Thoughts on the (un)success of CotA (long)

[Arjuna]

Joel,
 
Thank you for taking the time to put your views. We do appreciate your feedback. As Ray said we would very much like to know what about the UI you didn't like.
 
As for PBEM, well being a continuous time game this is not really an option. Most players playing head to head tend to focus on the small to medium sized scenarios and these typically take around two to three hours. Of course they can be saved and continued again at another time. So really the only issue is the coordination aspect. I appreciate that busy lives ( and whose isn't nowdays ) can make this difficult but it probably takes only marginally more communication time looking up the opponents wanted thread here or on the Wargamer than it does to find an opponent for PBEM. And like PBEM once you have found a partner you like playing with it can be a simple MSN Message to tee up timings.
 
And on the plus side, it is so much more social and so much more fun to play head to head live. [:)]

[Major Disaster]

What I think that would help sales the most is to add a Google Erath like 3D viewing option for viewing the map. I am not talking about fancy photo realistic, high eye candy level,  3D viewer or animations (nor  3D unit counters of giant tanks or infantry, etc) but rather the ability to drap the game map over terrain elevation data (ala Google Earth)  so that one can better see the terrain. I think that would be helpful for the hardcore player, enhance fun level for all, and would attract a wider audience. Now I am not saying that this would be the highest priority among the hardcore, but rather this would probably be the biggest draw to bring in more players while at the same time being a non waste of time for the hardcore fan.
 
Covering other periods would also be cool. For example I would love to see a Sicily 43 version and a Nomrany 44 in addition to the ezxcellent ones already planned.
 
I suppose the key question is what features should PG devote their scarce development resources into for their next games to generate the most business and revinue  but also satisfy their (most admirable!!!) desire to build qulaity tactical wargames? 
 

[barbarossa2]

Why am I not buying COTA?

Good question. One I ask myself every day.

Just some background: I am 39. Was introduced to gaming with Squad Leader. Collected about 100 board games. Sold them all a few years ago for lack of opponents. Was always into operational/strategic level hexagonal games because it "felt right" to be taking two hours to execute a turn which might represent 3 months. I never liked games which took 2 hours of work to simulate 5 minutes of combat. TOO WEIRD.

I was completely, 100% HOOKED with HTTR. As I played my first few games, I thought, MY GOD, I WASTED 20 YEARS OF MY LIFE PLAYING GAMES WHICH COULD ONLY APPROXIMATE THIS EXPERIENCE. I played and played. I submitted suggestions in the Forum. When I heard about COTA, I ached for it. I KNEW I would buy it as soon as it hit the shelves.

A few months after its release...why have I not bought it?

-Perhaps because of its limited scope. But I was excited to see PG deal with something relatively obscure. My grandfather fought for the Germans, and I always thought something that DIDN'T have Americans in it would be cool. Was also pretty sick of Russian Front titles.
-Perhaps because I have been lulled into "repeated disappointment mode" by the computer wargaming industry. Why? because I can BET that it will take two or three patches to work out the bugs/design issues 90% of people are complaining about. So I wait... and wait.
-Perhaps because there is no scenario designer (easy to use) that I know of (yes, there MAY be one...but I do not KNOW about it. This is a CRUCIAL difference in the marketing world).
-Perhaps because some of my biggest pet peaves in the play of HTTR may not have been fixed (mostly an "execute at 0600 hours" command, so I could get units to do things simultaneously...again, this may have been corrected. I do not know.
-Perhaps because I KNOW that by the NEXT release, it will be an EVEN BETTER GAME, and I will have LESS to be dissapointed about.
-Perhaps because, in SPITE of the fact that I might SAY that I am sick of eastern front titles, I really, really DID want a Kursk game. Or Stalingrad game. Something that FEELS Massive in my brain.

I do know that PG is developing what I consider to be one of the best gaming experiences out there (for gamers who want realistic feeling war games). I DO know that it is actually my duty to buy COTA, so that Panther is around in 10 years cranking out the fest f&%king games on the planet, and I see our investment at this point in a "half assed" version of what will be around in 10 years, as a required stepping stone. It is everybody's duty to do this.

