Great game but very disapointed with matrix

[freeboy]

ok, I see the confusion, we cannot "finish" Bin "user adds" until it gets released.. I do not think the comments, forgot who mentioned these where an attempt to "cop out" by either SSG or MG, just an honest response to the desire... like my response...
no harm no foul???

[jungelsj_slith]

ORIGINAL: freeboy

ok, I see the confusion, we cannot "finish" Bin "user adds" until it gets released.. I do not think the comments, forgot who mentioned these where an attempt to "cop out" by either SSG or MG, just an honest response to the desire... like my response...
no harm no foul???

Yeah I think I know what you mean. Personally I don't think the product is completely worth the $60 until a bunch of user addons come out and give more variety to the game.

For example, I really enjoy scenarios where both sides have adequate forces and a large amount of motorized/armored (mobile) forces to conduct attacks. Very few scenarios have this type of layout, so I don't enjoy many of the scenarios that came with BiN/Korsun. I especially like playing as the german forces, so I was really bummed to see that all of the scenarios in BiN (except TAO, which I've played a million times!) consist of German forces woefully understrength and on the run. Basically its a battle again time, not really a battle against two war machines. It seemed to be the same way with Korsun. Anyway, I'm babbling.

[freeboy]

the new TAO4 is great, much weaker allied forces in the beggining, lots of two step armor, ok we both are babbling [:-]

[PresbyterJohn]

ORIGINAL: Black Cat

Yes , I do love myself since that`s who printed it, BTW the manual and tutorial come to 116 color pages.

I have a vision of you failing 3rd. grade math.

Says the guy is is getting all the other stuff printed along with the manual for an extra $40. Somebody saw you coming and said "pigeon".

[DBeves]

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

ORIGINAL: DBeves

Yes well - I certainly hope they don't make it like ATD - although that one was worth it - if they charge me another 14 quid for a scenario that should have been in the original game that really would be taking the P***.

Why should the ATD addon been part of Korsun Pocket? KP is about the battle of the Cherkassy couldron 1944. Not the german advance towards Moscow in 1941.

Marc ... If you read what I said correctly I never suggested that ATD should have been part of KP. I even said that it was worth the money I paid for it. My point about an addon that should have been part of the original game was reffering to the previous comment about a full normandy scenario being provided as one ... that is something I would not, nor should be expected to pay extra for.

And sorry guys ... I am remain completely unconvinced ... I in no way see a full normandy scenario being anything like unplayable using an engine as good as this one.. In response to the ... "would I rather have waited for the game with a full normandy scenario" ... er well yes ... then it would have been a finished game - I am not one of these gamers who boos like a baby cause I have to wait 5 mins extra for something...and besides ... if SSG had made an announcement that they would release a full scenario at a later date I would have been happier - but as far as I know they haven't.
And yes I get the Run5 thing...no need to keep repeating it ... but fact remains ... even though it will probably be excellent ... I didn't pay those guys anything to do it and can therefore not expect or rely on it ever getting done.
Please understand that I think the game is excellent but it simply beggars belief that a full scenario was not part of the package ... I am holding off playing WITP till the patch 1.3 comes out cause the list of bugs it fixes appears to me to be quite serious ... now I have to wait till one of the users creates a scenario for another full price game... ?
Wargaming time is a limited and precious thing ... therefore Its a bits disappointing to play a game only half way through a campaign and then stop ... feeling I missed out on the full experience of a battle. It has given me the notion I might dust off my copy of HPS Normandy 44 and play the full campaign in that but thats 750 turns long and has over 2000 units in it ... plus all those victory conditions its apparently impossible to work out. And thats the annoying thing - a full campaign scenario in normandy was eminently do-able in this system and there isn't another game out there to do that...

[scout1]

Now, I'm curious when I hear that a 70 turn game is too big ....
If I'm not mistaken, WitP is ~ a 1000 turn game. Granted it is from different designers
but when I hear that the "community" will add a full campaign level version, I'm curious as too why the designer idn't ????

[Gregor_SSG]

ORIGINAL: DBeves

Ok...
It is a great game....
Great Map...
Great System....

BUT....And this really baffles me....
Why is there no full Landing to Falaise scenario included.
I dont object to the price so much but considering the amount of flak Matrix have received over it this Full scenario SHOULD have been in there...I even saw a post or something official from matrix saying that they "expected" that a user somewhere out there would create one (quite a bizarre statement in my view)...I'm sorry guys but this scenario SHOULD have been a given for the price you charged for this....
Sorry ... but I feel I'm playing half a game with the scenarios included.
Is there somelimitaion on the game system that prevented this ?

