View Full Version : Battlefront opens CMx2 with 2007 desert hypo war
So what do you think? Here's the link:
http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=000289
I'm disappointed with their choice. There is no connection to any of the CM games from which to make a direct comparison between the engines. There is no connection to history. This is a hypothetical brush war set in the desert.
It makes no sense from a marketing point of view to open with this game. Their initial release should have a direct tie to the three games they released using CMx1. Sure they could have gone to the Pacific in WW II or the Korean War. But going ahead 62 years to 2007 makes no sense and does not appeal to demonstrated areas of interest held by their loyal customer base.
British Tommy
08 Oct 05, 21:05
I think BF might see a big slump in sales when it's released. Sure, some players will go for the modern day battles but the bulk of players wanted either WW2 or slightly later. Only time will tell but in the meanwhile we still have the three CM games which will still be played in 5 years time :)
When the demo comes out I will give it a try, just like I did with that tank sim ( now deleted from my HD for ever ).
The Purist
08 Oct 05, 22:14
It does make sense from a development point of view as well as from the business side of things. If they can solve the missile flight problems a bazooka rocket should be a snap. That being said, I have limited time for games and will wait for WWII. I did note that they did not mention anything about scenarios, operations or multi-player (ie: H-to-H via email ability). The mythical campaign isn't really my thing either, I prefer the historical battles and scenarios,...too much of a purist, I guess :halo: .
Read the BFC post-
Sounds reasonable to me, I have no problem with their "plans."
Graphics look ok.
But I could care less about "modern warfare" game playing wise so I'll wait for whatever WW2 "thing" they put out- assuming it has a PBEM option. If not it's CoD2 all the way for my next purchase.
I think BF might see a big slump in sales when it's released. Sure, some players will go for the modern day battles but the bulk of players wanted either WW2 or slightly later. Only time will tell but in the meanwhile we still have the three CM games which will still be played in 5 years time :)
When the demo comes out I will give it a try, just like I did with that tank sim ( now deleted from my HD for ever ).Speaking of T-72, I wonder how sales for it did? Surely they used that as a guideline for the "modern warfare" land combat market. To be honest, I tried the demo as well and promptly deleted it.
As some have hinted on the BFC forums and I posted at TPG, I think they're going for the defense dept. contract - or hoping for it at least.
ER_Chaser
09 Oct 05, 01:00
It will be interesting to see how one would model a future war at 3000x3000m scale :D I mean, wouldn't that be all levelled to a parking lot easily by one daisy-cutter? :D Shrug... so they choose...
It makes no sense from a marketing point of view to open with this game. Their initial release should have a direct tie to the three games they released using CMx1. Sure they could have gone to the Pacific in WW II or the Korean War. But going ahead 62 years to 2007 makes no sense and does not appeal to demonstrated areas of interest held by their loyal customer base.
Screw marketing. The Combat Mission guys are moving toward contemporary while I am moving TacOps toward WWII. Try working on a single topic for ten to twenty hours a day for ten years and see how fricken tired YOU get of it. :smoke:
A business can't afford to "screw" marketing or what their customers want. GM may be very tired of cranking out Chevys, but so what.
In less than 11 hours Battlefront has wracked up 177 posts on their web site under the thread of "Who's Disappointed" with the subject of their first release . I submit that speaks for itself.
In the "dissapointment" thread, probably the best response that I've read so far from BigDuke6:
My hobby is military history. Not CM per se. I am a big fan of CM1 because it teaches me about military history. But I can take or leave playing a computer game, just because it's a game on my computer.
A pretend invasion of Syria modeling an "asymetrical tactical scenario" (translation: steamroller vs. speed bump) is not compelling to me, at all. Clearly there are plenty of people that think that sort of thing is exciting.
I will definately check out the demo because BFI has such an outstanding record. I will be interested in seeing what kind of engine they come
up with.
But from where I stand military history and wargaming has taken a back seat to mass appeal, especially to the U.S. market. In effect, BFI has effectively decided it can sell more games to friends and fans of the modern U.S. military, than it can to an international audience of military history grogs and wargamers.
Still, I can understand BFI's WW2 burnout and need to generate income. I wish them the best, and I will probably be around when they get around to WW2 again.
Sums it up perfectly for me.
I wish BFC would stick to the winner that got them to this point...WWII based wargames. But, I guess they are burned out with it, but they could have done Korea or WWII Pacific. I will probably will buy Strike Force to see what the new engine is all about, but I won't be happy till the WWII part comes out.
BigMik1
GO ASTROS!!!
Doodlebug
09 Oct 05, 15:16
I don't know if anyone else agrees but I'm really uncomfortable with this as a game concept. Not at this time. It is too close to current events for my liking. It just feels, well, too political a subject to cover at this point. Or is it just me?
The Purist
09 Oct 05, 15:55
I don't know if anyone else agrees but I'm really uncomfortable with this as a game concept. Not at this time. It is too close to current events for my liking. It just feels, well, too political a subject to cover at this point. Or is it just me?
It depends,...will they allow the Syrian/Assymetrical side to purhase IEDs, Suicide Bombers and Car Bombs as OoB choices or will they take the route of Syrian military vs US miliatry? What about insurgents? Are they purchased like snipers or by the squad? How will they model civilians on the street during patrols?
Then again, had computers been around in 1939 - 45 we may have seen games being put out about the battles and campaigns. Although, they would likely have been terribly inaccurate due to unknown facts only discovered after the war by research.
Full Monty
09 Oct 05, 17:47
I think BF are being quite clever here. From what can be gathered from various threads spred over several forums the new engine may not at this stage support aspects of the gameplay that longtime CM players would expect. Therefore, by putting out a game set in the near future, they can 'test the water' to some extent without risking alienating the core of CM gamers.
No money from me then..........
I always knew Matrix was the real wargaming company.
I don't know if anyone else agrees but I'm really uncomfortable with this as a game concept. Not at this time. It is too close to current events for my liking. It just feels, well, too political a subject to cover at this point. Or is it just me?
I agree & you're not alone.
I find that playing a killing GAME simulating current conflicts in which soldiers & civillians are dying daily in poor taste: even though I was in GW1.
But I just can't bring myself to play such games. :nervous:
Strange that I can play WW2, past wars & conflicts but no modern stuff- especially FPS, but I can play WW2 FPS'ers. :crosseye:
How about this, Les is the first one to say something positive about a 3d game, will wonders never cease.
Ok first off, sure there is almost certainly a clique of noisy we want WWII people around, but, have you dropped by WinSPMBT lately? There actually isn't any shortage of wargamers demanding modern.
Or you can go and find those that whine that SPModerna was never finished. They want modern too.
I am not saying I plan to rush out and get this game. But that is possibly based on my views on 3d more than it being modern.
I like WinSPMBT by the way, and am thinking of dropping the 40 bucks on the cd to get what is really for the most part already a free game.
I think the only challenge facing CMx2 going modern first, is whether CM can even do modern in the first place.
Like the looks of the graphics in that post by Steve.
I'll play a wego 3d a loooooooooong time before I'll play anyone's real time 3d too.
KG_AirborneBob
10 Oct 05, 00:52
I agree with Palantir...Modeling a game in a potential "real Life" scenario is a little bit in bad taste. I too was in Gulf War I (101st Abn)...and I still get pissed off every time I watch Blackhawk Down..... :mad:
As far as the "new" marketing line: Dollars drive developement and if they think that the market is saturated with WWII then the market, not the decision makers will dictate where the company's future lay.
The thread in question at Battlefront drew 326 posts in just 28 hours before they locked it.
That thread:
http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=000292
What a surprise!
I'm not willing to shoot it down yet. I will wait and see. However, my interest is historical. For a game to catch me I need history or possible history. Also, I am burnt out on the modern stuff just from watching the news. I do think setting it in Syria is in poor taste. I will probably avoid this game just because I don't want to listen to a bunch of rambo wannabes screaming (I don't play against the AI), "Yah, we F*** yo up man! Turn the whole place into a glass crater! Killed me a raghead!" And on and on.
Trigger Happy
10 Oct 05, 02:34
They will have to make big maps if they want to fit modern war in the CM2 engine. It should be cool to see an atgm live...
besides that though, the setting sucks big time :halo:
give me the ruskies!!!
I agree & you're not alone.
I find that playing a killing GAME simulating current conflicts in which soldiers & civillians are dying daily in poor taste: even though I was in GW1.
But I just can't bring myself to play such games. :nervous:
Strange that I can play WW2, past wars & conflicts but no modern stuff- especially FPS, but I can play WW2 FPS'ers. :crosseye:
I don't know about "bad taste", but I might be a bit sympathetic towards seeing it being "tricky" selling a game, when the majority of the client base might have some personal history with the region that wasn't pleasant.
But now you guys know, why some of us slightly older types, might not want to rush out to buy something like Flashpoint Germany. I don't have fond memories of Fulda Gap, for the same reasons.
But bad taste? No, we all know it's just a game, we all say so the moment there is no "personal history" on our part involved.
Chances of getting my grandfather to play a WW2 game, totally zero. He didn't have any fond memories of the long left flank while touring europe with the Cinderella army.
The Purist
10 Oct 05, 09:43
For my tatses, being cold warrior in my youth, if they wanted to go modern they could have used an alternate timeline from the early 70's up through the lates 80's in Europe. Leopards and T-62s I could handle,....todays wars are more likely to be counter-insugency wars since there are few armies that can stand in the path of a conventinal US/Nato equipped attack.
For my tatses, being cold warrior in my youth, if they wanted to go modern they could have used an alternate timeline from the early 70's up through the lates 80's in Europe.Ah, but no defense department would have any interest in rehashing the cold war via this combat simulator!
[tinfoil hat on]
Read into my response as putting me in the camp with others that think that there's alternative reasons for this selected subject matter. Who besides a defense department head can get excited about this release, honestly? Gone are the tank duels of the Ostfront. Gone are the encircling and destroying MG nests and bunkers. All new is IED's and civilan insurgency with no real command structure. Might be fun as a FPS ala FSW where it doesn't really matter as long as you're running around shooting things, but to play it turn based, with no campaign and only one sided (in the pre-scripted scenarios at least) is going to appeal to only the most diehard of the subject matter or to the BFC fan who would buy anything that they put out just because.
My guess at the conundrum that the folks at BFC faced when this brainchild was born (whoever pushed it, must of pushed hard): 1. release this distraction to the wargame community that will alienate the loyal fanbase first in the hopes of landing a contract -or- 2. release it after putting out an obligatory WWII version, hoping that the brilliance of the new engine will entice people to buy a modern day diversion later - at the expense of missing that opportunity of landing the contract should the real U.S. military expand it's current operations, as they seem to think they will, before they can release it.
