Battlefront... is it lonely at the TOP?

[Battlefront.com]

Canada Guy,

What about licensing your efforts to a game company that would take your previous code and revamp it for the next operating systems and fix some bugs along the way? Maybe even expand it in directions that you do not have the staff for (Can anyone say 1940 Winter War? or Manila 1944?)

Yup, if someone is qualified and stupid enough to want to work with the moldy old CMx1 code, my inbox is open The problem with theory is most of the people qualified (enough skills, experience, money, etc.) enough to do it aren't stupid, therefore I don't expect anything to ever happen.

The primary problem with licensing the code is we don't want to spend any of our time supporting the code. This is not a good selling point for the code as a licensed product. It would take a very good programmer a long, long time to understand how the code works well enough to make significant changes to it.

As Redwolf said, going in to change a very narrowly defined feature in a very limited way shouldn't be a very big deal. Unless, of course, there's some kind of super screwy bug that even the original author would have trouble tracking down. But making major changes to the game system would likely require a very heavy investment of time. Think about it... it took us 2 years to produce CMBB from CMBO, 1 year to release CMAK from CMBB. Nobody knew the product's total feature set better than us. And our conclusion after CMAK (a rather simplistic adaptation) that it would take too much time to create another viable product from that code. Someone coming into the code fresh would be in an even worse position.

Steve

[Redwolf]

You know that there is already a CMx1 related 'project' that is OpenSource right? I believe that it's called 'Combat Mission Campaigns' and if you mosey on over to the Combat Mission Campaigns forum the guy who was working on it has left a link to the code that you can download and play with all you want. It's pretty obvious that you can talk the talk. If you want to do great things that the Combat Mission community would greatly appreciate and sing your praises over then you can make the Combat Mission Campaigns work. Demanding / Requesting Steve to OpenSource the CMx1 code is a little like tilting at windmills or banging your head against the wall.

I am actually one the three people I know have tried to make use of CMC. There's a large thread about it over at GS if you are interested. I also prepared an easier to install package of CMC that I wanted to make available on the project site - if I could find anybody to give it a spin. I couldn't. The interest is just not there.

Leaving aside that it's not the tactical game I want...

Unfortunately CMC doesn't look serviceable. As we all know, the amount of work missing is bad enough or extensive enough to cancel a commercial project. CMx1 would be a working piece of code. CMC also seems to have fundamental issues around invoking CMx1 (none of use could actually make it resolve a tactical battle in CMBB), the supply seems to be broken and a few other points that escape me right now.

On top of that, the CMBB included is of course a modified CMBB, but since the whole thing is mid-project there is no realistic chance that the included CMBB binary will actually be complete and bug-free enough to service a fully developed CMC. The newest binary included in the CMC package is also plain not running since it uses eLicense (the other binaries included use a CD check against the BFC CMBB CD).

Then there is the performance issue. When CMC was started people raised their eyebrows about the issue of using Python, the second slowest programming language in wide us. Hunter said it wouldn't be a problem. Now in 2009, with an overclocked ninja-macho PC I sit here in front of the OpenSource CMC starting at the hourglass endlessly (in the supply routines. Somebody killed the supply calculations and that fixed most of the performance, but who wants to play an operational game without supply?).

Last but not least the included CMBB binary, apart from potential issues with the completeness of the CMC interface, has all the bugs that CMBB had, most notably the fortifications bug. And of course it doesn't do any better with the graphics issues around DX10, > 1600x1200 and the crazy video selection. Not that we could make CMC call CMBB in the first place.

I am afraid that CMC, even if it was the style of game I want, doesn't look like an attractive entry point. Apart from unknown amounts of work to make it complete there are nasty question marks that threaten the long-term success, beginning from Python, ending with CMBB's interface completeness.

I tooled with the idea to write a CMx1 like game. Not from scratch, using the Ogre engine and existing free artwork. Not surprisingly that turned out too much work. The prefabricated engine helps a lot, but using an existing engine also means you have to deal with engine antics. These OpenSource game engines move at a high pace. Great features, but a wild goose chase to keep up. I was cursing Ogre more than once in the last year, but I hate having to roll my own terrain engine and 3d model loader even more.