Just for the record, Matrix have no input into the scenario selection process, so your complaint is strictly with us.

The reason for the decision is simple. We saw limited value in a monster campaign scenario. It would take a huge amount of time to test and balance and our judgement is that most players would not want to play a scenario of that length. We could be wrong about that, but that's our judgement.

Another issue is that it's virtually impossible to keep the AI on track over 70 or so turns. Since we designed the system, you probably should take our word on that. We think that the BIN AI is our best land-based AI system yet, and a significant improvement on that in KP. Posts on various forums from users would appear to confirm this assessment.

However, the difficulties in providing strategic direction to an AI for 70 turns over a map the size of the BIN map are immense. We see no value in providing a 70 turn scenario where a competent Allied player could kill every German unit by turn 50, so we didn't.

Other people are welcome to try their hand with the AI system and make a monster scenario. I suspect that the scenario that will prove to be the most useful is a PBEM scenario without any AI at all. We made a judgement that we shouldn't be providing official scenarios without AI. Again that's just our judgement of what's the right thing to do.

We were very careful to specify what scenarios we were providing, and I'm confident that we provided everything we promised.

Gregor

[scout1]

Don't get me wrong. SSG apparently DID make a decision on their approach and one that include the user community to "fill the gap". I'm just cuious as too why a 70 turn AI is considered big in this case. Not to say it isn't, but WitP strikes me as VERY complex in its own right. Don't mean to compare, but just curious.

BTW, what is the time players are spending per turn on BiN ????

[Adam Parker]

Quick .02. The best board game on the campaign "Breakout Normandy" spans just 1 week. BiN offers plenty more as is. Think of the campaign in phases guys.

(Yet to get the game Gregor due to some personal issues I've got on my plate but hope to contibute something to the community soon when and if I can bring it to my PC).

[DBeves]

Thanks for the official answer Gregor.
For what its worth I think you are wrong about players not wanting a 70 turn campaign game - and thus the extra time taken to provide one would have been worth it in my view.
I simply fail to see where a 70 turn game is suddenly thought of as a "Monster" - I cannot think of a commercially produced wargame that doesn't have scenarios of this length and considerably more - and people are playing them.
I never suggested that you misled people over what would be in the game and you have certainly provided what you said you would - and what is there is excellent.
As far as the AI argument goes - well I just don't see it myself - As good (relatively) as the BIN AI undoubtedly is no AI will ever provide the kind of challenge a human player will. In fact - I never really play the AI - most people at some stage will give up when they see it do something stupid and it is impossible to suspend disbelief anymore that they are getting anything like a challenge. As I presume you are not claiming some kind of quantum leap in AI programming has been made by a small wargame company this is still undoubtedly the case with the BIN AI. (Some times I wonder why companies bother programming an AI at all quite frankly they are usually so limited in the actual challenge they provide.... especially for a subject as complex as War)
As far as putting that forward as an argument for NOT providing something that would still have been used by a great many players even if you had left out the AI completely - well... doesnt really stand up for me.
You should understand that this is just my personal bug bear ... I have a real problem firing up a game and spending a great deal of time playing it when I know that for me ... the game will end with the campaign half resolved.
I just don't see the problem with providing the historical full scenario ... AI or no AI ... and leaving players to make up their mind what they want to do with it...least it would have been there for those that want to ...
Anyhow ... now we have the official answer ... subject closed I guess.

[Carl Myers]

Historically, there was two distinct phases. Landing and consolidation of the beachheads(includes seizing a port) and breaking out and overrunning France. The first phase was characterized by attritional attacks and the second phase was characterized by manuever(includes the landings in southern France).

[DBeves]

Well yes I do know something of the history of the normandy campaign thanks and can therefore see why the scenarios were structured as they were.
What there was not in Normandy in 1944 was a campaign that artificially eneded six weeks into it and started again in a completely different position the next day.
If 6th airborne had been destrioyed on the first day and we had lost the orne crossings then had we not retaken them that situation would have persisted at the start of the cobra offensive - not magically change because someone pressed a load scenario button.
As I said - lack of a continuous campaign is my personal bug bear as are the reasons given for not providing one.
It does not detract from the games value for other players unless they have the same problem as I do ...you obviously dont.
All the explanations in the world wont change that for me - especially that the primary given motive from SSG for not doing one was that the effort required was not worth it. Something I fundamentally disagree with.