I mean, let's face it - a high demand for Syria 2007 there isn't. Either marketing has really misread the gaming community, they hope to have some ground-breaking new foray in PC gaming, or they have a different goal in mind altogether.
[/tinfoil hat off]
I've seen the view that GJK just expressed floated at the Battlefront forum. As I recall it generated a non-denial-semi-denial by Battlefront on their own forum.
Thus I must conclude that GJK does not need to wear a tin hat and is spot on. This is not a product aimed at Battlefront's loyal customer base. It is a marketing tool to shag a government contract or two. Battlefront has decided to run the risk that their customer base will not be significantly eroded when they decide to put out a game aimed at what its current customers want (and that is not just WW II Europe).
Doodlebug
10 Oct 05, 12:08
Battlefront has decided to run the risk that their customer base will not be significantly eroded when they decide to put out a game aimed at what its current customers want (and that is not just WW II Europe).
They could be right. I can see myself still playing in four years and encountering new situations. There are units (and nationalities!) I have never played with yet.
CPangracs
10 Oct 05, 12:39
A business can't afford to "screw" marketing or what their customers want. GM may be very tired of cranking out Chevys, but so what.
In less than 11 hours Battlefront has wracked up 177 posts on their web site under the thread of "Who's Disappointed" with the subject of their first release . I submit that speaks for itself.
GM may crank-out "Chevy's", but they NEVER have the EXACT same model EVERY year, right?
Just because some people can't see their way out of their comfort zone is no reason to disparage BF and their BUSINESS decisions. If they bowed to every whim of they gaming audience they would have gone out of business years ago.
The only thing that thread at the BF forums shows is that there a bunch of mice out there who are having a coniption that someone is planning on moving their cheese. I think its a personal issue some of the whiners need to get over.
CPangracs
10 Oct 05, 12:46
I've seen the view that GJK just expressed floated at the Battlefront forum. As I recall it generated a non-denial-semi-denial by Battlefront on their own forum.
Thus I must conclude that GJK does not need to wear a tin hat and is spot on. This is not a product aimed at Battlefront's loyal customer base. It is a marketing tool to shag a government contract or two. Battlefront has decided to run the risk that their customer base will not be significantly eroded when they decide to put out a game aimed at what its current customers want (and that is not just WW II Europe).
Or maybe it is an attempt to draw OTHER gamers into their audience instead of the same old Patton and Monty wannabe's?
Maybe they want to spend the next six months building a game THEY want to build instead of always trying to bend towards the desires of a vocal few?
Maybe they are testing the waters, as a GOOD business is wont to do, to stay competitive?
Maybe they want to get involved in some of that big contractor money floating around these days amongst commercial game makers as incentive to create tools suitable for use to train today's profession of arms?
Who are you or anyone else to disparage their efforts? Do you think you are the only consumer of BF's products? It's not like they are abandoning the WWII genre, they are just trying something different, and you give birth to a cow the size of Philadelphia.
Unless you are a shareholder and on their board of directors, I would recommend you buy or don't buy the product(s) and speak with your wallet. Anything else is just immature.
Oh,...and have a nice day!:smoke:
CPangracs
10 Oct 05, 13:01
Ah, but no defense department would have any interest in rehashing the cold war via this combat simulator!
[tinfoil hat on]
Read into my response as putting me in the camp with others that think that there's alternative reasons for this selected subject matter. Who besides a defense department head can get excited about this release, honestly? Gone are the tank duels of the Ostfront. Gone are the encircling and destroying MG nests and bunkers. All new is IED's and civilan insurgency with no real command structure. Might be fun as a FPS ala FSW where it doesn't really matter as long as you're running around shooting things, but to play it turn based, with no campaign and only one sided (in the pre-scripted scenarios at least) is going to appeal to only the most diehard of the subject matter or to the BFC fan who would buy anything that they put out just because.
My guess at the conundrum that the folks at BFC faced when this brainchild was born (whoever pushed it, must of pushed hard): 1. release this distraction to the wargame community that will alienate the loyal fanbase first in the hopes of landing a contract -or- 2. release it after putting out an obligatory WWII version, hoping that the brilliance of the new engine will entice people to buy a modern day diversion later - at the expense of missing that opportunity of landing the contract should the real U.S. military expand it's current operations, as they seem to think they will, before they can release it.
I mean, let's face it - a high demand for Syria 2007 there isn't. Either marketing has really misread the gaming community, they hope to have some ground-breaking new foray in PC gaming, or they have a different goal in mind altogether.
[/tinfoil hat off]
There are two reasons why people think like this, a lack of contemporary military skills and an inate fear of learning anything new.
Ask any combat veteran if what they've been doing in Iraq has been "simple" or "uninteresting", and you will likely be spitting teeth for a couple hours.
Today's profession of arms is easily the most complex and daunting task a soldier/leader can face. It was rather easy to quickly identify and engage the enemy in WWII. It is almost impossible to isolate and engage an enemy on today's battlefield until AFTER the other guy shoots first or sets-off an IED!
Employing the equipment and intel assets available to today's commander is an exercise in precision, synchronization, and decision-making never thought of before, and it is a challenging task to even comprehend the flow of information and the tasking of the right people for the right job.
Today's military actions make even the most difficult WWII situation look like a simple game of RISK. Intimating otherwise is naive and shows an inherent lack of knowledge about making war.
I understand - it's easier to rehash Stalingrad than it is to cordon and search Fallujah, but it is also something a MILLION people have already done, and probably much better than you! Only one person was in command of that task force that entered that city and lost 1/4 of his combat power in the first moments. THAT is a challenge and a lesson I can't wait to recreate, dissect, and analyze.
As I've said before, today's contemporary wargame is tomorrow's "WWII game". Anything based on the GWOT will be a permanent addition to my gaming inventory to be sure. I own exactly 4 WWII-specific computer wargaming titles because it is an era that has been rehashed and gamed to death, and we can no longer rely on lessons from that era and apply them to today's modern warfare. Some of the more futuristic wargames WILL be the contemporary games of tomorrow as we near the age of competent robotics to wage war.
Think about it...
WW2 is well represented at most gaming levels- forays into other, more recent (or future), venues will be refreshing and should be encouraged.
There unfortunately (has been, will be) enough war to go around to model games after, that will suit all of us...
Double Deuce
10 Oct 05, 13:22
I think I could go for it BUT like was mentioned before, the maps would have to be very big to accomodate the ranges of todays weapon systems.
All in all it could just turn out to be your current CM on steriods with a bigger playing area. This may be why the mention there will probably be NO Pbem mode. Can anyone imagine the size of the files if there are maps 3-4 times the current size, not to mention factoring in the terrain and units with even higher resolution graphics? :eek:
Curt I don't believe that you have been following the car market very closely. Maybe this isn't a Chevy, but instead an Edsel. But you seem to miss the point. Indeed you have avoided speaking to the mass of CM customers who haved expressed displeasure. With apologies to Sonny and Cher: "It ain't just me babe!" Essentially no one is looking for the same game over and over again. The focus of CMx2 on smaller (company level tactics) alone will make this a different series of games, regardless of the setting.
Curt you have somehow concluded, without any support, that my "comfort level" is World War II gaming. In that same vain, I could conclude that you, who have told us that you are moving from modern war gaming to WW II wargaming, are defending BF because you are invested in that company. But I won't do that. In fact my alleged "comfort zone" is not the issue. The fact that Battlefront has moved away from both 1. historically based games and 2. Games between major historical powers has moved their planned initial release from my "interest zone." I would have had a far different reaction if the first release had concerned any of the followiing non-exclusive topics: U.S. Civil War, World War I, World War II Pacific, Korean War, or 1970s/1980's Nato vs. Soviets and Allies. And while everyone's list may be slightly different, the posts both here and at Battlefront demonstrate that many, many others are of a like mind.
Finally who am I to comment and criticize Battlefront and their actions? Well I am a wargamer with over 40 years of experience, an avid historian with two degrees, including one in business from leading university, and someone who has played and bought Big Time/Battlefront games for years (starting long before CMBO came out). But most important it is because I am a member of this forum. One of the key purposes of this and other such forums is to discuss topics exactly like this one. Curt it appears to be your contention that because I (and almost everyone else on this forum) should say nothing and indeed have no standing to say anything negative about Battlefront (or Ubisoft for that matter) because I (we) hold no vote on the board of Battlefront.com, Inc. (or by extension at Ubisoft). That's an odd view. Consumers in the U.S., home of BF, frequently express displeasure in products, changes in products, corporate decisions of all types and even organize campaigns to convince comapnies to change their actions. The smart and successful companies are those who listen to their customers and make adjustments if and when they can admit they have made a mistake and/or can make changes/improvements. It's also an odd view because Battlefront is closely held and there is no opportunity to join its ownership.
KG_AGCent
10 Oct 05, 13:45
GM may crank-out "Chevy's", but they NEVER have the EXACT same model EVERY year, right?
Just because some people can't see their way out of their comfort zone is no reason to disparage BF and their BUSINESS decisions. If they bowed to every whim of they gaming audience they would have gone out of business years ago.
The only thing that thread at the BF forums shows is that there a bunch of mice out there who are having a coniption that someone is planning on moving their cheese. I think its a personal issue some of the whiners need to get over.
First bit of real insight I have read on this thread. I for one am looking forward to the release because of the experience with previous BFC flagship products. It may not be my pet time slot in history, but it is sure to be interesting.
Edit - I wrote this prior to Jag's thread showing up. His comments are as always astute clearly written, I still am a bit giddy about a new BFC product. They have poured their hearts, minds and souls into this new engine and if their efforts are equal to what they did in the previous 3 titles, I don't doubt that it will be a quality product in spite of ones own historical fetish.
CPangracs
10 Oct 05, 14:19
Curt I don't believe that you have been following the car market very closely. Maybe this isn't a Chevy, but instead an Edsel. But you seem to miss the point. Indeed you have avoided speaking to the mass of CM customers who haved expressed displeasure. With apologies to Sonny and Cher: "It ain't just me babe!" Essentially no one is looking for the same game over and over again. The focus of CMx2 on smaller (company level tactics) alone will make this a different series of games, regardless of the setting.