Given that all I ever wanted is write an AI for a wargame I can't justify to go on a crusade to write an entire game from scratch just to achieve the AI goal.

Why don't you download that source code for Combat Mission Campaigns and walk the walk buddy. With a man of your obvious talents I figure you should be able to crank out the Combat Mission Campaigns in about a month or two - what do you figure?

There are huge chunks of functionality missing, enough to cancel the commercial CMC game. Just understanding where each existing part fits in doesn't solve these issues, or Hunter would have done so.

Killing the fortifications bug in CMBB, raising the 1600x1200 resolution limit or making command delay not appear in turn one is an entirely different matter. Even killing the DX10 issue is probably pretty straightforward if you have the code and can use it to directly communicate with communities that have studied previous Vista issues, being able to post your code and say "why don't the DX10 drivers like this"? Not to mention there's a chance that it is easy to solve directly. It's not that anybody tried yet. Nobody. BTW, somebody's gotta explain to me how CMx1 would sell better in the next two years with the Vista problems than without.

I have a high capacity to understand messy code and to fix bugs. But that doesn't mean I can write huge amounts of new code for a project that had already painted itself into a corner and needs fundamental redesign to complete. I don't even know which corner exactly it is in.

In a word: sorry.

[Sivodsi]

Wow, were you being serious?

At the top of wargaming?

There is absolutely no buzz on any wargaming forum

It is a mistake to confuse 'wargame' with 'game with war'.

[sfhand]

For now it's something which makes development a lot easier, faster, and more accurate. This in turn gets the TO&E to scenarios makers faster, which allows them to make real scenarios sooner, and that means play balancing is also sooner.

One tiny problem with this... it won't do any good for NATO because in order to use this new system now I'd have to go back over the thousands of existing entries (yes, thousands, which is 10s of thousands of individual lines ) and conform them to the new system. Since we only have the NATO Module left to do this enormous amount of effort would take longer than it would to just stick with the current system. Normandy will be the first game built with the new system. Which should be OK since NATO is just about finished except for the TO&E anyway, so that's really the only big thing that we have to concentrate on.

Now, in the future the new TO&E data format will allow us to do some interesting new things with graphics because they'll be easier to define. But we don't know how much of that stuff we'll get into Normandy, so no specifics can be given at this point.

As for the end user UI of arranging/purchasing units and what not... completely different thing. That's higher level UI which really doesn't care how the TO&E data is organized. So old or new TO&E system is just as good from that perspective.

Steve

This is probably a pie-in-the-sky question, but is there any way people here could help you with this? If the situation isn't too complex I'd imagine that 50 NDAs later your task could be completed rather quickly. Like I said, probably pie-in-the-sky...

[Battlefront.com]

Redwolf,

BTW, somebody's gotta explain to me how CMx1 would sell better in the next two years with the Vista problems than without.

Trust me, that has been noted. And if we've noted it then we've also discussed what to do about it. And if we've discussed what to do about it we've most likely formulated a plan on how to address it. And if we've formulated a plan then it's probable that we've done something to make it happen. Just saying

sfhand,

This is probably a pie-in-the-sky question, but is there any way people here could help you with this? If the situation isn't too complex I'd imagine that 50 NDAs later your task could be completed rather quickly. Like I said, probably pie-in-the-sky...

Yes, unfortunately. It's really just a matter of getting a few other things done first before I can move the old TO&E into the new format. It will have to happen because the old TO&E will serve as a basis for CM:SF 2. But for right now there doesn't seem to be a need to do that. First, there's only one more Module left to do for CM:SF. Second, I'm nearly positive that the new TO&E format will pose problems for any scenario already made with the old TO&E. Unless, of course, Charles gets involved and writes some special code to have the old stuff work with the new stuff. Might be possible, however since the only benefit the new TO&E has to CM:SF right now is making my life easier (i.e. no new game functionality), it doesn't appear to be worth bothering with.

Steve

[Redwolf]

It would be good news if the DX10 problems could be hacked up, but going through all the QA and distribution blues for three new CMx1 patches would probably only be worthwhile if you did something about the 1600x1200 resolution limit. And it would be a sin to have a new CMBB patch without fixing the fortifications victory points bug.

