CMA out in Russia

[dalem]

How much money could BFC have made with a CMAK expansion for Sealion, or 1939-40, or 1946 US vs USSR?

I think it is impossible to know such things. I think their game system was great and timely but their marketing was incapable of taking advantage of it. Steve says that every iteration sold less than the one before and he chalked it up to a form of "been there, done that" as far as a WWII game was concerned. My hate and vitriol tells me that's mostly just inept marketing but if the buyers weren't there, then the buyers weren't there, and if Steve is right the buyers weren't there. We'll never know if he was right.

- extremist dale

 

[Geordie]

I think it is impossible to know such things. I think their game system was great and timely but their marketing was incapable of taking advantage of it. Steve says that every iteration sold less than the one before and he chalked it up to a form of "been there, done that" as far as a WWII game was concerned. My hate and vitriol tells me that's mostly just inept marketing but if the buyers weren't there, then the buyers weren't there, and if Steve is right the buyers weren't there. We'll never know if he was right.

- extremist dale

And so if they still think along those lines, then they still expect to make less off the games to come, but make that up with sales from modules. I think we can see that in the CMN strategy which doesnt give German SS and paras until the Brit Module. I imagine loads of guys who arent concerned with playing the Brits, will be enticed to buy that Module for those reasons?

Dont want a Churchil but want to play with Das Reich, then get the module.......

 

[KG_Jag]

And so if they still think along those lines, then they still expect to make less off the games to come, but make that up with sales from modules. I think we can see that in the CMN strategy which doesnt give German SS and paras until the Brit Module. I imagine loads of guys who arent concerned with playing the Brits, will be enticed to buy that Module for those reasons?

Dont want a Churchil but want to play with Das Reich, then get the module.......

That may be a way things work out. [Sales numbers are a related but separate question.]

But another group of potential customers may be interested in playing anyone except the Americans on the Allied side. They may defer their purchase or end up not buying at all.

The longer between releases, the bigger this problem becomes. Even if the entire family is ready to be shipped (which it is not), they will have to allow about 6 months between (any successful) releases (except maybe the first module that requires the base game as a separate purchase)--especially in the same family--to avoid cannibalization of their own sales.

 

[thewood]

I still think a better model for them is a $5 pack of units and small features every month, similar to Rise of Flight. Yeah, it creates confusion in MP, but they are claiming its all in the SP anyway.

How about division packs, country packs, year packs, etc. All they need to do is crank out the models.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

How much money could BFC have made with a CMAK expansion for Sealion, or 1939-40, or 1946 US vs USSR?

Probably not a lot. I don't think it's worth investing a lot of time in second-guessing the decision - I can see the merit in investing in a second generation game engine. Steve insists that the manpower didn't exist to do both simultaneously - i.e. invest in a second generation game engine, and continue to promote the first game engine. Yet that is exactly what they did with CM:C, so his logic is contradictory. They could have found 3D modellers, scenario designers, and bmp artists completely from within the third-party community to do all the expansions for CMX1 while turning to CMX2. The cost would have been minimal to them, with the exception of the coding time. The wildcard would have been how much to spend on artwork, writing the manual, etc. Make them digital download only and then the hardest part - devoting time to coding the product's interface. That would likely have been the breakpoint, if any such product was ever even contemplated. With one coder and a million things on the "to do" list for CMX2, how do you even justify thinking about such a thing.

 

[thewood]

The main issue for BFC in developing CM1 and CM2 at the same time is CM1 is a direct competitor to CM2. I'm curious if they will stop selling CMBO and CMAK soon.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

The main issue for BFC in developing CM1 and CM2 at the same time is CM1 is a direct competitor to CM2. I'm curious if they will stop selling CMBO and CMAK soon.

Only if they hate money. Is the Ford Explorer really a competitor to the Model T?

 

[KG_Jag]

Probably not a lot. I don't think it's worth investing a lot of time in second-guessing the decision - I can see the merit in investing in a second generation game engine. Steve insists that the manpower didn't exist to do both simultaneously - i.e. invest in a second generation game engine, and continue to promote the first game engine. Yet that is exactly what they did with CM:C, so his logic is contradictory. They could have found 3D modellers, scenario designers, and bmp artists completely from within the third-party community to do all the expansions for CMX1 while turning to CMX2. The cost would have been minimal to them, with the exception of the coding time. The wildcard would have been how much to spend on artwork, writing the manual, etc. Make them digital download only and then the hardest part - devoting time to coding the product's interface. That would likely have been the breakpoint, if any such product was ever even contemplated. With one coder and a million things on the "to do" list for CMX2, how do you even justify thinking about such a thing.

The game design they choose for CM x 2 was too much for them, given their limited (especially programming) resources. It took them almost 5 years after the release of CMAK to achieve a decent finished product. In fact it took them more time than that, as Steve said they started working on the CM x 2 engine just before they released CMBB.

The story--or at least one of them--is the opportunity cost from the road they selected. If they had gone directly to a true CM x 1 sequel, they could have started releasing release quality games in late 2006, if not before.

 

[Mad Russian]

And so if they still think along those lines, then they still expect to make less off the games to come, but make that up with sales from modules. I think we can see that in the CMN strategy which doesnt give German SS and paras until the Brit Module. I imagine loads of guys who arent concerned with playing the Brits, will be enticed to buy that Module for those reasons?

Dont want a Churchil but want to play with Das Reich, then get the module.......

