a call for more variety in the WWII CMx2 game

[Zemke]

Originally posted by 76mm:

I totally understand why Battlefront went with the module concept and have no problem paying more for good content.

BUT, I've got to say that b/n the subject matter and lack of diverse units, I haven't fired up CMSF in months...I just find it terminally boring. A Normandy game limited to "US Rifle Battalion vs. German Kampfgruppe with four types of units" won't be much better.

I hope that for WWII the modules come out quickly and cover a wide variety of theaters/units, or I have to admit that the game is probably going to lose my interest pretty quickly. This from a guy who still regularly plays CMBB.

I am in the exact situation as 76mm, CMSF was never what I wanted, but supported the company by buying the product to give them capital to develpe the WWII game. I KNOW in my heart that BF is trying to please as much of us as is cost effective, I just hope and prey the WWII games let me play great PBEM games and TCIP again.

[Zemke]

Once again as I read this thread, and having not visited the BF site in some time, I see "we the people" asking for more choice, not less, more flexibly not less, campaigns that pull you in and make you hope and prey you made the right choices and the guy you named after your best friend makes it through the battle, a better QB system, inclusion of some of the "little" things that made CM1 so great, allow a built in mod capability.....choice to the player. Give that BF, and you cannot go wrong, I can play my TCIP as WEGO and have great PBEM games going with my dear friends on the Blitz, while others can enjoy immersive campaigns that capture the imagination, or play the AI over and over in all the different scenarios that get made. Give us the option of choice and you will make money hand over fist as we buy up the mods faster than you can make them!

[M1A1TC]

Originally posted by Zemke:

]....CMSF was never what I wanted...I KNOW in my heart that BF is trying to please as much of us as is cost effective...

CMSF is what I wanted since CMBO days, but it wasn't executed like I wanted it to.

If you really think a company, designed to sell product and make money, cares about pleasing you, thats just sad. Thats not how buisness model works. Its all about making money. Thats why they went with focus on RT. If they cared about pleasing us, they would have concentrated on WEGO, improving AI, not releasing the game in half-finished state, etc

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by 76mm:

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

I'm not understanding what it is you think "focus" is, if not terrain, mission types, and unit capabilities?

Maybe my post wasn't clear, but I would say that "focus" is units, terrain, and weather, and that the limitations on these present in CMSF (and potentially the Normandy game) constitute too narrow a focus. Maybe I don't understand your point?

For instance, a post above hints that the Bulge might be a seperate game rather than a module. WTF? This would pretty much be the same units, with only winter terrain/weather effects thrown in. If a "game" is limited to Normandy, June 1944, I personally will lose interest quickly. </font>

[Marco Bergman]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

though how many major equipment/vehicle types were on the western front in October 1944 that hadn't been there in June?

Hetzer. Entered service July '44, I think.

[FAI]

I wish that not only they put cherry-picking back, they'd also allow unrestricted formation of units ("Rambo" squads, anyone? )

[Battlefront.com]

Couple of general comments, most of which should be taken in the semi-kidding spirit in which they were typed...

First, there is no such thing as a "campaign" in the way some of you guys wish to think about it. Meaning, one can not say "my idea of a campaign is the only idea that qualifies, therefore all other ideas are by definition not campaigns". That's such a silly position to take I'm not even going to put in a smiley face. OK, just one

CMx2 has a campaign system. It may not be to some people's liking, but that's not the same thing. As I've said in this thread a few times, that's unavoidable since if I put 10 wargamers together and asked them what their concept of a campaign is I'd probably get 13 answers (most diametrically opposed), some fist fights, and a healthy dose of phrases starting out with "your mother...". Therefore, we're in a completely no-win situation. It's foolish to think otherwise.

Anybody who thinks that "give the people what they want" is akin to a development strategy should first identify who "the people" are. Sift through the rhetoric and it's easy to see that "the people" is a thinly veiled cover for "me, myself, and I". That's what I've been trying to get into your collective excessively solid cranial masses. There is no "I" in team, and there is most definitely no "we" in wargamer. You lot couldn't agree on what we should focus on any more than someone who's had a bottle of scotch in under an hour can successfully count the number of fingers I'm holding up (hint to our Kiwi and Scottish friends... 3). Since it is an impossible thing for us to do people should stop expecting us to attempt it.

