So, who's disappointed?

[belasarius]

Michael if they include that feature you can mod in Panzer Pajamatruppen SS Division Commandante and everyone will be happy.

[Shep]

Ugh. What's the motivation to come here and post our preferences then? I've been around since many months before CMBO; supported BFC through many games; talked a lot of friends into buying their games; in short, I have been the very definition of a loyal customer. I wish them all well, regardless, but I am now a skeptical customer: I doubt I will like the subject matter, and I really doubt there is sensitivity to what I want in the next game.

[RCHRD]

I won't buy it.

[Abbott]

Battlefront is a good outfit period. I trusted these guys while they told me what CMBO was going to be and they surpassed my expectations by far. They told me about CMBB and again surpassed my expectations. Who can argue with CMAK? N. Africa is not my idea of fun but CMAK is a quality product and I enjoy the Italian front.

Personally I was hoping (quietly) for Vietnam. I am a bit shocked by CMSF but Syria is plausible and there might be a chance (a good chance) of creating some decent Iraq and Afghanistan scenarios as a bonus. The guys at Battlefront are not stupid and I expect the same excellence they have always produced. I have enough faith to pre-order the game today if it was possible. I can stand to shell out $50.00 to see these guys new engine and I am still excited about the module concept.

Thanks for the announcement Steve and I look forward to the game with great excitement. I also look forward to the education I am going to receive on this Forum discussing modern equipment. My knowledge is stale as of about 1990.

[ October 08, 2005, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[Webs]

I'm disappointed.

I haven't played CM since I moved to OS X. It's a great game, but it's not worth a reboot into OS 9.

Now I have to wait even longer for a decent WWII wargame.

Some the sting will lift if I can at least play Israelis in CMSF, but that doesn't look like it's going to happen.

I secretly suspected that the new game was going to be Arab-Israeli wars....

[Europa]

I'm very disapointed, not only did they remove one dimension, the historical, but they also did choose a somewhat questionable scene. Will probably buy it, but I think they could have done a more interesting game.

[Sirocco]

I stated previously that I thought the first game would be WW2, the first WF and the second EF, with modules for each to follow. I said that for reasons of scale as much as for knowledge and experience gained from CMx1, and because WW2 is the core market, so it made sense from a business perspective.

I'm just plain puzzled, as well as being distinctly underwhelmed, with this choice. A fictional conflict, which, let's be honest, has as much chance of happening as Britain annexing France, and we only get to control US forces against ... the Syrians..?

Well, Germany 85, that might have been fun, and provided some scale and interesting "what if's?", but I can't see how even the modern day crowd will be really overwhelmed with this title, compared to something with more breadth and depth.

But then I suppose there are plenty of people wanting to re-enact something from a news item from Iraq.

It will be interesting to see how it turns out, but, as others have noted, this feels like more of a wait and see game, rather than a must have. And that just shows how huge our expectations are of this developer.

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Webs:

(snip)

I secretly suspected that the new game was going to be Arab-Israeli wars....

That was on my wish list as well. I think we may see Arab/Israeli wars and Vietnam as future modules.

[Battlefront.com]

I had a discussion one night with an Abrams Company Commander who did the final run on Baghdad and eventual the airport. I told him about what the setting is and he laughed a lot. He said the scenarios they are using for training right now look a lot like Syria in every way except for the fictious name assigned to the country. It is, like it or not, the most plausible setting for a new, large scale conflict. Even more so than Iran (2nd most) or North Korea (3rd most).

As for the "we're loyal customers and are now left out in the cold". I can sympathize with this quite a lot. But sooner or later it would happen. We can not keep making WWII only games until the day we die. So at some point those who only want WWII would have to sit on the bench for a while and wait. Now or later, no difference. For the reasons I outlined in the anouncement, we felt now was the best time to do it. Before we wind up hating WWII and swear to never do another one ever again.

What the WWII only crowd fails to grasp is that there are PLENTY of other things to simulate out there. We could make 10 completely different cool and challenging games and have not one of them be WWII based. Out of the first 5 games we've made/announced, 4 are WWII. Some people have been waiting nearly 9 years for a modern warfare game from us. So the way I look at it is you guys are already spoiled rotten. So take a chill pill and realize you aren't the only foce in the universe and accept the fact that other people should get a shot at something they want to see, not just you.

Having said all of that... we still want to make WWII games. Just can't do two things at once. Best we can do is make a game engine and development strategy that allows us to shorten the wait times inbetween titles.

Steve

[RCHRD]

Why Syria? I'm betting that every user created scenario will be about the insurgency. It's who the game is for.

[Captain Wacky]

I'm just not sure how well any CM-style engine (even one built from the ground up) is going to be able to simulate modern warfare, and if it does how fun it will be. I have visions of "Stryker brigade meets T-72 company, calls in air/arty, T-72 company dies, Stryker brigade moves on..." We'll see how you guys pull it off though.

[Europa]

Will both sides have suicide bombers? Will there be roadblocks and civilians? Will I be banned for this?

[Boris Balaban]

I once asked the designer of TacOps if this would happen. It was about 2 years ago or more. It has

Is this game following Avalon Hills Arab-Israeli War?

