Matrix Games Forums

The lesson we learned in our early childhood still holds true: life isn't fair, not even remotely. While WWII shooter Nr. 1271 is sold out on the second day after the release, the AA series has a dedicated, enthusiastic community. But a tiny one, even after taking a lurker factor times 10 into account.

Personally I bought RdoA, but quickly lost interest. Nevertheless I realized two things:

- the UI is slick. And CotA pushes the envelope even further. CotA should be the wet dream of every TOAW player plagued by RSA from digging in 981 units at the end of *every* turn.

- the macro-order concept could be to operational wargames what CM was to tactical scope. One must have played TOAW:FitE and/or a 5000 pts CM battle and/or one of the larger SPWW2 scenarios to really appreciate it (I did it all).

Now we recently had a beer & pretzel evening (means: beer for the guys & pretzel for me -> life isn't fair). All seasoned wargamers. Everyone knows the AA series, everyone appreciates that the AA concept might be the solution to alot of problems, still no one considers buying CotA. I find this interesting enough to share.

First let us divide potential customers in roughly three groups:

- the casual gamer. Often comes from a different background, BF, civ-like, 4x, whatever. Doesn't necessarily want's chrome & nifty 3D explosions, but it doesn't hurt either

- the alpha grog. You'll recognize him when you'll meet him. Spends 10% of his/her money on hamburgers, 20% on wargames & the rest on military books. Loves historical scenarios to complain about faulty penetration tables & unaccurate OOB's. FWITW I'm married with one.

- the competive player. League/Ladder is the name of the game.

Now have a look at the competition, in a market share sense, not game similarity.

Looking at various ladder sites the lion share goes to:

1) TOAW. While (surprise) operational by nature, it has an idiotic supply model, a horrible UI and a wierd model of dealing with IGOYOUGO asymetries. Which doesn't hinder it's popularity the slightest, look at blitz or RD. It has a really broad scope and a sh*tload of scenarios

2) CM. Made BF from an obscure developer to a main publisher. Has a rather broad scope, tons of scenarios and quickbattles. The latter important for the ladder guys, again look at blitz statistic

3) Finally AA, superior in nearly every respect, except it has a rather smallish scope and only a handful of scenarios (yes, quite some are actually operations. i know).

Finally the XFactor, the scenario designer. Those guys are attracted by broad scope, cause everybody finds his favourite pet peeve. Lots of scenarios attracts customers, lots of customers attracts designers. A positive feedback loop.

The casual gamer is lost. Investing in fancy 3d won't pay of IMO.

The alpha grog, there's hope. But a broader scope and more scenarios would attract more.

The ladder guy wants QB's. No QB, no game. It's like trying to sell a WW2 shooter without blood.

This is getting way too long, so here're my private conclusions.

- AA needs a broader scope. The John Tiller piecemal approach failed for HPS & it'll fail for PG. Imagine CMBO was called "CM: sword beach to Caen" while CMBB was called "CM: Utah to Cherbourg".

- AA needs a quickbattle generator. I'm aware this won't be done on a rainy sunday afternoon. Alot of wargamers including me consider a scenario spoiled after the first play. This is a qua non for competive play

- AA needs more scenarios. Where 5 interesting fictional scenarios are much better than one historical. AA needs a certain crictical mass.

I'm running out of time. Thanks for reading. Feel free to discuss or ignore..

Pia Kraft

More scenarios is the big one for me. A tougher AI aswell (hopefully the patch will sort this out).

A bigger modding/scenario community (i havent the time or the skill;))

I agree with Lollipop, more flexibility is the way forward. But also more competitive play. This game excells on human vs human play and that's the only way to make scenarios less predictable.
What this game needs, in my opinion, is more support from above but since PG are quite busy maybe Matrix should step in (although they'd be quite busy as well I imagine).
Things like ladders; tournaments, historical or fictional, organized in the anniversary of a historical event or to recreate a particular event; campaigns (or linked scenarios representing a campaign); competitions, with or without prizes; a place where players can go and find other players, the possibility to lurk into a live game.
Of course all this can be organized by players and not necessarily by Matrix or PG. It is also true that almost all Matrix games would benefit from this.

Pia,

I don't fit into your defined categories. It's maybe why I love AA and bought COTA.

Now, I agree with the lack of scope. IMHO, this is by design, with the need to concentrate on a given campaign to properly adapt the engine to it. One size does not (yet) fits all with the AA engine.
A battle generator and linked campaigns would indeed be nice. AFAIK, it's on the whish list but far, far away...

BTW, where does this nick come from ? It reminds me a an old TV show when I was a kid.

JeF.

ORIGINAL: Intoxicated Man
Things like ladders; tournaments, historical or fictional, [...]

Yes, would be nice. The two tournaments attemps that I'm aware of were not big successes though. I don't know what the reasons were.

JeF.

I'll throw in my two cents here.
First of all, I want to say  kudos to Panther Games for producing a great product.  I have been very impressed.
In a game sense or in the sense of being a quantum leap I feel its tremendously successful.  I just started playing a couple of weeks ago and had no prior experience with HTTR or RDOA. 