Anybody that thinks we can do the "give them everything and let them sort it out" hasn't tried to do something like that before AND earn a living from it. We may be wargamers at heart, but that doesn't put food on the table any more than speculative land purchases in the southern US. So you'll have to pardon us from steering clear of attempts to do the impossible without any hope of compensation for even 1/2 of what we wind up producing, then taking flak for the other 1/2. To borrow an under used phrase from the 1990s, "Homey don't play that". Hmmm... maybe there is a reason to not use that? Probably, but that's beside the point.

The point is that I'm tired and should have gone to bed hours ago instead of typing up yet another explanation as to why it is very few people have the desire, not to mention the idiotically stubborn will, to make wargames. You guys are fickle, impossible to please, and downright nasty when you don't get exactly what you want (which by definition is never). And that's when you're on your meds!

And how does this all tie together? As it always does... we will produce what we produce based on a variety of factors, including customer requests and expectations. But at the end of the day what we produce will be commercially viable for us and if that means not spending 6 months extra on things that 1 in 10 customers would care a flying fig about... guess what? It isn't going to happen. And just because most of you guys on this forum happen to be the 1 in 10 doesn't mean that the other 9 don't exist. They do, they always have, and they always will. You can choose to ignore that, we can't.

OK, time for bed!

Steve

PS.

[ March 05, 2008, 12:03 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Battlefront.com]

Quick comment before really going off to bed...

A "narrow front" strategy is perfectly fine for people if they are inherently interested in the setting and/or game environment. It would seem that those who are most bored with CM:SF thus far probably are because of reasons other than the number of unit possibilities presented. One must have a deeper interest in a deeper game to find value in it. Those browsing something require more breadth because they bore easier with any specific combo. I will prove my point...

How many of you guys downloaded the CMBO Beta Demo when it was fairly fresh? How many times did you play the same two scenarios over how many months? Same units, same maps, same weather, same EVERYTHING each time the battle was played. Yet there we were, still seeing people playing the damned thing for months on end. Why? Clearly it wasn't the variety of the units, terrain types, maps, weather, victory conditions, etc. Then, when CMBO was actually released, people wound up replaying those demo scenarios! When CMAK came out people "ported" the scenarios and played them again in the new game engine.

The conclusion from this, I think, is that if we had release 3 maps, a half dozen units, and called it a day we'd have saved ourselves about 5 years of development time

Now, compare this to the CMBB and CMAK demos where the shine was already off the apple and we purposefully did not attempt to make "balanced" scenarios that could be played for 8 months. How many of you that played these demos bought the game despite complaining about the demo itself? How many of you didn't buy CMBB or CMAK because it didn't have enough units and terrain possibilities within? Knowing that a TON of you CMBO guys didn't purchase either CMBB or CMAK means that adding more stuff didn't translate into more sales.

Therefore, it's pretty damned clear to anybody with any sense that the number of units and terrain, in and of itself, isn't the most important factor in determining game enjoyment. If it was, people would have not played the CMBO demo for more than a day or two and more people would have purchased CMBB and CMAK since each was much more expansive (broad) than CMBO.

Plus, you guys have to realize it never was our intention for you to play a $45 game for 5-7 years in an industry that usually measures game life in HOURS. In fact, had we known that we were overdoing the content as much as we did we would have delivered a lot less in each CMx1 game and released them that much sooner instead. So it's a total accident you got what you got. You should be thankful that we got it wrong the first time instead of attempting to punish us for getting it right the second time.

As always, if you don't like this reality you have three choices:

1. Accept it and enjoy what you get.

2. Reject it and purchase someone else's game instead.

3. Reject it and not purchase anything else.

There is no 4th option, such as "try to convince Battlefront that they don't know what they are doing so they will repeat all of their mistakes just to make me personally happy." We ruled that choice out in an early strategy session some time ago

Steve

[ March 05, 2008, 12:24 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

I think you have got it about right, Leaving aside the commercial logic which matters a lot more to you than the average customer, I played most of the CM demos to death and actually learned a fair amount from them.

After that I got the full games but once I was through the scenarios my main use was most QB's either solo or with my son hot seat.

By far the most usual scenario I played was US v German, combined arms with about an infantry company each and an armoured platoon in support.

Favourite tanks, US; Sherman's and for me Hellcats, but usually just the good old M4A1. German; PZIV's or Tiger I. I have to say I liked the miss match between the fast light armoured hellcat and the slow heavy armoured Tiger, but Sherman v PZIV was more common.