Not trying to nag, I just see potential here for another round of "now we gave you what you want and you still aren't happy".

In my opinion those who switched to Vista without checking that their applications run got what they deserved, so that's actually the least important point from this unique perspective

[Battlefront.com]

Fixing gameplay bugs for games that are very old gets us on a slippery slope because there are dozens of unfixed bugs people can list and thousands of things people (collectively) feel we should do. Like make CMBO use the CMAK engine, for example. Obviously there is a difference between porting CMBO to CMAK (i.e. months of dedicated work) compared to fixing a small and limited bug. But once we do something people start to expect more. So no matter what we do we're going to have "now we gave you what you want and you still aren't happy". If you haven't been following my point in several other threads... we ALWAYS go through rounds of that no matter what we do and what we don't do. It's just one of the many perks of being a wargame maker

Fundamentally CMx1 is being sold as an "as is" product. If there were no problems with Vista we wouldn't even contemplate a single change to its code. Heck, even trying to compile 6 year old code from a compiler that is long since dead using 3rd party libraries which have been either radically changed or abandoned is work we really can't afford to do because it comes at a cost (money and/or opportunity cost). Therefore, any work done on CMx1 has to be weighed carefully in terms of cost/reward.

From our perspective there are two classes of CMx1 customers. The first purchased CMx1 games long ago and therefore has got their money's worth out of them, the second is a person who hasn't yet played a CMx1 game and would like to BUT can't because he has Vista or Windows 7. The latter group grows with each day as Windows XP slides away, though the group also shrinks each day because CMx1 becomes more dated with each passing day (and CMBO was dated even in 2000 in terms of its graphics). The good news is that if we fix it for one group we fix it for both. Of course since the product is no longer supported that also means that any fix is not going to be for free. The free support period ended for CMBO about 8 years ago, CMBB about 4 years ago, and CMAK about 3 years ago. Anybody still playing any of these games has no legitimate reason to gripe, though as noted before that doesn't mean there will be no griping

Steve

[[hirr]Leto]

Hey, if you came out with a new CMx1 game with these fixes in it, that wasn't compatible with the old... I would buy it... and buy it for all my opponents if I had to.

You have every right to make some money off of this.

Cheers!

Leto

[Marshal Amherst]

It's ok to love a niche product and it's ok feel good about it and have fun and enjoy what you are doing and not care what others say about your hobby.

No harm with that wargamers have been doing that for 30 years.

But it borders on fanboy delusion to think that your favorite little niche product is at the top of it's larger market segment "world".

At best you can say it is good at what it does to fill it's tiny little niche, although even that is laughable.

I can make a game about shoveling crap and if it is the only crap shoveling game on the market I can make myself feel all warm and fuzzy about it by calling it the "best CS game ever" that only a few hundred people play.

And I do not believe the "good sales" routine.

Good sales would mean that a large amount of people bought the game and if even a small percentage of those people were talking about it there would some sort of buzz on the net, not just the same dozen or so folks on the niche publishers website.

I really like this game and play it more often then other games (not waiting on WW2 either I like Modern games) but I am a realist.

I like that it is a niche game and that it does what it set's out to do very well and that is has a small diehard following.

But I'll never say that it is the best at anything or on top of the gaming world.

It is what it is, nothing more. When you can deal with that you'll have much more fun.

Had to say my peace, flame me for speaking in reality if you want, don't really care.

[[hirr]Leto]

It's ok to love a niche product and it's ok feel good about it and have fun and enjoy what you are doing and not care what others say about your hobby.

No harm with that wargamers have been doing that for 30 years.

But it borders on fanboy delusion to think that your favorite little niche product is at the top of it's larger market segment "world".

At best you can say it is good at what it does to fill it's tiny little niche, although even that is laughable.

I can make a game about shoveling crap and if it is the only crap shoveling game on the market I can make myself feel all warm and fuzzy about it by calling it the "best CS game ever" that only a few hundred people play.

And I do not believe the "good sales" routine.

Good sales would mean that a large amount of people bought the game and if even a small percentage of those people were talking about it there would some sort of buzz on the net, not just the same dozen or so folks on the niche publishers website.

