BF, You Blew It

[noxnoctum]

Well I for one have no problem still playing CMBB for large battles... anyone else who's interested PM me.

[simmox]

What about the future of multiplayer? Definitely a RealTime TCP/IP pause feature will get into the game sooner rather than later. TCP/IP WeGo is desirable and probably practical, so we're going to look into that too.

Steve

good enough for me,matey

now,any chance for a release,i need some action please:)

[LemoN]

Well I for one have no problem still playing CMBB for large battles... anyone else who's interested PM me.

I would if it would still work on my machine.

[noxnoctum]

I told you, buy some dirt cheap POS laptop .

[Catacol Highlander]

What about the future of multiplayer? Definitely a RealTime TCP/IP pause feature will get into the game sooner rather than later. TCP/IP WeGo is desirable and probably practical, so we're going to look into that too.

Steve

Good enough for me too really - my previous post was a bit of a rant. Apologies for that. BF customer service has always been excellent.

[LemoN]

I told you, buy some dirt cheap POS laptop .

Buy?

BUY????

AHAHAHAHA!

I don't have any money.

[SMLE-Bloke]

He doesn't even need to buy anything Nox, all he needs to do is set up a Win XP VM with VMWare or something similar

On topic, I have anecdotal evidence of how realtime helps make an APM player better. I've been playing the old CM1 games with a friend of mine who is a ridiculously good RTS player (like top of diamond league in SC2 level sort of guy), he has a very fast APM. I on the other hand am complete rubbish at RTS games like SC2 and the like, however I am pretty good at CM. Before we started my friend hadn't ever played CM before nor was he particularly well versed when it comes to the type of tactics this game demands (he did have interest in a more hardcore battle sim though). Whilst over time he has gotten better the general rule is that in any CM1 game I literally roll him every single time if we play a QB on level terms. We have to play games where he has a unit advantage or some other advantage over me for the games to be close.

Last couple of days we have been trying out the CM: Battle for Normandy demo over TCP/IP, and straight away it has become apparent that being forced to play RT gives him an advantage. I find myself quickly falling behind in the speed I issue orders and keep abrest of the situation, whilst my friend is completely out stripping me in this regard. On a small battle it makes only a slight difference, but as more units become involved it increases dramatically. On a small battle I can still beat him comfortably but if it is any larger than say a platoon or two I am the one who is almost always on the losing end as I just can't control my forces as quickly as he can.

I love BF and I am still buying this game regardless, however I dearly hope that WEGO TCP/IP play or at least RT with auto pause makes it into the new CMx2 games at some stage. I tend to agree with the opinion that WEGO is one of the things that made CM so unique back in the day and it shouldn't be lost. Also personally in my opinion one of the best way to play the old CM's is WEGO over TCP/IP with a good friend, chatting on Skype/Vent/TS and enjoying some fine alcoholic beverages as the battle plays out.

For now I will be either using Skype for PBEM or practicing at getting my RT game better.

[Gryphonne]

He doesn't even need to buy anything Nox, all he needs to do is set up a Win XP VM with VMWare or something similar

On topic, I have anecdotal evidence of how realtime helps make an APM player better. I've been playing the old CM1 games with a friend of mine who is a ridiculously good RTS player (like top of diamond league in SC2 level sort of guy), he has a very fast APM. I on the other hand am complete rubbish at RTS games like SC2 and the like, however I am pretty good at CM. Before we started my friend hadn't ever played CM before nor was he particularly well versed when it comes to the type of tactics this game demands (he did have interest in a more hardcore battle sim though). Whilst over time he has gotten better the general rule is that in any CM1 game I literally roll him every single time if we play a QB on level terms. We have to play games where he has a unit advantage or some other advantage over me for the games to be close.

Last couple of days we have been trying out the CM: Battle for Normandy demo over TCP/IP, and straight away it has become apparent that being forced to play RT gives him an advantage. I find myself quickly falling behind in the speed I issue orders and keep abrest of the situation, whilst my friend is completely out stripping me in this regard. On a small battle it makes only a slight difference, but as more units become involved it increases dramatically. On a small battle I can still beat him comfortably but if it is any larger than say a platoon or two I am the one who is almost always on the losing end as I just can't control my forces as quickly as he can.

