Any one planning on getting the Brits that didn't get the Marines?

[MeatEtr]

There are no plans to do this. We have a bundle of base game + Marines, but we are not planning a Marines+Brits bundle at this point.

Ok, thanks for verifying this Moon.

[Battlefront.com]

Couple of things...

When you purchase a Module you purchase the content within it. By duplicating content in several Modules we're actually diluting the value to people who've already purchased that content. It also makes things rather unclear as to what the Modules actually are. As others have pointed out, if we include the T-90 and Syrian Airborne with the British Module then why not also include some Marines units? And why shouldn't we charge more for this since there's more stuff in it?

Think about it... if someone buys the Marines Module for $25, why should a British Module with a ton of new stuff AND things from the Marines Module sell for $25 as well? And if we did charge more, why shouldn't the people with the Marines Module get a discount since they shouldn't be forced to pay twice for the same units? No, mixing the content from one Module to another is extremely messy and is not something we intend on doing. And get used to it because this is how things are going to go for each new Family of CM games

As has already been stated, adding "more stuff" does not increase sales. We learned that the hard with with CMBB and CMAK. Both games had more stuff than CMBO, both sold less. CMAK sold FAR less, even though it's starting price was lower. It's why we said we'd never, ever do that sort of thing again. Ever. If we were forced into a choice between stuffing quantity into a single title or quit making wargames forever we'd choose to find new jobs. Those who think it is "easy" to make huge games are ignorant of the facts. We're not.

Ultimately, the success or failure of a Module will be decided in the marketplace, not this Forum. It was said that CM:SF would be a failure before it was even released. Despite the rocky start it's sold as much as we expected it would by now and sales are still going strong, therefore it has exceeded our expectations. The doomsayers said that the Marines Module would be a flop, but it has sold more than we thought it would when we came up with the Module Concept (i.e. pre-CM:SF release) and FAR more than we thought it would considering how long it took to come out post CM:SF release. At the same time I've found the same people seem to think that we're lying about CMBB and CMAK sales, that they were in fact much better than we say they were. Well, at least such people score points for consistency

Each Module is uncharted territory for us, but especially these early ones are. How well will the British Module do from a sales point? We don't know, but we have our projections and if we meet them we'll be happy since the number we have in mind is a profitable one. If we fall short we'll try to figure out why and apply the lessons to future Modules. Hitting our numbers won't make us rich beyond our wildest imaginations, missing our numbers won't run us out of business. We're pleased with that

Steve

[GSX]

So back to my question, what happens when I only have original SF and I try to play an Army scenario designed by someone who has the Marines one but has included a T-90.

I dont particularly give a toss whether you make your sales targets, CMAK outsold CMBB or any of that stuff. I understand that if you had put out SF as a combined Brit/Marine/NATO effort from the start and charged the same, you wouldnt be able to milk the franchise. Thats perfectly understandable for me.

I have no illusions that all Im buying with a Module is a bunch of Mods to the original game. A Marine LAV, could just be a modded Stryker, a Challenger will no doubt be extremely similar to an Abrahams that it will feel the same.

Ultimately, the success or failure of a Module will be decided in the marketplace, not this Forum.

Yes but surely this forum reflects the market in general, minus the Beta testers that is.

[Thomm]

So back to my question, what happens when I only have original SF and I try to play an Army scenario designed by someone who has the Marines one but has included a T-90.

The scenario won't load.

Best regards,

Thomm

[akd]

\Exotic stuff like AAA batteries would take a LOT of single-purpose coding & animating for weapons that wouldn't survive 3 minutes in a real-world front line battle.

There are many accounts of small AAA weapons posing significant problems for ground forces in recent conflicts, especially ZPU-1 and ZU-23-2s. They are hardly exotic, and in fact, quite the opposite, showing up on battlefields across the world. Syria has something like 650 ZU-23-2s.

Admittedly coding them for ground-to-air engagement would be a lot of work (but work that they will have to do some day regardless, as I'm not sure they can keep dodging this one forever). Ground-to-ground they are little different than any other stationary weapon in the game, e.g. SPG-9, TOW, etc. I suppose the ZU-23-2 would require a tow, but I hope towed weapons are not deemed exotic, otherwise the Normandy game could have some peculiar gaps. Of course, you could just stick it on a truck.

or a MT-LB.

For Red:

general purpose truck

ZPU-1

ZU-23-2

Just those three little additions would open up a lot of posibilities for new scenarios and recreation of historical scenarios.

[Redwolf]

Correct: extra Syrian units will NOT be included in the British module.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Do I expect Abrams to show up in the British module? Nah.

Is there a good reason to remove the T-90 or BMP-3? Only if you are sick of having to lead your own small independent game development company.