I'm a fairly experienced wargamer both digital and analog.  Before I actually played COTA, I was pretty skeptical.
It was with some trepidation that I pressed the 'buy now' button.  But I felt like it deserved a chance.

When I actually started playing any worries I had vanished pretty quickly.  As far as operational level games at the level Cota is simulating it is a cut above any competitor in the field, IMHO.  I particularly enjoy the orders delay and the realism this adds.  No more completely ahistorical or downright farcical situations where an entire division or corps instantly turns on a dime and attacks in a completely different direction without missing a beat.  

The reason it may not be as successful as it deserves is that it is such a paradigm shift from the standard hex/counter school.  It takes a little bit of guts to take the plunge and whip out the ol' credit card for something that is completely different from the tried and true formula.

A playable demo would really help here - I know its developer hours sorely needed elsewhere but even AARs and such do not do the game justice or really get the concept across to someone who has no experience with AA.  At least it didn't for me.  I really only went for it because I felt like AA was breaking some new ground and I wanted to see exactly what it was all about.

As far as the whole competitive gamer thing goes, most or at least many folks with the disposable income and interest in something like COTA do not have the time for serious competitive or ladder play.  I might get a few hours a week total if I'm very lucky.  That's enough for a game online or PBEM once in a while or maybe even a tournament once in a blue moon but that's it.

That is also a check in COTA's column, I don't have to spend the half hour I have that evening for gaming clicking dig in on every unit or some other pointless and boring clickfest.

Quick battles for me are a nonstarter - I want to spend my time playing historical or interesting fictional scenarios.  Quick battle generators in my experience have never been anywhere close to a well made scenario.  I personally strongly prefer historical scenarios but that's just a personal preference.   I'd rather the developer hours be spent on adding new features, better AI, or more designed scenarios. 

The number of scenarios is a good point, more scenarios is always better all things being equal.  I would still rather have a smaller number of well researched, interesting scenarios that can be played in a reasonable amount of time than a whole boatload of mediocre scenarios or Drang nach Ostens that I would have to abandon before finishing the first turn.  I will be lucky to play through all of the scenarios included in Cota, so if they are all or mostly excellent scenarios I'm being kept happy.

I think that Panther is building up to larger scopes and more scenarios per game and we should give them a chance to get there.  Its a big leap at this scale from Arnhem to all of Overlord or the Ost Front.  The bulge certainly is a large scope and should provide lots of opportunities for good scenarios.

I do think that Panther needs to include more estabs.  It sounds like they will do so starting with Bftb where they will be including the HTTR estabs.  If they would include the estabs for all previous games in the latest release, then the community can take care of whatever gap there may be for scenarios.   I strongly encourage them to do so.

A tournament is an excellent idea for any game.  I don't have the time to organize one but would be willing to play.

ORIGINAL: Lollipop

3) Finally AA, superior in nearly every respect, except it has a rather smallish scope and only a handful of scenarios (yes, quite some are actually operations. i know).

+

- AA needs a broader scope. The John Tiller piecemal approach failed for HPS & it'll fail for PG. Imagine CMBO was called "CM: sword beach to Caen" while CMBB was called "CM: Utah to Cherbourg".

[:)] My opinion also!

Actually, this has been my biggest gripe about the game and god knows I'd like to enlarge the scope of future games now that there's a multitude of teams working on games for different theatres. I think this is really the key to the success. Alas, circumstances are against it. It would take too much time to create whole war estabs for even only the EF. Maps, even though they're pretty simple to create, still take time to finish. Scenarios, even fictional ones, needs historical foundations and these needs research and that takes time and $. And there are other reasons too.

But I still think the focus of one game can still be enlarged significantly without doing the whole war in one game, particularly on the Eastern Front.

Well, I was initially quite suprised that RDOA didn't really take off and become a very hot product for Battlefront.

I learned of RDOA from a Battlefront forum announcement. I was a regular reader of the forums and struggling with my first ground combat game, CMBO, and to try to learn to do something other than fly WWII fighter online. I finally was making some progress with CMBO and thought RDOA would give me a bigger and different picture.

One conclusion I reached in 2001/2002 is that what people say they want and what they actually want aren't always the same. It was so oft stated by Battlefront customers that they wanted battles of bigger scale in every different dimension (time, space, forces, command options, ...). Finally, they added to their portfolio (before they started publishing a lot of third party offerings) a game that was all that and much more. I learned at that point, you can only deduce so much from what you hear on game forums. If even half the heavy duty CMers had meant what they said in terms of future directions, then RDOA would have sky rocketed to fame right alongside CMBO. However, it didn't happen.

After four or five years I know that this series is a niche offering in a niche market. I have high hopes for everything PG does, but I honestly don't expect any new title to bring in a huge surge of new customers. I think one of the issues has always been the lack of 3D action. 3D sells. However, this game is about simulating operational command. When you simulate something it should attempt to reflect a realistic casting of a role; thus the game is 2D on a map. (When you make a realistic subsim, then you design the game to be played from within in the sub, because action in a submerged sub is at the stations and not outside the hull.)

