CMBN pre-order, tentative release date

[dalem]

I don't know about a "need", but they are certainly useful. If the mild paranoia of myself and a few others is justified (and I think it is) then an independent forum such as this is the only place where "honest" discussion about CM games is possible.

-dale

 

[[hirr]Leto]

But perhaps not after the divorce, alimony and child support.

Not if you have a +3 Lawyer of Zanthar and Elven Chain Mail.

Cheers!

Leto

 

[[hirr]Leto]

I don't know about a "need", but they are certainly useful. If the mild paranoia of myself and a few others is justified (and I think it is) then an independent forum such as this is the only place where "honest" discussion about CM games is possible.

-dale

If by "honest" do you mean overly derisive, churlish and delightfully spiced with vitriol?

; )

Cheers!

Leto

 

[Tanker]

damned reply with quote button.

 

[Tanker]

If by "honest" do you mean overly derisive, churlish and delightfully spiced with vitriol?

; )

Cheers!

Leto

The Lady doth protest too much, methinks.

 

[Jeph]

It'll be a pretty WWII platoon shooter.

-dale

Are you just saying words you know? Because that continues to make no sense.

Makes as much sense as calling it a driving game.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

What I find interesting is that years ago forums seem to have flourished outside of the company forums, for several games. Such as Close Combat, Steel Panthers and CM. Maybe it was the novelty if the internet and website creation. Now it seems that new releases from companies such as Matrix and Slitherine only have activity in the company forums. Sometimes not much activity even there.

Is there a need for independent forums?

There's a need for better games. CMX1, Operation Flashpoint, Close Combat, et al, spawned all those websites because they were great games that themselves spawned lots of mods, tourneys, and things to talk about and "stuff" to share.

 

[junk2drive]

Agreed and there weren't as many choices back then either.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Agreed and there weren't as many choices back then either.

Maybe that's why. I've said before with reference to individual games, you get too much splintering, and there are fewer people talking the same language.

For example, when before or shortly after the CM:BO came out, guys could all talk about playing the demo. It was a common experience. No one was "flooding the market" with user-made scenarios yet. Everyone was "talking the same language" on the BFC forum. But once there were 500+ different user-made scens, people stopped talking about the same scenarios. Then there were 1,000. Then 2,000. A couple of standouts got talked about, but it was hard to feel a sense of community. Some guys tried a "scenario of the month" thread - every community tries that - but it never sticks.

Same thing with having 200 games to choose from. Fewer people playing the same things mean smaller communities. Plus, within those smaller communities, wargamers are funny - everyone wants to run their own website, so you have fewer people in particular commmunities, but more people in each trying to set up their own sites. So it is just fractures within fractures.

 

[dalem]

If by "honest" do you mean overly derisive, churlish and delightfully spiced with vitriol?

; )

Cheers!

Leto

Sometimes, sure.

-dale

 

[dalem]

Are you just saying words you know? Because that continues to make no sense.

Makes as much sense as calling it a driving game.

With a dumbed-down AI, focus on "ballistics" as opposed to "reasonable outcomes" and a trimmed-down scale, I'd say that it goes beyond simple "words I know".

-dale

 

[dalem]

Maybe that's why. I've said before with reference to individual games, you get too much splintering, and there are fewer people talking the same language.

For example, when before or shortly after the CM:BO came out, guys could all talk about playing the demo. It was a common experience. No one was "flooding the market" with user-made scenarios yet. Everyone was "talking the same language" on the BFC forum. But once there were 500+ different user-made scens, people stopped talking about the same scenarios. Then there were 1,000. Then 2,000. A couple of standouts got talked about, but it was hard to feel a sense of community. Some guys tried a "scenario of the month" thread - every community tries that - but it never sticks.

Same thing with having 200 games to choose from. Fewer people playing the same things mean smaller communities. Plus, within those smaller communities, wargamers are funny - everyone wants to run their own website, so you have fewer people in particular commmunities, but more people in each trying to set up their own sites. So it is just fractures within fractures.

Hard to feel a sense of community? I couldn't disagree more. Scenarios or QBs or tournies or "88 optics boofed", there was a definite sense of community.

