Jump to content

a call for more variety in the WWII CMx2 game


Recommended Posts

whilst i understand that the TOE is more limited in a modern army i still feel that CMSF is severely nerfed when it comes to troop and vehicle variety compared to the first combat mission games...

and the fact that the marines arent available until they get their own module makes me even more worried... i see a pattern developing here... first comes the normandy game with only the troops from omaha and utah beach... then we get an expansion with the airborne units and after that the brittish... all of wich we have to pay more for...

this is something that saddens me greatly since the variety was one of the main things that attracted me to the CM series to start with...

the fact that you could create almost any "what if" scenario and still have the right troops for it...

with CMSF you dont even have the different branches of the same countrys military... you have to wait for an expansion to get the marines...

not good.

i sincerely hope that this doesnt carry over to the next WWII incarnation of this game.

so now that the engine is built and all, i hope we will see massive improvements in the troop and equipment variations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 304
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Steve was pretty up front about the module nature of CM2. I see few people screaming about the same concept from ASL.

btw, for the enjoyment I got from CM1, I would gladly have paid hundreds of dollars. And I am a pretty cheap bastage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by z1812:

Hi All,

I agree with "the wood". I have had many, many hours of enjoyment with CMx1. If it costs me more to build up "my army" in the future then I am willing to pay for it.

Regards John

The problem arises in satisfying elements of the fanbase that is not so willing. Currently, obtaining a third party package of scenarios for Advanced Squad Leader invariably runs one into trouble because there are exists a labyrinth of prerequisites - this module contained this and this board, that set of rules, and these counters, while that action pack had that board and that set of board overlays, etc. Newcomers to the system find themselves overwhelmed and ultimately in some cases turned off.

The same would occur with third party CM scenarios (always the lifeblood of the game system - and moreso now that QBs really aren't as flexible or entertaining as in CMX1). Scenario designers tend to be hardcore and will certainly have all the "toys" - conceivably, we could imagine a CMX2 WW II "game" with five titles in it, and the desire to include bits from all of them, precluding anyone who didn't own all five titles from playing it.

A huge issue? Time will tell. Probably not, but something to consider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These extra modules will also add new challenge to setting up multiplayer games.

If two players want to play a game do scenarios include something that shows which modules are needed to play? Can you see this "required modules" info already in the scenario list?

What about quick battles - is the list of common modules one QB generating parameter which includes units only from selected modules?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didnt we have 3 modules for CMx1?

I wouldn't mind having 6 modules for the WW2 version. 1st is the core game usual American vs. Germans

Then modules to add Italians, Soviets, British, Japanese then maybe secondary forces for partisans, Finnish, Italians, Polish, French, etc. Total of 6 modules. Of course modules should include more maps, terrain features, weather conditions, etc.

For the people with different modules then you simply default to maps and units that both players have access to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even with modules it's still going to be a narrower experience then that, Omenowl.

CM:WW2 is going to be Normandy US v Germany and modules most likely will be more along the lines of: Commonwealth in Normandy, Airborne in Normandy with possibilities for further Market Garden, Bulge or crossing the Rhine modules. We'd end up CMBO like scope, max.

If I understood Steve correctly, that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not see it as that narrow.

US vs. Germany for core game

Britain vs. Germany

USSR vs. Germany

North Africa (italy, germany, US, UK)

Pacific (Japanese and US marines)

Minor country Units from WW2 (Polish, French, etc).

So really you would would have a couple of more modules with more units, TOE and map expansions than what you had with the 3 CMx1. You also would have a Japanese module which we dont have currently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Londoner:

Steve and Co are trying to run a business after all.

The danger with that mindset is you take customers for granted. No one has a right to sales. If you keep on underwhelming people with product you'll find you have even more time on your hands than you were hoping for.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sirocco,

The danger with that mindset is you take customers for granted. No one has a right to sales. If you keep on underwhelming people with product you'll find you have even more time on your hands than you were hoping for.
Well, if we took the loudest complainers and based our business decisions on them we'd have packed it in before we even released CMBO :D I will also remind you that we had TONS of people complaining that the variety of units, terrain, and theaters in CMx1 was "limited" (no Funnies, no detailed Engineers, no Japanese, etc.) So again, me thinks we have to take complaints with heaps of salt because wargamers, by their very definition, will always find ways to be "underwhelmed". We're not going to put ourselves out of business trying to please the unpleasable :D

As Thewood has stated, we've been very clear that we will never, ever, in a million years make games that have as much stuff in them as we did in CMx1. If there was a choice between us making another CMBO (the smallest of the three CMx1 games) and not making tactical wargames ever again, we'd choose to never make another tactical wargame ever again. Yes kiddies, it's that bad for us. Argue, whine, moan, whatever... it won't make any difference. Check posts from me over the last 4 years to see how consistent this message is if you don't believe me.

