COTA or HTTR?

[7th Somersets]

Maybe a silly question given the different release dates of the games.

I am thinking of buying one of these games - historically I am more interested in HTTR, but I imagine that COTA has many improvements.

Which is the better game? (I know that I should prbably get both...)

[JeF]

Hi,

COTA has indeed a lot of improvements.
You'll find the list on COTA page at The Drop Zone and a more detailed version on the official COTA Website.

It's not to say that HTTR is a bad game. It still stands on its own very well.
I would go first with HTTR based on the fact that you are more interrested in it from the History point of view. Whatever the improvements are in COTA, HTTR is still a very good simulation of the battles of Operation Market-Garden.

My 2 cents,

JeF.

[Fred98]

COTA has so many improvements I would suggest starting with that
 
-

[captskillet]

Playing COTA will get you up to speed on the current AA engine when the new game Battles from the Bulge and its new features hits......besides they are working on a N Africa add on for COTA that will cover through Crusader! That said HTTR has a bunch of add on scenarios at that JeF linked above and is a kick to play too!

[laska2k8]

7th Somersets

I've removed my copy of HTTR (partially played) as soon as COTA came out. Lots of improvements drive me to the new release. After playing COTA for a while (with much enjoy) I decided to reinstall HTTR bouncing between the two. The only problem is that sometimes I'm confused about the user interface, especially trying to find the "LOS area" button in HTTR [:)]

HTTR is a very good start, but played before COTA.

max

[7th Somersets]

Many thanks to you all.
 
I have plumped for COTA - based on everything said. Now for some time to play it.... [&:]

[Abalieno]

I wonder... Since the development of the series is now near to a halt due to the duties of the main programmer/designer, couldn't be a good idea to build a "gold" edition that packs all the scenarios together from the previous titles and makes them compatible with the latest engine?

And maybe from there update the main engine accordingly to the free time Arjuna has, without developing brand new packages but just smaller "updates" to the same game at a reduced price. A few new features, an handful of scenarios.

[jmlima]

ORIGINAL: HRose

I wonder... Since the development of the series is now near to a halt due to the duties of the main programmer/designer, couldn't be a good idea to build a "gold" edition that packs all the scenarios together from the previous titles and makes them compatible with the latest engine?...

If that's really the case, then that also reopens the discussion of the estab editor entirely.

[PaulWRoberts]

The official word in the past has been that BFTB will include the estabs necessary for users to rewrite the HTTR scenarios under the new engine.  (Presumably the maps from HTTR will be importable into the BFTB editor as they are into COTA.  It will just be a matter of unit placement and setting up the newer features like supply sources.)

[HansBolter]

While development of BFTB is not moving at rocket speed, it is already pretty far along. There is a beta test build and a slew of scenarios, many of which are on version 2 or 3 representing revsions implemented as a result of the ongoing testing. Many of the scenarios are designed by team members other than Arjuna, so they are still being developed at a decent pace. There are a number of bugs being uncovered that are dependent on Arjuna, so that progress has slowed, but the point is don't give up on BFTB as we are still working on it.

[Abalieno]

I wasn't suggesting to ditch BFTB for a gold edition, I was instead suggesting a possible direction for the series AFTER BFTB will be released.

If I'm not wrong in the original plan it should have been released about right now and with Arjuna busy the release was pushed back by a few months. Probably some minor features will be cut as well to not waste even more time. I'm not well informed but I guess that the improvements in this next chapter will be minor compared to the advances of COTA Vs HTTR, so the value of it, at full price, will be worth it possibly because of a more known and popular setting more than because of new features and mechanics.

So, since the development of the series is going to slow down whether we like it or not, I was suggesting to continue to support the game with smaller update packs to a main "gold" package. With smaller, but more frequent engine upgrades and a few new scenarios. In place of full brand new titles that would take a long time to come out, and, with Arjuna busy, won't also offer substantial improvements either.

I just don't want this game engine to slowly decline because it has a great potential.

