Eastern Front after Normandy ;) ?

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I'm afraid there is no chance of that Cpl Steiner. BFC have repeatedly stated that they won't make theatre wide games any more. Not even with game+modules will we get CMBO, let alone BB or AK.

Great pity, though I do understand. As long as they don't narrow it down too much I'm fine with it. I mean, just Normandy or Market Garden is fine with me, even if the total has to be pieced together with the modules. Pity that once again the Yanks get first billing in CMx2:WW2, but C'est la vie.

Still no word on what CMx2:WW2 will be?

[Battlefront.com]

The lack of broad appeal of the Eastern Front has nothing to do with CM or any other wargame for that matter. The reasons why the Eastern Front is more appealing to Grogs than regular gamers is extremely rational and uncompromising. Nobody has been able to break through the problems that I know of, therefore it is foolish to think that some magic formula for doing so exists. You can disagree with this all you want, but it doesn't change the facts just like those wishing for compelte world peace won't get their way either.

Now, nowhere did I say that we weren't going to make an Eastern Front version. All I've said is that it isn't some massive, no brainer, success waiting to happen as some of you think. Proof? We did CMBB knowing that it wouldn't be as popular as CMBO. This is indeed what happened and yet we were still pleased with the sales. What we weren't pleased with, in hindsight, was how much effort we put into CMBB compared to CMBO and then compared to the return. If we had to do CMBB all over again we would not have included the Axis minor nations and we would have probably simulated only from 1943-1945. I doubt we would have sold one less copy of CMBB (outside of Finland that is! ) and made people just as happy, but we'd have probably put in 50% of the work.

CMAK did sell less than CMBB, though not massively so. The reason? Third game in the series more than anything else. Usually sequels are less successful than the one that comes before it, unless the sequel is a total rewrite *and* perceived as superior (for example Quake vs. Quake II, not Panzer General 1 vs. Panzer General 2). But the other reason is that NW Europe is the big draw and everything comes lower than that. Italy is not very well thought of by wargamers and the desert battles are generally perceived as Brits vs Germans, which runs afoul of the American part of the equation. So we're not surprised that CMAK sold less than CMBO and CMBB because we knew it would.

Lower pricing won't convince people to buy something they weren't already predisposed to buying before. Well, unless you go to bargin bin pricing. That's a self defeating proposition for us. Raising the price reduces the pool of willing buyers, probably to the extent that the total income is less than if a lower price had been maintained. It is also a very risky strategy (i.e. too few eggs in one basket).

As for CM:SF...

We had our choice of what to cover with the first CMx2 game. We purposefully, and extremely carefully, chose the modern Syrian setting. Since it should be obvious to any dingbat reading this thread, not to mention 7 years worth of other threads, that we are extremely shrewd developers, then one can only come to two possible conclusions:

1. We know what we're doing and you don't.

2. You know better than we, and therefore we're dumb as rocks.

I've tried to explain why #1 is the stronger possibility, but apparently some people still "don't get it" and probably never will. So at this point such people should revert to blind faith since that's likely to be closer to reality.

Steve

[ January 15, 2007, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Michael Dorosh]

I have to agree with the question of the title of CMAK - the average consumer (read: dumbass) would have had little idea American forces were even included - a consideration I think crucial for the success of any game in the English-speaking world?

Then again, perhaps the market for CMAK was really the CM faithful, who would have been following the buzz here on the forums anyway? Seems pretty intangible to be drawing broad conclusions about anyway. I'd say, Steve, your guess is as good as ours as to why CMAK did not outstrip CMBB? Your point on sequels is apt, of course, but one did not need CMBO to get CMAK, which was not the case with Cpl Steiner's previous example, Squad Leader, which required ownership of the modules, in order.

[Battlefront.com]

Michael,

I have to agree with the question of the title of CMAK - the average consumer (read: dumbass) would have had little idea American forces were even included - a consideration I think crucial for the success of any game in the English-speaking world?