But I have still not pulled out my credit card, and when I tell my friends about these games, they tend to buy as well. I am what one could call a heavy advertiser for products I love. For example, the other game I am partial to is "Medieval 2: Total War". I immediately downloaded the demo as soon as it was available, played it, and they have me hooked. I did screenshots, and had it out to 10 friends on the next day. AND told them where to download a killer FREE gaming experience. I do not know if they will buy. But one just announced he will upgrade his graphics card to do so after seeing the screen shots.

Perhaps a demo would be a good idea. I do not know.

But those are my two cents.

Would like to rejoin the COTA community. Looking for a reason,

-Chris

P.S. Arjuna, I am staying with some Hindu friends and learning a lot about their faith. Arjuna was Krishna's chariot driver. Did you choose that name for a reason?

[Arjuna]

Chris,
 
First off, Krishna was Arjuna's chariot driver. Arjuna is the warrior hero in the Bhagavagita, which in turn is one book from the Indian epic the Mahabarata. And yes I chose my name after this hero who has his doubts and disbelief but through Krishna's guidance finds the courage to do his duty and lead the armies in the great battle. It's a classic read full of much wisdom.

[barbarossa2]

I knew that. ;D Just got mixed up!

Great name.

[Arjuna]

ORIGINAL: barbarossa2
-Perhaps because of its limited scope. But I was excited to see PG deal with something relatively obscure. My grandfather fought for the Germans, and I always thought something that DIDN'T have Americans in it would be cool. Was also pretty sick of Russian Front titles.

Within most theatres of WW2 operational commanders faced a gamut of situations and challenges. Those in Greece, Crete and Malta certainly did. COTA covers the full gamut of offensive and defensive operations, from set piece attacks to delaying defence, from Divisional sized raids on enemy communication lines to airborne coup de mains. And the terrain couldn't be more varied from the incredible steep and rugged mountains of Greece to the relatively flat open terrain of Malta.

-Perhaps because I have been lulled into "repeated disappointment mode" by the computer wargaming industry. Why? because I can BET that it will take two or three patches to work out the bugs/design issues 90% of people are complaining about. So I wait... and wait.

And this is different from the general games market? I don't think so. This will be with us forever. With the level of sophistication that we now have in software games comes complexity of code and development. Even with an excellent beta testing regime, their capacity to find all nuances and combinations is limited. So it's invariable that when the product is released and more people play that things will be uncovered and that need to be patched.

The real question is the extent and impact of the bugs needing to be addressed and the resolve of the development staff to fix them. Patch 1 is out. We discovered this week that we still have a bug affecting air droped supplies. This has been fixed and a new patch 2 should be issued soon. But in any event it only affects a few scenarios where supplies are delivered by air. Otherwise the game is very solid.

-Perhaps because there is no scenario designer (easy to use) that I know of (yes, there MAY be one...but I do not KNOW about it. This is a CRUCIAL difference in the marketing world).

Hey you already have HTTR, so check out the MapMaker and ScenMaker in it. Yes we have made improvements but they are a pretty good demo for them.

-Perhaps because some of my biggest pet peaves in the play of HTTR may not have been fixed (mostly an "execute at 0600 hours" command, so I could get units to do things simultaneously...again, this may have been corrected. I do not know.

No we have not implemented this particular feature, but we did address dozens of other features for COTA - check out the What's New thread for the very long list.

-Perhaps because I KNOW that by the NEXT release, it will be an EVEN BETTER GAME, and I will have LESS to be dissapointed about.

Tell me, they say we get better at sex the older we get, so should I abstain till I'm 70, when it will be soooo perfect. I don't think so. [;)]

-Perhaps because, in SPITE of the fact that I might SAY that I am sick of eastern front titles, I really, really DID want a Kursk game. Or Stalingrad game. Something that FEELS Massive in my brain.

The ability of the game engine to model large battles like Kursk is directly dependent on the power of the computer. For HTTR we had a max map size of 30 x 30 kms. For COTA this has increased to 40 x 50. It will be sometime before we can cope with something like the entire battle of Kursk. For BFTB we have produced a swag of maps covering the entire Bulge battle area but computers still have a way to go before we can handle it all on one map.

But in any event, if you are playing a Div commander for instance your area of operations is usually limited to a 20-30km front.

Our East Front Data Design Team ( DDT ) is currently working on Red Star Rising which will cover the psot Stalingrad battles along the Chir River. It's coming.