[jmlima]

ORIGINAL: HRose
...With smaller, but more frequent engine upgrades and a few new scenarios. In place of full brand new titles that would take a long time to come out, and, with Arjuna busy, won't also offer substantial improvements either....

Mind you though that I hardly see any 'sales' potential in marketing patches and engine upgrades. Take a look at HPS for example, they do it over their entire range , but it's free. I wouldn't pay any money for a patch , unless it was a major thing, but then, it there was developing time to do it , we wouldn't be talking about it. (if this makes sense)

Bottom line, the idea of commercializing patches and add-ons it's probably a 2 edged blade, it could work if the game had a huge fan base, with the following that CotA has (which will certainly increase with the Bulge one), I see hardly any potential to it. But that's me.

[Abalieno]

BFTB can be already considered a "patched" engine. Same for COTA. These aren't brand new engines or new games, they are incremental improvements on the same base engine that was designed and built years ago. In non-indie development they would classify as expansion packs (new missions, a few new features). So Matrix is ALREADY selling patches as full products and that's also why I read a lot of complaints on other forums when old games are released with a few upgrades at a full price (see Close Combat 3).

What I suggested was to maintain a main codebase and then release smaller upgrades. You don't get new customers through the upgrades, but you slowly increase the base value of the main game, that can continue to sell and stay up to date. It's a way to keep it afloat in the longer term. We have either this possiblity or not see at all another title in the series for a couple of years or more. If the development is slowling down it means also that the new releases will be far less ambitous and smaller in scope. If Matrix continues to release minor improvements at a full price than the game will slowly decline, not slowly grow.

I guess we all agree that this is one of the finest wargame engine out there and it would need more exposition because it has the potential to become more popular and get new players. So how to get more exposition?

If Arjuna has another job and if he cannot dedicate as much time as before to the game, I guess it's fair to ask that the prices of the new products will reflect their smaller scope.

My suggestion was an attempt to find a way to:
- Shorten the wait between the releases, by making them smaller
- Keep the main engine supported and improved instead of slowly abandoned

[Abalieno]

Explaining with a concrete example.

There could be a main game sold at full price. Then a small upgrade pack that is released yearly for $15 or so and with 5-6 new scenarios.

Now all the new features and improvements in the engine wouldn't be exclusive of the upgrade pack, but they would instead get integrated in the main game via free patches.

So if you would buy the main game four years from now you would get an up-to-date package with all the new features that were developed in that time. The game is kept fresh and the value of that main game will grow over time.

And why then players would buy the upgrade packs if all the new features come for free? Because we know this game is great and we know that a once we finally get a new customer, he'll want more. What is important is to *win* new customers, get them to try the game, increase the exposition. Once they decide to buy the main game then they'll also likely look for more, more scenarios where the new features will be used extensively. The fundamental part is to have them make the first step and the next will come.

It also means that everything you put on the market is never outdated because it all branches from the main (updated) game. So, for example, if the scenarios from HTTR were released as an upgrade pack their value would never decrease because you'll always play those scenarios in the most current engine, and every package will offer a different settings and challenges without being necessarily more advanced than another. You could purchase these packages in any order of preference, picking those whose setting you like more, instead of being somewhat "forced" to pick just the latest one (like with COTA) because you know it's the "newer", most polished one.

Right now from the customer perspective every new game released outdates the previous. A new customer doesn't really care about how many titles came out, because he'll likely just look at the very last and consider to buy that one.

My suggestion was to prevent things to get outdated and maximize their value. So that Matrix could keep selling EVERYTHING and not just the most recent product. While also trying to find a way to keep the game updated and selling even if Arjuna cannot work on it full time.

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: HRose

What I suggested was to maintain a main codebase and then release smaller upgrades. You don't get new customers through the upgrades, but you slowly increase the base value of the main game, that can continue to sell and stay up to date. It's a way to keep it afloat in the longer term. .............. If Matrix continues to release minor improvements at a full price than the game will slowly decline, not slowly grow.

