CM2:N Marketing Plan

[Battlefront.com]

Noxnoctum,

don't really understand why that has to be a bad thing... it is with wargames but not necessarily for games in general

I think most wargamers would agree with this statement because most wargamers play "twitchy" games too. Even the most hardcore, ancient, old guard wargamers likely have enjoyed Asteroids, Missile Command, Space Invaders, PacMan, etc.

The distinction is the same one you made... context. Twitchy for a game that is all about reflexes makes sense. Twitchy for a game that is all about cognitive play does not. It would be akin to making crossword puzzles which required joysticks and hit points Sure, sure... perhaps a little of that isn't a bad thing, but it would never take over that genre of game. Nor should it.

Steve

[ChrisND]

Normal Dude,

Am not entirely sure you aren't pulling our legs regarding when you started playing SL and ASL, considering I was at "See spot run," rather than "1.0.2.3 the phasing player using artillery may, contingent on the phase of the moon and the version number thereof, conduct one or more artillery attacks on...provided the targeting criteria defined in...meet the requirements of Subsection 1.02.1f and in no way contradict the exceptions, save as outlined below." OTOH, you may've been a child prodigy!

Regards,

John Kettler

Oh, I'm dead serious. I didn't play it very well, but I did play it. And had a lot of fun sorting out the pieces. I was a weird kid.

[sfhand]

Rankorian,

When we eventually are able to do CoPlay (co-operative multiplayer) we will definitely have some sort of personalized ranking system. Having those rankings be integrated into the game, in some limited but meaningful way, would be the next step to take it. However, until the player is "wearing one hat" on the battlefield I'm not sure it's worth spending much time on a commander level reward system.

Elmar,

You have no idea how fast we'd make one if we won the lottery

Steve

I'm reluctant to enter into a marketing discussion... but here goes anyway .

I think a feature that enabled the player, as the commander, to issue one medal, and one medal only, squad, company, or brigade level whichever is appropriate per your design, at the end of a battle that meets the right criteria during a campaign - the criteria could be based on the total victory, tactical victory mechanism in game or it could be based on winning a battle where you are outnumbered by a predetermined ratio, e.g. 4:1. These commendations could also add to troop moral to the point that if a unit is decorated enough they could achieve "fanatical" morale level without having been so designated by the scenario-within-the-campaign-designer.

A feature like that, combined with tracking kills (listed battle by battle) would go a long way to making campaigns more compelling for the individual (me at the very least ), IMNSHO (should be IMHO, what can I say).

So, in case the above is muddled, I'm talking about a campaign only, persistent within the campaign, battlefield commendation system that, when conditions are met, offer me, as the commander, the opportunity, no the duty, to reward excellence that, as I've seen many times, can have little to do with my abilities as commander - I'm thinking of the thread about really cool stuff one sees the pixel-trupen do during battles, some of which no doubt turns the tide. I'm also talking about a persistent kill list with a battle by battle breakdown of the list (maybe accessable at the end of the campaign or between battles, there could be a "status of forces" button that would link to a screen listing all campaign forces, with each being a hotlink to a standardized page containing information - number of people still with the unit (could be zero if kia), morale, skill level, battles fought in the campaign, kills, etc.

Not clamoring for this, just was inspired reading the thread.

[Clavicula_Nox]

That's one of the things I loved about Close Combat.

[John Kettler]

sfhand,

Such promoted in morale units should also logically then be subject to morale dilution when absorbing replacements after a stiff fight, in addition to fatigue hits for units long in the line. See, for example, the British Desert Rats who fought in the Western Desert and Italy, only to wind up spearheading British attacks in Normandy, to the disgust of men who'd been in action since 1940.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Clavicula_Nox]

sfhand,

Such promoted in morale units should also logically then be subject to morale dilution when absorbing replacements after a stiff fight, in addition to fatigue hits for units long in the line. See, for example, the British Desert Rats who fought in the Western Desert and Italy, only to wind up spearheading British attacks in Normandy, to the disgust of men who'd been in action since 1940.

Regards,

John Kettler

I'm cool with that, too.

Bring on X-COMbat Mission!

[Elmar Bijlsma]

You have no idea how fast we'd make one if we won the lottery

Steve

Well, I was thinking of using my lottery win for that. But I guess that if you use yours, I have my winnings free for re-commissioning Firefly.