I really like this game and play it more often then other games (not waiting on WW2 either I like Modern games) but I am a realist.

I like that it is a niche game and that it does what it set's out to do very well and that is has a small diehard following.

But I'll never say that it is the best at anything or on top of the gaming world.

It is what it is, nothing more. When you can deal with that you'll have much more fun.

Had to say my peace, flame me for speaking in reality if you want, don't really care.

I understand a bit about what you are saying... the metrics for determining what is the 'best' are poor if nonexistant for many of these wargames. Ergo, it is silly to cast about such statements as pure fact. What constitutes "the best" and how a game is ranked is mostly if not all, subjective.

But BFC HAS to portray their games as the best there are in the market, as that is all part of the marketing gig... and I honestly think that BFC feels they do make the best games in this genre, however small that market may be. I think they may successfully argue that out of the small population of wargaming companies, BFC develops this type of gaming the best... and I harken back to your crap shovelling example... (something I am exceedingly good at, I am told).

You have to also remember, that BFC has been under attack for so long, for so many things, that they may just want to puff their chests up a bit and re-arrange their bright tail feathers, in the least, just to make themselves feel good in response to so much negativity, and at the most, to help them pick up chicks. We all have egos... and we all like chicks (not sure about that Ezra guy, but I withold my judgement for now).

: ) j/k

It's only human nature, and from a strictly marketing sense, technically appropriate. I think some of the acrimony that has appeared over the last few years based on the lackluster introduction of CMSF and all the problems it faced has weathered the once more playful and thick skinned facade of these guys that are working hard to build games for people. Thus the angels vs demons conflict between the fanbois (who are in part, have a stake in BFC games and also wants to get the feel good, 'we are number one atmosphere rolling' and ultimately cheer on the company) and the pissy grogs (who don't care for the game, the way that they have been 'ignored' for expansion into new markets, and the terrible way that BFC handles themselves publicly under so much criticism). This is all understandable, partly unfortunate, ultimately regrettable, but eminently understandable (on both sides of the 'conflict').

I will let you work out who are the angels and who are the demons for yourselves.

So if BFC wants to toot their horn: let them. If they want to obfuscate, backtrack on things they have said publicly, and attack their dissenters: that too is their perogative. Lord knows, critical discussion takes place on BFC's products, their decisions, their business models, and even the demeanor in which they represent themselves to customers all over the net. Shouldn't their website be a land of sweetness and light for their products if they want it to be?

At the end of the day, many people D/L the products, play the games, and ultimately buy them or don't. Discerning wargamers can come here, read the forums and sort out the feel good rhetoric from the substance for themselves... I think most wargamers are pretty adept at understanding the politics of game company websites.

Yet the drama rolls on an on. I guess playing the game for some people is ancilliary to talking about it (perhaps myself included?).

: )

Cheers!

Leto

[ASL Veteran]

It's ok to love a niche product and it's ok feel good about it and have fun and enjoy what you are doing and not care what others say about your hobby.

No harm with that wargamers have been doing that for 30 years.

But it borders on fanboy delusion to think that your favorite little niche product is at the top of it's larger market segment "world".

Huh? The OP said that Battlefront was at the top of Wargaming not at the top of all games sold including FPS, and all those console games out there. He said Wargaming, so your statement doesn't make sense with regards to the OP unless you are counting Combat Mission as a sub niche within the Wargaming niche or something like that. In that case, then I guess every individual game is a niche, or perhaps you are defining 3D wargames as a niche within the wargaming niche? Maybe all those hex based, 2D or top down games are another niche within the wargaming niche? If you don't think that Combat Mission is at the top of the wargaming niche then that's a good discussion to have. Who would you put at the top of the wargaming niche if not Combat Mission? That long running and very successful series called Close Combat who are still going strong after all these years? Maybe there is a Talonsoft title that can take top honors ... if they were still around. Is there a Matrix retread title that takes top honors? Go ahead and list your top ten 'wargames', I would be curious to see your list.

[MikeyD]

Most of the arguments here seem about definitions more than anything. Success. Popularity. Market niche. Van Gough is now considered the most popular painter in the world but never sold a painting while alive. BFC is as close to company-scale tactical combat as you can get commercially. What does it matter that five million pimply teenagers prefer the zombie game 'Left 4 Dead'? Good is still good.