Curt you have somehow concluded, without any support, that my "comfort level" is World War II gaming. In that same vain, I could conclude that you, who have told us that you are moving from modern war gaming to WW II wargaming, are defending BF because you are invested in that company. But I won't do that. In fact my alleged "comfort zone" is not the issue. The fact that Battlefront has moved away from both 1. historically based games and 2. Games between major historical powers has moved their planned initial release from my "interest zone." I would have had a far different reaction if the first release had concerned any of the followiing non-exclusive topics: U.S. Civil War, World War I, World War II Pacific, Korean War, or 1970s/1980's Nato vs. Soviets and Allies. And while everyone's list may be slightly different, the posts both here and at Battlefront demonstrate that many, many others are of a like mind.
Finally who am I to comment and criticize Battlefront and their actions? Well I am a wargamer with over 40 years of experience, an avid historian with two degrees, including one in business from leading university, and someone who has played and bought Big Time/Battlefront games for years (starting long before CMBO came out). But most important it is because I am a member of this forum. One of the key purposes of this and other such forums is to discuss topics exactly like this one. Curt it appears to be your contention that because I (and almost everyone else on this forum) should say nothing and indeed have no standing to say anything negative about Battlefront (or Ubisoft for that matter) because I (we) hold no vote on the board of Battlefront.com, Inc. (or by extension at Ubisoft). That's an odd view. Consumers in the U.S., home of BF, frequently express displeasure in products, changes in products, corporate decisions of all types and even organize campaigns to convince comapnies to change their actions. The smart and successful companies are those who listen to their customers and make adjustments if and when they can admit they have made a mistake and/or can make changes/improvements. It's also an odd view because Battlefront is closely held and there is no opportunity to join its ownership.
You missed the point of MY post, and I think you barely read it. I never said anything about me moving over to WWII games - I said I only own 4 of them because they are, for the most part, overdone, hackneyed, and hold no real challenge for me. I never intimated you or anyone else should say NOTHING about BF's decision, but to blast Battlefront for their BUSINESS decisions and whine that they have left their audience is ridiculous and is, in fact, counter-productive. Whining about it isn't going to endear any further comment from you to the people that make the decisions at Battlefront. I would go so far as to say any type of tone that can be considered as condescending or derogatory will be met with deaf ears and/or blind eyes.
BF has made a decision, WITHOUT your input, and it drives you and others here crazy, and for absolutely NO reason! CM2 is going to have a WWII pack for it, so where's the beef, except that it wasn't WWII for its original focus?! I think it's childish and equates to a little temper tantrum. I'm glad you have your degrees and experience, however, if you're not designing and building wargames for BF, then I would suggest that they don't mean squat.
Battlefield is known for its customer support and responsiveness to the gaming community. Now that they make one decision that doesn't involve many of YOUR interests, you roll around on the floor kicking and screaming that you have been betrayed.
I don't see how those degrees and wargaming experience would come in handy for this type of response.
I think it's the "fans" of BF who have abandoned them in their time expanding its horizons, and I hope you don't consider yourself as the spokeman for the bulk of CM fans, because I know quite a few who would disagree with you, if not publicly here or in BF's forums.
Have a nice day.
Curt
BTW, do you have any idea how much an original, intact Edsel, or a Tucker, or even a DeLorean, goes for these days?! :whist:
The bottom line is that the current crop of CM games are WW2 based and when BFC said they were upgrading to an entirely new engine "CMx2" of course the current CM "fans" wanted and expected a "newer" version since Combat Missions was WW2. You'd expect something called CM "x2" to be WW2 based as well.
And given that those players who bought the CM line (which is WW2- again) like playing in WW2 settings then of course they're not all that thrilled with the first game on the CMx2 engine being Modern warfare.
BFC can do whatever they deem is the best for their business without imput from their loyal "fans." It just seems strange that when your loyal fans are still playing your WW2 simulations (all 3 versions) they'd avoid pleasing them first to try and bring in new players (maybe).
"Hey all you football fans before we broadcast any new football games we're going to be showing "Curling Matches" for the next six months instead. We know some of you like it (it's just a different sport) and we're betting (our business) the rest of you will as well!"
I guess they're hoping no one will be smart enough to just change to a different channel...
I'd think a business would want to "hold & recapture" those loyal fans who have proven that they really like your past games before trying to grab a "maybe" audience.
CM is a WW2 simulation and this is the SZO CM forum so who better than the people playing the game that we're discussing here post their personal comments?
A lot of the recent posts, by certain people, sound like the semi-offical line posted at BFC...
And speaking of such things- will someone let me know when I should "lock" this thread, :rolleyes: I'd hate for this subject to be really discussed, pondered, thought about, enjoyed and studied indepth by those interested in BFC's CMx2.
And as long as everyone is pleasant it will go on. :cheeky:
Still, no PBEM, no purchase on my end.
Edit- forgot this:
The SZO CM Forum is not an anti-BFC or pro-BFC site, it's a pro-CM site. Members can comment positively or negatively about any aspect of CM, that's why this forum exists. As long as the posts and comments are polite and well mannered anyone and any comment can be made without fear of being personally attacked. I don't see any comments previously made as being "whining / kick & screaming / or crying in nature. Just good old plain state your opinion comments- I hope my point was made.
Maybe they want to get involved in some of that big contractor money floating around these days amongst commercial game makers as incentive to create tools suitable for use to train today's profession of arms?
Who are you or anyone else to disparage their efforts? Do you think you are the only consumer of BF's products? It's not like they are abandoning the WWII genre, they are just trying something different, and you give birth to a cow the size of Philadelphia.
Unless you are a shareholder and on their board of directors, I would recommend you buy or don't buy the product(s) and speak with your wallet. Anything else is just immature.
Oh,...and have a nice day!:smoke:
Yes, you nailed it exactly I think. They want some of that "other" money - which is fine, that's their decision and their right. All that I (and I think many others) are saying is that we can see this and it is alienating those of us that have been loyal to the original game for years now - it's a subject that is not interesting to most of us and to some it's downright repulsive. But you are correct, this is their decision and they can make it. However, I think that if they don't land that contract or two (I'll withhold my speculations), then they'll be hurting because they're going to be off the mark for sales of this game (again, my prediction that isn't such a hard prediction to make).
IMHO - they'd of been better off announcing that CMx2 (the WWII game) is still in the works and is going to delayed a year "to add all this new cutting edge algorythms and graphics, etc, etc) and then quietly released CM:SF (without the CM part in the name) not revealing that that really has the CMx2 code in it. I think all of this outcry would of been avoided - you'd have some whiners saying "why is it taking another year" but that would quickly pass and we'd all go back into the "waiting" pool. With CM:SF being announced, you're now hearing of boycotts and yada yada yada. Again a big marketing SNAFU - IMHO.
A lot of the recent posts, by certain people, sound like the semi-offical line posted at BFC... And speaking of such things- will someone let me know when I should "lock" this thread, :rolleyes: I'd hate for this subject to be really discussed, pondered, thought about, enjoyed and studied indepth by those interested in BFC's CMx2.
Well ... if you prefer a discussion that contains only the views of disgruntled WWII fans then you could post a "Battlefront Sucks" closing message and lock it up right now. :)
Battle of the edits ...
Edit- forgot this: The SZO CM Forum is not an anti-BFC or pro-BFC site, it's a pro-CM site. Members can comment positively or negatively about any aspect of CM, that's why this forum exists. As long as the posts and comments are polite and well mannered anyone and any comment can be made without fear of being personally attacked. I don't see any comments previously made as being "whining / kick & screaming / or crying in nature. Just good old plain state your opinion comments- I hope my point was made.
Now that is a horse of a different color. :)
There are two reasons why people think like this, a lack of contemporary military skills and an inate fear of learning anything new.
Ask any combat veteran if what they've been doing in Iraq has been "simple" or "uninteresting", and you will likely be spitting teeth for a couple hours.
Today's profession of arms is easily the most complex and daunting task a soldier/leader can face. It was rather easy to quickly identify and engage the enemy in WWII. It is almost impossible to isolate and engage an enemy on today's battlefield until AFTER the other guy shoots first or sets-off an IED!
As a former Marine from 1982-86, I can only imagine the new stuff that those guys have to use and have to learn - and praises to them - but does an exploading IED on a HMMV make for an interesting game for the PC gaming community? I guess we'll see.
Well ... if you prefer a discussion that contains only the views of disgruntled WWII fans then you could post a "Battlefront Sucks" closing message and lock it up right now. :)
And thats the point- why shouldn't the players be able to voice their concerns & comments as long as it doesn't get nasty? Here it has no "business" impact as it does at BFC's site (although their allowed use of foul langauge & personal attacks baffles me professionally). Except for players getting long winded and going around in circles for a bit it only takes up a few kb's of lines.
Many of the comments make good points and interesting reading (the rest are just cute! :p ) about a subject & game we like.
I don't think anyone playing CM thinks BFC sucks just that they may at this moment be going in a direction other than one we'd like to see them go. The CM players like CM so they of course want BFC to succeed and bring us a new CM (with PBEM!!!) with all the bells & whistles.
...BFC's site (although their allowed use of foul langauge & personal attacks baffles me professionally).
Same here. On the Battlefront web site I almost never stray outside of the TacOps forum. Until Saturday or Sunday I didn't realize what a zoo the other areas had become. :surprise:
You missed the point of MY post, and I think you barely read it.
Hey! Just so you dont have to think about it to much, I barely read it too :bored:
I don't see how those degrees and wargaming experience would come in handy for this type of response.
Pray tell, what is? Do you have a super duper reason why your responses are better?
BF has made a decision, WITHOUT your input, and it drives you and others here crazy, and for absolutely NO reason!
not crazy - just dissapointed, they can make their decisions, we're just saying we probably wont buy it, and its making YOU crazy :nuts:
I think it's the "fans" of BF who have abandoned them in their time expanding its horizons, and I hope you don't consider yourself as the spokeman for the bulk of CM fans, because I know quite a few who would disagree with you, if not publicly here or in BF's forums.
We should buy it, cos it has BF's name on it?? :confused: You the marketing manager for BF or something?
Members can comment positively or negatively about any aspect of CM, that's why this forum exists. As long as the posts and comments are polite and well mannered anyone and any comment can be made without fear of being personally attacked. I don't see any comments previously made as being "whining / kick & screaming / or crying in nature. Just good old plain state your opinion comments- I hope my point was made.
But i can swear a little right Kerry?
I do so like swearing.... :halo:
I had to restrain myself on that last post - i wanted to say kiss, and the A word with a couple s's :)
jaegertech
10 Oct 05, 18:18
It just doesn't seem like modern operations in the Middle East are really in the scope of a CM style game. The results of organized combat are fairly predetermined, and unorganized combat doesn't fit into the scale or timeframe of CM. You know that Syrian armored battalion doesn't have a prayer and a dozen guys hustling around in pickups to kill one or two patrolling infantry or light vehicles at a time doesn't really work for gameplay (by this I mean setting realistic victory conditions). Frankly, making a game that requires a focus on asymetrical warfare to work means the scale has been reduced to the squad/platoon level, and that just seems way too small to be done from a third person perspective.