There is a pitfall here. The modules aren't supportive of the code. So, while the Americans didn't fight the SS early on they certainly did before the Battle of the Bulge. Does that mean no battles against the SS in a summer or fall setting? Only during winter?

I would like the modules much better if they were supportive of each other. Eastern and Western Fronts, CMBB and CMAK, not so much to worry about. But different modules on the same front? That would be something that IMO should be done. Of course you can take my opinion and a $5 bill and get your coffee in most small family owned cafes.

Good Hunting.

MR

 

[dalem]

I think too many questions have been allowed to grow in the manure pile that is the gulf of information RE CMN.

-dale

 

[vulture]

There is a pitfall here. The modules aren't supportive of the code. So, while the Americans didn't fight the SS early on they certainly did before the Battle of the Bulge. Does that mean no battles against the SS in a summer or fall setting? Only during winter?

I would like the modules much better if they were supportive of each other. Eastern and Western Fronts, CMBB and CMAK, not so much to worry about. But different modules on the same front? That would be something that IMO should be done. Of course you can take my opinion and a $5 bill and get your coffee in most small family owned cafes.

Good Hunting.

MR

Stuff from modules can be mixed and matched; you just can't match between families. So the CM:N family is slated to have a base game of US and some German units (excluting FSJ and SS), the brit module will include FSJ and SS, the 3rd module I vaguely recall being Canadian and other commonwealth forces, plus some more German formations, and tentativelty a 4th module for 'other stuff'. This takes yuo up to the start of November '44 and you can use any of the units against any other, so US vs SS is quite possible with base game plus Brit module.

Then there is a 2nd family which will be Bulge based. Presumably that will, for example, introduce Volksgrenadiers on the German side which won't exist in CM:N anywhere. You won't be able to play a game using and CM:N units with Volksgrenadiers (at least, not until the CM:N unit in question is stuffed into the new game somewhere, which some will and some won't, depending on what stuff was available both in Normandy and in the Ardennes).

The confusion is that each front will probably have multiple families (which don't interact), each with multiple modules (which do interact within a family).

And dale will be along in a second to question whether CM:N will ever be released, never mind the 'way off down the road' planned future titles in various theatres.

I hope they at least get a good east-front game out though.

 

[British Tommy]

I hope they get CM Normandy out before we all get too old to enjoy it! Maybe the next generation of war gamers will enjoy the modules because at this rate, none of us will!

 

[dalem]

And dale will be along in a second to question whether CM:N will ever be released, never mind the 'way off down the road' planned future titles in various theatres.

Nahh, I'm trying to keep those down to a minimum. I think I've made my point.

-dale

 

[Geordie]

Well, Steve said they hadnt done the campaign yet, so I doubt it will be out in 2010. I think the campaigns take about 3 months minum.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Well, Steve said they hadnt done the campaign yet, so I doubt it will be out in 2010. I think the campaigns take about 3 months minum.

You could do one in a weekend if you wanted. All it takes is enough scenario designers to do it. The sticking point is testing it.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Having said that, I guess the question is how many talented scenario designers to they have left capable of both navigating the "new" editor, capable of putting out a high end scenario. And not just able to make scenarios, but now they have to be able to do the historical research that goes with it. We're no longer in FantaSyria, but heading back into well-trodden ground where the expectation of some of the old fanbase is that they can replay battles that actually took place.

Which leads one to ask - how do you even research a campaign, if all the outcomes have been predetermined by history?

For example, let's say you are depicting the 1st Battalion of U.S. Infantry Regiment 999 for June 10 to June 28.

On June 10, the 1st Battalion fought at Le Mesnil de Bavent and won a significant victory there, permitting the battalion to advance to Bavent sur Mer the next day, where it fought another battle and likewise was tossed out of the town, after which it withdrew to Hill 118, where it dug in and was counter-attacked on June 14th, where it managed to hold off a tank attack.

So for your chain of campaign scenarios, you have

a) Attack on Le Mesnil de Bavent
b) Battle at Bavent sur Mer
c) Defence of Hill 118

Simple.

So what happens in the campaign?

Player opens scenario a). Wins and advances to scenario b).

What happens if, unlike his historical counterpart, he beats the Germans and holds the town?

Historically, the unit withdrew to Hill 118 because it was forced out of town. So what "reward" does the player get for winning the scenario? An alternate branch of scenarios? Would these be completely fictional?

 

[Geordie]

I think by it's very nature the campaign would probably have to be fictional. As you say unless yup get the historical outcome its very difficult to move onto the next bit of history.

An alternative though is to never win the scenario unless you achieve a historical result, then viola, you move on to the next bit of history.

As for making all of the scenarios in a weekend, I think not. George Mc and Mark Ezra are two of the best designers and I don't think even they could churn out 20 scenarios in a weekend.

Testing the campaign though does seem to be the biggest bottleneck.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

As for making all of the scenarios in a weekend, I think not. George Mc and Mark Ezra are two of the best designers and I don't think even they could churn out 20 scenarios in a weekend.

Which isn't what I said at all.

Find 20 scenario designers.

Have you read the credits for TF Thunder?

 

[Geordie]

Which isn't what I said at all.

Find 20 scenario designers.

Have you read the credits for TF Thunder?

Nope..... Have to say I haven't. It's the worst campaign of the lot though. And I'm sure it wasn't completed in a weekend, that's scenarios completed, not tested.

 

[junk2drive]

You can have battles (in some games with campaigns) where you win the battle by holding a point for a number of turns or losing less units than historical. Then you retreat to the next battle.