[Other Means]

"Hey small niche band* - love the song. You're the best of this small niche.".

"Are you kidding me? Justin Timberlake blows that band out of the water! How can you say small niche band is the best? Don't fool yourselves.".

"Umm. I like small niche band.".

"Fanboi!".

"Troll!".

Ahh the internet.

*which is actually a good name for a small niche band.

[MarkEzra]

But it borders on fanboy delusion to think that your favorite little niche product is at the top of it's larger market segment "world".

At best you can say it is good at what it does to fill it's tiny little niche, although even that is laughable.

I can make a game about shoveling crap and if it is the only crap shoveling game on the market I can make myself feel all warm and fuzzy about it by calling it the "best CS game ever" that only a few hundred people play.

And I do not believe the "good sales" routine.

Good sales would mean that a large amount of people bought the game and if even a small percentage of those people were talking about it there would some sort of buzz on the net, not just the same dozen or so folks on the niche publishers website.

I really like this game and play it more often then other games (not waiting on WW2 either I like Modern games) but I am a realist.

I like that it is a niche game and that it does what it set's out to do very well and that is has a small diehard following.

But I'll never say that it is the best at anything or on top of the gaming world.

It is what it is, nothing more. When you can deal with that you'll have much more fun.

Had to say my peace, flame me for speaking in reality if you want, don't really care.

Glad you said your peace and welcome to the forum. I got called FanBoi when I played Steel Panthers. When I went with the SPWAW rather than SPWW2 I got called worse. When I played Uncommon Valor nobody called me anything, cause nobody cared. How I judge a game and a game company is based on liking the product well enough to keep it on my hard drive for extended periods of time (Like years). Only two companies have managed to produce that result, Matrix and BFC. Literally no other company's products, no matter WHAT the genre, has done that. So you know what that means: I'm a VERY NICHE Market. So I support the companies that supply the games I like. Like just about everyone here, I've bought a ton of titles over the years. But not because "games" or "gaming" fascinates me. Just looking for a game that suits me. Once I find one I tend to stick.

Now just where does BFC stand in the Tiny niche market that is War Game-ING? Well that's always a matter of opinion. But Here is an interesting fact: BFC has been in business for 10 years, produced or published many well regarded and industry award wining titles. Not many Companies around (sadly) that can say that. As a Company BFC may lack "Buzz" but they do have substance.

Glad you enjoy the game...sure hope you'll continuing to post on the forum. Fresh voices are welcome!

[sfhand]

Most of the arguments here seem about definitions more than anything. Success. Popularity. Market niche. Van Gough is now considered the most popular painter in the world but never sold a painting while alive. BFC is as close to company-scale tactical combat as you can get commercially. What does it matter that five million pimply teenagers prefer the zombie game 'Left 4 Dead'? Good is still good.

Ahhh... to be a pimply teenager again.

The fact is CM (of all flavors) appeals to many gamers who are not wargamers. How do I know this? Because I am not a grog/wargamer and the folks I've introduced to CM, who enjoy and play it, are not grog/wargamers. That said, I enjoy reading the opinions of grog/wargamers and have learned much of what I "know" about wargaming from these forums. But I don't think a grog/wargamer's knowledge of their hobby gives them more credibility than a generic gamer on what contitutes a good game. I definitely don't think their knowledge and love of their hobby gives them any particular insight into the development and marketing of software - wargames included.

What I'm trying to say is that I look forward to playing Left for Dead some day...

FWIW, I'd pay (module price?) for an update for CMx1 titles CMBB and CMAK (which I mod to CM:ETO - in my mind that makes CMBO unnecessary).

[Battlefront.com]

Marshal Amherst,

But it borders on fanboy delusion to think that your favorite little niche product is at the top of it's larger market segment "world".

It borders on insanity to think that anybody said that

At best you can say it is good at what it does to fill it's tiny little niche, although even that is laughable.

I can make a game about shoveling crap and if it is the only crap shoveling game on the market I can make myself feel all warm and fuzzy about it by calling it the "best CS game ever" that only a few hundred people play.