In short what I liked to play wasn't some obscure scenario with a bizarre mix of the rarest and weirdest vehicles in the game but a bread and butter fight with the most common kit in the field.

With the depth and variety in CMx1 let alone the better texture in CMx2, a simulation of just the basic stuff should keep most people happy for years.

If I represent a problem for you ( other than being Mac only) it's that I might not buy many modules if the basic game meets my needs, although I'd probably buy British Paras.

Peter.

[76mm]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I guess I'm not seeing what would preclude you from using everything included in a June 1944 module/title to recreate specific situations taking place in July, August, September, October or November 1944 (or even parts of December)?

Mainly weather--snow, lack of leaves on trees, frozen rivers, which are tough to do in a June 44 setting. Yeah, I could probably make frozen rivers out of pavement tiles, etc., but I'd probably rather read a book. I'm looking for IMMERSION! And I'm not really concerned about having every single unit type represented, but all the common vehicles are kind of a must--like how about trucks?!. One of the things I don't like about CMSF is that there are basically two types of US vehicles--Strykers and M1A1s (I'm not suggesting to add laser hovercraft, but I find the limited choice, well, boring).

As for terrain, if the June 1944 title has rivers/river crossings and all that entails (railway bridges, pontoon bridges, river craft), what else would you need to simulate everything up to the end of the year?

Hopefully the terrain will be adequate for what you propose, although in addition to your list, I think that BFC needs to do something to better represent European cities/towns (not just the skins, but building types, etc.). And frankly, I could care less how much snow was on the ground during the Bulge--I mainly play fictional scenarios, and I want snow, dammit!

The presence of King Tigers will be a "hook" for a Battle of the Bulge game and one can naturally envision those not being included in Normandy, historical presence or not. It would all hinge on the Germans, I think - and varieties of Luftwaffe ground troops, SS mechanized infantry, things like doodlebugs, Kettenkrads and other exotic kit which one would not necessarily "need" in order to portray the majority of actions...

Yeah, King Tigers, great...as mentioned above, I'm not asking for every single vehicle/unit type in the German OOB to be included, but if they include 3-4 vehicles in the base game and then dribble out 1-2 more vehicles per module every six months, I'll be mightily disappointed.

Frankly, writing this post has made me recall that at the end of the day I got bored fairly quickly with CMBO as well--the gold standard I guess is CMBB, with the huge range of vehicles/units/ terrain/weather. I'm not asking for something like CMBB, but we're gonna need a lot of modules for the Eastern Front!

[Melnibone]

Originally posted by 76mm:

One of the things I don't like about CMSF is that there are basically two types of US vehicles--Strykers and M1A1s....

HMMWV and Bradley are in my version.

[SgtMuhammed]

Originally posted by Melnibone:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 76mm:

One of the things I don't like about CMSF is that there are basically two types of US vehicles--Strykers and M1A1s....

HMMWV and Bradley are in my version. </font>

[Thomm]

Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:

If they cared about pleasing us, they would have concentrated on WEGO ...

Regarding the definition of 'us', my guess would be that 5 to 10 percent of all games are played WeGo, the rest in RT.

We shall never find out for sure, but I guess I am not that far off. Perhaps even too optimistic with regard to WeGo.

I want to add that I played perhaps 2/3 of the stock CM:BB scenarios and perhaps 20 percent of the stock CM:AK scenarios. Not because I did not like either game, but because I found my time (measuring in hours for a single scenario) spent better on other activities (sleep being one example).

CM:SF, on the other hand I play almost daily, because a tiny 30 minutes Uncon versus Uncon quick battle fits into the tightest schedule and is loads of fun.

Best regards,

Thomm

[thewood]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:

If they cared about pleasing us, they would have concentrated on WEGO ...

Regarding the definition of 'us', my guess would be that 5 to 10 percent of all games are played WeGo, the rest in RT.

We shall never find out for sure, but I guess I am not that far off. Perhaps even too optimistic with regard to WeGo.

I want to add that I played perhaps 2/3 of the stock CM:BB scenarios and perhaps 20 percent of the stock CM:AK scenarios. Not because I did not like either game, but because I found my time (measuring in hours for a single scenario) spent better on other activities (sleep being one example).

CM:SF, on the other hand I play almost daily, because a tiny 30 minutes Uncon versus Uncon quick battle fits into the tightest schedule and is loads of fun.