I can't say this proposed release excites me at all. Cold War circa late 70s through mid 80s would have been extremely interesting.
But i can swear a little right Kerry?
I do so like swearing.... :halo: I had to restrain myself on that last post - i wanted to say kiss, and the A word with a couple s's :)
Umm no, and take the high road gentlemen!
:salute:
CPangracs
11 Oct 05, 08:08
As a former Marine from 1982-86, I can only imagine the new stuff that those guys have to use and have to learn - and praises to them - but does an exploading IED on a HMMV make for an interesting game for the PC gaming community? I guess we'll see.
No, it doesn't, but possibly being able to spot/disarm or avoid altoegether because of certain signs and clues IS interesting, and challenging. If you can, for one second, say that being in a situation where your decision could either save possibly tens or hundreds of lives or start a riot is not "interesting", I would submit to you that there is nothing left in this world to interest you! ;)
CPangracs
11 Oct 05, 08:15
IMHO - they'd of been better off announcing that CMx2 (the WWII game) is still in the works and is going to delayed a year "to add all this new cutting edge algorythms and graphics, etc, etc) and then quietly released CM:SF (without the CM part in the name) not revealing that that really has the CMx2 code in it. I think all of this outcry would of been avoided - you'd have some whiners saying "why is it taking another year" but that would quickly pass and we'd all go back into the "waiting" pool. With CM:SF being announced, you're now hearing of boycotts and yada yada yada. Again a big marketing SNAFU - IMHO.
Interesting. You are advocating that Battlefront LIE to its audience?! That's, umm, well, okay.
In my experience, most small gaming companies do NOT take bold leaps outside of their comfort zone unless:
1 - they have already been contracted to do so
2 - they have "hit the wall" as far as creativitiy and desire in the genre
or
3 - They have been purchased by someone who has a different idea about where the company should be.
Battlefront was/is upfront and honest with its fans, and at least one "fan" would rather have been lied to. How sad is that? :OHNO:
The Purist
11 Oct 05, 09:44
No, it doesn't, but possibly being able to spot/disarm or avoid altoegether because of certain signs and clues IS interesting, and challenging. If you can, for one second, say that being in a situation where your decision could either save possibly tens or hundreds of lives or start a riot is not "interesting", I would submit to you that there is nothing left in this world to interest you! ;)
Come now Curt. You don't really expect CM:SF to model disarming insurgents do you? It is more likely to be a tactical training program for house/block clearing and area control where insurgents are concerned and target practice where conventional forces are concerned. The players may not control battalions but they will still be engaged in "shoot-'em-ups".
There are two reasons why people think like this, a lack of contemporary military skills and an inate fear of learning anything new....Today's profession of arms is easily the most complex and daunting task a soldier/leader can face.
This is only an opinion. No one is expressing afear of learning something , only a lack of interest in the genre. May one ask when was the last time you patrolled in Fallujah?
It was rather easy to quickly identify and engage the enemy in WWII. It is almost impossible to isolate and engage an enemy on today's battlefield until AFTER the other guy shoots first or sets-off an IED!
Are you sure of that, Curt? Plenty of dead men and destroyed equipment in every theatre could probably attest to something different. I seriously doubt civilian crowds, suicide bombers or car bombs will be modelled other than as a form of booby-trap in any game released for public consumption.
Employing the equipment and intel assets available to today's commander is an exercise in precision, synchronization, and decision-making never thought of before, and it is a challenging task to even comprehend the flow of information and the tasking of the right people for the right job.
Yet the game will be WEGO so the player will have all the time he needs to scroll around, change angles and use the game mechanics to override reality. The rest is just your opinion, again. :p
Today's military actions make even the most difficult WWII situation look like a simple game of RISK. Intimating otherwise is naive and shows an inherent lack of knowledge about making war.
My word! Aren't you expert on "modern tactics versus insurgenies set in an urban environment". Why are you here instead of inside the innermost ring of the Pentagon. :) Are you so sure the major battles in Stalingrad or the Huertgen Forest were as simple as risk or that infantry tactics in Baghdad require a PhD? :cheeky:
I think the level of discomfort many are feeling over SF is that it is a little too close to home. In CM we are quite happy to level entire towns with artillery and completely destroy our opponents pixelated soldiers. Pixels don't bleed. CM:SF in Syria on the otherhand is a little too close to watching the television news, except now it is on our monitors and we are the ones directing the squad/platoon/company.
I do not think that any of us actually believe we are learning much about real tactics in WWII by playing CM, there are just too many ways to cheat on reality with knowledge of the game. CM:SF will not likely be much different once a player learns the tricks, so the ability to learn anything useful is limited.
Cheers.
CPangracs
11 Oct 05, 10:07
Check your quotes, Gerry!
CPangracs
11 Oct 05, 10:14
I do not think that any of us actually believe we are learning much about real tactics in WWII by playing CM, there are just too many ways to cheat on reality with knowledge of the game. CM:SF will not likely be much different once a player learns the tricks, so the ability to learn anything usefull is limited.
With the proper learning objectives and guidance, I DO, in fact, think people can actually learn from this game, just as Chess taught Kings how to wage war.
Even the simple game of Go, also known as "Encirclement", can teach a valuable lesson if couched properly.
I guess I just look at wargames with more of an eye towards using them as tools more than just entertainment. And if it is entertaining for some people to destroy people of any nationality, the arguments flying around that it is "too close to home" are ridiculous. Some games, such as TacOps, are being used to prepare leaders in Iraq for convoys and even cordon and search activities before actually performing the mission.
Modern day wargames are tools in addition to being a way to understand what is going on in specific areas in the GWOT and such. Some people just don't have the stomach for the realities of combat, and prefer something so far removed as to be sanitized for their protection. After years of seeing the results of car crashes and suicides, I can relate to this.
I do believe that we (CM'ers) are playing a game and expected a new game of WW2 from BFC (why else call it CMx2?). :halo:
I have no desire (now as I already did my duty) to learn and become the expert soldier on the modern battlefield through CMx2. If I wanted that from a game I certainly would not expect it from CMx2 but from an upgraded "Call of Duty 3" type. :devious:
It seems to me Curt (& correct me if I'm wrong) that you want us to learn modern house to house clearing & counter-insurgency tactics from CMx2. But that is not what CM was built on, it was on WW2 tactics.
Besides I'm not going to play a game to LEARN how to really kill people house to house "the modern way". (Somebody let me know ahead of time IF I need to know that skill before I go out to the store again). If I wanted to learn that "real ability" I'd re-up.
Btw- I'm not sure who really wants to "learn" things from a game about killing & destroying things- what in real life can you learn & use from that? But next time I'm driving a Tiger through a Russian village I'll put into practice all I've learned from CMBB. :laugh:
Sure if you use it (games/simulations) as training guides for soldiers it has a purpose. But I can't recall a news flash that said BFC was making CMx2 as a training tool. The only thing I heard was that they were going to create a great new CM called "CMx2." But then if they are making it as a modern game as a modern training tool why do I care about it, I won't be buying it either way.
I'm playing a game for fun: and yes we all have our limits as to what level of simulated violence we are willing to deal with. Mine involves killing pixels that represent live breathing soldiers, some of which could be my family members currently serving.
WW2 (etc) is past history, the dust has settled we can now enjoy the tactics, heroism, bravery and have fun trying to recreate it.
But, if BFC wants to go that modern route thats fine, it's just not what I want to do with my $40 or my time.
British Tommy
11 Oct 05, 13:56
When BF started working on the new game engine, they knew the first release would not be a WW2 game. Yet they let the players build themselves up to a frenzy speculating on the next game. Why didn't they simply say much earlier, " sorry guys, we are sick of doing WW2 stuff for the moment. The next game will be set for modern battles in the far East".
This would of been much better and ok, some would of been disappointed but you wouldn't of had the backlash from the wargaming community that's happening now.
I wish BF success with this new game and future games but I will not be buying the modern stuff, especially with those settings talked about earlier.
CPangracs
11 Oct 05, 17:53
When BF started working on the new game engine, they knew the first release would not be a WW2 game. Yet they let the players build themselves up to a frenzy speculating on the next game. Why didn't they simply say much earlier, " sorry guys, we are sick of doing WW2 stuff for the moment. The next game will be set for modern battles in the far East".
This would of been much better and ok, some would of been disappointed but you wouldn't of had the backlash from the wargaming community that's happening now.
I wish BF success with this new game and future games but I will not be buying the modern stuff, especially with those settings talked about earlier.
Maybe you shouldn't "assume" anything? It's funny, one guy on BF forums wanted BF to LIE to the gaming community and NOT tell them what they were doing at all, and just stating that the WWII CMx2 would be released in a year!
As Lincoln said, "You can please some of the people some of the time..." :rolleyes:
Maybe you shouldn't "assume" anything? It's funny, one guy on BF forums wanted BF to LIE to the gaming community and NOT tell them what they were doing at all, and just stating that the WWII CMx2 would be released in a year!
As Lincoln said, "You can please some of the people some of the time..." :rolleyes:That "one guy" was me, here, about 5 posts ago -sorry that your memory is so short. I would also say that you're pretty gullable if you think that BFC has been totally honest in this whole thing.
Not picking any person's veiw to support here, but I read much more than I normally do, and some "interesting" comments all in all.
But one detail of merit worth bringing into the light of day.
If 100 disgruntled posters at Battlefront were making all of this noise (and I picked 100 as a number out of thin air, I don't have time to go count posts), one important comment needs to be made.
Is 100 disgruntled posters sufficiently representative of the entire eligible CM market?
Lots of games out there, have some very active very supportive posters on a selection of forums. And in plenty of cases, it is the same person on multiple forums too.
Would it be logical for Battlefront to panic over 100 hysterical fans?
Has Battlefront conducted other forms of market research which we ordinary fans are unaware of?
I still say the audience of modern liking wargamers is not totally insignificant. It doesn't always have to be WW2.
I agree with you Aries, and I think - no I know that BFC is banking on the fact that the outcry on the forums there isn't but a small fraction of the total buying market. I would base that off the reply that BFC had to the "pbem" conundrum - and their response at the outcry from those saying that they wouldn't buy the game with no pbem (this was before it became CM:SF) - their reply was that those on the forums were just a small percentage of players and that their research showed that most people choose to play the AI.
airBiscuit
11 Oct 05, 19:52
Then again, had computers been around in 1939 - 45 we may have seen games being put out about the battles and campaigns.