I may buy it :confused: I may not.

I do like WWII games. Not so high teck like laser guided missals, a kill every time. You show you head and all hell breaks loose.

[Soddball]

I'm pretty gutted since I wanted more of the same but a bit flashier. But I'll give the demo a go when it comes out and make my mind up then.

If BFC is looking to make a simulator to sell to world governments to allow them to RP probable combat scenarios, this is going to sell well.

[dieseltaylor]

"So take a chill pill and realize you aren't the only foce in the universe and accept the fact that other people should get a shot at something they want to see, not just you." Steve

!!!

Hohum! Its fine by me that BFC get a break from WWII. I am disappointed, and have never had any urge to play modern hypothetical so will be very happy to fill in on Les Grognards for a couple of years.

[gibsonm]

Hopefully the Stykers will fit down the streets after they add the bar armour (not like somebody's vehicles that I know of).

Seems limited to be only able to play the US on one side (plus or minus different weapons systems) in the campaigns as opposed to playing other members of the latest "coalition of the willing" or the OPFOR.

Athough I guess you could play the Syrians in a string of Quick Battles using the results of one to build the next.

So I guess that means no TCP/IP or email or hotseat (as you can't play the other side)?

That limitied flexibility gives it a "Close Combat X" type of feel.

Guess I'll wait for the demo though.

[Battlefront.com]

From a marketing and sales standpoint we expect CM:SF to actually have more appeal than any WWII setting we could come up with. We didn't think that would be the case when we selected the modern setting back in 2003, so any suggestion that we picked the topic based on what would sell best is false. It just appears to have turned out that way. We'll know for sure after the game is released though.

I still just shake my head every time I see someone say that our choice of setting "will never happen". When I see that I see someone who spends too much time looking into past history than recent history, not to mention no time thinking about near future history yet to come. I am not saying we're predicting the future here, but comparing CM:SF to Germany attacking France simply is juvenile or naive or a combo. I smell "spilt milk" when I see comments like that.

Steve

[juan_gigante]

Europa, Steve has stated that their will be suicide bombers for the Arabs, and that there won't be civilians. And considering that there were roadblocks in CMx1 games...

And Captain Wacky, what if one does not have unlimited air/arty? What if one is being harassed by snipers and can't call down air/arty over the whole area? Steve has stated that the US player will have limited amounts of air/arty support. Rest assured that few engagements will play out like you described.

[Boris Balaban]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

From a marketing and sales standpoint we expect CM:SF to actually have more appeal than any WWII setting we could come up with. We didn't think that would be the case when we selected the modern setting back in 2003, so any suggestion that we picked the topic based on what would sell best is false. It just appears to have turned out that way. We'll know for sure after the game is released though.

I still just shake my head every time I see someone say that our choice of setting "will never happen". When I see that I see someone who spends too much time looking into past history than recent history, not to mention no time thinking about near future history yet to come. I am not saying we're predicting the future here, but comparing CM:SF to Germany attacking France simply is juvenile or naive or a combo. I smell "spilt milk" when I see comments like that.

Steve

OK

Are you guys open minded and will think of the American Cival War and/or Nepolionic wars?

[hellfish]

No TCP/IP, PBEM or Hotseat CAMPAIGN. You can still play scenarios, quick battles and user-made scenarios in MP.

Very few games allow for a multiplayer version of the main campaign. Actually, I can't think of any that do outside of games like Falcon 4.

[Battlefront.com]

Remember folks... the "play from one side" is just for the Campaign. Playing head to head in Quick Battles and Scenarios is absolutely possible. As for limited forces under control, we've discussed this quite a bit over the past few months. We simply can not afford to keep making "kitchen sink" games. They take too long, too much energy, and don't add to our sales as far as we can tell.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I would be very interested in doing a Civil War game (again since I produced Civil War Generals 2 many years ago). I'd also love to do a fantasy type game with elves and trolls too. Same with the much discussed Space Lobsters. If CMx1 was a major improvement over ASL, just think of what CMx2 could be for XCOM

Steve

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I'd also love to do a fantasy type game with elves and trolls too.

Steve

Yeah...lets keep that one on the back burner though ok?

Although that is sig material if I ever saw it.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Line up here....

I'm not. I predicted months ago that the first game would likely be near-present time Middle East. The only thing I missed was that it would be fictional.

I think this game has a really good chance to fly. And by that, I mean be an interesting, fun game to play. I look at it pretty much like Steve says, a way to cleanse the palate before getting back into my real love, WW II. Would I want to play a whole series of these for years and years? Ehhhh...probably not. But maybe an individual title might catch my eye. Who knows?

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

Would I want to play a whole series of these for years and years?

To reassure you guys, neither would any of us at Battlefront. Sure, in 5 years or so when a whole new batch of technology and geopolitical situations come before us, perhaps we'll do another near future game. But CM:SF, and its Modules, will be it for a long time to come.

Since I've mentioned that we have our top 5 ideas already lined up, and have told you what 2 of them are, I will say that a fantasy "Lord of the Rings" type game is not in the top 5. I think we could make a damned cool game out of such a setting, but it isn't really in the cards for the near future.

Steve