I do know that PG is developing what I consider to be one of the best gaming experiences out there (for gamers who want realistic feeling war games). I DO know that it is actually my duty to buy COTA, so that Panther is around in 10 years cranking out the fest f&%king games on the planet, and I see our investment at this point in a "half assed" version of what will be around in 10 years, as a required stepping stone. It is everybody's duty to do this.

But I have still not pulled out my credit card, and when I tell my friends about these games, they tend to buy as well. I am what one could call a heavy advertiser for products I love. For example, the other game I am partial to is "Medieval 2: Total War". I immediately downloaded the demo as soon as it was available, played it, and they have me hooked. I did screenshots, and had it out to 10 friends on the next day. AND told them where to download a killer FREE gaming experience. I do not know if they will buy. But one just announced he will upgrade his graphics card to do so after seeing the screen shots.

Perhaps a demo would be a good idea. I do not know.

You already own HTTR which you say you love. What more do you need?

But those are my two cents.

Much appreciated.

Would like to rejoin the COTA community. Looking for a reason,

You would put a smile on code warrior's face! [:)]

Or as Krishna said to Arjuna on the eve of the great battle, of all the virtues the greatest is courage. Courage is needed to make the leap of faith on which our great journey begins.

[barbarossa2]

When will an "execute at 0600 hours" command be implemented? Battle of the Bulge? Just curious.

[Arjuna]

It depends on available time and hence money and on the level of demand for it. While there has been some interest in such a feature it's not as though everyone is clamouring for it. For BFTB we have overhauled the forceGroup class and we're embarking on minefields and other dynamic terrain classes. If we have a spare moment and we get some other people keen on the co-ord feature, then we'll see what we can do.

[Deathtreader]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

It depends on available time and hence money and on the level of demand for it. While there has been some interest in such a feature it's not as though everyone is clamouring for it. For BFTB we have overhauled the forceGroup class and we're embarking on minefields and other dynamic terrain classes. If we have a spare moment and we get some other people keen on the co-ord feature, then we'll see what we can do.

Hiya,

Here's at least one other person who's keen on the co-ord feature!! [&o][&o]
Anybody else??

Rob. [:)]

[Joel]

Hertston, Ray, Arjuna,
Thanks for your replies. [:)]

ORIGINAL: RayWolfe
Sorry for all the questions but I'm realy interested in peoples feelings about this engine.

No problem for the questions, sorry for being late with the answers !

ORIGINAL: RayWolfe
Can you say what you thought was wrong with the UI? I ask because I have not heard much crtisism of this aspect of the gamer.

I was taken aback by function changes in the left screen area. As I recall there was a feature (IIRC it was the artillery menu) where I could not figure how to get out of without the Escape key, and the catastrophic (and short) French translated manual was not much of a help. But I admit I may not have taken enough time to move beyond what I felt was awkward at first. [&o]

ORIGINAL: RayWolfe
Yes this is quoted by many people as a problem. Do you do much PBEM? What proportion of your gaming is PBEM? What are you currently doing via PBEM?

I play 100% pbem. Generally 3 or 4 CMBB or CMAK games running. I did play some pbem with HPS Napo titles, Crown of Glory, and a while back with Steel Panthers but not any more these days. I would consider myself as a serious wargamer (ie interested in historical accuracy) but light gamer (not many games running because of lack of free time).


As for continuous time vs wego/pbem, it is not a "either/or" situation. For example the next Combat Mission game will have both Continuous Time and Wego, as will the napoleonic game "Les Grognards".
Also if I understand correctly, the CotA feature "Run until" is a step towards Wego. But I guess that it may be impossible to implement this feature if it was not planned for at the beginning of the coding...
As for the advantages of one vs the other, well, to each his own. I know (because I've tried it) that I much prefer Pbem over TCP/IP, because it's much more suited to the way I play.
I'd be curious to read professional survey results about multiplayer habits among wargamers, and see if pbem is a significant issue for sales. But I guess I would have to finance one by myself ! [;)]

Cheers,
Joel

[Real and Simulated Wars]

On the so-called “un-success of CotA”, I think that the market impact of CotA comes with the package.

