Matrix Games Forums

Bit of a shame to stray into this sort of political discussion, when this part of the forum is about a game that we are all eagerly anticipating, and would like to be able to discuss with people without reference to their political views, or to issues which are needlessly inflammatory.

Well, that's what I think anyway.

Martin

Oh your true colors are showing "PRINCE" , most wargamers are republicans I bet, there are some like the old and sick where "personal responsibility" as you put it, are very difficult.

Life is complex it is not so black and white, or a failure of character as you seem to suggest. 40% of homeless in the USA are mentally ill, is that their fault "PRINCE"???

Anyway the other guy is right this is not a political discussion group, and I will reframe from further political discussion, and just talk about the games.

But for the other guy who mentions America is so great I will provide the following reference for the non believers, true bush has increased some spending and I TAKE THAT BACK, but the general situation is not good.


the links bellow will attest to that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in ... ted_States

http://www.nccp.org/pub_cpt05b.html

http://america-the-great-and-beautiful. ... tiful.html

[;)]

And just for the guys who cannot be bothered to look a brief piece of data:

The official poverty rate in the U.S. has increased for four consecutive years, from a 26-year low of 11.3% in 2000 to 12.7% in 2004. This means that 37.0 million people were below the official poverty thresholds in 2004. This is 5.4 million more than in 2000. The poverty rate for children under 18 years old increased from 16.2% to 17.8% over that period. The current poverty rate is measured according to the 2006 HHS Poverty

and

In the EU "relative poverty" is defined as an income below 60 percent of the national median equalized disposable income after social transfers for a comparable household. In Germany for example the official relative poverty line for a single adult person in 2003 was 938 euros per month (11256 euros/year, $12382 PPP. West Germany 974 euros/month, 11688 euros/year, $12857 PPP). For a family of four with two children below 14 years the poverty line was 1969.8 euros per month ($2167 PPP) or 23640 euros ($26004 PPP) per year. According to Eurostat the percentage of people in Germany living at risk of poverty (relative poverty) in 2004 was 16% (official national rate 13.5% in 2003). Additional definitions for poverty in Germany are "poverty" (50% median) and "strict poverty" (40% median, national rate 1.9% in 2003). Generally the percentage for "relative poverty" is much higher than the quota for "strict poverty". The U.S concept is best comparable to "strict poverty". By European standards the official (relative) poverty rate in the United States would be significantly higher than it is by the U.S. measure. A research paper from the OECD calculates the relative poverty rate for the United States at 16% for 50% median of disposable income and nearly 24% for 60% of median disposable income[11] (OECD average: 11% for 50% median, 16% for 60% median).

And I do NOT hate americans but like them, and like it to be good for all americans, in that way america will remain strong as a society.

A

It is not a case of being "political'. It is and was a pure case of anti-American hate. I refuse to quietly sit aside and let my country be slandered by such propaganda.......propaganda that the original poster has now taken back.

If "political" references so offend you, then why did you ignore all the previous EARLIER propaganda and reply only in response to my post?

ORIGINAL: tomcat666

I will reframe from further political discussion, and just talk about the games.

Do social service agencies in your country pass out reduced-price software to wargame-deprived individuals, or just the mentally-ill/homeless/wargame-deprived who courts have ordered released from state institutions because they constitute no danger to themselves or others?

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

Now now,[:-] I was not referring to matrix games , but what I perceive as you attitude to the poor and unfortunate. matrix game pricing is insignificant in this regard and not important.

But the cost of drugs and health is.

I was referring only to in this regard to your apparent attitude to those on welfare. not game pricing as far as the welfare discussion.[;)]

After all you started it off with you welfare statement.

Please guys. Let us do not turn these forums into a flame war. I had it already in the general forums. Please! Dont get this forum locked.

ORIGINAL: tomcat666

I was not referring to matrix games , but what I perceive as you attitude to the poor and unfortunate. matrix game pricing is insignificant in this regard and not important.

At what point has this thread NOT been about Matrix Games pricing, apart from your acutely transparent attempts to take it elsewhere?

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

ORIGINAL: Custer

It is not a case of being "political'. It is and was a pure case of anti-American hate. I refuse to quietly sit aside and let my country be slandered by such propaganda.......propaganda that the original poster has now taken back.

If "political" references so offend you, then why did you ignore all the previous EARLIER propaganda and reply only in response to my post?

I didn't reply earlier, because by the time I added my post, it was pretty obvious that things had strayed seriously off-topic. I have political views of my own, and I could have "chipped in with them". My past experience, when I have been tempted to do so, is just more animosity, even in the General Discussion area. If this type of conversation belongs anywhere on this forum (which I doubt), it belongs in the General Discussion area. I specifically "bookmark" this particular part of the forum (i.e Carriers at War) in order to avoid getting embroiled elsewhere.

This isn't a case of moral cowardice. I can discuss politics as robustly as the next person, but on a gaming forum, it does leave a rather bad taste in the mouth, especially as I would like to maintain friendly relations with those with whom I would otherwise disagree.

