The strategic goal

[SeaMonkey]

Dave,

There is much to be said for Wodin's and Rooster's comments and to add to them, my biggest problem with the AA engine is no PBEM feature.

I played the hell out of HttR when I first got it, but after awhile the AI just doesn't provide a challenge, even on the hardest settings and I so longed for the human opponent. Unfortunately my life does not allow much uninterrupted time to do an on line game although someday I hope to semi-retire and fulfill that promise to myself.

I will purchase CotA, even though I expect the same series of events to occur as did HttR, simply because I want to support Panther and continue this series. I love this engine! It is absolutely the most innovative wargame I have ever been exposed to as well as extremely realistic from the mid commander level. But alas I know it will find my wargame shelf and will never see as much time as games like Strategic Command and GGs WaW. They will receive the bulk of my gaming time simply because of the convenience of a human opponent through PBEM, not that I like them more than HttR/CotA.

I would be absolutely heartbroken if something should happen to the Panther Team and no more games of this genre would be published. Therefor I will buy everything you guys can pump out even though I may not even play the game, I will support your future endeavors with my pocket book.

I must also say I am a scenario designer and would love an editor of the scope of TOAW or even SC2, but even with it at my disposal I would still buy Panther's continuing series of games...it simply doesn't matter. What matters is that I have seen cutting edge innovation of a wargaming engine and I trust you guys to continue with the philosophy. There are only two developers that I have devoted this kind of loyalty to, Hubert Cater and the Panther team and I don't award my loyalty easily, before y'all it was AH and SPI.

[wodin]

Yeah the PBEM thing is a big problem. Not many people have the time for head to head games. I play AI or PBEM normally PBEM being the main way I play games.

Unfortunately this being RTS it doesn't lend itself to PBEM that well, unless it turned into a WEGO game.

[Jonas]

ORIGINAL: wodin

ORIGINAL: Jonas

I recently bought BIN because i like to play east front, but i realy have some problems with hex games systems. [>:]

You mean west front??

Also thats scary news about the pitful sales of HTTR after 30 man years. DOesn't bode well for the future of the series nor the furture of this kind of game. The main reason I see HTTR not doing aswell as it should is due to it being RTS. Yes I know thats what makes this game but its the STIGMA of the word RTS amongst the type of wargaming fraternity that would love this game that has contributed ot pitiful sales. HTTR really should be on every wargamers shelf. All the TAO/KP/BiN players all the PzC and TOAWCOW should buy a copy, then I'm sure sales wouldn't be pitfull. Such a shame. Ive seen it myslef. People saying oh I wouldn't buy that its RTS. Yes you can say their loss but is it?

No, i mean east, because you can use russian forces[;)] and because de AI seems better then in Korsun so i bought BIN instead.

[wodin]

I thought Normandy was on the West front! Or do you mean the custom scenarios?

[Jonas]

ORIGINAL: wodin

I thought Normandy was on the West front! Or do you mean the custom scenarios?

Yes, i do mean custom scenarios for the east front. Sometimes i buy games not for what they offer right out of the box but for the things you can do with them, custom content, and BIN is one of this cases.

[Jonas]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna


....However, one option we are considering to get more battles covered is to contract out some of the research and scenario design work. For example if we could have two or three teams working concurrently on researching and designing different battles then we could release more games than the current one every 18 months. This would have the advantage of freeing up our time to focus on engine development while providing users with the games/coverage they want. I haven't had a lot of time just right now to develop this much but we would offer the design team ( one or more people - preferrably at least two people ) a royalty share. So if the game does well they will make some money. It would be unlikely to be enough to retire on, but getting paid something for what you enjoy ain't bad either....

I think that could be a good option, and from a customer point of view get all my support.

After all this years im stil playing CC series, last time i check the site, there was more then 900 custom maps for CC3. Great series indeed.

[Grognard]

Providing an Estab editor is an option we have often debated and each time concluded that it would be counter productive to our long term future. We are too small with too few resources to be able to survive a situation where a year's effort in developing a particular battle is gazumped ( Aussie slang for "beaten to the punch" ) by other users.

I've suspected for some time this was your reasoning...
Are you certain this is not counter-productive? I bought the engine - not the battle. When we talk about viable franchises aren't we ALWAYS referring to the engine? The battles are just benchmarks. How many other titles out there with comprehensive OOB's and scenario editors have thrived because the wargaming community COULD re-create any battle? How many more folks would purchase your game if they could mod say, an Eastern Front campaign? Now, instead of waiting how many years? It's your constant engine improvements and feature additions that will keep people waiting for new titles and sales up. Are you sure by only giving the entire gaming community your choice of (arguably) esoteric battles you're NOT going to paint yourselves into the proverbial niche? You do have a hard core of devoted fans (I certainly am one), but face it, the hoi polloi want Barbarossa, Overlord, Bulge, Afrika, heck, you know the list. And they want them now. If you let 'em mess with Estabs and be able to mod those I truly believe your sales will go up, not down because some n00b gazumped you to Kursk or whatever. Believe me, I want you to succeed and thrive. Because that means this (best ever) engine will improve and grow. And endure....