Perfect analyzis, and pretty close to what I brought up here around a year ago.
The Battle for the Bulge and the North African theaters will trigger more interest, but then the Series will die, since, if we get to see the Russian sequel at all, the area the Russian front game will cover will be less interesting for quite a few ppl, it could turn out to be a bit too "uncommon", just like COTA, for average wargamers.

I guess we all agree that this is one of the finest wargame engine out there and it would need more exposition because it has the potential to become more popular and get new players. So how to get more exposition?

I agree, it's all about exposure, about attracting more players = customers. A demo version would help tremendously.

If Arjuna has another job and if he cannot dedicate as much time as before to the game, I guess it's fair to ask that the prices of the new products will reflect their smaller scope.

My suggestion was an attempt to find a way to:
- Shorten the wait between the releases, by making them smaller
- Keep the main engine supported and improved instead of slowly abandoned

I've proposed similar approaches, along with a list of other possible solutions, but none of these were considered due to lack of resources or different opinions on Dave's end.

I, for one, think that delivering new scenarios/maps/theaters constantly would do a better job than constantly adding new features, and, since a 2-man company with one AI programmer and 1 "CORE" programmer, where one or both could only do it on weekends anyways due to having full-time jobs, even these new features may be too rare to fully justify a full-price tag. A constant stream of new scenarios/theaters would keep me hooked, and I'd gladly pay for "add-ons", even if the engine would not be updated for let's say 3-5 yrs (I would not mind AI improvements/small tweaks once in a while, though), if the price would be fair. [:)]
Imagine

• 1) the conversion of HTTR/COTA key scenarios (to final BFTB version)
• 2) addition of Russian theater, a North African add-on, Finshhaven (sp?) add-on
• 3) modern theaters, like Vietnam, Israel/Syria/Egypt, Desert storm, etc.,

all of this could be done within a decent time frame, maybe at the rate of 1 or even 2 add-ons/year. 1 add-on/year might correspond to the release of a full version every 2-3 years price-/sales-wise, as the cycles would even be shorter compared to the full-version policy and it may guarantuee regular/higher sales too. After 3 years there could be a massive amount of dev scenarios/maps, a definite PLUS when people consider buying the core engine along with add-ons. If you stick to the idea that the estabs have to be hardcoded, the only solution making sense here would be to move to the creation of ADD-ONs, imho.

With the current speed, Finshaven (sp?) will come in 2014, according to my calculation [:D].

I'm working in the localization buiz, and I came up with the idea to translate all the manuals into German, I was even about to suggest to translate the game's GUI, but due to pretty bad communication from Dave's end I had ceased working on the translation. The idea was to attract more German speaking players (hey, 3 countries :p), thus increasing exposure. I think there's been a similar idea to create french manuals.

I've even suggested to create a small interface that could be bundled with the game, an interface that could pull new scenarios from a given server, and it could - equipped with a little chat client - basically revive the idea behind battleHQ and introduce a new feature for future new custom/developer maps. The chat-client part would be helpful for ppl who'd like to find human opponents.
Dave replied that he couldn't create such a tool as he doesn't have the resources / knowledge. Well, i've got the resources now, so I may contact Eric + Co, to see if there's interest on a publisher level.

For PG, I understand the fact that it all comes down to lack of resources, but the type of policy ("estabs", focusing on adding features instead of adding theaters/scenarios, etc.) and the lack of exposure are factors which keep this game from breaking out of the pool of games that are wearing the tag "insider tip".

[JWW]

FWIW, I just bought HTTR.  I've been intrigued by this engine for some time.  I like to play simulations and this reminded me of the BCT/ATF/AATF series from Shrapnel Games, which I have enjoyed.  I haven't even started my first game yet but this game seems to be really special.  I'm impressed just from what I've seen from the setup of the first tutorial.  I read to the point last night where I start giving orders.  I'm going to give some orders tonight.  Hope to actually play through the scenario by the weekend.  Been kinda busy the last few nights and haven't had much time.
 
