip-off (which I know it wouldn't be). Just think of all those Napoleonic Figurine collections that come out each year (Del Prado make them, I think). The market is niche but to buy the whole collection it costs hundreds of pounds.

BFC, don't let sales figures blind you to a potentially lucrative market.

In addition, can you say for sure that the setting was the cause of the lower sales? It could have just as much to do with improving computer graphics reducing people's interest in the CMx1 engine. Did CMAK sell any more units than CMBB? If the answer is no, then I don't think you can say that the Eastern Front is an unpopular genre.

Finally, if people in the West only know about Staligrad, so what. Market the game from the Stalingrad angle but put other battles in too.

[ January 15, 2007, 07:01 AM: Message edited by: Cpl Steiner ]

[Melnibone]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

Surely any game can be a financial success, no matter how niche, if it is priced correctly?

There's the rub. The smaller the niche - the higher the price surely?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Melnibone:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

Surely any game can be a financial success, no matter how niche, if it is priced correctly?

There's the rub. The smaller the niche - the higher the price surely? </font>

[KNac]

Did CMAK sell any more units than CMBB? If the answer is no, then I don't think you can say that the Eastern Front is an unpopular genre.[/QB]

Not really, decreasing selling figures could be a cause of:

- People who bought earleir games and didn't like the game/game system, and decided to not buy more games of the series, or even ones who got tired of it (these exist even if sounds impossible).

- People who were not interested in the scenarios being done (discussed in the thread, also applies to CMAK)

- People who decided not to buy them because they considered the imrpovements or additions weren't enought and they had enough with previous games.

- Not effective marketing, for example, if I read "CM: Afrika Korps" I may think: "oh a limited game about 41-42 campaing, it doesn't sound interesting to me" and don't think that it includes posterior stuff. Rare but possible.

- Others that I can't think now.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Melnibone:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

Surely any game can be a financial success, no matter how niche, if it is priced correctly?

There's the rub. The smaller the niche - the higher the price surely? </font>

[Cpl Steiner]

Here's something to consider. BFC's stated marketing strategy now is to do smaller but more detailed games with add-on modules. Unfortunately this means that the Western Front and the Eastern Front would certainly qualify as separate games.

Now look at how Avalon Hill marketed the "Squad Leader" board game. The basic game had the Germans versus the Russians and the Americans but had only very basic rules and a limited number of boards. Later modules added more complexity and boards, not new theatres.

Perhaps this could be done for CMx2:WWII as well. I realise that this goes in the face of what BFC have said but they might see the logic in it and it might not be too difficult to do.

For the initial game, you get American, Russian and German forces from the period 1944-45. The Russian scenarios would be set in Western-looking regions such as Eastern Germany and Berlin so they can use the same terrain set.

A later module might cover the German invasion of Russia, adding Russian-specific terrain.

This way, we get both theatres and BFC can still use their module marketing strategy.