Sincerest regards...

[RedMike]

I'd like to see HTTR/COTA progress into a modern version a la 1980's Germany. Now that would be awesome.

[MadScot]

ORIGINAL: Grognard

I've suspected for some time this was your reasoning...
Are you certain this is not counter-productive? I bought the engine - not the battle. When we talk about viable franchises aren't we ALWAYS referring to the engine? The battles are just benchmarks. How many other titles out there with comprehensive OOB's and scenario editors have thrived because the wargaming community COULD re-create any battle? How many more folks would purchase your game if they could mod say, an Eastern Front campaign? Now, instead of waiting how many years? It's your constant engine improvements and feature additions that will keep people waiting for new titles and sales up. Are you sure by only giving the entire gaming community your choice of (arguably) esoteric battles you're NOT going to paint yourselves into the proverbial niche? You do have a hard core of devoted fans (I certainly am one), but face it, the hoi polloi want Barbarossa, Overlord, Bulge, Afrika, heck, you know the list. And they want them now. If you let 'em mess with Estabs and be able to mod those I truly believe your sales will go up, not down because some n00b gazumped you to Kursk or whatever. Believe me, I want you to succeed and thrive. Because that means this (best ever) engine will improve and grow. And endure....

Sincerest regards...

I have to agree.

Let's say someone had used the HTTR engine to do a Crete scenario. They still wouldn't have supply, or linked battles, or any of the other stuff you've discussed.

People are (I believe) going to be asked to pay for a reverse-engineering of the CoTA features into HttR in an expansion, right? (And I bet quite a few will). If the theory that a pre-existing mod scenario would kill off future demand, then why are people willing to pay for an engine upgrade for a game they already own?

[Isacco]

Dave,

In my opinion there is another solution .....

You and your team can create and modify the engine and after the release of the final product you can give the "liberty" to other people to create scenario (free estabs, ecc.). Of course you maintain the control on the engine and from time to time you can improve the engine with "payable add-on". This give the liberty to you and your team to concentrate on other project like the extension of the engine (that I find excellent) to other periods (Cold War, American Civil war, Napoleonics, ecc.) or to other level (squad, divisional, corps, ecc.).

As you can see I don't know nothing of your "real work" so excuse me for my presumption but what do you think about this possibility?

Regards,

Isacco

[Arjuna]

ORIGINAL: Isacco

Dave,

In my opinion there is another solution .....

You and your team can create and modify the engine and after the release of the final product you can give the "liberty" to other people to create scenario (free estabs, ecc.). Of course you maintain the control on the engine and from time to time you can improve the engine with "payable add-on". This give the liberty to you and your team to concentrate on other project like the extension of the engine (that I find excellent) to other periods (Cold War, American Civil war, Napoleonics, ecc.) or to other level (squad, divisional, corps, ecc.).

As you can see I don't know nothing of your "real work" so excuse me for my presumption but what do you think about this possibility?

Regards,

Isacco

Thanks for your comments.

By way of an opening comment, I would say that most users coming in to buy our "Game engine" would prefer not to have to buy the original Game plus a series of add-ons, but rather would prefer to buy just one item - ie the latest version of the Game. Now existing customers would then want some form of upgrade system where they bought the latest version at a discount. So for this approach to work we would need to get in enough money from new sales and upgrades to pay for our expenses and give us a reasonable return on our investment. Over time the proportion of revenue from upgrades will increase relative to new sales

So the question then is how much would users be prepared to pay for the upgrade and what effort would need to go into it. How much would they pay just for system enhancements and no new scenarios/maps etc?

Got to go. I'll be back.

[Trigger Happy]

In the East, my vote for a game would be Budapest with Operation(s) Konrad I, II and III. That would be awesome.

And I would say that IMO the engine would be perfectly fit for platoon sized engagement, but can't really see how it could recreate a strategic one, nor a squad one.

About, the problems of estabs and customability, I'm one of those who really have mixed feelings. I certainly understand Panther Games' need for money, but at the same, even if the engine is a gem, I don't see an Airborne Assault 25, and the reason why is simply because I will probably have forgotten what a computer is by that time. You see my point. PG can't produce a game about all the battles of the war. The community can.

Maybe PG would need to announce right now what will be the whole line up of games it will make, but I don't think it's realistic and in terms of marketing, unsound. One other thing PG could do is to announce what operation it will NEVER recreate and let some amateur designers make some battles, but as PG would probably pick the more interesting ones, some could be put off to work on a project totally beside his interest. Also, how could PG restrain certain people from doing their personnal version of any battle they want?

Other options are asking permission from Panther Games to borrow an estab editor and make a battle they authorised also. The scenario would have to be reviewed by PG's staff or something like this. Anyway, scenario designers are dedicated by definition.

My 2 kopecks

[Jonas]

ORIGINAL: Trigger Happy

...Other options are asking permission from Panther Games to borrow an estab editor and make a battle they authorised also. The scenario would have to be reviewed by PG's staff or something like this. Anyway, scenario designers are dedicated by definition.

