Michael Dorosh
der Spieß des Forums
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2004
- Messages
- 15,733
- Reaction score
- 2,765
- Location
- Calgary, AB
- First name
- Michael
- Country
-
From BFC:
Steve: CM:SF is used a bit by the US military officially and unofficially. Very niche, unlike Steel Beasts and VBS2. CM:SF has three major "deficiencies" that are holding it back from more widespread interest by the military:
1. The player has too many hats to wear. The military is very used to thinking in terms of "roles" and appears to find it difficult to comprehend how to use a game like CM:SF to its best effect with more traditional classroom training. CoPlay would fix this very well, but we're not in a position to invest in that yet.
2. Lack of "tools" for a more structured learning environment. This includes things like the student setting up his own OPORD/FRAGORD at the beginning, more detailed AARs, and other statistical features which would allow for better grading of the student's performance. These features are very easy for us to add, but time consuming and generally not something non-military customers would care about.
3. Full game replay, with some features like "book marking" particular points of interest so the instructor can get back specific points of the battle easily. Obviously this is a feature that is of interest to all CM players, but at present we don't think it's possible for us to do it in a way that has much practical appeal to regular gamers (i.e. we think a dedicated computer has to be networked to record the play).
These features would make one Hell of a training tool for the military to use. Unfortunately, without military funding to hire more programming help we don't see any of this happening soon. The features are either too much for us to bite off right now with just Charles at the helm. Eventually we'll get there, but not because the military wants this stuff. We'll get there because these are (mostly) things you guys want and we feel give us a commercial benefit.
Steve
Steve: Full game replay would likely require some sort of recording client on an independent computer as far as we can tell. This isn't too much of a technical problem, rather a time consumption one. We have a lot of features that are also high up on peoples' wish lists that could be added easier and with more certainty of success.
Yes, the military could hand write stuff, use real radios (or phones), and other things to work around "limitations" within the game. However, this increases the amount of imagination necessary for someone at the higher end of the decision making spectrum. That's where we have always run into problems. Therefore, the more obviously tailored for a classroom environment CM is, the more likely we can get some attention.
The thing is we've known for years now that a military contract with an R&D element is almost impossible to get. One military contractor (who loves CM) described the chances of a small developer like us getting hit by lightning as slightly better than getting a contract. It's really sad, since a fairly modest amount of money thrown our way would yield one Hell of a battalion leadership trainer. Oh, and we could deliver it quickly too, not in years like so many other projects out there.
Our plan is to eventually have all the significant features the military really wants (mostly CoPlay related) in the game for commercial reasons anyhow. It's just that if someone with the right pull could offer us a modest contract now we could do everything sooner for both the military and you guys. Failing that, we just keep on doing what we've always planned on doing. Since we are quite happy with how things are going, it's not a bad thing
Steve
Normal Dude: Write your congressman folks.
SlapHappy: I find it difficult to believe that CM's attention to realism doesn't attract more military attention.
Not saying it isn't so - I just find it hard to believe.
Steve: It has attracted a lot of attention. The problem is guys in $5000 suits with bags full of money attract more :upset:
Steve
Could it possibly be that the military has seen how Steve and company talk to their customers on their own forum and concluded that guys with $5000 suits have a proven track record of success that exceeds two dudes in a barn somewhere in New England squatting atop an M29 Weasel with a lacklustre video-game franchise under their belts and no real-world military experience to speak of?
I'm just taking a wild stab in the dark here.
Steve: CM:SF is used a bit by the US military officially and unofficially. Very niche, unlike Steel Beasts and VBS2. CM:SF has three major "deficiencies" that are holding it back from more widespread interest by the military:
1. The player has too many hats to wear. The military is very used to thinking in terms of "roles" and appears to find it difficult to comprehend how to use a game like CM:SF to its best effect with more traditional classroom training. CoPlay would fix this very well, but we're not in a position to invest in that yet.
2. Lack of "tools" for a more structured learning environment. This includes things like the student setting up his own OPORD/FRAGORD at the beginning, more detailed AARs, and other statistical features which would allow for better grading of the student's performance. These features are very easy for us to add, but time consuming and generally not something non-military customers would care about.
3. Full game replay, with some features like "book marking" particular points of interest so the instructor can get back specific points of the battle easily. Obviously this is a feature that is of interest to all CM players, but at present we don't think it's possible for us to do it in a way that has much practical appeal to regular gamers (i.e. we think a dedicated computer has to be networked to record the play).
These features would make one Hell of a training tool for the military to use. Unfortunately, without military funding to hire more programming help we don't see any of this happening soon. The features are either too much for us to bite off right now with just Charles at the helm. Eventually we'll get there, but not because the military wants this stuff. We'll get there because these are (mostly) things you guys want and we feel give us a commercial benefit.
Steve
Steve: Full game replay would likely require some sort of recording client on an independent computer as far as we can tell. This isn't too much of a technical problem, rather a time consumption one. We have a lot of features that are also high up on peoples' wish lists that could be added easier and with more certainty of success.
Yes, the military could hand write stuff, use real radios (or phones), and other things to work around "limitations" within the game. However, this increases the amount of imagination necessary for someone at the higher end of the decision making spectrum. That's where we have always run into problems. Therefore, the more obviously tailored for a classroom environment CM is, the more likely we can get some attention.
The thing is we've known for years now that a military contract with an R&D element is almost impossible to get. One military contractor (who loves CM) described the chances of a small developer like us getting hit by lightning as slightly better than getting a contract. It's really sad, since a fairly modest amount of money thrown our way would yield one Hell of a battalion leadership trainer. Oh, and we could deliver it quickly too, not in years like so many other projects out there.
Our plan is to eventually have all the significant features the military really wants (mostly CoPlay related) in the game for commercial reasons anyhow. It's just that if someone with the right pull could offer us a modest contract now we could do everything sooner for both the military and you guys. Failing that, we just keep on doing what we've always planned on doing. Since we are quite happy with how things are going, it's not a bad thing
Steve
Normal Dude: Write your congressman folks.
SlapHappy: I find it difficult to believe that CM's attention to realism doesn't attract more military attention.
Not saying it isn't so - I just find it hard to believe.
Steve: It has attracted a lot of attention. The problem is guys in $5000 suits with bags full of money attract more :upset:
Steve
Could it possibly be that the military has seen how Steve and company talk to their customers on their own forum and concluded that guys with $5000 suits have a proven track record of success that exceeds two dudes in a barn somewhere in New England squatting atop an M29 Weasel with a lacklustre video-game franchise under their belts and no real-world military experience to speak of?
I'm just taking a wild stab in the dark here.
