Battlefront's Theatre of War

[Yoozername]

Having bought this game, and seeing its potential, and failings; I am questioning if I will ever buy another BF 'product'.

The game, much like CMSF, seems to be a platoon level (or small company level) product. But I actually enjoyed the 'basic training' missions more than the actual scenarios. There was a disconnect with the scenarios. Too much stuff is going on, trees are in the way, strange events take place, etc. I just feel removed from the point of this product.

To me, its a multiplayer game for people controlling individual platoons. That is the point of it. It could be similar to Red Orchestra in that regards. A product that offers much replay value, a social 'scene' (let's face it, these 'forums' are a dead end) and a chance to blow off 'steam'. The age of the geek wargame slug sitting alone reading rules and playing with cardboard is dead, so is WEGO, and the holy grail of a decent AI will never come about IMO. Games like Red Orch are the future.

But getting back to my purchase...when will this be fixed? Matured? I see very little in the CM forum about it. I see that Combat Missions Campains is a dead end, I see CM:SF being unleashed on a purchasing public unfinished, etc.

BF, which chides about releasing products 'when its done' is now letting product slide. That is a fact. Even if other companies are doing the coding, BF is the one charging the dollars.

[Hertston]

If you don't mind me asking, surely this would be rather more appropriate over at the BF forums? Particularly the ToW ones and not the CM ones! You are unlikely to find answers to your questions here, and the point has been made elsewhere that while its OK to discuss the games themselves this is not the place for Battlefront bashing.

[Erik Rutins]

Agreed, Hertston has it right. Please discuss this elsewhere.

[Yoozername]

I believe I am discussing the future of wargames actually.  It just so happens that BF, and many other companies, are part of the present.
 
My point is that RT/Multiplayer is not just a first person shooter exclusive.  I would like to see RT/Multiplayer platoon and company commanders all online.

[Marc von Martial]

Discuss it with Battlefront on their forums.

[Chad Harrison]

Man, Yoozername sure has a personal vendeta against BFC. Its like listening to a kid complain about homework.

[Oleg Mastruko]

Mark and Erik, what's with this irritation?
 
I understand that you don't want Matrix games forums to turn into a hotbed of anti-Battlefront negativity, because it can make you look bad. However I think the original poster has some very valid points. I do agree that games like RO are the future (game that has nothing to do with either Battlefront or Matrix, of course). So I see where this guy comes from. And for what I did see TOW and CMSF do suck (even though that's not the point). Oh and BTW some Matrix games suck too [;)]
 
MG forums are favorite place for net socializing for many wargamers (me included) regardless of their game preferences or taste(s). I don't want to go to BF forums with their rampant fanboyism etc. I simply don't have time to visit bazzilion forums daily, so I like to see good discussion in General discussion area on MG forums any time. 
 
I understand that his questions "when it will be fixed" are not really tech support questions, rather a rhetoric ones [:D]
 

[Erik Rutins]

Oleg,

It's simply a desire for this to not turn into a Battlefront-bashing forum. That reflects on us and we have no desire or interest to bash Battlefront or any other wargame developer. If you want to discuss a game and the pros and cons, that's fine, but turning that to disparaging a developer or publisher is where we draw the line. This is simply a matter of courtesy as what we allow here not only reflects on us but could be expected to be used as an excuse to do the same to us elsewhere. I think it's best for everyone if we stay away from that.

If you want to criticize a publisher and don't want to do it on their own forum, there's always the Wargamer or Usenet (or a variety of smaller news sites or gaming group forums).

Regards,

- Erik

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Oleg,

It's simply a desire for this to not turn into a Battlefront-bashing forum.

In fact the funniest thing would be to open the specialized Anti BF sub forum somewhere on MG site. BF should then do the same, ie open the Anti-MG sub forum, so that people who are angry at competitor's products can complain all they want [:D] Would make for some great reading.

(I am joking of course. Or maybe not [8D])

[DuckofTindalos]

[sterckxe]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
If you want to criticize a publisher and don't want to do it on their own forum, there's always the Wargamer or Usenet (or a variety of smaller news sites or gaming group forums).

Usenet's war-historical newsgroup is the most appropriate for this - it can be accessed through the Google interface found here :

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys ... historical

Warning : not for the faint-hearted used to moderated forums [;)]

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[sterckxe]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
I understand that you don't want Matrix games forums to turn into a hotbed of anti-Battlefront negativity, because it can make you look bad.

Correction : it WILL make you look bad.

Not dragging the (in)actions and behaviour of other publishers into a discussion is a rule that's upheld at every publisher - and I agree fully with this as it makes you look unprofessional.

For this sort of thing there's always UseNet where everyone is on equal footing and everyone has at least two opinions about everything.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Yoozername]

The concept of Battalion sized games, involving 3-10 players, each controlling platoon to company sized units, all engaging in a RT type arena, is where the wargame of the future will capture the non-wargaming crowd.
 
 

[sterckxe]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
The concept of Battalion sized games, involving 3-10 players, each controlling platoon to company sized units, all engaging in a RT type arena, is where the wargame of the future will capture the non-wargaming crowd.

Or company sized games, involving dozens of players, each controlling just their avatar, all engaging in a RT type arena. Oops, I just described Red Orchestra [;)]

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Yoozername]

Yes Red-O does capture non-wargamers.   Its a fun genre.  There is no reason that it can't be adapted to a wargame mentality.

And to be honest, BF does drag other publishers through the mud.

[sterckxe]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
And to be honest, BF does drag other publishers through the mud.

And who does that make look bad ? [;)]

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Yoozername]

Depends.  If the person that reads thinks it is true, then who it is said about looks bad.  If the person that reads it feels it isn't true, then the person that said it looks bad.

[madorosh]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

...games like RO are the future (game that has nothing to do with either Battlefront or Matrix, of course). So I see where this guy comes from. And for what I did see TOW and CMSF do suck (even though that's not the point). Oh and BTW some Matrix games suck too [;)][:D]

Why are you posting matters of opinion as if they are matters of fact? I think massive multi-player games are a crashing bore and the logistics required to set up a good one are daunting. Even participating in a CM meta-campaign is tough enough PBEM with players in Australia competing vs. Ukrainians vs. Americans in different time zones. I agree that games like RO will be very popular and moreso as hardware enables developers to do more with them, but don't think for a second they will be the only game in town. I sincerely hope not, anyway. I hope that there will still be abstracted squad-based, company level games on the market, as I feel there will always be a demand for those, too. Just like there will be a demand for detailed tank simulators and FPS in addition to "first person strategy".

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Michael Dorosh

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

...games like RO are the future (game that has nothing to do with either Battlefront or Matrix, of course). So I see where this guy comes from. And for what I did see TOW and CMSF do suck (even though that's not the point). Oh and BTW some Matrix games suck too [;)][:D]

Why are you posting matters of opinion as if they are matters of fact?

TOW and CMSF's massive suckage IS a matter of scientifically verifiable fact, isn't it?

[:D]

Mate I think it's fairly obvious everything posted here is just one man's opinion (the poster's)......

[Yoozername]

The name of the game is to capture as much of a cross section of a market.  Unfortunately, wargames are a niche product in that market.  They need to adapt to the market and still offer the basic appeal that wargamers are drawn to.  In other words, WARGAMES need to change.  But I am not so sure that CMSF or TOW are the answer.
 
And no one is stating fact.  Its opinions.  That kneejerk 'your opinion does not invalidate my opinion' argument is getting old soon.  Dorosh, what happened to your 1:1 post in BF?  I don't see it or you there???