As for paying a LOT of money to get greater variety of units, like CMx1, well... that's what the Module concept does :D It becomes worth it to us to add more stuff when we're actually paid for it, so it works fine from our end. The thing is we can't put it all out at one time because of the amount of time it takes. With CMBB it took us just about 2 years to put in all that stuff, and that was a sequel with relatively minor code changes! And that's with models with 1/10th the detail. So it's simply impractical to do it all at once even if we wanted to.

I've posted many times about how the Modules work, but I'll do so again in brief:

A Module works off of the main Title, which is the base game for that particular series (in this case, CM:SF). As long as you have the Module required by the QB parameters, scenario, or campaign you can play it. Meaning, two people can play head to head without any issues as long as they are using the things which are common to each other. Therefore, people are not required to purchase Modules in order to "stay current", however if they find people making scenarios or playing online using a Module they don't have then they'll not be able to participate.

Again, this is the way it will be forever more. Those of you who find what we're offering to be inadequate, you're welcome to move on to some other extremely realistic 3D tactical wargame that gives players 10 times more stuff than they're paying for. At present that would be CMx1 :D

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

As long as you have the Module required by the QB parameters, scenario, or campaign you can play it. Meaning, two people can play head to head without any issues as long as they are using the things which are common to each other. Therefore, people are not required to purchase Modules in order to "stay current", however if they find people making scenarios or playing online using a Module they don't have then they'll not be able to participate.

If I download a user made scenario, can I somehow see which modules it uses - without playing it or opening it to Scenario Editor?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The optimal way to go is for download websites to have some sort of display to show which Modules are required for a scenario so you don't download the wrong one in the first place. That makes life easier on everybody ;)

Assuming you have a scenario that requires a Module you don't have, yes... you do not have to try to play it or open it in the Editor to figure out if you can play it or not. Scenarios/Campaigns that aren't playable for you simply won't show up in the Load screen, or perhaps they will but grayed out, or some sort of message will pop up telling you which Module is needed that you don't have.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, when a scenario designer goes to make a Battle he selects which Modules he wants to include. This filters the selections he can make according to what Modules are checked off. This eliminates the possibility of accidentally requiring this or that particular Module by unknowingly selecting a particular sub variant of Vehicle X that is only in Module Y.

This feature, plus the loading filter, should eliminate the sort of confusion Dorosh mentioned regarding the ASL model. Well, that and the fact that it is the same underlying game system so subsequent Modules do not have odd exceptions and implementations like ASL modules may have.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was mostly thinking about situation where the host has all modules required to play, but the joining player doesn't have same modules. Then they need to decide which scenarios can be played.

Maybe scenario makers will mention needed modules in the short text description that is shown when you select a scenario in CMSF's scenario list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For PBEM players are going to have to work this out just like any other game parameter. "Hey, let's play. I've got the Marines Module, do you?". It's not like we'll have 50 Modules per Title, so this should be fairly easy to do. For TCP/IP the same thing may be required, though it is possible Charles can have the Host synch with the Guest automatically.

Short description mention of the Modules needed isn't necessary and in fact uses up valuable description space. If you put a scenario file into your Scenario's folder it will be flagged or omitted if the Modules it needs aren't present.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Well, if we took the loudest complainers and based our business decisions on them we'd have packed it in before we even released CMBO :D I will also remind you that we had TONS of people complaining that the variety of units, terrain, and theaters in CMx1 was "limited" (no Funnies, no detailed Engineers, no Japanese, etc.) So again, me thinks we have to take complaints with heaps of salt because wargamers, by their very definition, will always find ways to be "underwhelmed".