[Redwolf]

I don't think Other Means answered the question you were asking.

Nothing will be removed in the Brit module. Everything you have have now you will have in the Brits. So if you have the base game you will have all the Red units in that. If you have the base game and the Marines you will have all of the Red units in both of them.

Wait, so that means I can shoot up T-90s and BMPs with a Challenger and a Warrier?

Can you clarify?

[RadioactiveMan]

Nice post from the Battlefront Admin account there.

Thats one thing that I really like about this company and these forums- The developers are more forthcoming about updates and more willing to engage in conversation than any other game community I have seen.

That being said, the post was informative. I'll probably pick up the British mod based on the strength of the last two games alone. I'm amazed how differently the Army and Marines play, and if the British play in a completely different 3rd way I will be quite happy. I'm expecting an excellent British campaign as well...

One last thought for Battlefront, since they are reading these posts: You mentioned CMAK not selling well. I'd never heard of that game before I came into these CMSF forums. I was familiar with CMBO and CMBB, but somehow I missed the boat on CMAK. Is it possible that advertising was lacking for CMAK? I try to keep myself pretty informed but I have a hard time keeping up on this company. I recognize that advertising is also quite expensive, and there is a joy to the small community of loyal fans. Not telling you how to run your buisness, just mentioning my perspective- for some reason I heard about your other games and was excited to try them, but CMAK never even came up on my radar.

[Sergei]

Wait, so that means I can shoot up T-90s and BMPs with a Challenger and a Warrier?

Can you clarify?

If you have the main game, the Marines module, the British module and the NATO module, you can have M1A2's, Challengers, Leopard 2's and T-90's in the same battle.

[Redwolf]

If you have the main game, the Marines module, the British module and the NATO module, you can have M1A2's, Challengers, Leopard 2's and T-90's in the same battle.

Thanks.

So then what's the problem supposed to be? :confused:

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[MikeyD]

infantry formations (squads) could spread out a little more

Infantry squad may not really be able to spread out much more with the game engine/action squares setup. Charles has reworked & rethought & reconfigured and tweaked & nudged & modified infantry through eleven patches until there's basically no place left to nudge.

[Battlefront.com]

GSX,

So back to my question, what happens when I only have original SF and I try to play an Army scenario designed by someone who has the Marines one but has included a T-90.

Same thing that happens now if you don't have the Marines Module... the scenario shows up in the load file list grayed out. When a person makes a scenario it informs him what Modules are being tapped into so he knows that adding a T-90, for example, now requires people to have the Marines Module.

I dont particularly give a toss whether you make your sales targets, CMAK outsold CMBB or any of that stuff. I understand that if you had put out SF as a combined Brit/Marine/NATO effort from the start and charged the same, you wouldnt be able to milk the franchise.

Not "milk", rather get paid for the work we do. It's a simple principle in economics that work put in should be repaid. "Milking" would be like what Talonsoft used to do with 18 different versions of the same exact game with minimal changes like adding scenarios and calling it "Super Über Gold Pack!!". We don't do that and never will.

I have no illusions that all Im buying with a Module is a bunch of Mods to the original game. A Marine LAV, could just be a modded Stryker, a Challenger will no doubt be extremely similar to an Abrahams that it will feel the same.

We've had this discussion with you a couple dozen times already. Clearly some people think the same as you, clearly other people completely and fundamentally disagree (Radioactiveman for example). So we'll just have to agree to disagree here.

Yes but surely this forum reflects the market in general, minus the Beta testers that is.

No. As we've said over and over again for the past 12 years or so... this Forum represents a skewed version of our customer base. Heavily populated by "hardcore" gamers and very under represented (proportional to total sales) with general customer types. Which makes sense because usually the ones motivated to post here are the ones most invested in the game and/or wargaming. Those posting here are important, and very necessary for our success, but they aren't representative of our customer base as a whole.

Redwolf,

So then what's the problem supposed to be?

Some people think that the Red stuff we added to Marines should be carried forward to all future CM:SF Modules. That way someone can skip buying the Marines Module and still get Syrian Airborne, T-90, BMP-3, etc. As outlined above, that doesn't make sense to us.

Radioactiveman,

Thats one thing that I really like about this company and these forums- The developers are more forthcoming about updates and more willing to engage in conversation than any other game community I have seen.

Thanks! We definitely try to do our best. We also try to be as upfront with our plans as possible.

One last thought for Battlefront, since they are reading these posts: You mentioned CMAK not selling well. I'd never heard of that game before I came into these CMSF forums. I was familiar with CMBO and CMBB, but somehow I missed the boat on CMAK. Is it possible that advertising was lacking for CMAK?

