New life at BFC forums due to imminent theatre change?

[[hirr]Leto]

Is it just me or do you sense a small surge in interest for the world war 2 theatre engine at the CM2 forums?

Cheers!

Leto

 

[Michael Dorosh]

A bunch of updates on Normandy in this thread:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=86797

Steve is now using the term "family" instead of "titles" - or rather, groupings of a Title and several Modules. Apparently one Title for Normandy followed by modules, to cover the fighting up to August (and one for Market-Garden), and another one for the Bulge period.

Moon says they will have a Russian company contracted to do Eastern Front stuff. Steve then expands:

A bit of a premature tidbit of information It's one of several possibilities we have on the table for the Eastern Front stuff when we actually get to it. We're making no decisions for a while since we haven't even done the Western Front stuff. But I think it is safe to say that we're going to have some help from a Russian partner (we have several at the moment) to some degree or another.

The basic point is the one I keep saying over and over again... CMx2 is set up to give us flexibility to use outside help to make Modules or, in theory, base games. We're still refining that process and figuring out how to get around some technical partnership development bottlenecks.

Steve says their Eastern Front stuff will not conflict with Theatre of War sales.

I think everyone misses the point of the original poster though; by "LEGO" I think maybe he is referring to the current lack of "theatre-wide" games, as CM:BB was, and the current "construction kit" module format.

Steve's biggest howler comes in post 22.

I have repeatedly put forward a very well supported, factual case that the Western Front is far more popular game topic.

Not likely; I'd say it is a dead heat based on the number of titles alone. I track such things at my website. The popularity of Valor of the Guards or Berlin: Red Vengeance or even Red Orchestra is right up there along with all the western front/Italy stuff like Medal of Honor and Thunder at Cassino etc. Over the past 40 years, Eastern Front titles have been released in equal quantities, perhaps even greater quantities, than their western front counterparts - and usually have been first out of the gate. Squad Leader, ASL, First Battle, PanzerBlitz and Panzer Grenadier were all successful game series that released Eastern Front titles/expansions first. TCS has several Eastern Front titles in the mix. The "Tank Leader" trilogy had an Eastern Front version, as did the Armor/88/Panzer trilogy. New game systems like Conflict of Heroes and Combat Commander have significant if not entirely Eastern Front coverage.

He's making things up, in other words.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I think the one generating the activity is Steve himself, honestly. The forum always gets busier when the devs come out of hiding. And he's tossing a couple of bonelets into the mix, though nothing really substantial.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Don't like this though:

The Bulge will be its own stand alone game with its own Modules. It will not be connected to Normandy. That's a decision we made long ago (3 years IIRC) and we're not going to change that.

Which isn't a huge deal necessarily, as long as all the armour that was actually in Normandy is included - i.e. King Tigers, etc. One can still use the Normandy game to do Bulge scenarios while waiting for the release of the latter (there wasn't deep snow in the Bulge for much of the battle so the weather would not necessarily be a factor).

Will be interesting to see what the substantial differences are though.

 

[[hirr]Leto]

He's making things up, in other words.

That's probably a bit of an extrapolation Mike. I suspect he is just using selected data on BFC game sales as evidence to back his statement (although I am not even sure of this).

I doubt he is just making stuff up.

I read the Bulge, Normandy bit. This would (I envision) make the games run like CMAK and CMBB... but within the same front... so you would have to use a completely different game (but with a very similar engine, with perhaps a few more evolutionary tweaks).

This is not a bad thing. Anything that BFC can do to make a buck is alright by me and satisfies my business strategy saturated blood just fine. What is perhaps the most disappointing, but inevitable I suppose, is that it sounds we will need to hold a requiem for the dead theatres and nationalities that populated the CMx1 series and gave it so much charm: Romanians, Hungarians, Finns, early French, Italians (dare I say Canadians?) and so on.

It sounds like the first few iterations of CM2 WW 2 Theatre will be entirely dominated by super power armies with the little guys left to the cardboard worlds of ASL.

I think an improved Russian theatre would make up for this somewhat, with T-28's, T-35's and so on, but I always had a softspot for the allied and axis minors. This seems to be playing out more like a vanilla mainstream product campaign that is backing away from some of the "eclectic greatness" of its strong tradition. Regrettable, but I can understand the business logic to it.

Types like I who are fascinated with Char BI tanks, Romanian Cavalry formations and Italian East Front divisions will be disappointed somewhat. I suppose you can't have it all... but if I were just a few million dollars richer, and had the spare play capital, boy would I love to pay these guys to do it for me (most likely on a capital loss investment).

Cheers!

Leto

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Given their inability to get multi-turreted tanks to work properly in CMX1, I don't hold out much hope we'll see them done right in a new game engine, so the Russian T-35 is probably as dead an issue as Romanian infantry battalions.