*dreams on*

Hmmmm... Summer Glau... *sigh*

[Michael Emrys]

Hmmmm... Summer Glau... *sigh*

[we interrupt your normal programming to bring you this message]

Agreed. I always loved watching her move. And her cockney accent was astounding.

[we now return you to your regularly scheduled programming]

Michael

[sfhand]

sfhand,

Such promoted in morale units should also logically then be subject to morale dilution when absorbing replacements after a stiff fight, in addition to fatigue hits for units long in the line. See, for example, the British Desert Rats who fought in the Western Desert and Italy, only to wind up spearheading British attacks in Normandy, to the disgust of men who'd been in action since 1940.

Regards,

John Kettler

I agree about losing morale when suffering stiff losses, and logically, that should also carry over to units who didn't get a morale boost by winning battlefield commendations as well. I'm not sure I agree about fatigue hits suffered in a campaign though, I'm not sure the campaign is long enough for that and the scenario designer will/can make those adjustments if the campaign is drawing on forces who have been in combat prior to the campaign.

The other consideration, for me, is keeping the idea simple enough to be implimented initially, and flushed out later as the feature list for the game allows. I really have no idea how easily something like this can be implimented, but when the time comes for a campaign system overhaul I'm pretty sure BF will consider all the options and make what they consider to be the best decision.

[PSY]

However, until the player is "wearing one hat" on the battlefield I'm not sure it's worth spending much time on a commander level reward system.

System's like XBox Gamerpoints / Achievements are very popular. I'm not as heavily into them as some other gamers, but I do feel like they increase replay value by giving you objectives to shoot for. You could have objectives like completing a small-size mission with no casualties, or gaining control of a particular building within an earlier time frame than strictly required to win the scenario, or maybe trying to win a mission without taking any armor units along. If you want to reach Rankorian's category 3 -- 16-30 year old, non-military gamers -- an achievement system is something they will be used to seeing, and it could potentially provide value to your traditional customer set too.

Even a simple system in which you could receive a bronze star, a silver star, or a gold star (or maybe Silver Star, Distinguished Service Cross, and Medal of Honor) rankings on each mission based on your performance might increase replayability and increase player's sense of immersion or "ownership." There are a variety of different casual games that do this (for example, IIRC the popular Nintendo Advance Wars series does this), and I do think it works rather well -- I might beat a scenario earning a bronze star, and immediately try replaying it to increase my rating in the scenario to a gold star. This means I play the scenario multiple times, gain a greater sense of accomplishment, and feel like the product has provided me with more game time and thus better value for the cost of the game.

[noxnoctum]

^^^Yes that system would be fun (both the star system and the specific "achiements" system).

Though I don't much care for them in shooters (can't be bothered) I think it would play out very well in a strategy game. I can't imagine it being too hard to implement either since it's basic if/then logic, basically just modifying victory conditions and assigning pretty images to them .

The "assigning" medals idea is VERY cool too (maybe you get a certain number of "medal" points depending on how well you did... IIRC M1 Tank Platoon 2 allowed you to give out awards based on performance, very cool feature)...

Even if it has no actual effect on the battle (perhaps it could add to a unit's morale and fanaticism? Would seem realistic to me too) it would be still be fun to see that veteran infantry platoon that's been through it all.

[GSX]

^^^For real.

I play a ton of Left 4 Dead which is about a twitchy as it gets (don't really understand why that has to be a bad thing... it is with wargames but not necessarily for games in general) but have been playing wargames of some type since I was 14 or so (21 now)... though admittedly I'm not as advanced as some on here mostly because I never had the money to go all out into the hobby.

Don't assume that all people who play shooters and RTS games (of which COH is one of the best for its style) are too brain-dead for Combat Mission.

Just look at the reviews Gamespot and IGN for example gave CMBB back in the day, 9.1 and 9.0 respectively, from mainstream gaming sites.

I too play Call of Duty and CM, one is not exclusive to the other. Some days I think, heck Im in the mood for running arond and play COD, other days I might be in the mood for some CM. Heck even some RTS games are fun, Warhammer immediately springs to mind here.

I suppose it all depends on who BF is aiming CM at?

[Sgt Joch]

I suppose it all depends on who BF is aiming CM at?

the same market they have always aimed it at, gamers who are looking for a realistic tactical wargame.