This surprises me We did about the same amount of advertising and we had the same retail partner for CMAK as CMBB and CMBO. But it was the third game in the series and was getting pretty dated by the time it came out. We understood that it would sell less than the previous two before we even decided to make it. In fact, we almost didn't make CMAK at all because we weren't sure it was worth delaying the start of coding CMx2 full time. We're glad we did CMAK because it sold reasonably well (in its own right) and didn't interfere with CMx2 coding all that much.

Adam,

Are updates in the brit module going to be the 1.12 patch for the base game? What is planned for that patch?

We're probably going to call it v1.2. We don't pre-announce what a patch will have, unless it's something major that needs addressing. So far nothing big has come up, but definitely there are things which we will be fixing between now and then. Already have

infantry formations (squads) could spread out a little more, maybe the hunt command for example could default to a line formation over at least 2 tiles, preferably 3, for full squads.

Not going to happen. A Team must remain confined within a single Action Spot by design, allowing for spreading out due to circumstances. It has to do with hardware limitations and coding requirements, not conceptual issues. The basic reason is simple... more Action Spots used = more units (effectively). If you allow each Team to occupy two Action Spots this effectively doubles all unit related calculations and resource requirements. Then on top of that you have doubled exceptional circumstances that require further resources.

This is one reason why we are not likely to reduce Action Spot size for a long, long time. The resource requirements for even small changes requires are too great to be considered viable for now.

Steve

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[GSX]

Not "milk", rather get paid for the work we do. It's a simple principle in economics that work put in should be repaid. "Milking" would be like what Talonsoft used to do with 18 different versions of the same exact game with minimal changes like adding scenarios and calling it "Super Über Gold Pack!!". We don't do that and never will.

AH, I see then, possibly 'milking' was the wrong term to use, perhaps maximising your profits then. As I said, I can understand why, you dont need to be so defensive all the time about it. You need to make as much from the game as possible, nothing wrong with that.

No. As we've said over and over again for the past 12 years or so... this Forum represents a skewed version of our customer base. Heavily populated by "hardcore" gamers and very under represented (proportional to total sales) with general customer types. Which makes sense because usually the ones motivated to post here are the ones most invested in the game and/or wargaming. Those posting here are important, and very necessary for our success, but they aren't representative of our customer base as a whole.

However. And there is always a however. How do you get feedback from this great unwashed mass of casual customer? All of the improvements to SF over the past 18 months seem to have been driven by the wants of the guys who come to the forum. Pathing, Blue Bar, Qbs and the rest. So do you get feedback from the rest? Do you send out customer surveys etc?

Im not being negative for the sake of it here but it seems on the one hand you dismiss the hardcore gamer as not being too significant, but on the other you adapt a game to encourage the old CM-1 fanbase to return. Which is something that has appeared to be succesful lately as Im encouraging and playing more and more of my old CM opponents.

I think that if you really though what you wrote you would have stopped developing SF at V1.07, possibly earlier.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Battlefront.com]

Adam,

Assault command spreads out a full squad over two spots right? And does the Marine squad spread over three spots when assaulting? Could that be helpful for the hunt command as well?

We're straying a bit off topic so I'll go to the currently active thread talking about this stuff some more.

GSX,

AH, I see then, possibly 'milking' was the wrong term to use, perhaps maximising your profits then. As I said, I can understand why, you dont need to be so defensive all the time about it. You need to make as much from the game as possible, nothing wrong with that.

Yeah, "milking" has a very negative connotation. I'm having deja vous... didn't we already talk about this before? Anyway, it's not so much being defensive as it is educational. Customers tend not to understand how much work it takes to do stuff like this because it's virtual. To most people that means it's not real. Nobody would suggest a condo developer should build an entire village of condos and sell people 3 units at a time for the price of one, but gamers often expect this of game developers. I've found that most gamers simply hadn't thought about it in that way and so when explained they usually change their tune. That's good for everybody. Some, unfortunately, don't

To be clear, though, we definitely don't agree with the idea of taking old content, repackaging it, sticking a new (higher) price on it, and then try to convince people it's a new game. Instead we do things like bundle older products together or knock the price down and keep it down for older products. We think this is a far better relationship to have with our customers than trying to trick them into buying something they basically already have.

However. And there is always a however. How do you get feedback from this great unwashed mass of casual customer? All of the improvements to SF over the past 18 months seem to have been driven by the wants of the guys who come to the forum. Pathing, Blue Bar, Qbs and the rest. So do you get feedback from the rest? Do you send out customer surveys etc?

Who said they were unimportant? I clearly said, and I doth quotuth, "very necessary for our success". I think you missed that bit You put forth the idea that this Forum represents out customer base, and it doesn't in terms of proportional posters. The vast bulk here are hardcore, yet in overall customer terms hardcore gamers are the minority. There are general gamers on these forums too, and so obviously they are under representational of the customer base as a whole. There is no qualification of importance in what I just said since it's wrong to assume that minorities equate to less valuable people.