I love BF and I am still buying this game regardless, however I dearly hope that WEGO TCP/IP play or at least RT with auto pause makes it into the new CMx2 games at some stage. I tend to agree with the opinion that WEGO is one of the things that made CM so unique back in the day and it shouldn't be lost. Also personally in my opinion one of the best way to play the old CM's is WEGO over TCP/IP with a good friend, chatting on Skype/Vent/TS and enjoying some fine alcoholic beverages as the battle plays out.

For now I will be either using Skype for PBEM or practicing at getting my RT game better.

Experienced the same thing, basically, two players with the same tactical and game understanding are unevenly matched if one of them can pull off more APM. CMBN has way more detail over for example CMBB and lets you micro things in detail such as what ammo to pick up where, split squads and whatnot. All this stuff really isn't meant for real-time play; thus the game deteriorates into company of heroes/ starcraft but with more depth.

There is no time to think through your tactics anymore and this takes away from the original concept with which I fell in love, namely: WeGo; or at the very very least, pausable RT. I know for one I myself can't be arsed playing PBEM, and my friends don't even want to hear about the idea. So, it'll boil down to playing really tiny scenarios/QBs online as to not to give me and some of the other SC II players in my gaming group an advantage over the non SC players.

[Kolyanich]

Well, what does that leave me with? PBEM, slooooow, boring... Online Real-Time, small engagements, where I am so busy controlling the action, I have little time to sit back and enjoy it. ....But here is the best part about "Online Real-Time" play, there is no way to pause the action???? ...

Did not have time to read the whole thread but just would like to say that it was my biggest disappointment so far which made me to reconsider my excitement about the release and the future modules.

I am unlikely to spent more than a few weeks against the AI and since multiplayer games are not a real option now (as you said PMEB are ridiculously slow) and TCP/IP with no pause and WEGO is just a joke.

Unfortunately, I pre-ordered the game back in March but unlikely to spent any more $ on add-ons etc. My 10 year old CM journey seems to be over unless BF implement TCP WEGO in future relases.

Total disappointment.

[Hawkmek]

. . . Let's just say I'm still hopeful that before we die of old age I might get most of them into some game or another

Steve

Which brings up the question, will the Steve and Charles clones be ready to step in when your Hull Down for good? Like on Sam Rockwell's MOON?

This issue isn't a deal breaker for me. I like the scenarios people make and I likes to take my time and watch all the action.

[Battlefront.com]

I'm going to respond only one more time to this thread and use it as an example of why I've grown so very tired of this sort of discussion. MP customers need to understand that they're wants are wants, not needs. What the game needs are things like stability, realistic results, good framrate, enjoyable graphics, etc. These are things which everybody, RT or WeGo, Single Player or Multi-Player, QB player or scenario player, etc. require in order for the game to be worth playing. TCP/IP WeGo, as important as it might be to some, is not in the same category.

My follow up here is an example of how I'm almost arguing against a religion. We both agree there is a God, but someone tells me that unless I believe God is a 32" tall green man like creature with a lisp and a predisposition to nibble on anchovies, then I'm not really "getting it". Trying to argue the contrary doesn't seem to do the discussion any good.

Steve - agreed. BF has done more for wargaming than any other publisher out there. I am a supporter.

Great, though the rest of your post appears to value this very little.

But I quietly add my voice to those that see the sidelining of the MP dimension as a huge pity.

For those who are interested in TCP/IP, sure it is. And we do think it's valuable to have in. However, compared with doing things like having water, bridges, more flexible TO&E, and dozens of other things found in CM:BN... it's not in the same ballpark. As I said, EVERYBODY plays with this stuff, only a minority of people play TCP/IP and it's always been that way.

Remember that the name BF made for itself back in the CM1 days was based on the fact that everything CM1 offered was better than the competition and catered for the armchair wargamer who loves to be in control and loves realism. It was unique. It was the best out there - it was way ahead of its time.

It still is. WAY ahead of anything out there.

A community of MP online gamers was created who could watch the action in 3D over and over again, and yet take time to plan the next move and get it right. It was wargaming MP bliss.