My 2 kopecks

I think this could be a good ideia. I would pay for some campaigns made with this engine.
I have to say that i bought the first game of the series "RDOA" and i just bought "HTTR" because i want to support your future works. Let third part developers make new campaigns and my money goes for you.

[Agema]

I can safely say I'd have massive reservations about buying an engine without any scenarios. Whilst many amateur designers make excellent work, much is often below the standard of the game engine designers. (And you're also at the mercy of whether there's sufficient community support.) Part of the reason I suspect is the game designers can have a more intricate understanding of the engine to make it work to best effect. In essence, there should always be a decent number of scenarios that arrive with the engine. Whether people outside Panther might be prepared to make these - whether free, for just a nominal fee, or even an official temporary contract so as not to make the game unprofitable - in the lead up to the game release to ease the pressure on the designers is a question beyond my position to answer.

[Jonas]

ORIGINAL: Agema

I can safely say I'd have massive reservations about buying an engine without any scenarios. Whilst many amateur designers make excellent work, much is often below the standard of the game engine designers. (And you're also at the mercy of whether there's sufficient community support.) Part of the reason I suspect is the game designers can have a more intricate understanding of the engine to make it work to best effect. In essence, there should always be a decent number of scenarios that arrive with the engine. Whether people outside Panther might be prepared to make these - whether free, for just a nominal fee, or even an official temporary contract so as not to make the game unprofitable - in the lead up to the game release to ease the pressure on the designers is a question beyond my position to answer.

I dont think thats what people are discuss here a "engine with out scenarios", the problem here is get more from the engine, more battles more estab. more campaigns, more fun[:)].

[Arjuna]

Thanks for the discussion guys. It's good to get the feedback. I'm sure a balance can be struck between the desires of the users and the need for the designers/developers to make a living. I am going to leave this debate for now and focus on getting COTA out. I'll return to it then. In the meantime, please continue. Many thanks,

[okonumiyaki]

My request would be for the Indo-Pakistan wars. The key battles are about the right scale (division plus)

Battle of Chawinda!

[Awac835]

I have one request... make a wargame set in the 1960-2005. I like WW2 also, but it is a era that have been done so many times that i don't know if i should laugh or cry.
I will keep buyng the AA and DB games just to support em and then hope that they one day wake up and port there great game systems to the modern era instead of staying back in the almost dead world of WW2.

Maybe i should skip BII and COTA and buy the almost 7 years old TOAW instaed since i havent gotten around it yet.
I wonder if matrixgames and all the rest will still make WW2 wargames 50 years from now, or they have moved on.

Think about it, the only choice i have, if i want to play "realistic" modern era wargames, is C&C generals or Act Of War, how lame is that.

ARRHGG, it drives me nuts to see such a great system as AA and DB are being used again and again and again and.... on WW2, why not some modern time stuff, there are plenty of stuff to pick from, gulfwar, vietnam, the wars in the middle east, iraq/iran, syria/israel, balkan, falkland etc. etc.

I know there are games like HPS' DA system or the Prosim with ATF and BTC or TacOps. But they are just not what im looking for. Maybe if Prosim stopped using those STUPID counters for there games and used the proper NATO ones i could play them but as it is now it look more like a side scrollong arcade game then a top down war game.

enough of this angry rant. cya and have a nice day [;)]

[oi_you_nutter]

North Africa gets my vote and here are some reasons why

there are lots of nationalities involved British, German, Italian, USA, Indians, South Africans, New Zealand, Vichy French, Free French, Poles, Czechs AND the Aussies (sorry if I forgot any)

with many variations in the qualities, abilities and equipment of those involved that would provide a good challenge in handling such varied troops and varied terrain.

one aspect of later WW2 battles is that they are often one side is generaly attacking while the other defends, the inititive kept on changing in the North Africa campaign.

[CriticalMass]

ORIGINAL: oi_you_nutter

North Africa gets my vote and here are some reasons why

there are lots of nationalities involved British, German, Italian, USA, Indians, South Africans, New Zealand, Vichy French, Free French, Poles, Czechs AND the Aussies (sorry if I forgot any)

with many variations in the qualities, abilities and equipment of those involved that would provide a good challenge in handling such varied troops and varied terrain.

one aspect of later WW2 battles is that they are often one side is generaly attacking while the other defends, the inititive kept on changing in the North Africa campaign.

I love you, you nutter.

I've been asking for the NA campaign from before the release of RDoA: there were, at one time, some screenshotst (probably "mock-ups") of the area around Tobruk...beautiful. I've asked several times for Arjuna to repost them [;)], but to no avail [:(].

I agree with everything you said, but would like to add that with the new supply system, you would have the final piece that made the desert campaigning so great: IMHO. You could also shove some Tunisia and Operation TORCH scenarios to keep our American cousins happy [;)].

I also suggested a "working title" Rats, Foxes and Sand.

TANX
Andrew