But anyway I decided to start with HTTR because first I don't mind giving Matrix some of my money, and second I figured if I like it as much as I think I will, I will then have COTA and the new game to look forward to.

[Arjuna]

JW,
 
Please let us know how you get on with HTTR?
 
Enjoy! [:)]

[JWW]

Well, I finally played through tutorial one.  I lost.  That doesn't bother me, because I spent a lot of time just concentrating on one area or another while reading through the tutorial and letting time run without watching other areas.  Mainly I waited too long to begin my main attack on the far bridge and was defeated there.  But I had fun.
 
I am impressed with the simplicity of the system.  It is easy to give orders and conduct operations.  I know I still haved a lot to learn to be good at the game, but I am impressed by the way the game works.
 
Compared to the ATF series of simulations, it is easier to get things done.
 
I'm going to play the tutorial two today now that I have some time and then do a good read-through of the manual and help material for all the other things that I'm sure I need to play this well, and then I'll start some of the scenarios. 

[Arjuna]

Good to hear JW. Enjoy!

[JWW]

Okay, Arjuna, one more note.  I got past the tutorials and gave Raid on Renkum a try, noting the scenario instructions say it is an introductory scenario and that one of the posts in the HTTR forum indicates it is a good one to do first.  I've played it four times over the last week and had a blast.  Here are brief summaries.
 
1.  Of course the scenario is very simple.  You take both ends of the bridge, set up a perimeter, and hang on.  I use one bn to take the north end of the bridge and defend to the west, another to defend to the east, and the third which lands south of the river to of course take the south end and defend south.  I use the brigade units, i.e. the two engineer companies and the recon company to screen to the north and as a reserve.  Every time I played I used the same basic approach, varying only the size of the perimeter I established.  The first time I played it I took the bridges easily of course and then held off some light attacks from the east and west and won easily. 
 
2.  The second time I played it, the same happened except I encountered heavier attacks from both east and west, but nothing my paras could not easily handle.  I did shift one engineer company to support to the west. 
 
3.  For the third round I bumped up the supply for the Germans.  I am not sure if that affected the German reaction, but all hell broke loose.  The Germans attacked from east, west, and south.  I held in the east and in the south, but the para bn in the west was completely shattered.  I sent both of the brigade engineer companies to support that bn early in the battle.  One of those routed, and for the last four hours of the game the other engineer company held on alone at the west edge of the town against the Germans.  When the time limit ran out a section of four Jagdpanther IVs was pounding that company at point blank range, but they held.  I recommended Victoria Crosses for the company commander and several of the paras.  I don't have the game open and forget the unit designation, but it was the engineer company with the illustrious history that dates back to 1789 or something like that.  That bit of history added to the game was really neat.  At the same time the bn to the east was flanked and had to withdraw back closer to the town.  I had pushed them out too far along the highway, assuming the Germans would come down the road.  Nice move by the AI.
 
4.  I played it once more before moving on to other things and this time found the major German assault coming in from the northwest.  They broke all the way through to the objective marker north of the river  against my thin northern screen, and I had to scramble some reinforcements back from east and west to save the day.  As a side note, this time the Germans to the east did come right down the road, and my para battalion commander to the east had set up a beautiful kill zone and just ripped them apart.  I had simply given him an objective to defend and no special instructions.  That was interesting, as I realize the AI could do that to me in another situation.
 
Games 1 and 2 I won easily.  Games 3 and 4 I won, but I was in a desperate tactical situation at the end each time. 
 
I had a great time.  I really appreciate the engine and the ability to make small scenarios exciting.  I like the variability in the games.  Same scenario, completely different situations developing.  Now I'll move on and will get a chance to play some larger scenarios since I'm off for a few days.    After that I'll take a closer look at COTA or maybe just jump directly to the Bulge game.  So many choices, and Christmas is approaching.