-dale

 

[Geordie]

Please tell me you're joking. You mean to say that if every participant doesn't purchase every product, the venue itself is illegitimate? Does that mean that if I go to a forum about World War II without having fought in it myself, the discussion board itself is somehow a fraud?



I think the word you are looking for is "glean".

Yes, your right, glean, how silly of me!

But, your doing a typical MD thing by telling everyone what I mean and not reading what I wrote.

This forum doesn't discuss the playing of the game, is mainly what I meant. Instead it has concentrated for some time now on the critique of a game. I never said it was good, or bad thing.

But, it has clearly moved on from the CM-1 days.

 

[Geordie]

Geordie, you seem to have forgotten that Steve himself stated that he did not expect all his CM x 2 customers to buy all the modules. Before that he said that CMSF will not be for every CM x 1 gamer. Further, how different a game engine (if at all) is a fully patched CMSF compared to CMSF + all modules?

So far CM x 2 has been quite different in many ways than CM x 1. That being the case, expecting a single forum for CM games to be a melting pot is not very realistic. As discussed years ago, there will be/is fragmentation of the CM community, as well as a few invested new fans who never or rarely touched CM x 1.

See above, it's not really what I meant.

Of course you can talk about any CM product that you don't have. But I would have though the majority discussion would be about the game itself by those who actually play it. Anyone reading this forum would probably think differently.

I'm not saying it's a good or bad thing, and I think there has been some very interesting discussion here over the years that you wouldn't find at the BF forum.

 

[dalem]

Yes, your right, glean, how silly of me!

But, your doing a typical MD thing by telling everyone what I mean and not reading what I wrote.

This forum doesn't discuss the playing of the game, is mainly what I meant. Instead it has concentrated for some time now on the critique of a game. I never said it was good, or bad thing.

But, it has clearly moved on from the CM-1 days.

I've posted a few AARs. To mostly positive response.

-dale

 

[thewood]

I have tried numerous times to start discussions about the game and playing at quite a few forums over the long years CMSF has been out. I get darn close to zero discussion. I think BFC has done a great job of wrecking the gaming community they helped build. Even on their own website there has not been a whole lot of discussion on the game itself other than someone asking questions and gibson dressing thenm down.

 

[Geordie]

I have tried numerous times to start discussions about the game and playing at quite a few forums over the long years CMSF has been out. I get darn close to zero discussion. I think BFC has done a great job of wrecking the gaming community they helped build. Even on their own website there has not been a whole lot of discussion on the game itself other than someone asking questions and gibson dressing thenm down.

I cant disagree with you there, just look at how quiet the CMSF forum is at BF.....

 

[thewood]

And its not even because of CMBN. It started dying about a year after release. It would spike as new modules were released, but would die again in a couple weeks. And even then,. it was a lot of why something wasn't included.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

And its not even because of CMBN. It started dying about a year after release. It would spike as new modules were released, but would die again in a couple weeks. And even then,. it was a lot of why something wasn't included.

Like I said, better games.

Many theories about CM:SF - this feature, that feature, subject matter. Probably all apply. OpFlashpoint did very well with a "modern" (or recent-modern) subject matter, mostly I think because of its extensive moddability. Don't want to reopen that debate, but the difficulty of navigating the scenario editor/mission builder for CM has been discussed before. But of course, the OFP mission builder was way tougher, so I'm not sure that is even an argument. There's a lot of intangibles.

I just think at the end of the day, CMSF tried to appeal to too many people at the same time and appealled to none of them as fully as it might have appealled to one targetted core group. BFC admitted up front that this was their approach. They simply missed the mark. No shame in failing at something you try to do. The shame comes in continuing to do the same things and failing at them when you know they don't work. We shall see if that is the case with CM:BN.

 

[thewood]

Well, the really stupid part is that BFC is now trying to get back to their core audience. I think if CMSF had come out in a much better state (say around 1.08) and had a working quick battle system, most people would have looked at it as a nice try but not what they wanted. I really think BFC's attitude, the maelstrom around the reviewers, the actions the beta testers, and the lack of scenarios really made people on the fence not bother with it.