And that was a good thing to see happen, at least for people that liked playing TCP/IP.

I'm not sure CMBN, based upon what I have seen of the demo, is quite so far ahead any more.

Sorry, I can't take this seriously. I don't mind people not liking what they see, but making an empirical statement like that doesn't do much to impress me in a positive way. Naming me even one product that is even close to CM:BN would at least make some attempt at backing up a comment like that. As for me, I don't know of anything that even rivals CMx1, not to mention CMx2, so if there is some game (or games) out there that we're barely in front of... I'm all ears to know what it is.

You guys wanted to make a better living, you know the market is centred around single player and real time so you bowed to market forces. Nothing wrong in that - sensible business. But I think the "unique selling point" of CM1 has now been lost.

See... this is the big problem here... you're completely wrong. CMx1 was always catered around single player. Heck, we didn't even have TCP/IP at all when we shipped CMBO. And since single players are STILL the majority of our customer base, and likely always will be, we're continuing to cater to our majority customers with features that even the MP customers need in order for them to enjoy the game.

MP is an extension of the game, it isn't the game itself. Never forget that.

Online WeGo was your unique selling point...

Not even close. It was a selling point for some, but it was absolutely not even remotely close to the most important point, not to mention "unique". In fact, if I were to list the Top 10 selling points of CMx1 I wouldn't include multiplayer in there at all. I'd start with "a fully 3D environment" since until Combat Mission there was no such thing within wargaming.

I ask you again... would you be at all interested in this game if it was as realistic as Company of Heroes or as visually appealing as 1980s computer wargame? I highly doubt it. So obviously you don't even believe what you're saying, even though you might think you do.

If it is possible to recode it back in sometime in the future I would put it back on the front page of that long term strategy, not for the money it will make you (probably not much), but for the position of your product in the history books. CM caters to an audience that loves its history: make sure your place in that timeline is as secure as it can be and keeps its hold on greatness.

We did... by making a great historical wargame. And by the reaction we've seen so far, I think we've done a pretty good job at that.

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

And since single players are STILL the majority of our customer base, and likely always will be, we're continuing to cater to our majority customers with features that even the MP customers need in order for them to enjoy the game.

As a single player, I take considerable comfort in these words.

:)

Michael

[sburke]

As a single player, I take considerable comfort in these words.

:)

Michael

Except the part about anchovies. I am pretty certain that it was sardines.

[ChrisND]

Except the part about anchovies. I am pretty certain that it was sardines.

Kill the unbeliever!

[aewert]

And He was blue, not green.....

[Volodnikov]

Some of the most popular games right now are played for their multiplayer. Call of Duty, Brink, Team Fortress 2, Starcraft 2, and Bad Company 2 to name a few. However, I don't think any less of this game for leaving out TCP/IP WeGo. I think the feature would be great, but in no way does it stop you from enjoying what the game was developed for.

And another thing, real-time is still nothing like fast paced RTS games like Starcraft and Company of Heroes. Would someone who is better at those games be better at real-time as opposed to WeGo? Yes, but I can't believe that those games are being brought up. There is still a great amount of thought at play in real-time as opposed to games like Starcraft where the player to build the best base and most units in the least amount of time wins.

[LJFHutch]

It's like this in CMSF

[aka_tom_w]

The game is remarkably capable of "taking care of" your men and units when you are not micro managing them in CM:BN

I am old and slow, (ok I am a tech geek ) but I am 50 years old, when I was younger I always though 50 :eek: was OLD. My point is you should in NO way discount the fun you can have with tcp in real time. Please please try it when you get the game with an open mind. I have been playing Combat Mission games since the CM:BO beta demo.

seriously I have played them all. I truly love online tcp WEGO, I played many times miss it like an old friend. BUT. When a door closes a window opens....

It's true, you should really not be afraid of tcp, it's not a "twitch" game, you don't have to be THAT fast to be good at it.

I JUST played an online test of recent build of the game, as a test, in tcp and found units (with the appropriate cover arc AND orders ) were completely capable of handling their own local situation and circumstance in the face of enemy contact and fire while I was busy issuing other higher priority orders.