Let me explain a bit.
While researching for an un-related issue I stomped into a wonderful chapter book by John F Schmitt (“Command and [Out of] Control: The Military Implications of Complexity Theory”). The piece goes on the line of Western civilization being completely pervaded by the Newtonian view of the universe as a machine, whose mechanisms should be perfectly known and controllable. This view of the universe has obviously driven military thought until today. Professional military leaders view command and control as a clockwork in which they should always be in control of the more minuscule aspects of an operation. This needs not further confirmation, just watch how the Pentagon invests the taxpayer’s money in more and more sophisticated ways to know exactly where every platoon of a brigade is located. According to Schmitt, this vision of command and control is folly. Warfare is always in the edge of chaos, and not only chaos in the street meaning, but in the most strictly scientific one.
That’s enough science crap for the time being. Let’s just say that warfare with a commander in perfect control of the situation is the way of thinking of many professional military leaders.

Taking the previous into account, it doesn’t surprise me that if you give the average Joe to choose between two models of warfare, one in which he has perfect control over everything and other in which he controls what he realistically could control, he would choose the former. It’s just the way people prefer to think about reality. Hexes, tables of movement, combat result tables, specific intervals of times in which to intervene (turns), etc. Everything fits into the tidy, comfortable, “clockwork” frame of thinking. There is a written, documented mechanism for the little war they are playing. These mechanisms (not surprisingly called "rules", the parallel with Newton's "laws" comes immediately to mind) provide the comfort of knowing exactly what could happen next. Despite their appearance, dice throws or any other mechanism to add chaos into turn-based war games follow the same philosophy of freakish control. The unknown and uncontrollable in those war games comes only at specific times in the game play. You know exactly when you will be out of control and paradoxically you are in control of when and how much you will be out of control.

The AA engine comes as an odd ball to many. Not because AA’s model of warfare is wrong, inaccurate or anything else. It is just because the majority of people are uncomfortable not having perfect control over everything, 100% of the time.

I don’t want to sound pedantic, but here it comes nonetheless. It is not about CotA’s un-success, it is about many war gamers un-success to re-evaluate their paradigms.

I know all the preceding diatribe is not going to help to convert anybody to this system. But finally I think I can rationalize what happens with CotA.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: TJ- key battles/ operations known to everyone - have formed the bulk of subjects for successful wargames irrespective of type/ style.

I agree completely. I’ve been sold on getting COTA since I bought the Market Garden title, but the battles covered simply do not interest me that much so I haven’t actually purchased the game yet (too many other games on my plate right now). I will eventually buy it, but it simply isn’t a must buy title from my point of view.

The campaign covered was a complete blow-out in the war and not a very interesting part of the war when compared to other campaigns that could have been covered. Also I personally prefer large campaigns over small scenarios and that seems to be one thing this series has been steering clear of for some reason.

Why for instance was there no full campaign for the Market Garden title? Every PC or board game I have ever played covering that operation had the campaign in its entirety available to be played, but for some reason Panther Games chose to break it down into smaller scenarios leaving me feeling a bit miffed that I couldn’t play out the entire campaign in one go.

Sure those were fun smaller scenarios, but I WANTED the full campaign and I’m sure many customers felt the same way I did.

Take a look at Tillers games, most people groan about the huge multi-hundred turn scenarios in first impressions discussion threads, but those are not the people playing the games. When I read threads by those who play those titles, invariably they are playing the larger campaigns for the most part.

From a business point of view, there is a reason there is a glut of well known WWII battles that find their way to store shelves. People generally specialize in their history. And they tend to gravitate towards what they know when they make a purchase decision.

Some people only care about specific campaigns, some follow fronts (east, west, med, etc.). Some only like naval, some air, others land. Then there are those like me who know a lot about WWII overall, but most of my reading has centered on the important parts of the conflict.

I’ve read more about the coup in Yugoslavia than I have about the actual land campaign, because the coup was the event that really mattered from the perspective of how it affected the overall war. The land campaign was simply a mop-up operation really, not that difficult or important in the grand scheme of things.

I personally am very glad that Panther Games has done a game covering this campaign, but I think it should have been done later in the series after the more popular campaigns established the series as a success.

The game system for COTA is great and deserves to enjoy great success, but getting people interested in the engine means you need to serve them what they want. Larger campaigns that cover the battles that they know. Once they’re hooked on the system then their own desire to expand on their interest in the series will lead them to the more obscure campaigns.

Just my 2 cents.