[Pandur]

gamers who are looking for a realistic tactical wargame.

i hope so!

well i am 26 and found out about CMx1 when i was 16 or 17. since then i didnt played another WWII game but DoD classic wich is a shooter anyways.

i dont give a damn about achivements and all the new console candy, i like CM as it is for the most part and to spend time that could be spent on "comabt" or multiplayer features on such stuff is a waste.

also i cant see achivements working well with the game haveing a scenario editor. i mean you can create all sorts of unbalanced scenarios and grind for achivement and have em all 24houers after the game is released

[Battlefront.com]

Elmar,

Well, I was thinking of using my lottery win for that. But I guess that if you use yours, I have my winnings free for re-commissioning Firefly.

Heh... two nights ago I said to my wife "if I had a Billion Dollars the first thing I would do is hire back all the actors, writers, and Joss Wheaton to make a new Firefly series. I'd put it directly to DVD and wouldn't care if I ever recovered a penny of the expense". That was after we finished watching Slither for the second time. Damned fine movie! Last night's Castle was good as usual.

But back on topic...

Sgt. Joch,

the same market they have always aimed it at, gamers who are looking for a realistic tactical wargame.

Exactly so I remember way back when CM:SF was released and some critics, who hadn't even played it most likely, said we made an RTS game. I said that if that were so then we made the worst RTS game in history since no RTS player would ever want to touch it with a 100m pole. The fundamental elements of an RTS game are completely absent in CMx2 and will forever remain absent because that's not a market we will ever even attempt to pursue. Firstly, because we don't want to

CMx2 is also not aimed at FPS players since it does not have, nor will it likely ever have, first person perspective/control. Which is absolutely required to get the FPS players on board. Therefore, clearly we're not aiming at that audience either.

The next largest group is the RPG crowd. Technically speaking there is no such thing as an RGP game because it's really a modification of another type of game (RTS, FPS, wargame, simulation, etc.). In other words, the underlying gameplay is very familiar to other types of players, but there are additional elements which make the game more personalized and/or having a system that carries the player's "character" between games. This bonds the player to the game system more than he might otherwise bond.

RPG elements are something we are interested in pursuing to a limited degree because it is not inherently in conflict with the underlying game system itself (unlike RTS and FPS). In other words, to make an RTS game appealing to an RTS player we would have to destroy just about everything that makes up CMx2 (and CMx1 from a conceptual standpoint). That's absolutely nothing we are ever going to do. But creating player characters that people bond with better... that doesn't require us undermining the inherent game system. We do have to be careful to not warp elements of the underlying game system, like having the player's "character" unrealistically influence combat outcomes. Fortunately that's very easy to do when your whole purpose is to enhance the realistic and historical qualities of the underlying system.

The key thing here is to not let RPG game elements come at the expense of underlying game engine development. People will not purchase CMx2 games because they can get meddles and lofty titles, rather they will buy it because of a great underlying game. Some will buy it only with the RPG elements added, but they wouldn't buy if the underlying game were crap. Or at least not enough to warrant warping development priorities.

Steve

[souldierz]

All i can say Battlefront is keep on doing what your doing.

There's a lot of people who love this kind of game.I remember playing a game called firefight and i couldn't wait to see a more upgraded version of it.

My guess will be that the people who really want these kind of games are the older mature fan base of war gaming who appreciate the realistic simulation values regardless of graphics.I'm playing CMSF and The Operational Art Of War while a friend of mine plays COD4 and likes Command and Conquer.

The only problem i have is locating these games.It took me a long time to realize CMSF.When i found Battlefront it was only then i realized all the past games they had that i probably would have enjoyed but i never knew about or never even seen them in stores.

I'd say the realistic tactical war game market is only growing.More people are getting hungry for this kind of game and the technology for it is improving.Just need to get the word out.

[Moon]

Just need to get the word out.

That's where you come in Battlefront's best and strongest marketing tool have always been its fans. This was true already back in the time when there were actually wargaming magazines and websites worth to be called as such and the mainstream gaming sites were geared towards PC games; and it is even more true now where most of the gaming websites cater to consoles, and the few "wargaming" outlets left out there are not really worth the title (perhaps the only exception I can think of right now being Armchair General).

Truth is that from our experience the biggest one block of fans is already right here, at Battlefront.com. Out there it's very difficult to find them, and it's impossible to do so cost-effectively (i.e. via ads). In the past there used to be a few reviewers who provided editorial coverage, but unfortunately that has also largely faded away with time. Few reviewers out there have a clue about what CMSF is...

Funny enough, despite these difficulties, Battlefront.com still manages to grow. Slowly but steadily. No clue how we do it .:-) Well, the only explanation I have is that one of you guys tells his friend who tells his friend who tells his friend...