He's making up his info on the popularity of Eastern Front games. If he is basing it on the sales of CM titles, he's extrapolating way too broadly to be useful, and being disingenuous about it. He can apply those figures to the popularity of his own game, but it most certainly does not apply across the board - dozens of other publishers have had great success - PanzerBlitz sold over a quarter of a million copies - by tilling the fertile ground of the Eastern Front. The ASL crowd is still doing well with it; and also look no farther than Panzer Command which has had two reasonably successful titles which, though they probably didn't set any sales records, have at least encouraged Matrix to try for a third (on the western front by last report).

I don't and can't dispute Steve's own sales figures with respect to his own game since they are a matter of secrecy, but what I can object to is his very silly assertion that he is somehow clairvoyant when it comes to knowing what sells and what doesn't, and his ignorant statement that the western front is a "far more popular game topic". I can state with 100 percent certainty that it is not "far more popular" among those who have been creating boardgame treatments for the last 40 years. I don't have access to the sales figures that might suggest if they are right or wrong, but I have no reason to believe they would not support an assertion that they probably know at least as much about what they are doing as Steve does.

 

[dalem]

He's making things up, in other words.

Might he may have a point if he ignores the whole history of actual wargames and instead just looks at the computer shooters?

-dale

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Might he may have a point if he ignores the whole history of actual wargames and instead just looks at the computer shooters?

-dale

Shouldn't he say so up front if he's claiming to have "repeatedly put forward a very well supported, factual case" (his words)? At the very least, he should link to this case he's bragging about. I keep seeing the claim, but where is this case? I've never seen him present sales figures of other games, or even any titles. Have you?

Here's my research, for what it is worth:

http://www.tacticalwargamer.com/boardgames/boardgames.htm

Every tactical level boardgame made from the very first to present with subject matter taking place in the 20th or 21st Centuries. Count the Eastern Front titles, and compare to the Western Front titles. Exclude anything else (modern, Arab-Israeli, First World War, etc.) and tell me if Western Front overwhelms the Eastern Front titles.

 

[dalem]

Shouldn't he say so up front if he's claiming to have "repeatedly put forward a very well supported, factual case" (his words)? At the very least, he should link to this case he's bragging about. I keep seeing the claim, but where is this case? I've never seen him present sales figures of other games, or even any titles. Have you?

Well, no, but I'm just trying to identify a context in which his claim makes sense.

Here's my research, for what it is worth:

http://www.tacticalwargamer.com/boardgames/boardgames.htm

Every tactical level boardgame made from the very first to present with subject matter taking place in the 20th or 21st Centuries. Count the Eastern Front titles, and compare to the Western Front titles. Exclude anything else (modern, Arab-Israeli, First World War, etc.) and tell me if Western Front overwhelms the Eastern Front titles.

Oh, as I've said in other threads, even without looking at your figures I have a "gut feeling" that the ratio is around 5:3:2 for East Front: West Front: Other Front WWII non-PC wargames. That's just based on what I've seen on shelves over the years.

-dale

 

[Michael Dorosh]

As far as computer shooters - I get where you're going (i.e. CMX2 is now a 'platoon shooter', heh) and I can see that most FPS are set in the west simply because the scale, I think, demands it. Brothers in Arms and Medal of Honor are character driven and the player becomes that character. Selling the games to young American boys, it makes sense to make the heroes...young American boys. If Steve wants to extrapolate that to influence his decisions on what kind of company-level game he can market, he does so at is peril.

 

[Pdqport]

Shouldn't he say so up front if he's claiming to have "repeatedly put forward a very well supported, factual case" (his words)? At the very least, he should link to this case he's bragging about. I keep seeing the claim, but where is this case? I've never seen him present sales figures of other games, or even any titles. Have you?

He did say something along those lines somewhere (can't remember which thread off the top of my head). The gist of it was that they (BFC) don't look at the history of boardgames or even hardcore computer wargames because hard core wargamers are only a small portion of the market for their games.

I don't think he made much of a "very well supported, factual case", but his point was that in the more general PC gaming market (apparently the primary market for CMx2) the vast majority of the WW2 games have a West Front focus. Thus that is where the focus of future CM game will be, that's where the money is. I don't necessarily agree, but that's where he's coming from and he did state it on his boards.

 

[dalem]

As far as computer shooters - I get where you're going (i.e. CMX2 is now a 'platoon shooter', heh) and I can see that most FPS are set in the west simply because the scale, I think, demands it. Brothers in Arms and Medal of Honor are character driven and sold to young American boys, so it makes sense to make the heroes...young American boys. If Steve wants to extrapolate that to influence his decisions on what kind of company-level game he can market, he does so at is peril.

Does he? He's already clearly stated that he's dismuissed the true wargamers and even claimed that he never tried to market to them at all (which strikes me as an odd thing to say when one's flagship game is 3d Advanced Squad Leader), so if he can roll his crap out the door fast enough the little boys might just --

Nahh, I don't think it will work either, especially if the next engine revision does move away from a few locked-in scenarios, because that means he's still trying to peel some of that wargamer market off. Stuck in limbo it would be.