Im not being negative for the sake of it here but it seems on the one hand you dismiss the hardcore gamer as not being too significant, but on the other you adapt a game to encourage the old CM-1 fanbase to return.

Not really... we've been fixing things that were broken and/or in need of tweaking. That should appeal to everybody, hardcore, general, CMx1 fan, CMx2 fan, fan of both, etc. The return of the Blue Bar was, as I have explained, an unintentional benefit from fixing performance issues for lower-medium range computers. I also propose that the Blue Bar issue was not a hardcore gamer specific feature. In fact, I think it is more of the opposite.

For us, the hardcore CM guys are very significant when it comes to making sure the details within the game are working as expected. It's also more fun to talk with someone about the pros and cons of a given feature in detail instead of just having someone say "ur game rocks!" or "yOu SuXz!!" That being said, any game developer will tell you that if you listen to the hardcore TOO much the game will no longer appeal to the broader audience and that means a financial failure. Again, that's a lesson not unique to wargaming.

I think that if you really though what you wrote you would have stopped developing SF at V1.07, possibly earlier.

Charles and I are hardcore gamers ourselves. We're members of a 12 step program, but we're fundamentally obsessed with little details If we weren't I think we would have stopped developing CM:SF long before v1.07. Or at least about 200 fixes that are in the game now wouldn't have happened. It's what sets us apart from many other wargame companies in the past... we care about the details.

Steve

[BFCElvis]

Wait, so that means I can shoot up T-90s and BMPs with a Challenger and a Warrier?

Can you clarify?

Looks like Serg answered you before I could. But yes. You can anybody shoot at anybody as long as you own them. If you only have CMSf and the brit module then any units in both of those modules can shoot at each other. Same with Marines. Nothing is ever subtracted but if it hasn't been added you can't use it. Also, if you own Marines you can make a scenario where T90s face off against T90s. Blue vs Blue or Red vs Red forces if you want.

[Smaragdadler]

It's like Warhammer figurines. What you have bought, you can put on the table. The only difference is that you just need to buy one model and then you can virtual multiply it to as many units of the same type you want to have... And models are only available in full army packs not single one.

[Battlefront.com]

Dang, we should have thought about charging you guys for how many units of a particular type you can use at one time, like Warhammer and other miniatures games. I'm sure nobody would mind that

Steve

[Ricochet67]

Dang, we should have thought about charging you guys for how many units of a particular type you can use at one time, like Warhammer and other miniatures games. I'm sure nobody would mind that

As someone who was once bitten by the Warhammer miniatures bug, that's plain nasty.

[LuckyDog]

Thanks for answering the question - for the record, I am really looking forward to the Brit pack. As several people have mentioned in the forums, there are few companies where the developers are so active in forums, or the company is so responsive. Thank you, it makes a huge difference to your customers - please keep up the great work!

[Sergei]

Dang, we should have thought about charging you guys for how many units of a particular type you can use at one time, like Warhammer and other miniatures games. I'm sure nobody would mind that

Steve

And you wouldn't need to even texture them!!! (Pre-textured units would be sold at higher price.) :D

[stoex]

Taking this further, if BF really runs out of money, will you start charging us for every round fired in CM?

5.56mm - 1 cent

7.62mm - 2 cents

40mm grenade - 50 cents

120mm APFSDS - $2.00

155mm Howitzer - $2.00 for general, $3.00 for airburst, $1.50 for smoke

Javelin missile - $10.00 per pop?

Double price for textured ammo, of course...

That would make ammo conservation a real issue

[Moon]

How do you get feedback from this great unwashed mass of casual customer?

To answer this question: there are two major forms of feedback outside of this forum-

1) email. We're getting a whole bunch of emails each day from people with game feedback, game ideas and suggestions, sometimes comments about a particular thread or discussion, or even forum members Some people don't like to use the forum to simply let us know that they like a game or feature, and some don't like to participate in certain types of forum discussions.

2) sales. Over the years we have established that only about every 10th customer ever even registers on the forum. Out of these, many only make a handful of posts, if even that. The vast majority of the people who pay Battlefront's daily bills are never heard here. But they do voice their opinion: by purchasing, or not purchasing, our games. Battlefront is now in its tenth year (damn, we should really do something special, should we?) and we have gathered some experience in what our customers want by observing sales trends. VERY often actual sales do not correspond in the slightest with what is being discussed here. Sometimes this even works both ways: we may have great forum posts but comparatively weak sales. Most of the time - and luckily for us - it's the other way around.