Oh, but we did have computers then! In fact, CMBO loads up very nicely on the ENIAC I have in the shed out back. It only blows a half dozen vacuum tubes when I hit GO.
Now can CM2 do that?? I don't think so! :nuts:
Although, they would likely have been terribly inaccurate due to unknown facts only discovered after the war by research.
A very good point regarding the wargames attempting to simulate warfare of today. There is too much that is not known about the present, and too much that is classified for us to know we are properly simulating a modern battle situation. All we can do is be satisfied with what is public knowledge and a healthy amount of conjecture.
KG_AirborneBob
11 Oct 05, 20:55
Will CMx2 incorporate the Combined Arms doctrine...Ground and Air combined to form an assault force. Lets face it..as ground pounders go...we always loved the sound of A-10's or AH-64's on station tapping out targets with Hellfire or 20mm. Granted it lasts all but 30 seconds, but how is that to be dipicted, planned or plotted? In CMBO/BB/AK...you never know when or if they show, and what target will be hit. Are laser designators going to be the Blue Line for line of sight?
Heck I'd just like a straight truthful answer.
You don't announce a CMx2 is coming and then let your base think you're upgrading the game to the same historical setting.
"Hey Halo players we're making Halo x3." :devious:, (a year later) "little do they know it's actually a game about the Peloponnesian Wars" but we've done a poll and... :alien: "
If they can't do PBEM just say so, if they are working on a problem with it say so, if it's coming later say so. If they're trying to get a military contract say so etc etc. But I think their base can handle the truth- and we don't need to be lied to no matter what is said to the contrary.
But don't give us a line that says their "research" has shown that the majority of CM players (note- I said players not buyers) play vs the AI and not PBEM.
At least we know the "players" are still playing CM: you know the guys at all the CM Fourm sites & ladders...
Show me one player (with proof) who was polled by BFC about how they play CM.
No one from any CM forum (BFC in house doesn't count) that I know of has said "yes I was polled."
Did anyone anywhere see or hear of BFC's "poll" or market research? True it could have been a double blind secret poll that we know nothing about. But no one that's playing CM was polled? Hard to believe that line.
If I was polled it would have been- "I PBEM, unless I'm play-testing a scenario I designed- for PBEM, then I'll go vs the AI to check on some aspects of it."
My reaction to the SF'07 would have been- "modern?" Well how about doing WW2 first then letting us try out the modern stuff?"
The Purist
11 Oct 05, 22:22
Alas lads, she is a done deal. BFC has made their business choice and as I said at the beginning, it does make sense. While we wait for our preferred version of the game we still have yet to exhaust all the possiblilties for CMx1...
...and I have and idea. :whist:
Yup, I sure do.
Not going to discuss it now,...too busy, too busy. :hush: I'll drop a PM to Palantir with a brief outline in a fews days, if he thinks its doable, we'll explore it in some more detail. :devious: All hush-hush for now.
...and I have and idea. :whist:
You want to bribe them with crumpets and tea?!!!! :surprise:
Sure that worked on the Itallians but those guys at BFC are made of stouter stuff.
We shall await your cable from the frontlines... :salute:
:jack:
Being the sort of nutcase that actually lets telemarketers ask me a dozen questions over the phone, and the sort that often doesn't mind taking a random survey while wandering around a mall, or filling in some mailed questionaire, I can honestly say, you don't always know you are being polled guys.
Now as for subterfuge, hmm ever try asking any other business to release confidential data?
Oh, can't think of one that responded? Hmm why doesn't that surprise me hehe.
Hey, if you actually DO know how to get private info like that, there are guys that want to know how many Mega Campaigns David Heath has sold, and guys that want more timely release schedules from HPS too hehe.
Normally the guys on these forums are brighter, but honestly, sometimes your expectations shows signs of low IQ :)
Battlefront is NOT obliged to divulge anything to you, and they can release information in a variety of ways, and gather all sorts of useful data just from doing it.
Normally the guys on these forums are brighter, but honestly, sometimes your expectations shows signs of low IQ :).
Sort of your way of making a polite back hand slap in the face to us? And I'm making the assumtion that you mean the entire SZO community has a low IQ. Very interesting since you ARE part of this forum, but then you might be right after all in your observation... :hmmm:
Battlefront is NOT obliged to divulge anything to you, .
True BFC is not obliged to divulge anything to us, :rolleyes: but sure go ahead and tick off the people who paid for your game(s) and are still playing your game years later and see how loyal they are when you've stiffed them.
"No problem treat me (the PBEM CM WW2 community) like dirt & act like I don't matter, say what? You want me to buy your new game covering an era I don't care about because you say that's what I really want to play- get real." :clown:
Hmmm, they need $$ to survive and I have $$ and they tick me off, sounds like a winning plan to me.
There is a point where I'll say forget BFC, there are other games out there to buy. And CMx2 is a modern game, but don't OTHER companies make modern games as well? CPangracs has a modern game out, maybe I'll try his game before a company that acts like BFC does.
and they can release information in a variety of ways, and gather all sorts of useful data just from doing it.
Well I guess they didn't listen to the "useful" data then. At least not from the active CM players. Out of all the CM games sold and "ALL" those secret poll answering AI players just where is their forum? If you can't find those players how can they tell how many of them are still playing CM and only against the AI?
Again they apparently didn't send out any poll to the players who bought CM. Unless they just happened :rolleyes: to miss every single PBEM player at several forum sites. (again skipping their own site which would be so biased as to be unreliable as data).
This is from yet another locked thread at Battlefront. While it does not give us the final word on PBEM in CMx2, it at least addresses its current status:
"Posted by KwazyDog (Member # 302) on October 11, 2005 08:54 PM:
Hehe, consdiering Steve has said pretty much the opposite all along Id like to know where you read that?
To repeat what Steve has said...yes we hope it will be in, yes we want it to be in and we *currently* havnt found any problems that will mean it will not be in but we can *not* say for certain until we get further along in the development cycle. Until we do that is really all we can tell you.
Dan"
The link to the thread is here:
http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=000396
See--at least two people we know of have called BF "Battlefield". ;)
To repeat what Steve has said...yes we hope it will be in, yes we want it to be in and we *currently* havnt found any problems that will mean it will not be in but we can *not* say for certain until we get further along in the development cycle. Until we do that is really all we can tell you."
Anybody wanna take wagers on whether or not it appears?
"IED Placement phase. Press alt+space to enter IED SETUP. Once completed, email the turn to your opponent".
:devil:
Let's see:
Battlefront (did I spell that right?) have announced the first game for their new engine and it will be a modern setting with all kinds of new weapons etc and they even have screen shots but they don't know yet if it will handle PBEM? :confused:
And when is SF due to be released?
More disappointing (but not unexpected from the BFC officers) is the lack of any official sanction condeming the post just above "Steve's" locking of the thread. The language & attacking of a poster is uncalled for, but what else is new at BFC?
Sort of your way of making a polite back hand slap in the face to us? And I'm making the assumtion that you mean the entire SZO community has a low IQ. Very interesting since you ARE part of this forum, but then you might be right after all in your observation... :hmmm:
True BFC is not obliged to divulge anything to us, :rolleyes: but sure go ahead and tick off the people who paid for your game(s) and are still playing your game years later and see how loyal they are when you've stiffed them.
"No problem treat me (the PBEM CM WW2 community) like dirt & act like I don't matter, say what? You want me to buy your new game covering an era I don't care about because you say that's what I really want to play- get real." :clown:
Hmmm, they need $$ to survive and I have $$ and they tick me off, sounds like a winning plan to me.
There is a point where I'll say forget BFC, there are other games out there to buy. And CMx2 is a modern game, but don't OTHER companies make modern games as well? CPangracs has a modern game out, maybe I'll try his game before a company that acts like BFC does.
Well I guess they didn't listen to the "useful" data then. At least not from the active CM players. Out of all the CM games sold and "ALL" those secret poll answering AI players just where is their forum? If you can't find those players how can they tell how many of them are still playing CM and only against the AI?
Again they apparently didn't send out any poll to the players who bought CM. Unless they just happened :rolleyes: to miss every single PBEM player at several forum sites. (again skipping their own site which would be so biased as to be unreliable as data).
Hey if you feel inadequate intellectually don't look for me to prop up your ego :) Your wife is likely a better choice :)
And I still say, I think you over value yourself potentially. The sum total people that have bought their games, is likely a great deal larger than the people willing to post comments on their forums.
I have their games eh, and I am not one bit interested in posting over their on their forums. And to date, I don't think I have ever once posted in the CM forums.
But that's because the CM fraternity (over there) is about as unwelcoming as it gets.
And yes, I realise a great deal of you guys here, are the same guys over there.
Do you not think its not relevant that I only plan to discuss the games here?
There's a great big reason for that.
I am not just a CM fanatic, nor do I wish to just hang out with CM only fanatics.
More to wargaming than CM.
Not to mention, even though I will play CM, it isn't really the best game out there (contrary to what CM players insist on telling me).
And no, I don't support the idea, that once you play CM, you won't want to play anything else.
That sentiment doesn't even apply to Steel Panthers with me.
That might have a lot to do with why even though a lot of you guys have completely freaked out over this decision, it is possible YOU few (emphasis on the world FEW being important) fanatics, might lack genuine relevance.
Thanks for the nice personal comments I'll remind her of that & will remember it.
Funny thing is that no one here has freaked out over this.
I believe the concern was / is that BFC is calling it's next engine CMx2 which would indicate that it would be the second generation of CM which is a WW2 game. If they had called it MW (Modern War) no one would have given a care except to ask when the next CM was coming out.
Also of concern here is the possibile lack of a PBEM option, without it a lot of players will not buy CMx2. With PBEM there will be many buying it, if it's good of course.
Most companies think their "customers" have relevance in what they will buy or not buy next. Funny that you think BFC doen't need to consider their buyers opinions.
And:
Tossing around a word like "Fanatic" is a tricky thing- as you yourself probably fall into that very catagory. Please take note of your signature- you ID yourself as a CM Mega "Screaming Eagle" Team Member. Seems CM is very important to you.
I would not classify myself as a fanatic, and I'm sure there are other games out there better than CM but I like what CM does and how it does it so I support it.
Thanks for the nice personal comments I'll remind her of that & will remember it.
Funny thing is that no one here has freaked out over this.