I can certainly understand the more limited scope. But whenever I read your comments I hear all about how you want to make the games easier on you. I hear less and less about what customers want. If you keep concentrating on what works best for you then you might find your games work less and less for your customers. Personally after CMSF I'll wait for a demo for the WW2 game and feedback on QB's.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sirocco,

I can certainly understand the more limited scope. But whenever I read your comments I hear all about how you want to make the games easier on you. I hear less and less about what customers want.
That's because customers ALWAYS want more than we can possibly deliver. What you see from me is a reality check on those requests/demands. The alternative is to lie and say "yes, we are thinking of doing that" all the while not having any intention of doing it. I guess we could go that route, but I don't see how that's productive.

If you keep concentrating on what works best for you then you might find your games work less and less for your customers.
We are a business, therefore producing products whose sales are below the costs will put us out of business a lot quicker.

Plus, your logic is fatally flawed. CMBB had TONS more stuff in it than CMBO and it sold far less. CMAK had about as much as CMBB and it sold less and at a lower price point. Therefore, contrary to your logic of "less stuff gets us less sales" we have learned the lesson that "more stuff doesn't get us more sales".

Personally after CMSF I'll wait for a demo for the WW2 game and feedback on QB's.
Not a problem for us. If you don't find the next CM game to your liking you can, of course, pass on it. However, I doubt very much that you'll find any other game out there to substitute for it in a direct way. It's been 10 years since CMBO was announced and I think the track record shows that nobody is dumb enough to make the sorts of game we make. Yup, we are definitely the dumbest developers on the face of the planet. The more you guys point this out by complaining the greater the chance we'll wake up on a different side of the bed and think we shouldn't waste the next 10 years of our lives doing this sort of stuff.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

For PBEM players are going to have to work this out just like any other game parameter. "Hey, let's play. I've got the Marines Module, do you?". It's not like we'll have 50 Modules per Title, so this should be fairly easy to do. For TCP/IP the same thing may be required, though it is possible Charles can have the Host synch with the Guest automatically.

Short description mention of the Modules needed isn't necessary and in fact uses up valuable description space. If you put a scenario file into your Scenario's folder it will be flagged or omitted if the Modules it needs aren't present.

Yes, it was this TCP/IP case I had in mind. If the host can be synched with the guest, then no need to mention needed modules in description. But if this synch isn't done, then the host must to do it somehow.

BTW, when a scenario designer goes to make a Battle he selects which Modules he wants to include. This filters the selections he can make according to what Modules are checked off.

I hope this option will be there for QBs as well.

Thanks for all these answers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I end up receiving as much fun and time outta CMX2 WW2 as I did CMX1, I would have no problem paying an appropriete amount. Weather that is a lump

sum or a few purchases over time.

Myself I haven't even tried the new engine yet,but

I appreciate everyone doing the beta testing for

the WW2 release smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve,

Would you be prepared to reveal how CM:SF has performed, sales wise, compared to CM:BO, CM:BB and CM:AK? The only reason I ask is that I'm having trouble persuading anyone to buy CM:SF. I'm even having trouble persuading them to try the new demo. It seems to me that there just isn't the interest out there in CM:SF that there was in the CMx1 games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

It's been 10 years since CMBO was announced and I think the track record shows that nobody is dumb enough to make the sorts of game we make. Yup, we are definitely the dumbest developers on the face of the planet. The more you guys point this out by complaining the greater the chance we'll wake up on a different side of the bed and think we shouldn't waste the next 10 years of our lives doing this sort of stuff.

Steve

Now, now, now, you don't really mean that. We very much like you to waste the next ten years of your life trying to please us :D

Nah, just kidding. But don't be so gloomy. I think you've got a winner on your hands with this new engine. As soon as the modules start arriving (and ofcourse the WWII stuff!!!), there will be much rejoicing. I really look forward to more of the good stuff!

When you put out the next module, I will most surely buy it. Hell, I might even pre-order just like I did with CMSF smile.gif . My money will be in your pocket. Bring it on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its funny that people are worrying about how to juggle modules when many of them haven't even bothered to purchase the base game. I don't really see the percentages in BFC continuing to cater to the old CMx1 grognard crowd, some of whom appear to want to deep-six the game for sheer spite. One guy last week was vowing he'd refuse to buy the game as long as the PDF manual remained in its current form. The first-time pimply teenager market is exponentially more lucrative, and those guys wouldn't be inclined to bitch about the missing blue progress bar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...