Jim

[Arjuna]

Jim,
 
Thanks for your comments. Much appreciated.
 
Re Why no total campaign for HTTR? The reason is simple. At the scale we use ( units = companies, one minute time interval and 100m moveGrid ) todays average cpu can handle a map around 40 x 50k with 400 units total for all sides. As processing power increases over time we will be able to cover larger areas with more units. The alternative is to change the game scale to use a 250m moveGrid, Bn sized units and a two minute time interval. But that would require major work especially with the combat and reaction systems.
 
Re Why Greece? It seems that no matter which battle you cover - ie popular or esoteric - masses of wargamers are going to give you a hard time over it. We got heaps of people complaining that they did not want another Arnhem, Normandy or Bulge battle. So the evidence so far is that it doesn't seem to matter much which battle you cover. There are going to be those who like it and those who don't. At the operational level WW2 is replete with battles that strategically did not count for much but which pose tremendous challenge and I would argue interest for the commander fighting it. What really matters IMO is that the battle should provide scope for both sides to attack and manouvre. Greece and Crete certainly provides that. Despite the terrain both were very fluid campaigns. Yes the Allies were largely on the back foot and yet there are many instances where the Allies hit the Germans hard. The Germans were extremely lucky to prevail on Crete.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna
It seems that no matter which battle you cover - ie popular or esoteric - masses of wargamers are going to give you a hard time over it.

Hi Arjuna,

I didn't mean to sound as if I was giving you a hard time. I personally am glad you did COTA and will buy it, I was just saying the choice of the topic covered was the reason it wasn't a must buy title for me. There are probably a lot of others like me who look at it and say, "Hmm interesting, I'll have to pick that up when I have time to learn about something new".

Were it a campaign I was already familiar with I probably would have bought it right away just to see how accurate the OOB's, maps, etc. were. But because I'm not very familiar with the topic covered I'll need time to get into things hence the delay in my purchase. I will buy, just not until I have the free time to learn about the campaign in detail as I play the game.

As to it being an equal divide between those wanting an esoteric title and those not, I think you've fallen victim to listening too much to the loud minority on discussion forums. Very few wargamers actually post regularly on forums. There are lots of newsie's who regularly post every day in wargaming forums, but you can probably find less than 100 regular posters in any given forum.

Unlike random political polls, forum posters are not typical wargamers for the most part (they are the loudest and most opinionated among them), so I don't think assuming they represent the average is a good guide to what will sell. You'd be better off sending surveys out with wargame titles and listening to that feedback I think.

Jim

[RayWolfe]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
I think you've fallen victim to listening too much to the loud minority on discussion forums.

You're right, Jim. We in the Beta Group have been telling him this for years. Will he listen? Nah!
But then again you never listened to me when I was helping you with your TOAW scenarios. Wait a minute, it's me, no one listens to. How come I never realised that before? [:'(]
Cheers
Ray

[Arjuna]

Ray,
 
Ah...the penny drops! [;)]

[Arjuna]

Jim,
 
I well understand that those on the forums don't necessarily represent the demographic of the larger community, but that is not to say their opinions are of no value. Far from it. I respect your reason for holding off on purchasing COTA. But I am sceptical that this is the reason of the majority. HTTR covered one of the most popular and wargamed battles of WW2 and still a flood of customers did not come. For the majority out there I believe there is more to it than the subject matter of the battle.
 
Just as you mentioned that you may buy COTA when you have the time ( and I suspect the state ) to learn about a new battle, I reckon most hold off because they are reluctant to embrace something new. To do so requires a certain frame of mind, a willingness to be challenged, a desire to explore and a preparedness to be patient. We all lead busy lives and seemingly more and more stressful. The prospect of an adventure is not always appealing and so we opt for the tried and true rather than seek out something new.
 
There is also a reluctance to challenge ones own perceptions and framework. By my age ( which my 17 year old daughter assures me is definitely middle age and some more [;)] ) we tend to have well established frameworks. It requires tremendous courage to challenge these. But it is only by continually doing so that we continue to grow personally. ( Oops...starting to digress here. [:)] )
 
Your recommendation about a survey is good idea. The trouble is getting customers to complete these. One option is to include a button on the Command Set that takes you to a website to fill in the survey. But how many people would actually fill it in. I suspect that most will eschew doing so for the same reasons they eschew making posts on the forum. We could make it a one-off requirement prior to gaining access to the Game. But how many people would be in favour of that?