Best regards,

Thomm </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by 76mm:

One of the things I don't like about CMSF is that there are basically two types of US vehicles--Strykers and M1A1s (I'm not suggesting to add laser hovercraft, but I find the limited choice, well, boring).

I think the limited amount of things we can do with infantry is the real culprit here, not the limited array of vehicles. In ASL, as in real life, infantry can do a lot of arcane things - wriggle through barbed wire, interrogate civilians, split into individuals and search buildings, swim rivers, take prisoners, climb cliffs, scale and rappel buildings, descend by parachute, fly in gliders, capture trucks and drive them around, close assault tanks, man enemy heavy weapons, dig foxholes, fortify buildings, engage in other imaginative labor tasks (search an HQ for documents, for example), send scouting parties out, wire something for demolitions, conduct a snatch patrol, etc. etc.

In CM, infantry are severely undermodelled which I think may lead to some of the true boredom - were some of these capabilities in the game there would be far more to do than just advance, shoot and duck, which is basically what it is now. I've posted at length on the inability to engage enemy armour realistically with infantry, for example, or the absence of prisoners/surrendering. It's all very sterile. In CMX1 you could at least image the close assault against an enemy tank as it was actually depicted, so were surrendering units.

The fact that there is absolutely no campaign system in the game now is also a bit of a letdown, as the Operations at least gave some sort of context to individual games. But a good scenario briefing does that as well. I wonder if it wouldn't be possible to have a random briefing generator for quick battles - might provide some of that contextual experience and remove a bit of the sterility.

Otherwise, I think I can relate to what you are saying - variety is the spice of life - but I would say the problem isn't lack of units but the number of ways in which those units can be used. Even the limited number of vehicles are hampered by the "sameness" of the terrain in CM:SF though a good scenario designer like George can cure that. Trouble is, scenario designs are running to two hours, and I don't have time for that - some guys are lobbying for 7 hour time limits(!) - and map sizes are getting larger. No thanks. In CMX1 you could bash together a nice 30 turn QB on a computer generated map and have no problem with "sameness", and even if you got the exact same kind of tanks as you did the last time, it was fresh. You also had more ways to use the vehicles, what with seek hull down commands and a much more vibrant Tac AI that would keep the enemy doing interesting things.

[RockinHarry]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 76mm:

One of the things I don't like about CMSF is that there are basically two types of US vehicles--Strykers and M1A1s (I'm not suggesting to add laser hovercraft, but I find the limited choice, well, boring).

I think the limited amount of things we can do with infantry is the real culprit here, not the limited array of vehicles. In ASL, as in real life, infantry can do a lot of arcane things - wriggle through barbed wire, interrogate civilians, split into individuals and search buildings, swim rivers, take prisoners, climb cliffs, scale and rappel buildings, descend by parachute, fly in gliders, capture trucks and drive them around, close assault tanks, man enemy heavy weapons, dig foxholes, fortify buildings, engage in other imaginative labor tasks (search an HQ for documents, for example), send scouting parties out, wire something for demolitions, conduct a snatch patrol, etc. etc.

In CM, infantry are severely undermodelled which I think may lead to some of the true boredom - were some of these capabilities in the game there would be far more to do than just advance, shoot and duck, which is basically what it is now. I've posted at length on the inability to engage enemy armour realistically with infantry, for example, or the absence of prisoners/surrendering. It's all very sterile. In CMX1 you could at least image the close assault against an enemy tank as it was actually depicted, so were surrendering units.

The fact that there is absolutely no campaign system in the game now is also a bit of a letdown, as the Operations at least gave some sort of context to individual games. But a good scenario briefing does that as well. I wonder if it wouldn't be possible to have a random briefing generator for quick battles - might provide some of that contextual experience and remove a bit of the sterility.

Otherwise, I think I can relate to what you are saying - variety is the spice of life - but I would say the problem isn't lack of units but the number of ways in which those units can be used. Even the limited number of vehicles are hampered by the "sameness" of the terrain in CM:SF though a good scenario designer like George can cure that. Trouble is, scenario designs are running to two hours, and I don't have time for that - some guys are lobbying for 7 hour time limits(!) - and map sizes are getting larger. No thanks. In CMX1 you could bash together a nice 30 turn QB on a computer generated map and have no problem with "sameness", and even if you got the exact same kind of tanks as you did the last time, it was fresh. You also had more ways to use the vehicles, what with seek hull down commands and a much more vibrant Tac AI that would keep the enemy doing interesting things. </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

RPG elements aside, just getting back the capabilities that were in CMX1 would be a start - men that surrender (and the attendant need to guard them), for example; barbed wire; etc. Variety should come in what we can do with the units, not just what units are available. And if the stated policy is to have a limited amount of units, that becomes even more common sense, no?