Martin

[Chops]

Moon & Steve,

What do you guys think about starting a Developer's Diary? I was thinking in terms of maybe a weekly update on what's going on and a screenshot or two if available. Something similar to what Oleg Maddox does with IL-2, Storm of War.

It doesn't have to be anything extensive, just a brief update. This might help generate some more interest and other websites like simhq.com, armchairgeneral.com and combatsim.com could link to it on their sites.

Granted, the developer's diary would unleash a lot of discussion on this forum, which may be more than you guys want to deal with right now.

[Sequoia]

Well, I was thinking of using my lottery win for that. But I guess that if you use yours, I have my winnings free for re-commissioning Firefly.

*dreams on*

Hmmmm... Summer Glau... *sigh*

Was Summer Glau in Firefly? I was too busy looking at Morena Baccarin.

[Pvt. Ryan]

Battlefront's best and strongest marketing tool have always been its fans.

Thanks for calling me a tool.

[DavidFields]

The next largest group is the RPG crowd. Technically speaking there is no such thing as an RGP game because it's really a modification of another type of game (RTS, FPS, wargame, simulation, etc.). In other words, the underlying gameplay is very familiar to other types of players, but there are additional elements which make the game more personalized and/or having a system that carries the player's "character" between games. This bonds the player to the game system more than he might otherwise bond.

RPG elements are something we are interested in pursuing to a limited degree because it is not inherently in conflict with the underlying game system itself (unlike RTS and FPS). In other words, to make an RTS game appealing to an RTS player we would have to destroy just about everything that makes up CMx2 (and CMx1 from a conceptual standpoint). That's absolutely nothing we are ever going to do. But creating player characters that people bond with better... that doesn't require us undermining the inherent game system. We do have to be careful to not warp elements of the underlying game system, like having the player's "character" unrealistically influence combat outcomes. Fortunately that's very easy to do when your whole purpose is to enhance the realistic and historical qualities of the underlying system.

The key thing here is to not let RPG game elements come at the expense of underlying game engine development. People will not purchase CMx2 games because they can get meddles and lofty titles, rather they will buy it because of a great underlying game. Some will buy it only with the RPG elements added, but they wouldn't buy if the underlying game were crap. Or at least not enough to warrant warping development priorities.

Steve

I can see you moving very carefully forward in this direction.

After all, you did put names to the soldiers/officers. You could have just put in the rank. And putting in all those names must have taken some time. You did it because....well, you can tell us......but I suspect there was some thought that it helped with immersion.

But my guess is that you don't want people to use or not use "units" (er...people with weapons) because they "like" them. That would break [someone will correct me if I am wrong] modern warfare management: where capabilities are valued over personalities, and the overall task is valued over any individual unit. Right?

"Saving Pvt Ryan" being thus being the extraordinary situation, about which one could be critical if lives were wasted in the pursuit. (Except, if one is going to be completely calculating, they were valuable in motivating the "home front")

Still...still....I can see you putting in more rewards for the "owner", particularly as scenarios get more locked, and the campaigns more formal. A series of locked scenarios which feature artillery, for example, where one gets a "stripe" or "star" for progressing through each in a series. Endless possibilities.

As to PR, yes I am surprised that PC games have almost disappeared from stores. But I am also interested to see significant publications, like the New York Times, feature articles on games. Hmmmm...... And it would be a blast if Battlefront/CM where the subject, probably the first of its genre, in the New Yorker--or maybe the slightly more nerdy The Economist would be a better bet.

CM2: N might have that potential.

[Sgt Joch]

After all, you did put names to the soldiers/officers. You could have just put in the rank. And putting in all those names must have taken some time. You did it because....well, you can tell us......but I suspect there was some thought that it helped with immersion.

for the blue side, you have the family names of many beta testers, their wives/girlfriends, family, friends, acquaintances...

[Nicdain]

for the blue side, you have the family names of many beta testers, their wives/girlfriends, family, friends, acquaintances...

In a scenario I was playing yesterday, there was a Sgt Grammont... it must not be a coincidence...

[Lanzfeld]

Still wish ever so much that we could insert our names into the mix at random like in Close Combat 2. It was always so interesting to see me or a friend of mine in the mix.

[Other Means]

Still wish ever so much that we could insert our names into the mix at random like in Close Combat 2. It was always so interesting to see me or a friend of mine in the mix.

I think they're in the strings file.