I just don't think that defending my country or my politics is something I want to do on a Carriers at War forum. I hope that clears that bit up, and I wish you well.

An Austrailian wargame company sets the price for a game and a poster turns it into a propaganda laden anti-American hate attack and your response it to single my post out for commenting on it. The fact that you single out my response (and no one else) is a political statement.

What is so pernicious about your post is that you cloak yourself in a non-political post, yet you only attack my post. Your pretended attempt at "moderation" is a fraud.

This might be a bit off topic . . but I saw an ad in a computer game magazine that said this game is due in March.  Can any of the playtesters or developers shine any light on this?

ORIGINAL: Justascratch

This might be a bit off topic . . but I saw an ad in a computer game magazine that said this game is due in March.  Can any of the playtesters or developers shine any light on this?

Do to the NDA I don't beleive the testers are allowed to comment.

The last I remember reading is that they are working on CAW, and now that Battlefront is finished work will speed back up on CAW.

Flipper

For crying out loud! If you don't like the price of the game, don't buy it. If enough people agree with you then market forces wil take effect. Bitching about the price on a forum and clearly implying that the developers are doing a shoddy job is utterly pathetic.
 
 Perhaps if you'd posted something along the lines of '$77 Australian seems a fair bit of money for a reworked product, would any of the developers care to cast light on why it needs to be so much?' then you wouldn't come across as such a buffoon. Even then if you can't see why minority interest games will tend to be relatively high priced then there's little hope for you.
 
 Also your use of the [:-]  says quite a lot about you.

ssshhhhh, its all died down now, and we're all friends

How stupid you think wargames are for one nation

As I recall in many lectures, its best to know at which point to shut up. I feel you may have ventured past this point

Do try to re-read the thread's title then decide how relevant your comments are- Thanks

When I started playing computer wargames in 1981 the price was $60 on a 5 1/4" floppy.  This would be about $150 in today's money.  And today's wargames are obviously much better.
 
That said, the price of consumer electronics has gone way down over the years and the average price for a new wargame today is about $40-45.  So if a wargame is $60 it better be damn good.  I bought Harpoon ANW for that amount and believe it is worth every penny.  Maybe CAW will be also and maybe not.  I had the original and liked it.  But when you look at Battlefront, the new one is nothing like the old one so who knows.  Imo, it needs to be a big improvement for $60 instead of the wargame average price of maybe $40.
 
And fwiw, go Custer.  I also get tired of America-bashing.  Especially by Americans. 

Can I just ask, where have people come up with the magical number of $60 for CAW (or $77 AUS)? Is this something the developers explicitly said?

Or is it a paranoid number that people pulled out of their [:o]?

I have yet to see any explicit price given in the forums.

Son of Montfort

ORIGINAL: Son_of_Montfort

Can I just ask, where have people come up with the magical number of $60 for CAW (or $77 AUS)? Is this something the developers explicitly said?

Or is it a paranoid number that people pulled out of their [:o]?

I have yet to see any explicit price given in the forums.

Son of Montfort

I think it is because many of the games are released at $49.99 for download and $59.99 for the boxed version. Even at $39.99 download it would still be $59.99 boxed. I think the guesses at price are from those who have bought many Matrix games.

Ah... see, I never buy the boxed version... call me crazy. TOAWIII released at $39.99, as did CC:COI, and so I figured that would be the most "likely" price. To be fair, however, SSG has done a complete facelift (if not a new face altogether) and improved much "under the hood," so I could see the argument for $49.99. I doubt that it will be WiTP level of pricing. I never got to play the original, so I would be more willing than some to pay "normal" wargame price. It is a niche market, and these people have to feed their families. If they wanted to get rich, they would have made RTS or MMORPG's... this must be a labor of love! [8D] 

ORIGINAL: Son_of_Montfort

Ah... see, I never buy the boxed version... call me crazy. TOAWIII released at $39.99, as did CC:COI, ....

I bought those too [:)] I am guessing but I figure CaW will be about the same as those. I always buy the download version too and burn my own backup.

WOW, LETS GET BACK TO DISCUSSING GAME DEVELOPMENT! I have played CAW and CAW2 and CCAW since they arrived on the market. I play them today!! I enjoy SSGs effort to give me a fun game for a reasonable price and while I am looking foward to the new variation of this classic I know it will cost me more because nowadays everything costs me more! For me CCAW is the best naval wargame on the market. The ability to change history with the Construction kit made for endless hours of designing and redisigning scenarios to allow for certain outcomes. Yes it is fun to give Admiral Nimitz F-14 Tomcats or to watch the USS Montana take on the Yamato. Sure its not real....buts thats the kicker. Its fun. You can play the set battles or you can make your own. CCAW is a treat. I only hope the new variation is a least as good as the old games. If it is it will be well worth any additional cost!!! My only concern which has not yet been addressed in this forum is what the new system requirements will be! Do I need go out and buy a new multi Gigahurtz machine to enjoy the new game..thats far more pricey then any increase in the game price! Thanks