Combat Mission : Shock Force - patch 1.11

> I think Battlefront is slowly realizing their real-time gaming
> customers might actually prefer ToW2

This is not something I would like to find myself contemplating O___o

"Vincenzo Beretta" <reckall.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:WQ34l.24560$J84.23897@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
>> I think Battlefront is slowly realizing their real-time gaming
>> customers might actually prefer ToW2
>
> This is not something I would like to find myself contemplating O___o

Addendum after I read the threads. They remind me of one favorite Tom
Clancy's adage "People look for complexity even when things are simple". All
those words, by both parts, to say basically two things:

1) CM:SF should have built on the strenghts of CM. It didn't *on even a
single count*. People were angry.
2) The developers are now backpedaling.

When a game offers less than its very own predecessor there is no need to
write books to explain "why" it's a bomb, or even debate the fact.

I wonder what happened. Battlefront, once upon a time, was smarter than
that.

> Suffering from the "Being Right Once" syndrome.

Well, at the end of the day one has the final responsibility for what he
does, so it's up to him/her to make the call (and suffer the consequences).

However it is still baffling. CM:SF negated everything good CM had. Thus
Battlefront , by going down the CM:SF route, basically declared that
*themselves* had been wrong.

Hmmm... Now that I think about it, I see a pattern emerging here ^___^

On Dec 23, 1:56 am, "eddyster...@hotmail.com"
<eddyster... RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Read all about it here :
>
> http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=...
>
> What is interesting to see is that slowly but steadily Battlefront
> seems to be backpedalling. A lot of CMx1 features they had declared
> dead with the CMx2 series are now getting re-introduced, probably in
> an attempt to woe back the lost turn-based pbem customers which were
> the backbone of the old CM series.
>
> These guys can explain it better than I can :
>
> http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread.php?t=81290
>
> What's not mentioned in that thread and might play a part as well is
> that not only is the upcoming Combat Mission : Normandy going to be
> challenged by the upcoming Western front game of the Panzer Command
> series but that they're setting themselves up for serious in-house
> competition as well as Theater of War 2 is *also* a real-time WWII 3D
> tactical level game *and* it undeniably has better graphics.
>
> I think Battlefront is slowly realizing their real-time gaming
> customers might actually prefer ToW2 and that having pushed away their
> turn-based gamers which were the mainstay of the series wasn't such a
> good idea after all.
>
> Greetz,
>
> Eddy Sterckx

Here's more about the game as patched to v1.11, which is currently
only available if you have the Battlefront version:

http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread.php?t=81324

On 23 Dez, 09:56, "eddyster...@hotmail.com" <eddyster....DeleteThis@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Read all about it here :
>
> http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=...
>
> What is interesting to see is that slowly but steadily Batlefront
> seems to be backpedalling. A lot of CMx1 features they had declared
> dead with the CMx2 series are now getting re-introduced, probably in
> an attempt to woe back the lost turn-based pbem customers which were
> the backbone of the old CM series.
>
> These guys can explain it better than I can :
>
> http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread.php?t=81290
>
> What's not mentioned in that thread and might play a part as well is
> that not only is the upcoming Combat Mission : Normandy going to be
> challenged by the upcoming Western front game of the Panzer Command
> series but that they're setting themselves up for serious in-house
> competition as well as Theater of War 2 is *also* a real-time WWII 3D
> tactical level game *and* it undeniably has better graphics.
>
> I think Battlefront is slowly realizing their real-time gaming
> customers might actually prefer ToW2 and that having pushed away their
> turn-based gamers which were the mainstay of the series wasn't such a
> good idea after all.
>
> Greetz,
>
> Eddy Sterckx

I was reading the thread at GameSquad, thinking about the time I tried
the demo for their North Africa game and I had an idea.
Having the VCR controls to view and replay the turn's events is nice,
but things could be better.
Suppose that instead of using a bar to show the processing they could
open a window and fill it with important events (casualties,targets
spotted, etc.) as the engine calculates the results.
You could have a icon and a line or two of text for each one, there is
no need to try to coordinate 3D graphics and turn calculations and the
player gets a nice summary of the turn in the end.
And after everything is done you could give the player a button to
"dock" the summary dialog to the edge of the screen, turning it into a
series of icons that act as VCR "bookmarks" that will focus the camera
and set the time for the player to watch what happened in glorious 3D.
So, what do you guys think, nice to have or crazy? Worth posting on
the Battlefront forums as a suggestion?