Add to that the fact we have 1:1 modelling but no individual tasks. Anyone every see an entire squad do sentry duty? I haven't but I've done my fair share of sentry duty as an individual or at most in pairs. Would add variety to the kinds of missions you can portray. Putting out sentries on an airfield is a natural, but even out in the field, a two-man listening post connected by wire back to a company HQ would be a beautiful thing.

[Childress]

In CM, infantry are severely undermodelled which I think may lead to some of the true boredom - were some of these capabilities in the game there would be far more to do than just advance, shoot and duck, which is basically what it is now. I've posted at length on the inability to engage

Agree, except that the animations are far more refined now. Unfortunately for BFC most of the other enhancements are running under the hood. We notice the omissions and the pervading feeling of sterility made more oppressive by the monotonous environment. As of right now, CMSF reminds me of a Bauhaus interior.

[MD82]

Steve, your arrogance is breath taking. I'm amused to see that others in your company (perhaps Charles?) just ignore your public put downs of your customers as ignorant whiners who "just don't get it", and put such items as the space bar command menu, and fixed waypoints finding and other "CMx1" features in the patches. This being done despite your insistence that they were not needed, were the old way,etc.

Whoever is working behind the scenes, keep it up. Keep Steve on a leash and away from the customers and you might get some success from your current efforts.

[Dirtweasle]

MD wrote -

... In CM, infantry are severely undermodelled which I think may lead to some of the true boredom - were some of these capabilities in the game there would be far more to do than just advance, shoot and duck, which is basically what it is now. I've posted at length on the inability to engage enemy armour realistically with infantry, for example, or the absence of prisoners/surrendering. It's all very sterile. In CMX1 you could at least image the close assault against an enemy tank as it was actually depicted, so were surrendering units. ...

I think you're on to something there.

[Tuomio]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

RPG elements aside, just getting back the capabilities that were in CMX1 would be a start - men that surrender (and the attendant need to guard them), for example; barbed wire; etc. Variety should come in what we can do with the units, not just what units are available. And if the stated policy is to have a limited amount of units, that becomes even more common sense, no?

Luckily these kinds of things will be quite easy to implement (just making general assumptions here) if comparing for example, new tank variant. They wont have much implications on AI behalf, its the user who can entertain himself by going trough the barbed wires and routing enemy troops to get few captures.

If anything, it should be easier to define surrender conditions with this new engine because multiple factors can be consulted. But top10 list is probably very crowded still, wouldn't count on having extra features just yet.

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I've posted at length on the inability to engage enemy armour realistically with infantry, for example, or the absence of prisoners/surrendering. It's all very sterile. In CMX1 you could at least image the close assault against an enemy tank as it was actually depicted, so were surrendering units.

I had infantry take out armored vehicles with - or so it appeared - hand grenades. Actually, I found that pretty overmodelled when it occurred?!

In all fairness, you forgot to mention the buddy aid system, which adds a whole layer to the game for me, as I actively seek to administer aid to injured soldiers which, at times, is as difficult as killing the enemy soldiers.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Code13]

Personally speaking, CMx2 is pretty good, ok, I havent been playing it for too long, but it is a lot of fun.

If I want anything more from it is is to see more force choice, i.e. I want more than US Mech Inf or MOUT vs Syrian regulars or UNCONs.

British, French, German forces, Russian etc would all be great to see.

When I first started playing CMBO I loved it and wondered if ever we would see a NATO v Warsaw Pact game in this engine, CMx2 is maybe as close as that will happen, but hell, I'll take it.

[Thomm]

Uncon vs. Uncon is where it is at!

When suddenly the RPG becomes the most dangerous weapon on the battlefield!!

Best regards,

Thomm

[Code13]

hehe

I also want to know why I cant have my Gunship support on the battlefield and not off map?

Anyway, I like CMx2 and will keep playing it, longevity depends on the modules, but when I get bored, there is always CMBO or CMBB...

Actually I guess the real reason I want to see NATO v Pact action and gunships is playing old Avalon Hill games in the late 80s like Aircav and MBT. That and I grew up with the distinct possibility of seeing tank battles across the Rhine.