[James Sterrett]

Jim:
 
When I first got my hands on COTA, I, too, thought the Greek campaign was a poor choice.  the scenarios rapidly turned my head.  While many of the scenarios have a large, powerful Axis force squaring off against outnumbered plucky Greeks & Commonwealth forces, in those scenarios, the victory conditions require the Germans to blitz across the map, while the Allies have to delay and preserve their forces.  It makes for very tense, exciting battles of maneuver and timing.
 
Thus, eating humble pie:  I thought the Greek campaign was boring, and I was wrong.  [:)]
 
(Yes, I'm a beta tester who liked Panther's AA engine from HTTR, so I'm biased!  [:)] )

[barbarossa2]

Dear Dave (Panther Games),

Three thoughts on marketing the AA system with Trailers/Demos, a little on campaign selection, mixed in with a healthy dose of purchasing psychology that Fortune 500 companies use...

FIRST>On Trailers
I was trying to sell AA/COTA to a couple of friends who are wargamers, and I would like to have a tool at my disposal to do this. For HTTR, there was a short Flash demonstration. I see on your official COTA Website, there is a "Media Trailer". I have viewed it, and showed it to another gamer, and while it does SOMETHING for the game, I do not believe it serves the AA system justly. He even said, "That doesn't tell me much"(for the record, he did not buy). I believe that the COTA trailer would be most effective IMMEDIATELY followed up by the HTTR Flash mini ad that you had (I am guessing you know what I am talking about).

In the 80s, I completed a degree in marketing and in the 90s, chemical engineering. A few years later, with a little Fortune 500 Marketing experience under my belt, I was hired to put the North and South American sales territories together for a German Chemical company. There is nothing like giving people the "feel" for what it is they are getting into. This removes many of the questions they are asking and disarms many of their objections up front. By giving them a professional, flawless presentation, which answers many questions for them, the product is not as "alien" to them anymore. A demonstration breaks these bridges down for them a bit at a time. It is LOW committment/low risk.

The MOST important element in ANY sales job is what I call "face time." Nobody will buy ANYTHING which they have never seen or heard of. I think a short, effective trailer IS the best way of doing this. It is the best way to buy low commitment time. Make it interesting, and you have boosted your odds of a sale 10 to 20 fold. It is the concept behind the Hollywood movie trailer. Same thing!

I believe as much as grognards SAY they would not react to flashy graphics, or advertising, THEY WILL. There have been studies done which demonstrate that even people claim immunity to glitz, ARE susceptible to it. So, yes. It needs to be solid, and glitzy, and flashy. In my opinion.

Solid, and glitzy, and flashy is a promise of the product to come. The question people ask themselves when they consider these games are, "Will it be fun?", "Will it be suspenseful?", "Will it be prone to crash?", "What will the interface be like?" IF YOUR PRESENTATION is solid, glitzy, exciting, and MORE than what the potential customer expects, they will believe that the game will deliver all of this and be more than what they expect as well. It will ANSWER these questions for them. They won't have to WONDER anymore. And WONDERING is the hurdle you have to overcome to get someone to buy.

According to Robert Cialdini, author of the best marketing work I have ever read, "Influence", one of the seven KEY priniciples in triggering human behavior is to "start small and build." It is why you see so many "NO OBLIGATION" ads. By providing people with a two or five minute demonstration, for free, you have already bridged the, "I am too busy already, what do I need with another game system, I do not want to commit to learning something new," mental block. "What do I have to lose? It's no obligation!"

Maybe this five minute demonstration/ad could be provided for free with other Matrix downloads???? Maybe, when one starts a matrix game, there would be a screen with five or six other game demos on it. COTA/AA would be one. Of course, players could click on a button which says, "Do not show me this again." But until then, they could watch 5 minute ads for any game they wish. I KNOW this is missing, and would be an excellent platform. I would watch them. And if I could turn the screen off, then I could hardly be offended.

Of course, Matrix would be cannibalizing their own sales. But it would give their developers a chance to shine within the ranks (QUESTION: How many gaming magazines has the "Media Trailer" for COTA run in so far?...I believe this is a table stake for competing).