I believe the concern was / is that BFC is calling it's next engine CMx2 which would indicate that it would be the second generation of CM which is a WW2 game. If they had called it MW (Modern War) no one would have given a care except to ask when the next CM was coming out.
Well said - better than me when I was trying to say that BFC should of just said that the "real" CMx2 is still in the works while they put out this "Modern war" thingie.
So, anybody care to speculate on why BFC split their relationshiop with the SCS group (makers of "Dangerous Waters")? Coincidental or incidental? Sorry, had my tinfoil hat on there for a moment, I'll remove it. :)
British Tommy
12 Oct 05, 17:31
Maybe you shouldn't "assume" anything? It's funny, one guy on BF forums wanted BF to LIE to the gaming community and NOT tell them what they were doing at all, and just stating that the WWII CMx2 would be released in a year!
As Lincoln said, "You can please some of the people some of the time..." :rolleyes:
What part of my message did I 'assume ' on? :surprise:
Steve stated that they decided on the Far East setting a few years back. I'm certainly did not 'assume' about the frenzy that went on concerning CMx2 by the players at the BF forum. I also did not 'assume' about the backlash from the wargaming community....just go to any CM related message board and see for yourself.
I'm not anti-BF or a BF basher and by reading the posts here and on other MB's that most guys feel the same way.
I 'assume' most people are just disappointed with the setting and title of the new game but yes, there are some angry people out there posting messages.
Thanks for the nice personal comments I'll remind her of that & will remember it.
Funny thing is that no one here has freaked out over this.
I believe the concern was / is that BFC is calling it's next engine CMx2 which would indicate that it would be the second generation of CM which is a WW2 game. If they had called it MW (Modern War) no one would have given a care except to ask when the next CM was coming out.
Also of concern here is the possibile lack of a PBEM option, without it a lot of players will not buy CMx2. With PBEM there will be many buying it, if it's good of course.
Most companies think their "customers" have relevance in what they will buy or not buy next. Funny that you think BFC doen't need to consider their buyers opinions.
And:
Tossing around a word like "Fanatic" is a tricky thing- as you yourself probably fall into that very catagory. Please take note of your signature- you ID yourself as a CM Mega "Screaming Eagle" Team Member. Seems CM is very important to you.
I would not classify myself as a fanatic, and I'm sure there are other games out there better than CM but I like what CM does and how it does it so I support it.
"you ID yourself as a CM Mega "Screaming Eagle" Team Member"
???
That is maybe to cryptic for me.
Are you aware the Mega Campaigns are programs sold to be used with Steel Panthers World at War?
I can handle you not knowing I was part of the design team, but it seems odd you linking CM with them.
I'm a fanatic about a lot of things though I suppose.
"Most companies think their "customers" have relevance in what they will buy or not buy next"
Actually, that IS my point. Maybe they DO have enough customers in mind. Maybe it's just not the handful of CMers that hang out on their forum.
Your conclusions are odd though. By the same thinking, everyone would think a game released with a next higher number, would just be a reiteration of the same thing as last time. But I have seen no small amount of people griping over some companies actually doing that "Oh geese they expect me to shell out more cash, just to get a tweaked version of the same game" or often words to that effect.
I should mention, the considerable grumblings over Matrix Games deciding to release Combat Leader, and on a Russian Front setting. Ya the guys were really "happy" about that. "Oh great, yet another Russian front game". Which is sort of like how so many like to utter the slight variation of "oh great, another Normandy game".
See what I mean?
CMx2 isn't a "betrayal of its customers. And there is no defacto justification, that CM in the CMx2 automatically signified it had to be a rehash of the three games they have already done.
I am sort of glad I will be spared all the "hey I am not going to pay full price just to get a slightly enhanced CM" based threads and posts.
As for the PBEM thing, I can likely agree, they could be a bit more decisive on a statement. They do seem inconsistent, or at least the comments I have witnessed.
Can i not be dissapointed?
Am i not allowed to voice that dissapointment?
Im not going to lose any sleep over it or commit suicide about CMx2 being some BS hypo war - but im sure as hell am gonna have my little *****.
Been playing CM since it came out, if i went back and looked at the other games i had at the same time - and the other games since then - and wondered would i play them again, the answer is a resounding no for 99% of them.
Most games lose the novelty, and are stored.
So when the makers of CM announce development of CM2 - am i exited - you betcha!
When, years later, i discover its not WWII, but a hypothetical situation without some of the elements that are prevailent in that type of warfare, *might* not have PBEM, *might* not have the WEGO system, am i dissapointed? Yes.
And then when i voice that dissapointment - which i am allowed to do am i not? There are some people who would rather say "nyah nyah harden up - buy the game anyways"
Well hell, i *might* buy the game, but i doubt it.
To all those other types out there who cannot relate to what im saying, im not asking for sympathy or agreement, just aknowledgement of my, and others opinion.
J
P.s. You can thank Kerry I didnt put that more bluntly :) I was gonna say the whole kiss my .... arghhhhh - its so close.... tip of my toungue.... :halo: :halo:
Im very dissapointed.
Still there are other games Im waiting on.
Also at least I can wathc peoples opinions of the first before I decide to fork out on a WW2 module.
Modern desert warfare isnt my thing at all.
1914 to 1955. That will do me fine.
Oh well, at least you ARE getting CMx2, and they likely WILL do the other settings.
God only knows if I will EVER get a chance to play Combat Leader :)
So it's just as well I like Steel Panthers hehe.
"Are you aware the Mega Campaigns are programs sold to be used with Steel Panthers World at War?I can handle you not knowing I was part of the design team, but it seems odd you linking CM with them.
Doof! :surprise: It was SPWaW
I stand corrected and I did get that mixed up with another "mega campaign." :shock:
Looks like you slipped out of that "Fanatic" label lucky dog you! :laugh:
I loved SP when it came out, then moved on to CM (can't remember why). I miss the "advancement" feature of units in SP. I'd buy a mess of low level tanks so later I could swap them for Tigers etc. :devil:
Double Deuce
13 Oct 05, 12:09
Doof! :surprise: It was SPWaW
I stand corrected and I did get that mixed up with another "mega campaign." :shock:
You were probably thinking of the multi-player Combat Mission Meta Campaigns going on out there.
Pvt Reese
13 Oct 05, 16:51
Hi chaps
As I posted in new thread check out BFC site/forums for their announcement of a new 'addition' to CMBB :-)
Cheers
you mean this?
http://www.battlefront.com/products/cmc/index.html
Looks very interesting
Might have to do until they release CMx2 WWII :)
Pvt Reese
13 Oct 05, 17:24
Thats the one :-)
I think this thread will die a quick death for lack of interest in a mythical '07 Syrian war. Maybe even the game...
Proof of the pudding will be in whether or not you hear of guys buying CMx2 first release in a bargain bin for 5 bucks I guess eh.
Well I hope the guys who like modern warfare like SF, I'm sure the designers put a lot of hard work & effort into it.
For the rest of us there's the CM Campaign
you mean this?
http://www.battlefront.com/products/cmc/index.html
Looks very interesting
Might have to do until they release CMx2 WWII :)
It's really hard not to be cynical about BF choosing now to release news of this not-very-imminent release.. the time was indeed 'right' :whist:
The timing of this is most interesting.
CMSF was announced on 10/8/05.
The "News" segment of CM Campaigns says that its official web site was to open on 10/7/05.
There is no way BF would make two such product announcement on two consecutive days. So I believe that, after getting their marketing ducks in a row, they planned to announce CM Campaigns about a month after they announced CMSF. But becasue of the large very negative overall reaction that CMSF received from their core CM customers, they moved the announcement of the CM Campaigns release date to just 5 days after announcing CMSF. Their original plan was to space the announcements so they wouldn't have sucked out all the air in the room (and not given it time to return) with the first announcement by the time that they made the second announcement. But with the firestorm that came from their announcement of CMSF, that is exactly what they needed to do--put out the fire with this new announcement. That objective was accomplished with the moving up of the CM Campaigns announcement.
Check the language of the "News" tab:
"News
Friday, October 7th, 2005
Official Combat Mission Campaigns Website Opens
Hunting Tank Software in conjunction with Battlefront.com are thrilled to announce Combat Mission Campaigns, a thrilling Operational level game set during the Eastern Front of WWII..
Combat Mission Campaigns expands the scope and scale of CMBB in a unique and innovative way and gives the Combat Mission player access to the challenges that face field commanders along the Eastern Front.
This website was designed to give you access to the games Overview, important Features, a helpful FAQ area as well as Screenshots and a link to the dedicated CMC Forum."
The link is here: http://www.battlefront.com/products/cmc/news.html
MKSheppard
14 Oct 05, 07:55
Why's everyone so hostile towards CM:SF? I own all three CMx1 titles, and I'm
glad to see that we're going to get a modern game; I've always wanted to see
the same game mechanics and gameplay we found in the earlier WW2 titles put
into a modern game.
Eric Weider
14 Oct 05, 08:53
I never cease to be amazed at how negative folks can be about something they know very little about.
Before bashing CM2 to death let's see what the thing is all about. All you know now is that they are planning a modern AND a WW2 effort.
The market for serious wargames is relatively small...these companies take serious risks in developing novel games for this community. Can't we at least give them the benefit of the doubt and see what they produce before piling on in such a negative manner?
ER_Chaser
14 Oct 05, 10:39
Eric, why do you put your very good post in such a small font?! I have to complain :)
Hi Mk and Eric! I don't remember seeing you over on the CM threads before, but we seem to be meeting several people new to the CM forum on this thread. Just so you know, suits aren't required to post here.
All of us old CMx1 die hards wanted to like, no--love, the CM x 2 games, especially the first one. Indeed there was a large landing zone for BF to shoot for in order for that to happen. [See the many posts above for details.] But they missed the landing zone not only with the radical departure of game topic and issues with the new game engine [PBEM and other--again see above], but perhaps more importantly with the way they have treated their customers.
Take a look at their forum. The stuff they allow there, to put it charitably, is disheartening. If you have a criticism or complaint, your CMSF thread is likely to get locked, but only after they have allowed their fan boys multiple cheap shots and personal attacks, almost none of which address the point raised in any serious way. If you're a fan boy who starts a thread or posts, BF alllows them, without comment or interjection, to make personal attacks, take cheap shots and engage in other inappropriate behavior that would have BF threatening a banning from their forum if you retained the language, message and tone, but just flipped the position taken. While the worst examples appear under the CMSF heading, this is not new. Check out how Kerry was treated when he posted at BF a few months back. As we all know Kerry is always rude and invites personal attacks!