My point is, don't underestimate the power or the fun of tcp real time, patience and real world tactics will STILL rule the day and triumph on the battle field EVEN when BOTH players are "handicapped" by the constraint of real time play. I suggest you practice real time against the AI until you can win EVERY battle then seek out tcp against a human and keep an open mind. Remember your opponent is also forced to react quickly in real time to so it cuts both ways. It's not bad really, you should give it a fair shake.

[yllamana]

For those who are interested in TCP/IP, sure it is. And we do think it's valuable to have in. However, compared with doing things like having water, bridges, more flexible TO&E, and dozens of other things found in CM:BN... it's not in the same ballpark. As I said, EVERYBODY plays with this stuff, only a minority of people play TCP/IP and it's always been that way.

It's not very surprising that a series with historically poor multiplayer support is primarily played single player. I primarily play CMSF single player - not because I prefer single player games but because its multiplayer support is so poor. People who regularly play online with friends are sort of locked out of the game since it's not one you can blow through in two hours but it's also difficult to play online with anyone. Your choice is playing CMSF or playing with your friends. You can see which one will win out most of the time, and that makes it not worth buying for lots of people who otherwise would.

It still is. WAY ahead of anything out there.

CMx2 is, at the least, a solid technical achievement. I feel like you may be letting that influence your view of the game, though.

The whole reason, in my view, for your design approach (I forget what you called it, but trying to make a simulation rather than something that produces correct-feeling results) is that it adds so much authenticity to the experience. You don't have to have silly abstractions like units with Hit Points that take less damage when they're fired at in cover vs in the open.

The thing is, when you're hovering 300m above the battlefield looking at blinking icons fighting each other (and the occasional distant tank or group of soldiers represented by three pixels each) you miss the lion's share of the authenticity. When you've got the game to the level that you're watching icons fighting each other, you don't have any sense that it's doing it any better or more accurately than any other game, like the much-maligned Company of Heroes, say. Is that icon making the other icon blink more realistically than it would in Company of Heroes? I don't know.

You put so much stock in the quality of the simulation, but that only matters as far as the player can see it. If the player can't see it, even in retrospect, then they might as well be playing any other RTS game.

See... this is the big problem here... you're completely wrong. CMx1 was always catered around single player. Heck, we didn't even have TCP/IP at all when we shipped CMBO. And since single players are STILL the majority of our customer base, and likely always will be, we're continuing to cater to our majority customers with features that even the MP customers need in order for them to enjoy the game.

You're not just catering to the majority - you're ensuring that the majority stays the majority. People who value multiplayer aren't likely to buy a game that has poor multiplayer support. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

You seem to seriously underestimate the similarity between your game and the mainstream. People who don't play wargames all the time don't have any kind of learning deficiency. There's no reason they (we) can't enjoy the CMx2 games. They're all fast-paced and on a close-up scale that's easy for people to get into and empathise with. The problems are more:

- you try so hard to drive people away with lacking UI, presentation and polish

- you make it so hard to play with so few gameplay options, especially multiplayer

- nobody even knows about the game, largely as a result of the first two

CMx2 is even a game that should advertise itself quite well with the multitude of little stories that each game produces (provided you're playing WeGo so you can actually see them).

We did... by making a great historical wargame. And by the reaction we've seen so far, I think we've done a pretty good job at that.

Steve

Nobody is arguing about your ability to make a great historical wargame. The argument is about whether it's worth playing when missing fundamental features, and it's one that many of us who don't play wargames exclusively are having right now.

Add me and Netherby to the list of people who were floored at finding out proper TCP/IP turn-based wasn't present in the CMSF demo.

And as a question, why wasn't TCP/IP WeGo designed from day one as a fundamental CMx2 feature? It's obvious you feel that proper TCP/IP WeGo would be expensive to add on now, but why wasn't the game engine designed with it in mind from the start?

[Noltyboy]

I dont see how TCP/IP WEGO is the be all end all. It can still end up being slow and disjointed like PBEM.