We labored hard to come up with an alternative name to Afrika Korps, but we could come up with none better. Not from a marketing standpoint nor a more inclusive subject matter perspective (i.e. a name that covered Italy and North Africa). We were indeed fearful that some people would be turned off at the thought of Cruisers vs. PzIIIs in largely flat desert terrain, but in the end we felt Afrika Korps was overall the best choice so we went with it. 3 years later I still think it was the best choice and no other choice would have affected sales positively.

Yup, that was our feeling of it. The game engine was pretty long in the tooth by this time, so casual gamers were most likely not going to be interested in it just because of the looks, not to mention the subject matter. If we weren't able to reuse so much stuff from CMBO we probably wouldn't have bothered with it at all and instead immediately moved onto CMx2. As it was, CMAK was well worth the effort even though we started the price off $10 lower than the previous two games.

Nobody can say for sure how Human Beings split off from other huminoid creatures, but I'd say the scientists who study it for a living probably have a better idea than the people going to see Jurrasic Park and King Kong

Correct. This is one reason we've shifted to a Module strategy with CMx2. It allows us far more flexibility with the subject matter than with the old "stand alone" strategy. There are still a lot of practical limitations as to what we can include for effort/reward of a Module, however we do have a lot more flexibility this time around compared to last time.

Steve

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

1. We know what we're doing and you don't.

2. You know better than we, and therefore we're dumb as rocks.

I've tried to explain why #1 is the stronger possibility, but apparently some people still "don't get it" and probably never will. So at this point such people should revert to blind faith since that's likely to be closer to reality.

Steve

3. You know what you are doing, and we know what we are doing and never shall the twain meet.

All kidding aside, I understand the choice you are making. Indeed, I agree with your reasoning that it is the way forward for you guys. Doesn't make me desire a pimped CMBO any less and as such I am dissapointed. A little.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Although I am a great fan of the Eastern Front, I am also a great fan of the more focused/modular concept. Having games optimised in all ways for a particular operation will add to the immersion.

I remember that.. what now seems like years ago … at the height of the CMBB vehicle modding frenzy there were some great graphics out there for AFVs. However, what was always lacking was a full set of vehicles with the same look and quality to the graphics for all sides in a given operation. One would have to mix styles and types within a given game.

Having the graphics done to a far higher standard, but the “same” standard for all vehicles and terrain in a given game will be huge plus. For example if there is a winter setting for a game having all the vehicles, on both sides, weathered up to quality of the best 1/35 scale models and weathered in the same style will add a lot to the atmosphere and enjoyment of the game.

The above is only possible if games cover less ground with a smaller range of vehicles to weather.

Looking forward to the first outing of CMX2,

All the best,

Kip.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

Having the graphics done to a far higher standard, but the “same” standard for all vehicles and terrain in a given game will be huge plus.

Only for the minority that actually believes such things matter. It won't have any effect on game play, or, frankly, the ability of most to enjoy the game. Will it? I usually have the camera up so high in CM I can't make out individual unit markings or even camouflage patterns.

Let's be realistic and call it a "nice to have"; were it a "must have", then CM to date would not have been a success. "Huge plus" it is not.

[ParaBellum]

What I know is that I'll never see a CMBB 2.

That's Ok, I do understand BFC's reasoning here.

But I'm still hoping for "Barbarossa '41", "Kharkov '42", or "Bagration".

And yes, I'm also looking forward to for a couple of western front releases, such as "Gold, Juno, Sword", "Market Garden", "The Bulge" etc...

I'm pretty confident that BFC will keep my wargaming needs satisfied for the foreseeable future.

[ January 15, 2007, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: ParaBellum ]

[stikkypixie]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

Having the graphics done to a far higher standard, but the “same” standard for all vehicles and terrain in a given game will be huge plus.

Only for the minority that actually believes such things matter. It won't have any effect on game play, or, frankly, the ability of most to enjoy the game. Will it? I usually have the camera up so high in CM I can't make out individual unit markings or even camouflage patterns.