On 24 dec, 14:18, Paulo Vicente <Paulo.Alexandre.Vice... DeleteThis @gmail.com>
wrote:
> turning it into a
> series of icons that act as VCR "bookmarks" that will focus the camera
> and set the time for the player to watch what happened in glorious 3D.
> So, what do you guys think, nice to have or crazy? Worth posting on
> the Battlefront forums as a suggestion?

The problem will be determining where to put the bookmark. Ok, say a
T-72 got hit. Where do you put the bookmark ? at the moment it got
hit ? 1 second before as the muzzle flashed on the Abrams ? 5 seconds
before when the Abrams turned around the corner and spotted the T-72 ?
20 seconds before when the Abrams commander spotted the T-72 and moved
his tank into a good firing location ? And then there's the camera -
do you want it pov of the firer or the one who got fired on ?

Not to dampen your spirit, but there's a whole bunch of unanswered
questions regarding your idea.

But sure, why not post it a their forum - they're the experts

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

On 24 Dez, 13:30, "eddyster...@hotmail.com" <eddyster....DeleteThis@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On 24 dec, 14:18, Paulo Vicente <Paulo.Alexandre.Vice....DeleteThis@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > turning it into a
> > series of icons that act as VCR "bookmarks" that will focus the camera
> > and set the time for the player to watch what happened in glorious 3D.
> > So, what do you guys think, nice to have or crazy? Worth posting on
> > the Battlefront forums as a suggestion?
>
> The problem will be determining where to put the bookmark. Ok, say a
> T-72 got hit. Where do you put the bookmark ? at the moment it got
> hit ? 1 second before as the muzzle flashed on the Abrams ? 5 seconds
> before when the Abrams turned around the corner and spotted the T-72 ?
> 20 seconds before when the Abrams commander spotted the T-72 and moved
> his tank into a good firing location ? And then there's the camera -
> do you want it pov of the firer or the one who got fired on ?
>
> Not to dampen your spirit, but there's a whole bunch of unanswered
> questions regarding your idea.
>
> But sure, why not post it a their forum - they're the experts
>
> Greetz,
>
> Eddy Sterckx

If it was one of your T-72s then the bookmark would focus the camera
on him 5 seconds before the shot hits, from that starting point you
could use the normal VCR controls and the camera to see what he was
doing at the time and look for the shooter.
The focus and the time could be tuned for each type of event (unit
killed, unit killing something, unit spotting something, etc. ), you
could even put this stuff in some kind of configuration file that the
player could edit if he wants.
Something like:

FOCUS=MYUNIT or HISUNIT
DISTANCE=100 (in meters)
DELAY=5 (in seconds)

Anyway the bookmark is there mostly as a reminder of what happened in
the turn and a starting point for your own investigations so getting
an exact time and angle shouldn't be that important.

On 24 dec, 15:57, Paulo Vicente <Paulo.Alexandre.Vice....DeleteThis@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 24 Dez, 13:30, "eddyster...@hotmail.com" <eddyster....DeleteThis@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 24 dec, 14:18, Paulo Vicente <Paulo.Alexandre.Vice....DeleteThis@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > turning it into a
> > > series of icons that act as VCR "bookmarks" that will focus the camera
> > > and set the time for the player to watch what happened in glorious 3D.
> > > So, what do you guys think, nice to have or crazy? Worth posting on
> > > the Battlefront forums as a suggestion?
>
> > The problem will be determining where to put the bookmark. Ok, say a
> > T-72 got hit. Where do you put the bookmark ? at the moment it got
> > hit ? 1 second before as the muzzle flashed on the Abrams ? 5 seconds
> > before when the Abrams turned around the corner and spotted the T-72 ?
> > 20 seconds before when the Abrams commander spotted the T-72 and moved
> > his tank into a good firing location ? And then there's the camera -
> > do you want it pov of the firer or the one who got fired on ?
>
> > Not to dampen your spirit, but there's a whole bunch of unanswered
> > questions regarding your idea.
>
> > But sure, why not post it a their forum - they're the experts
>
> > Greetz,
>
> > Eddy Sterckx
>
> If it was one of your T-72s then the bookmark would focus the camera
> on him 5 seconds before the shot hits, from that starting point you
> could use the normal VCR controls and the camera to see what he was
> doing at the time and look for the shooter.
> The focus and the time could be tuned for each type of event (unit
> killed, unit killing something, unit spotting something, etc. ), you
> could even put this stuff in some kind of configuration file that the
> player could edit if he wants.
> Something like:
>
> FOCUS=MYUNIT or HISUNIT
> DISTANCE=100 (in meters)
> DELAY=5 (in seconds)
>
> Anyway the bookmark is there mostly as a reminder of what happened in
> the turn and a starting point for your own investigations so getting
> an exact time and angle shouldn't be that important.