My example comes from Close combat: the longest day. My flat mate and i where playing a campaign over the internet but where both in the flat. We reach the Set up screen and i start happily placing my men. 5 minutes later im ready and click the "ready" button. 5 minutes later im still waiting for steve to finish setting up. "Oh well" says i and continue to wait, questioning his sexuality everynow and again over the chat feature but not getting a responce. 15 minutes later and im totaly fed up and head through to his room to slap him upside the head, only to find him happily chatting away to flatmates 3 and 4. Turns out he'd buggered off to the Heads and and grab a wet before getting chatting to the others and forgetting all about it. 20 minutes of my life wasted waiting for him and he was in the next room. What would i have done if that had been some (to quote jeremy clarkson) "Crayshy shexshy" dutch guy? Catch a plane? Ring his home phone?

Maybe i shouldnt post when ive had no sleep, i feel a little crazy!

[Battlefront.com]

Since the topic has shifted a bit, I'll chime in here...

It's not very surprising that a series with historically poor multiplayer support is primarily played single player.

Form can follow function, but function can follow form too. We understand that. However, we also understand that wargamers are traditionally not as likely to play multiplayer as are other types of players. Can we do more to support Multiplayer? Sure, and we've said we will. But we're not stupid... a great multiplayer suite of features, not backed up by a unique and highly detailed wargame underneath, is a DEATH SENTENCE for us. Which is why we have our priorities straight... good game first, good multiplayer options second.

The thing is, when you're hovering 300m above the battlefield looking at blinking icons fighting each other (and the occasional distant tank or group of soldiers represented by three pixels each) you miss the lion's share of the authenticity.

At 300m above Company of Heroes, or any other RTS for that matter, you won't have the same game experience as CM. It's not so much about seeing what the pixels do, it's what the pixels are doing that matters.

You put so much stock in the quality of the simulation, but that only matters as far as the player can see it. If the player can't see it, even in retrospect, then they might as well be playing any other RTS game.

No, this isn't the case at all. Even superficially this doesn't stand up.

You seem to seriously underestimate the similarity between your game and the mainstream. People who don't play wargames all the time don't have any kind of learning deficiency. There's no reason they (we) can't enjoy the CMx2 games. They're all fast-paced and on a close-up scale that's easy for people to get into and empathise with.

This is an age old falsehood. Wargame companies that have tried to hit the "broader market" have all failed, eventually. It's a pipe dream that every wargame company secretly wishes it could find the magic key to. We have probably come closer than any other, even more so that Close Combat in some ways, but we're still in a niche market. The single best way to succeed with a niche market product is to not fool oneself that it's anything but.

- you try so hard to drive people away with lacking UI, presentation and polish

Yup, you got us there! We said "how can we make sure we don't sell more games? By golly, I know!! We'll make sure we drive them away!"

- you make it so hard to play with so few gameplay options, especially multiplayer

You say this as if it's a fact that wargames with vast amounts of resources dumped into multiplayer development sell better than those which don't.

- nobody even knows about the game, largely as a result of the first two

No, that's largely because we don't spend millions of Dollars on advertising. Plus, how many game companies that you know of today will be gone tomorrow? Statistically, most. Being well known doesn't mean being successful.

Nobody is arguing about your ability to make a great historical wargame. The argument is about whether it's worth playing when missing fundamental features, and it's one that many of us who don't play wargames exclusively are having right now.

You are a demographic we want to cater to, but you're also known as a fickle and really demanding demographic. The sorts of features mass market MP centric players want are substantial and, IMHO, not likely to repay the development effort. Adding some features on top of what we have now? Sure, that would be a good thing and we're committed to it. But we refuse to take our eyes off the ball.

And as a question, why wasn't TCP/IP WeGo designed from day one as a fundamental CMx2 feature? It's obvious you feel that proper TCP/IP WeGo would be expensive to add on now, but why wasn't the game engine designed with it in mind from the start?

If you understood even 1/10th of what I wrote you wouldn't be asking this. So let me make it as clear as I can:

Our success is dependent upon pleasing our core niche audience. Fail that, we go out of business. We do not have unlimited resources and can not afford to invest heavily on discovering Big Foot and Nessie. Therefore, we focus on the gameplay first and everything else second. Multiplayer, months worth of "would be nice" user interface features, superfluous graphics, and lots of other things which are standard in mass market games and mass market gaming practices all take a back seat to the gameplay because without that we're nothing.