-dale

 

[Michael Dorosh]

He did say something along those lines somewhere (can't remember which thread off the top of my head). The gist of it was that they (BFC) don't look at the history of boardgames or even hardcore computer wargames because hard core wargamers are only a small portion of the market for their games.

I don't think he made much of a "very well supported, factual case", but his point was that in the more general PC gaming market (apparently the primary market for CMx2) the vast majority of the WW2 games have a West Front focus. Thus that is where the focus of future CM game will be, that's where the money is. I don't necessarily agree, but that's where he's coming from and he did state it on his boards.

He must mean the operational level games then? Thanks for the clarification on that. If that's the case - and it would help if he clarified his terms - he's probably correct. He's still wrong if he means tactical level PC games because the earliest of the PC games were also Russian Front oriented - TANKTICS, CLOSE ASSAULT, UNDER FIRE, STEEL PANTHERS etc. all had Russian Front coverage, the first two of those were Russian Front exclusively.

However, if you shift the focus to operational level games, there simply aren't that many well-known battles to cover as there are in the west - Stalingrad and Kursk primarily, whereas you have much more that is familiar to western audiences in the ETO, Italy, North Africa to choose from at the operational level - Arnhem/Market-Garden, D-Day/Normandy, Bastogne/Bulge, Metz/Patton and southern France, Operation Cobra, Sicily, Salerno, Anzio, Cassino, El Alamein, Tunisia, etc. etc.

Having said that, I've bought perhaps one operational level game - from Matrix - on D-Day, and while I installed it, I never played it. I also had Airborne Assault, but only because I was a beta-tester. Maybe other tactical gamers have more of an interest in operational/strategic level games - I am sure they must - but for me they don't hold much appeal.

 

[Pdqport]

He must mean the operational level games then? Thanks for the clarification on that. If that's the case - and it would help if he clarified his terms - he's probably correct. He's still wrong if he means tactical level PC games because the earliest of the PC games were also Russian Front oriented - TANKTICS, CLOSE ASSAULT, UNDER FIRE, STEEL PANTHERS etc. all had Russian Front coverage, the first two of those were Russian Front exclusively.

The impression I have from is comments is that he would discount any of those games as representing the target market for CM. Honestly I don't know what he thinks his target market is, but he went on at length about how wargamers were only a small segment (a whiny segment at that) and the marketing decisions for CM were being guided by attention to the larger segments. I'll see if I can find his exact words. I'm paraphrasing too much, I read a lot of his commentary on Friday and it's a bit cloudy now (he tends to be long-winded).

 

[Geordie]

I think I know where Steve is coming from though. Remember that their aim isnt just to sell to traditional wargamers but to be more mainstream. Out in the mainstream world there probably is much more interest in the West about the Westfront. I would agree with his ststement if its aimed at non-wargamers mainstream audiences.

 

[mangus2000]

I think I know where Steve is coming from though. Remember that their aim isnt just to sell to traditional wargamers but to be more mainstream. Out in the mainstream world there probably is much more interest in the West about the Westfront. I would agree with his ststement if its aimed at non-wargamers mainstream audiences.

Well if thats the case why don't they just start making mainstream games instead of this half n half approach to CM?

 

[Geordie]

Well they cant make any mainstream games as that market is cornered by the companies that invest millions in such things as Company of heroes. For all that games RT suckiness, it blows away CMSF in terms of graphics and not needing a brain to play it.

So what can BF do to capture at least some of this market? Perhaps take a little bit of the thought out of the game? I dont mean make the game stupid though, perhaps thats why theres no kill counts, unit stats, firepower tables. Maybe these put the more mainstream gamer off? Also, if perhaps it was aimed at the military, then military people know a lot of what their weapons already do.

So thats maybe 2 reasons right there.

 

[mangus2000]

I used to play games like CoH years ago and started looking for something deeper and more immersive and thanks to a drunken night out heard about CM, never looked back!

Gamers are getting older these days, i've been playing them since i was nine, and we need that more in depth feel; angling for the older gamer might not be a bad thing.

Anyway, don't have much to say that ain't already been said, BFC ain't gonna change for us which is a crying shame in my humble opinion!

 

[Geordie]

I used to play games like CoH years ago and started looking for something deeper and more immersive and thanks to a drunken night out heard about CM, never looked back!

Im intrigued as to how a drunken night out can lead to CM. In my experience a drunken night out usually leads to much more angst and regret, with a bit of soul searching included.

I really cant imagine waking up and thinking, 'my God, what the hell was I doing last night, how will I ever get over the embarrassment of playing CM' My escapades more often revolve around saying Ill just go for a couple, then getting fooled into thinking Im 21 again and trying to out drink my lads and lassies, dressing in drag, silly drinking games, Mess Rugby etc etc, the long sordid list goes on, but and I have to stress, Ive never indulged in 2am drunken CM.

Each to their own crazy vice I suppose!

 

[dalem]

Best game to play drunk at 2am are the Lost Worlds Combat books.

-dale