So the other issue beyond the game itself is the way that BF has treated its loyal customer base. It's been a real change since the CMBO days and not for the better. If they don't care about us, why should be care about them? In any case the way that BF has handled the release of thier new engine and its first game, as well as its loyal custmers, begs to be included as a case study in a business school marketing textbook. It will not be included in that book because of how well they have done.
You have to understand, part of the problem "I" have, is the term "core CM customers".
C'mon, I get just as much flack making pronouncements as if I spoke for the entire wargaming market.
I grant you, they "might" have wanted to delay the mention of Campaigns till later.
They might have wished to give their modern setting more breathing room.
Let's see, chances of anyone giving the modern setting an even break if it had been mentioned second, not much if you ask me.
And all for the sake of a handful of noisy over pampered forum posters.
Yes, you won't see some of us over on the CM forums. There is usually more than one reason for that.
My own reason, I don't actually like the "core CM crowd" over their much actually.
I prefer to indulge the game (when I feel like it) here or anywhere else. Because to be honest, sometimes the "core CM crowd" is just plain spoiled.
It's not like the only negative is the BF staff closing some threads eh. Some of the "core CM crowd" there make any effort to communicate a dismal waste of effort.
There are people out there eh, that don't think much of getting responses like "Hi mom" as being the sum total of respect for a decent attempt at discussion.
The only thing that the "core CM customers" are over at Battlefront, are is the core of a clique that infests the place.
They don't actually represent the entire CM community. They sure don't represent me.
I wish Battlefront success with that Campaigns program. Looks like it might do the same thing Mega Campaigns did for Steel Panthers actually.
British Tommy
14 Oct 05, 11:23
Why's everyone so hostile towards CM:SF? I own all three CMx1 titles, and I'm
glad to see that we're going to get a modern game; I've always wanted to see
the same game mechanics and gameplay we found in the earlier WW2 titles put
into a modern game.
Your reading it wrong mate. Not everyone is hostile towards BF, just disappointed. When they talked about the forthcoming CMx2, almost everyone thought it would follow the lines of the present CM series.... WW2.
The ' CMx2 ' uses a new game engine ( you might want to read up on it at the BF forum ).
KG Jag makes some excellent points especially about the hostile nature at the BF forum. There's a lot of angry CM players around the world some of which posted stupid messages. Alas, anyone who posts at the BF forum and mildly states his opinion why he doesn't like the forthcoming modern setting game gets savaged by the ' BF can do no wrong ' clan :(
I think most players are willing to wait for the next WW2 game ( I'm one of them :) ).
I agree with ER_chaser, Eric use a bigger font next time! I had my glasses on and still had a problem reading what you wrote! :crosseye:
Upon reading about an upcoming "modern" version of CM, I jumped onto this site to see if there was any buzz about it, and wow. I'm a little stunned at the reaction. From reading this thread, you'd think Ford Motor Company just handed their rights to the Mustang over to Kia.
I'm not much of a CM player. Played it when it first came out, but I'm not a big WW2 fan. Not knocking that genre of gaming, just not my cup of tea. But I did enjoy CM. Great game. I'm more of a TacOps guy, and people have been crying for years for TacOps to go 3D with map zoom, etc. I love TacOps but it can be tough (for me at least) to get a unit to position itself perfectly in a treeline when 1-2 pixels can make the difference.
So, I'm quite excited to hear that CM is coming out with a modern version. Am I interested in a campaign against Syria? No. Iran? Maybe. Will people immediately start creating mods and new scenarios featuring other possible scenarios (Korea, etc.)? I suspect they will.
Sign me up.
My two cents.
- Isz
Upon reading about an upcoming "modern" version of CM, I jumped onto this site to see if there was any buzz about it, and wow. I'm a little stunned at the reaction. From reading this thread, you'd think Ford Motor Company just handed their rights to the Mustang over to Kia.
I'm not much of a CM player. Played it when it first came out, but I'm not a big WW2 fan. Not knocking that genre of gaming, just not my cup of tea. But I did enjoy CM. Great game. I'm more of a TacOps guy, and people have been crying for years for TacOps to go 3D with map zoom, etc. I love TacOps but it can be tough (for me at least) to get a unit to position itself perfectly in a treeline when 1-2 pixels can make the difference.
So, I'm quite excited to hear that CM is coming out with a modern version. Am I interested in a campaign against Syria? No. Iran? Maybe. Will people immediately start creating mods and new scenarios featuring other possible scenarios (Korea, etc.)? I suspect they will.
Sign me up.
My two cents.
- IszOne of the additional, major changes to the CMx2 engine - from what I understand - is that it is now going to be "module" based. This is the "Syrian 2007" module. Next may be - who knows - WWII something as they promised. The point is though that these "modules" are hard-coded, i.e., the modding of them and/or the ability to totally convert it from one thing to another as you could with previous versions is not available in this version of the game engine. BFC's point being, and I can understand this, that they made the first versions of CM too encompassing. They realized that they could of broken it up into several pieces and sold it that way and made more money with it.
So, if you like the hypothetical (at this point) invasion of Syria in 2007, then CMx2 may be the game for you.
Actually I might have (and still might you never know) tried a modern "CMx2" scenario as an added "bonus" with CMx2, but I won't buy a modern game, in this case CMx2, simply because I'm not into that "era." I just prefer WW2 stuff (heck if they can do the ACW I'm in!).
Again- The best thing BFC could have done with SF is call the game anything but CMx2. Especially if they never intended it to be just about WW2. (One is historical the other dang near sci-fi...)
Come on- if any company came out & lets take Blizzard as an example here and said "we're coming out with Diablox2 and the following year it was announced as being a "Doom" type game, you don't think the Diablo players would howl? Even with a "in 6 months we're going to try and put out a Diablo2 game as well..."
You don't call a game "X2" and not lead with the new version of "x1" it's a marketing blunder.
After you open with the new version you also announce that, "Hey all you WW2 guy's we've got a treat for you, you can also play some modern battles with CMx2 isn't that great!" And you know what, I would have said, "thats cool, what a great design they have thats so flexable to do so many things." I may not be into modern but it's a great "add-on" that might have gotten more interest from everyone.
Then theres the BFC "arrogance" factor but that kids is another story entirely.
MKSheppard
14 Oct 05, 23:41
Again- The best thing BFC could have done with SF is call the game anything but CMx2. Especially if they never intended it to be just about WW2. (One is historical the other dang near sci-fi...)
Come on- if any company came out & lets take Blizzard as an example here and said "we're coming out with Diablox2 and the following year it was announced as being a "Doom" type game, you don't think the Diablo players would howl? Even with a "in 6 months we're going to try and put out a Diablo2 game as well..."
You don't call a game "X2" and not lead with the new version of "x1" it's a marketing blunder.
Maybe we're on different wavelengths, but I always took the moniker "Combat Mission" to mean the unique system of WEGO turn/realtime based system pioneered by Battlefront. You'd have a point if Battlefront had announced that Combat Mission: Shock Force was going to be a FPS, but it isn't. It's simply Combat Mission, with improved graphics and gameplay.
As for 'dang near sci-fi', the only thing implausible about the scenario BFC has put forth is the involvement of the United Nations, and the support of all major nations, et al. They really should have left that bit about the UN and support of all major nations out; it just confused and made me roll my eyes.
My opinion is:
If the Assad regime in Syria collapsed; at best we'd see interest from Britain, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon and Iraq in restoring order. I really can't prognosticate European political support, as they're fickle; and that seems to be the central core of the BFC scenario as they said later on in their announcement:
Leading this liberation is a coalition of mostly NATO states, with a strong contingent of Arab/Muslim states involved directly in the immediate and long term rebuilding of the nation.
Secondly, with the heavy emphasis on MOUT, CM:SF is pretty much "future proofed" for all possible modern warfare; I can imagine that you'll be able to re-create battles from Iraq and Afghanistan with the Syrian guerillas that come with CM:SF; because really, guerillas will have AK-47s, RPGs, and IEDs no matter where you go.
Then theres the BFC "arrogance" factor but that kids is another story entirely.
To be blunt, a lot of the people on their forums are just immature idiots who like to spam the board up; and then when BFC doesn't do their pet project, they throw a hissy fit. I remember in particular, a few idiots who wailed about how WW2 was a "legimitate" war and how they wouldn't buy CM:SF because of the "illegimitacy" of the war; conviently forgetting that the only people in CM:BB who were actually legimitate were the Finns.
"Palantir" Quote:
"Then theres the BFC "arrogance" factor but that kids is another story entirely."
To be blunt, a lot of the people on their forums are just immature idiots who like to spam the board up; and then when BFC doesn't do their pet project, they throw a hissy fit.
Oh I know that members can run the gauntlet of how they act but that statement was not directed at them but to the BFC management/admin gentlemen.
I offer just a snipit from BFC's own forum:
XXXXXX
Member
Member # XXXXX
posted October 13, 2005 03:44 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote: And how many late night drinking sessions at BFC have been fueled with laughing over how you think all the little forum inhabitants are going to react to corporate announcements?
Moon
Administrator
Member # 386
posted October 13, 2005 03:47 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to... and many :-)
Martin
{End Quotes}
The Admins admit they were laughing at us on how we would react to Op Lvl CMBB? On the surface this seems maybe "jovial" but you need to read all the posts to follow their meaning & attitude. When combined with those admin posts that came on the heels of the CMx2 debacle concerning "us whiners" actually expecting CMx2 to be WW2/PBEM capable and then the irritation that BFC felt with us, that comment is not a complimentary one.
I expect they felt they had pulled one over on us (I seriously doubt they were talking about their own forum members) having a CMBB add-on in the works as we commented on our dislike for SF. But why they'd think it's funny & laugh at their customers for designing something we'd like is beyond me.
As a company they are sorely lacking in business professionalism to the detriment of some good designers I suspect. Other examples are the kind of posts & even sig's they allow daily in their forums. I wanted to quote one post & a signature as an example but I would have had to X out the entire thing at this forum.
Why a game company would allow & even encourage a near triple-X forum is astounding. They must be the laughing stock of the business community and an embarrassment at the same time.
Does BFC put out good games? yes, but as a company...
I'll try and leave the BFC deal at that before I slip any further down this slippery slope to another forums level.
My opinion is:
If the Assad regime in Syria collapsed; at best we'd see interest from Britain, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon and Iraq in restoring order. I really can't prognosticate European political support, as they're fickle; and that seems to be the central core of the BFC scenario as they said later on in their announcement:
Lets keep that side of it out of the equation eh?