I like the idea - mostly because I am graphics minded enough to enjoy
a close-up re-run of a tank blowing up after being ambushed by my PaK.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

On Dec 23, 5:33 am, "Vincenzo Beretta" <reck....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Vincenzo Beretta" <reck....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggionews:WQ34l.24560$J84.23897@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
> Addendum after I read the threads. They remind me of one favorite Tom
> Clancy's adage "People look for complexity even when things are simple". All
> those words, by both parts, to say basically two things:

> 1) CM:SF should have built on the strenghts of CM. It didn't *on even a
> single count*. People were angry.
> 2) The developers are now backpedaling.

> When a game offers less than its very own predecessor there is no need to
> write books to explain "why" it's a bomb, or even debate the fact.

On Dec 23, 5:33 am, "Vincenzo Beretta" <reck....RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Vincenzo Beretta" <reck....RemoveThis@hotmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggionews:WQ34l.24560$J84.23897@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
>
> When a game offers less than its very own predecessor there is no need to
> write books to explain "why" it's a bomb, or even debate the fact.

Content wise, that's certainly the case.

However, it didn't really matter whether or not the fans of CM1 were
happy with the first three games, because sales declined with each
release.

To make a profit and remain a viable game developer, BF decided that
they had to:

1) Lower their development costs by offering less content

2) Broaden the game's appeal/audience

Everything else that you read about these games has to be viewed
through that prism.

If Steve is successful in both those regards, he can stay in business.

If not, he's toast.

Nostalgia won't pay the bills.

On Dec 25, 2:06 pm, KG_Jag <wburb....DeleteThis@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> BTW--Steve has always said that they made a very nice living with CM x
> 1.

He's also said that each new version of CM1 undersold its predecessor.

It doesn't matter if a developer/publisher has a loyal base of
customers when that base is constantly contracting.

BTW, I'm not arguing the merits of CM1 vs CM2, here.

By virtue of the truly MASSIVE level of content in those games, CM1
wins.

But, that's not the point.

They couldn't go on making CM1 and sell enough copies to their "loyal
fans" to survive.

That's why Steve was/is willing to stiff "them" on so many levels,
like not issuing a "Vista-patch" so that folks could go on playing
with on the new OS.

BF appears committed to making money selling content-thin modules that
can be developed for a small-fraction of what it cost to put out a CM1
title.

If we are to believe Steve's public comments, those are the facts.

On Dec 25, 1:25 pm, rus4e....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com wrote:
> If we are to believe Steve's public comments, those are the facts.

Ahh...there are the rubs! Which public comments of Steve's are we to
believe? The ones that say or clearly infer "A" or the ones that say
or clear imply "-A"?

Steve has never given any sales figures and he certainly has not
broken things down between direct sales, and those by Paradox and the
like. He has said that they get very little money per unit for other
than direct sales by Battlefront.

CMBO was initially and for years thereafter a Battlefront direct sales
only release. CMSF game out of the gate with Paradox, undoubtedly
because of Battlefront's now all-but-lost reputation as quality war
game company. After the debacle of the summer of 2007 and the $5.98
copies of CMSF that have been dumped for some time at Half Priced
Books and other retailers, when do you think Battlefront will land
it's next big distribution deal? Never...or longer?

It's hardly surprising that sales of the latest version in a 3D
tactical WW2 game series, using a game engine that was five or six
years old by the time CMAK came out, would not sell as well as
previous titles. Build a new and improved game engine for the market
segment that you have controlled for almost decade, and give it the
ability to open the door to all tactical 3D combat from the Stone Age
to Space Lobsters, then you have an all but sure path to a successful,
if not necessarily gold encased, future.

> 1) Lower their development costs by offering less
> content

> 2) Broaden the game's appeal/audience

> Everything else that you read about these games has to be
> viewed through that prism.

Hmmm... I'm sorry for Battlefront, but this doesn't seem to be a sound plan.

1) You are worried because the sales of your games are declining, and, to
put a stop to that, you *offer less content*??

2) I really don't see how an obscure war can "broaden the game
appeal/audience" more than WWII

Had Battlefront cut the corner by offering a CM2 composed by the first three
titles, interlocked, updated to the latest engine (CM:AK) and with the still
missing early war part (AKA: "Combat Mission: Steel Panthers"), I would have
bought it up stat (let's put aside for a moment the DRM problem). I don't
understand how they can hope to make more money by offering less and about a
less interesting period.