We have a successful business strategy that does not require us chasing after audiences that have a long track record of not wanting to play our type of games. We would much rather have a very strong, sustainable business based on pleasing the customer we know we have rather than potentially going out of business chasing pots of gold at the end of various rainbows.

This requires us to make certain decisions and those decisions do have ramifications. Not having the sort of multiplayer experience even we want is one of those. But we'll get there eventually. Fortunately, we're far more patient and deliberate with our decision making than our customers would be if they were in our shoes. Multiplayer options will be expanded, but only when and to the degree we feel is prudent within the Big Picture. And yes, a big part of the Big Picture is not doing things that force us to go out of business.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Oh, I forgot to address this:

And as a question, why wasn't TCP/IP WeGo designed from day one as a fundamental CMx2 feature? It's obvious you feel that proper TCP/IP WeGo would be expensive to add on now, but why wasn't the game engine designed with it in mind from the start?

I don't know where you got this notion, but it's flat out wrong. The game engine was designed, from the beginning, to have TCP/IP WeGo. But there's this thing about programming that's very interesting... no matter how many times snap our fingers... the features don't magically code themselves. These are not trivial features to implement. If they were... don't you think we'd have done them by now? Oh I forgot, you think we're purposefully trying to sabotage our sales potential

Seriously, it would probably be EASIER to add TCP/IP WeGo now than 4 years ago. Why? Because trying to debug a new single player game is difficult enough, but trying to debug a multiplayer game is a whole 'nother layer of fun. Now that the game is very stable, it's easier.

Sadly, snapping our fingers still doesn't produce meaningful results. If they did, we'd have flamethrowers and ground to air combat in the game now instead of at some later date. Same with a hundred other things people want.

Steve

[yllamana]

Oh, I forgot to address this:

I don't know where you got this notion, but it's flat out wrong. The game engine was designed, from the beginning, to have TCP/IP WeGo. But there's this thing about programming that's very interesting... no matter how many times snap our fingers... the features don't magically code themselves. These are not trivial features to implement. If they were... don't you think we'd have done them by now? Oh I forgot, you think we're purposefully trying to sabotage our sales potential

Seriously, it would probably be EASIER to add TCP/IP WeGo now than 4 years ago. Why? Because trying to debug a new single player game is difficult enough, but trying to debug a multiplayer game is a whole 'nother layer of fun. Now that the game is very stable, it's easier.

Sadly, snapping our fingers still doesn't produce meaningful results. If they did, we'd have flamethrowers and ground to air combat in the game now instead of at some later date. Same with a hundred other things people want.

Steve

I might respond to the other post later, but your somewhat insulting post aside - if the engine was designed from the ground up to have TCP/IP WeGo, why do you constantly refer to it as some herculean feat that will drain huge amounts of resources from everything else? I mean, you already have multiplayer WeGo. You already have TCP/IP real-time play. I obviously don't know the intricacies of your engine, but from where I'm standing it looks like almost all the pieces are already in place if you were designing it with it in mind from day one. On its own real-time TCP/IP should be significantly more difficult to implement than feature-complete (not this nonsense about no replay) WeGo play.

[kulik]

- you try so hard to drive people away with lacking UI, presentation and polish

This may be too much. Im on your side but i don't see a problem with UI, couldn't care less if there are some fancy animated menus and the game has all the polish it needs.

As much as i would love autopause in the realtime mode (if not tcp/ip wego) to get back to the old competetive wargaming days of mine. I wouldn't care less if this game has it if there wasn't things like foxholes, water, mortars, AT guns... which make the game what it is today and make me want to play it in the first place.

That said i can't think of any more crucial features that i would desperately need to enjoy the game.

Now it all comes down to how the game delivers its qualities to me and let me fully enjoy itself, and thats the point where things like multiplayer modes come in. Till now (CMSF) the bottleneck for fun the game can deliver to me was somewhere else, now its here, CMBN from the demo feels so good that i want to play it online and pure realtime and PBEM doesn't suit me (believe me i tried both).

[Magpie_Oz]

Just as an aside, does anyone have any experience where other software companies have explained the criteria and philosophy of their product, market analysis and business models to an open forum community to the same extent that Battlefront does?

Particularly to a thread that says "They Blew it" ?