Let's be realistic and call it a "nice to have"; were it a "must have", then CM to date would not have been a success. "Huge plus" it is not. </font>

[KNac]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

Having the graphics done to a far higher standard, but the “same” standard for all vehicles and terrain in a given game will be huge plus.

Only for the minority that actually believes such things matter.</font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by stikkypixie:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

Having the graphics done to a far higher standard, but the “same” standard for all vehicles and terrain in a given game will be huge plus.

Only for the minority that actually believes such things matter. It won't have any effect on game play, or, frankly, the ability of most to enjoy the game. Will it? I usually have the camera up so high in CM I can't make out individual unit markings or even camouflage patterns.

Let's be realistic and call it a "nice to have"; were it a "must have", then CM to date would not have been a success. "Huge plus" it is not. </font>

[Speedy]

I'm curious Steve, did you guys ever try to find a Russian distributer for CMBB?

[Sequoia]

I seem to remember seeing the cover of the Russian edition. Surprisingly, it had a King Tiger on the cover too.

[ParaBellum]

Did they have the GIs from the german version, too?

[SSgt Viljuri]

Speedy wrote:

I'm curious Steve, did you guys ever try to find a Russian distributer for CMBB?

Dunno for "officials statistics", but piracy rates there are still way above the worst western offenders. Especially what comes to computer (PC) games, seen researched figures well above 90 per cent...

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, CM games are sold within Russia legally. In fact, the market there is actually pretty good for legal games now. What's happened is the price of retail games has dropped down so low that it's hard for the pirates to compete price wise. Plus, when you buy from a pirate you never know if it will run or if the game is really even on the disk. So for a few bucks more you can get the real thing complete with all original packaging. Since the size of the market there is HUGE and growing, it makes sense for publishers to sacrifice price point and go with volume sales. And what's to lose since the games would be there illegally anyway?

Steve

[Littletinsoldier]

I like the idea of the add-on modules. And regarding an Eastern Front module, as long as the Axis side remain the same as a corresponding Western Front release (eg - Bagration would be a good one, being roughly simultaneous with Overlord), Eastern Front would be a marketable proposition, wouldn't it...?

(plus a number of Soviet vehicles - halftracks etc - were lend lease)

I bought 2 copies of CMBB, one for myself, one for a buddy, if it helps you guys market an Eastern Front module, I promise to buy 3!

[jeffsmith]

before CMBB I had very little interest in the East Front

(I know I just admitted to heresy :eek: )

Since CMBB I have much more interest in that theater

and I also don't mind playing as the Germans in CMAK

I definitely would purchase a CMX2 East Front Module

[Sgt Joch]

I would also buy any CMx2 Eastern front games/modules.

(I'm sure that statement will be a major factor in Battlefront's decision. )

[J Ruddy]

um... me too...

The thing is to tie it in to popular media.

"CM Enemy at the Gates!" < - - Ok maybe a bit late for this tie in... ;n

[J Ruddy]

CM Doctor Zhivago?

[Andreas]

Originally posted by ParaBellum:

What I know is that I'll never see a CMBB 2.

Don't cry Jochen, I'll still design scenarios for CMBB as long as my computer makes it. On second thoughts, maybe continue crying.

More importantly, where's my turn Jochen?!

All the best

Andreas

[J Ruddy]

CM Der Untergang?

[Michael Dorosh]

How much of a bitch would it be to research Russian squad tactics in WW II though?

We still have no real idea how the British did it.

My guess at unraveling it is here (couched in Squad Leader terms):

http://www.xtreme-gamer.com/forums/advanced-squad-leader/63945-development-british-infantry-squad-platoon-tactics.html

Is there a reasonable amount of data extant - at least in Russian - on how they did things? I realize the game will not allow individual orders to be given, but still, if we are striving for accuracy and realism...and if Mark I can bitch abou the angle of the pocket flap on the ACU, I am convinced our standards here must be high...

[Andreas]

Great article Michael - would you consider reposting that at the AHF?

Cheers

Andreas