[PresbyterJohn]

I don't understand how you can disagree with the analysis by the designers on the effort required for the scenario design was not worth it. What is the basis for this conclusion? Extensive polling of the target audience? Extensive scenario design and play testing experience? Significant design experience on similar products?

[DBeves]

ORIGINAL: Prester John

I don't understand how you can disagree with the analysis by the designers on the effort required for the scenario design was not worth it. What is the basis for this conclusion? Extensive polling of the target audience? Extensive scenario design and play testing experience? Significant design experience on similar products?

Well...I can disagree because I have a mind...if you notice in my original post I state this is my personal bug bear. My opinion is just that ... my opinion of what I would want to see in the game ... what kind of other opinion can you have ?
And you raise a good point ... did SSG conduct a poll as to who out there would want to see a full game scenario ? Please forward the link to the results if so....
The very issue you raise is my point exactly ... SSG seem to have made the decision that we didn't want one for their own reasons and no ... I dont have extensive experience of game design but I can't see what relevance that has - if I buy a car - I dont have extensive car design experience by the way ... but I can still have an opinion on the fact that i think it should have four wheels and an engine cant I ?

As I said earlier .. end of discussion ... my view is just that ... my view ... and I wanted to establish the reasoning behind it I have done that ... when I plonked down £50 for the product it gave me the right to have an opinion ... AND AIR IT ON THIS FORUM thank you very much...

[PresbyterJohn]

Well of course you have a mind, but how did it get the way it is? There must have been some information that allowed you to come to this conclusion. Surely you did not just wake up this way, but followed some sort of process to arrive at your negative opinion.

Oh and how many car buyers (as a percentage of the total car consumer base) are of the opinion that a car should not have an engine and four wheels. I think that you could get a good estimate by standing at a busy intersection for an hour and watching the traffic.

[mbMike]

How long does it take to run through the largest Bin Campaign? Roughly.

[Gregor_SSG]

ORIGINAL: DBeves

All the explanations in the world wont change that for me - especially that the primary given motive from SSG for not doing one was that the effort required was not worth it. Something I fundamentally disagree with.

DBeves,

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, and I have no problem with you expressing it here, nor any problem with how you've expressed it.

But here's your chance to make a difference and earn bouquets instead of brickbats from the other forum participants.

All the units that would arrive after Turn 32 in the Overlord scenario are in the database. They are hidden in the editor if you look at the Overlord scenario, but if you make a new scenario that's 70 turns (or whatever you think) long, they will show up.

Allocate the daily elements (replacements, air, generals etc) as you see fit, using your familiarity with the Normandy campaign, and you have the campaign scenario you want. Of course, the AI will be hopeless, since it will end at Turn 32, but if you just use it for PBEM play you'll be fine.

Head on over to the Run 5 forums at www.ssg.com.au if you need help. Scenario creators are always welcome there and there's plenty of hardcore PBEM players there as well.

Since, as quoted above, you fundamentally think the effort is worth it, I look forward to the end product.

Gregor

[jungelsj_slith]

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG


Since, as quoted above, you fundamentally think the effort is worth it, I look forward to the end product.

Gregor

Meanwhile, should he go ahead and send you his address so you can forward a percentage of royalties made from game sales?

[Gregor_SSG]

ORIGINAL: molotov_billy


Meanwhile, should he go ahead and send you his address so you can forward a percentage of royalties made from game sales?

Of course, I mean paying for user created scenarios is an industry wide practice, right? And once this vital, extra scenario has ben created we'll have bucketloads of surplus cash, even after paying for our Ferraris.

Gregor

[jungelsj_slith]

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG
Of course, I mean paying for user created scenarios is an industry wide practice, right? And once this vital, extra scenario has ben created we'll have bucketloads of surplus cash, even after paying for our Ferraris.

Gregor

The point is that he doesn't believe BiN to be a complete product without a full scenario. Telling him to make the scenario himself is completely absurd and does nothing to disprove his point or solve any problems.

These guys are giving you precise feedback on why they are or aren't purchasing your product. You can either embrace that and filter it into useful information for your next project or lash out at customers (potential or current) who are apparently barely keeping you in the business of making games.

Where did your last comment come from? Doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I said. Maybe you're lumping me in with someone else?