Otherwise maybe Kerry will be locking a few threads here :) :cheeky:
Eric Weider
15 Oct 05, 11:25
I guess the reason I don't get all the negativity is that BF has said they will do a WW2 CMx2... so if you don't care for the modern game...don't buy it...and wait for the WW2. Why the panic and crush of criticism? It's like they went to the dark side or something.
Who knows maybe they want to work out the bugs before they launch what they obviously know will be a bigger seller...WW2.
I assure you that any business associated in anyway with military history whether they be game developers, magazine publishers, book publishers, movie makers, know one thing for sure...that WW2 is the BIG DOG...and doing anything else means... less business. It is like a law of physics! The folks at BF know this... they have their reasons for launching with modern...they'll do WW2... and we'll all be happy eventually.
The Purist
15 Oct 05, 11:48
I assure you that any business associated in anyway with military history whether they be game developers, magazine publishers, book publishers, movie makers, know one thing for sure...that WW2 is the BIG DOG...and doing anything else means... less business. It is like a law of physics! The folks at BF know this... they have their reasons for launching with modern...they'll do WW2... and we'll all be happy eventually.
You are, of course, absolutely correct Eric, and some of our members were, perhaps, a little too vocal. That being said, it is my opinion that most of the complaints have more to do with how things were handled rather than the announcement itself. From what I can understand of the past, there was no real discussion of "going modern" and the surprise caught many anxious gamers by surprise. It cannot be seen seen as the best handled piece of PR in the industry. I will not pretend to know the mind of BFC and will simply wait for the WWII version of the new engine to surface sometime next year. If CM:SF makes CMx2 WWII a better game, so much the better for us.
Agreed, very good point Sir Eric.
British Tommy
15 Oct 05, 18:47
yes, good point Eric :)
Also nice to read your post without my nose almost touching the screen! :laugh:
My two cents on this, and I'm sorry if someone said this already (I didnt read all 7 pages of posts, short on time), but I think they chose this theater because it COULD happen.
I already know that the Australian Department of Defense uses CMAK for simulation testing of combat. I'm thinking Battlefront developers figured why not capitalize on this by making a possible modern day combat situation. Once released any nation of the UN would purchase this and try out whatever simulations they can get their hands on. I think its a brilliant idea, but as a gamer of WW2 I'm disappointed. I'll still get it, probably, but I can't wait for their second game for the CMx2 engine.
Then again, I could be off on a limb here.
AChmielowski
16 Oct 05, 07:28
I have all 3 versions of CM :)
and can definitely say that my money will be staying in my wallet over this one !.
Who the hell can say this is an even fight ?:mad:
I don't think anyone has said that CMx2 won't be a good game, it just wasn't what most CM'ers were expecting from "X2." It will probably be a lot of fun and players who like modern warfare will be very pleased.
The announcement of the CMBB OP Lvl game however has taken the sting out of X2. So now all the WW2 guys (who have BB of course) are waiting eagerly for it. Not knowing about the designing of OP Lvl but I think if it has a good showing an AK version & AK-ETO version will eventually appear. I mean who wouldn't want to play with Div's in those games?
Battlefront is going for money with high sales.
...you can bet loads of teenagers will buy it, especially in the US.
...and a lot players who just like to win and who do not want to think (they can make their own even more imbalanced scenarios).
If there is no PBEM I will not be buying it - but my wife and kids play Battlefield II and that has no PBEM - I cannot stand it, but it makes them very happy :)
Battlefield are doing the right thing from a business point of view - I feel extremely lucky that they made CMBB and CMAK, so all the best to them.
Who the hell can say this is an even fight ?:mad:
The counterpoint to this is that bodycounts dont win wars.
As well as that
Hypothetically, we could also take into account that in 2007 Iraq is still in the grips of insurgency, Afganistan has risen in insurgent behaviour to a point where more resources has been allocated to that sector, China has made more agressive moves towards Taiwan, and US fleets have been stationed in that area.
Korea is still taking resources, there still needs to be a national guard at home to deal with local issues (even emergency services like Katrina)
So, how much can America afford to send to Syria?
People keep talking about how 'real' the possibility is, at the moment, i think its a bridge to far
I agree with Tripps comments above.
As as far as Im concerned the choice of theatre is crazy.
Its unrealistic as the US do not have the resources to fight there unless they start a draft.
Additionally the game aspects are unrealistic - no suicide bombers? No insurgents that appears as basic civies? No civies?
Half of the Iraq war is about British- American troops killing off civies with DU muntions, shooting civies in error to get at a few insurgents etc and all Iraqs shooting amercians, mercs and contractors when they want as they are stripping the countries resources.
And how they can justify making a game about it?
And when they do - hey lets make one where none of this bad stuff happens.
Whatever
Additionally as far as training tools go VBS - the training simulator based on Operation Flashpoint would be far better to use than this new game engine by Battlefront.
FLashpoint modded is the best sim of them all - most here prob have not stayed with the FP scene for very long and dont know what they are missing.
There are also tons of WW2 mods.
The New Flashpoint in development will dwarf all games when it comes out.
Ive read about the content which is staggering.
I recommend BF make a WW2 or something like a Warhammer 40k game in the future.
While modern warfare equipment is interesting its all currently wrong when civies are being shot and countries being stripped of resources in unlawful wars as advised by the UN.
Thats why I prefer WW2 as it happened a long time ago and will never again happen on that scale I dont think and I like sci fi as I prefer the idea of fighting evil aliens than fellow humans.
Space marines lead the way!!!
People need to chill in this age.
MKSheppard
17 Oct 05, 06:51
As as far as Im concerned the choice of theatre is crazy.
No it's not.
The NYT has reported that over the last year, there were several cross/border clashes between US and Syrian troops, especially a very prolonged firefight this summer that killed several Syrians.
Its unrealistic as the US do not have the resources to fight there unless they start a draft.
Why not? We have all the cards, including strategic and tactical airpower at a level unsurpassed by anyone else in the world.
Additionally the game aspects are unrealistic - no suicide bombers? No insurgents that appears as basic civies? No civies?
We'd all like to have infantry be LOS blocked by tanks in CM; but the complexity of said tasks apparently is going to preclude that; as the transferrable game files have to be kept to a reasonable limit.
Half of the Iraq war is about British- American troops killing off civies with DU muntions, shooting civies in error to get at a few insurgents etc and all Iraqs shooting amercians, mercs and contractors when they want as they are stripping the countries resources.
There are so many fallacies in this paragraph, I don't know where to start. Firstly, the only people in the world who use Depleted Uranium ammunition are American Forces; and secondly, major combat is over; we are not facing armored targets anymore, so why do we need to use depleted uranium long rod penetrators in our 120mm and 25mm guns? HEAT and HE will do the job just fine; and will reduce possible civilian casualties, as they will not overpenetrate, unlike DU penetrators.
Thirdly; if "All Iraqis" are shooting at the Americans/whoever, why are so many of them being killed en masse by car bombings by the terrorists? I guess they weren't militant enough.
Fourthly; if we're stripping Iraq's resources, why is Gasoline in my area $3.00 a gallon?
And how they can justify making a game about it?
How can they justify making games in which you can play the Waffen SS, considering their poor human rights record?
And when they do - hey lets make one where none of this bad stuff happens.
Yes, nevermind there are no civilians to be seen in CMBB's Stalingrad scenarios, despite well over 40,000 civilians dying over the course of the battles. I guess this is another oversight by BFC.
Additionally as far as training tools go VBS - the training simulator based on Operation Flashpoint would be far better to use than this new game engine by Battlefront.
Except Flashpoint is a FPS shooter; albeit one with more strategy elements than the usual FPS shooter; tank to tank combat is horribly limited; amongst other things; see the following points; borrowed from others who know more about Flashpoint than I do.
1.) The vehicle damage model is god-awful. It's like Red Alert- hit them more times than they hit you and they die.
2.) Tank combat is ludicrous. You can barely see anything, combat occurs at best at ranges of under 300m, which is practically a fist-fight in tank warfare, rather than under at least 1.5km, which is the norm - especially in terrrain on those islands.
3.) Tanks have no cupola machinegun - thats because the games code can not physically allow it (just think about that, you design a military simulator where only one person in each vehicle can fire a weapon, just think about that.)
I recommend BF make a WW2 or something like a Warhammer 40k game in the future.
Uhm, excuse me, that IS what they're doing. The next module after Shock Force is released is going to be WW2.
While modern warfare equipment is interesting its all currently wrong when civies are being shot and countries being stripped of resources in unlawful wars as advised by the UN.
Again, with the fallacies. Civilians always die in war; it happens, people end up in the wrong place at the wrong time. And I would really like to know how Iraq is being stripped of resources if my gas station sells $3 a gallon gasoline.
It seems a lot of hatred for CM:SF is not because of it's modern setting, but because it's set in a hypothetical "Syrian Freedom" scenario, which brings out all the looney moonbats from the far left who are perfectly fine with playing Nazis or Communists in WW2, but simply cannot stand the evil Imperialist USA in the middle east.
God help BFC if they ever did a Middle East Wars module with the IDF and the various Arab armies. :rolleyes:
Thats why I prefer WW2 as it happened a long time ago and will never again happen on that scale I dont think and I like sci fi as I prefer the idea of fighting evil aliens than fellow humans.
Then why are you in a WARGAMING forum, son?
To quote Wild Bill Wilder:
What is wrong with some of you guys? This is a wargame. Its about
killing. Its about destroying the enemy. This is not Chess, or Risk.
It's a wargame. What do you think happens when a tank fires into a
squad? Or a machine gun chatters on men caught in the open.
If you don't want death, why play a wargame?
What is the purpose. Go play Monopoly!
John Osborne
17 Oct 05, 08:47
Here, here MKSheppard. Nicely put.
Good discussion & well said gentlemen.
But to get ahead of the curve: (and I'm sounding like a moderator :kotz: :surprise: ) the forum is CM & the topic is CMx2-the game, once the main focus moves to "current" situations & the political climate the discusson should swing over to the Gulf War I & II or the Off Topic Forum. :nuts:
But if not no big deal, just remember we're not the BFC forum.... :mad: :blab:
:)
No it's not.
The NYT has reported that over the last year, there were several cross/border clashes between US and Syrian troops, especially a very prolonged firefight this summer that killed several Syrians.
Why not? We have all the cards, including strategic and tactical airpower at a level unsurpassed by anyone else in the world.
We'd all like to have infantry be LOS blocked by tanks in CM; but the complexity of said tasks apparently is going to preclude that; as the transferrable game files have to be kept to a reasonable limit.
There are so many fallacies in this paragraph, I don't know where to start. Firstly, the only people in the world who use Depleted Uranium ammunition are American Forces; and sec