So, what's wrong with being a niche? I'll always pick being a big fish in a small pond than being a small fish in a big pond. Big fish can't be eaten up by little fish, but oh boy does it work the other way around in the big pond.

This logic of yours is, of course, pointless. What you are saying is there can only be one "best" company in the world because, by your thinking, there is only one measure for success... and that is being the largest irrespective of niche. Computing is a niche, movie making is a niche, farming is a niche. EVERYTHING is a niche if you have the definition that the only way to be "on top" is to be bigger than everybody else.

Good sales would mean that a large amount of people bought the game and if even a small percentage of those people were talking about it there would some sort of buzz on the net, not just the same dozen or so folks on the niche publishers website.

I judge good sales by looking at our bank account and comparing it to the cost/risk that it took to get the product to market. That's pretty much Capitalism 101, so I'm curious to know what form of economics you're using which should make me look at our balance sheet and have a big frown on our faces.

I really like this game and play it more often then other games (not waiting on WW2 either I like Modern games) but I am a realist.

I like that it is a niche game and that it does what it set's out to do very well and that is has a small diehard following.

But I'll never say that it is the best at anything or on top of the gaming world.

Nobody has ever said it is "on top of the gaming world" because that would be stupid. By any measure that's not true. But being unable to say something is the "best" because something else, completely unrelated, is "better is absurd. By that measure a fantastic meal cooked by a 5 star chef is "worse" than a Happy Meal at McDonalds because Happy Meals can be found practically anywhere on Earth and sales dwarf that of many small countries entire annual gross domestic product.

It is what it is, nothing more. When you can deal with that you'll have much more fun.

Funny... I think generally people have more fun when they don't have chips on their shoulders. Especially chips that are of the cow variety

Had to say my peace, flame me for speaking in reality if you want, don't really care.

Nobody's flaming you, but the fact that you expected it speaks for itself.

Anyway, like I said... using standard REASONABLE metrics for measuring success... Battlefront's doing pretty damned well for itself. The simple fact we're still in business after 10 years is a huge feather in our cap because, if you pay attention, that's a long time in this ruthless business.

Steve

[Meach]

Cow chips? WTF? Steve, do explain.

[MarkEzra]

By that measure a fantastic meal cooked by a 5 star chef is "worse" than a Happy Meal at McDonalds because Happy Meals can be found practically anywhere on Earth and sales dwarf that of many small countries entire annual gross domestic product.

Steve

Happy Meals are better NOT because of volume but because they come with a free toy. When 5 star chefs wake up and smell the (McDonalds cheapest-Best) Coffee then maybe they will again become competitive!

[flamingknives]

Cow chips...

Well, you drop a cow from at least 300 ft onto some of that concrete reinforcing grid. Instant cow chips.

Naturally they're quite large but not the correct breed for Normandy.

[Battlefront.com]

Meach,

The answers you seek are but a Google search away.

MarkEzra,

Yes, good point. Of course at a 5 Star restaurant the prize would have to be something like an iPod to be proportional to the food.

flamingkinves,

While not exactly what I was talking about, I thank you for the mental image and trying to bring this thread back on topic again

Steve

[Meach]

Ahhh I see. Cow chips and McDonalds in the same thread. Reminds me why I inhabit this forum. God bless the crazy antics of the Forum Lads!

Chips here in Scotland are what Americans call "Fries" and what you call chips we call crisps. So all manner of bovine related ideas began to swirl.

Oh, will Normandy have cows, chips, fries or crisps in?

[theFightingSeabee]

LOL. Just remember you can eat chipped beef, but not cow chips. You can also eat a beef patty, just not a cow patty. WW2.

[Michael Emrys]

Chips here in Scotland are what Americans call "Fries" and what you call chips we call crisps.

But we still love you in spite of your confusion.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

LOL. Just remember you can eat chipped beef, but not cow chips. You can also eat a beef patty, just not a cow patty. WW2.

Also known as 'meadow muffins' and 'organic Frisbees™' (in the dried state only).

Michael

[ChrisND]

LOL. Just remember you can eat chipped beef, but not cow chips. You can also eat a beef patty, just not a cow patty. WW2.

Sure you can, you just better have some mouth wash handy afterwards.