If you DID do a better "ad" for the AA system, there must also surely be a better way to get your core players to promote this to their friends. BUZZ is the best advertising. Nothing you can do or say as a company beats a recommendation from a friend. "Hey, Chuck, am playing this game, go to the Website and download the Ad. And if you like it, download the demo."

SECOND>On Demos
If you were to do a demo, it MUST be a micro battle. Very small. Very simple. Just to get someone to get a cursory overview of the game. Something you could actually learn and play in the OFFICE! (hahahaha...yes, we all know it happens). And I am talking small. Five units and a f*&king hill to take. Nothing more. Strip features and commands to keep it simple. Make it short. Get people to TRY it. MAYBE put in a second scenario with 10 units taking a town. Say it is a 15 minute demo. Once they try it, they are 1000 times more likely to love it and want more (assuming they have ever played Wargames).

THIRD>On Campaign Selection
I am personally a fan of what I consider to be the rather ballsy decision to do the Aegean campaign. I BELIEVE ONE REASON for its lack of accessibility to the general gaming public is because it hasn't been the feature of several films. People like to be able to envision these battles they are fighting. And while some will know what a Mark IV German tank looks like, VERY FEW to NONE will have a clue as to what an Italian mech infantry battalion even fields or even what Italian infantry looks like (I am a good example of this)! Everyone can picture a Tiger I muscling its way down a smoky, bockage choked roadway in Normandy though. We have ALL seen, each and everyone of us I am guessing, the emotionally intensive "Saving Private Ryan", which was and is (in the gaming world), basically an $80 million Spielberg advertisement for every Normandy related product out there.

As damned intense and hard fought as it was (and the families of the men who died in the campaigns suffered every bit as much), the campaign for Greece hasn't had a multi-million dollar Hollywood movie done for it. The movie, "Storm over Arnheim" was the straw that broke my back to get off my ass and try HTTR. There are probably a dozen weak Bulge movies out there. I am personally waiting for an Italian campaign with the battlefield of Monte Cassino. But I am probably an exception, because I have been there (and hope that at that time, I will be able to launch a frontal, coordinated assault at 0600 hours).

I am an American, and live near Bad Reichenhall Germany. It is where elements of one of the mountain divisions was stationed which supported the operations on Crete. There, they have the "Crete Bridge." It is a monument to the 200 or so men who were stationed there who died in that campaign. I am glad someone finally thought this campaign was "worthwhile." But, unfortunately, do not believe it is the way to reach the masses. Even in the town where this tragedy hit home, the signs are sadly falling into disrepair.

Sincerely (a fan of Panther Games, your ballsiness, and your vision),

Christopher Cleveland

P.S. I am pretty damned good with doing multi media presentations (enough to provide to pro media companies with a springboard). IF you could provide me with some images, music, and some video (right now I do not have access to my own music equipment and do pretty good battlefield music), I would like to show you what I have in mind in the form of an AVI. And have always taken the marketing for the companies I work for to the next level and would love to give this a stab. No charge of course.[;)]

[z1812]

Hi All,

A good measure of popular success in any wargame can be gaged by the amount of player scenarios that are made for them.

Where there are a lot of generated scenarios you will usually find a game that has an easily used map and/or scenario editor/creator.

You will also find a game that is convenient to play against others with PBEM and TCP play available. Hotseat play may also be an option.

The ability to for modders make modifications without having to jump through too many hoops is also an advantage since gamers see more value for their money in such a game.

Immersion is also a factor. It is nice to see a Graphical representation of numbers and text. Good sounds are also desirable.

An easy and intuitive user interface is a really big plus.

Games like Steel Panthers and Combat Mission come to mind as examples of the above. You will all be able to think of others.

I have all the AA games so far. I enjoy each new one more than the last. It is a good solid system. Then why does it not sell more?

Scenario creation and map making is too convoluted. Most do not want to do too much more than drag and drop and point and click to create maps and scenarios.

The A.I. is good but after a while you want to play with others. Many players do not have the time for online play and there is no PBEM.

People like a bit of "showbiz". When they are browsing units give them a picture or photo to look at. When they are checking the command statistics put a face to them.

Right now there are many wargames available with more in the works. To rise above competitors a game developer must blend good value with ease of use and accessability without compromising historical accuracy.

Good luck to Panther Games with future projects. I like the AA series, but then I am an old school wargamer.

Regards John