Of course, I think PG should soldier on and I must say that Dave has been a shining example of someone who puts his dream and craft above simply making a buck. I don't think that there is any silver bullet to increase sales, but that a collection of various things will make some difference. My own personal contribution to the multi-dimensional approach to game promotion and reduction of buyer abandonment has been the Mini-Guides. Each small contribution by team members and customers do help to make a difference.

Well, that was my two cents.

Hi all,
 
Great discussion. Needless to say we are very keen to receive feedback on this issue.
 
The feedback we would be most interested is that from those who were initially reluctant or are still reluctant to purchase COTA. For it is you that we must reach out to.
 
So for that reason I was particularly interested in superDave56's views ( and not because he has a great name and I suspect was born a year after me [;)] ). I suspect as superDave56 says that it's more due to the "originality" of the system, that requires a paradigm shift for those brought up on traditional turn bases and hex based wargames. Maybe it is time to revist the idea of releasing a demo, but must say I am very wary on this. Last time we did it and no one bothered to play the tutorials, let alone read the Tutorial manual we included. Without this players won't really appreciate what to do or what's involved or the best way to play the game.
 
Eddy did a trial movie for us a few months back which captures the screen as you play it and allows you to add a voice over to it. So for all intent and purpose it's like watching an actual demonstration of the game at a convention. This approach would allow us to cover all the essential bases while demonstrating the user interface and the power of the AI as the game is played. Would this serve?
 
Eddy,
 
Would you have any objections if we upload your intro.avi file for users to download here and get an idea of what we're talking about? Do they need to have the xVid codec to view it?

I am a turn-based hex snob, have been all my life. 3D is great for Morrowind or Warhammer, two excellent products IMHO but wargaming should be 2D and i hope it always stays that way. I purchased RDOA at release and was impressed by it's "uniqueness", then HTTR came out, i absolutely love Market Garden games, and the love affair began to take form. Initially i was skeptical about COTA, although it was an excellent choice to showcase the beginning(and end) of German paratroop operations and the "what-if" invasion of Malta has alot of history behind it and could have had serious ramifications for the Allies had it been implemented and successful.
After all the reading about the new features i went ahead and bought COTA and was not dissapointed, in fact i was shocked at how intuitive/effective the interface had evolved and it made an already enjoyable system so much easier and enjoyable to play. Panther Games is, as i have stated before, in a class all by itself. It succeeds in all aspects and truly immerses the player in "being there" in command. The player can pick and choose the pace so as not to become overwhelmed and slowly digest the intricate workings of the game. I would never have bought another Bulge game, i have played it to death from Talosoft, SSG and HPS but i can honeslty say, and picture clearly in my mind, just how good the AA engine will work for an operation of this magnitude and i will buy it as soon as it becomes available with a huge grin on my face. Panther Games has a true masterpiece with their AA series and i gladly prefer the incredible ai and intense gameplay over an abundance of scenarios.
As i grow older i get tired of endlessly "digging in/entrenching individual units a la turn-based and the AA series takes out all the minutia and replaces it with pure, unadulterated fun! I can't imagine the sensory overload i will have when the patch is released to improve an already state of the art ai where giving an order to a leader unit actually gets the job done...and well. I don't forsee the AA series being overshadowed by anything or anyone in the future...it is a true work of genius and i am grateful to have the honor of owning all three AA games[&o]. Just my 2 cents worth.

Aside from a lack of exposure, I think the biggest problem is an apparent lack of enthusiasm for online (game community) activities. As noted above, tournaments and ladders would help immensely in this regard. Before this can begin, players must go through the trouble to register as a player someplace. The only site I am aware of is the Wargamer site. I just checked and there are a total of three people [[&:](]registered (for COTA) at the Wargamer. This could give an appearance of a lack luster game to a prospective buyer-if they happened to see the site. Likewise, the request for game opponents on this site is not very substantial either. Perhaps another site such as the Blitz would put up a ladder and forums if we showed enough interest.

I think that the fans of this great game could do just a little more to spread the good word (certainly myself included). For a start, we could all register at the Wargamer now, regardless of skill level or actual readiness to play (you may need a human opponent if you want win a game, post improved AI anyway).

Improvements to the game engine will come in time. PG should have a great future (I’m hoping for an engine that can handle Barbarossa) - I would bet that the North African game will have opening sales 5 time that of COTA. I say this on the assumption that as players of TOAW or other serious games come up for air and hear about this game, they will switch. Also, just a personnel hunch, the scale of this game will fit the N African battles very well; being able to represent a large portion of forces that participated in one, well known battle-in multiple scenarios.

So, I’m off to the Wargamer to get legal-see you there.

Hello all,

For what its worth, a quick look at the PC-based wargaming market shows clearly what sells and what doesn't. Stalingrad, Kursk, Battle of the Bulge, D-Day, Battle of Britain etc - key battles/ operations known to everyone - have formed the bulk of subjects for successful wargames irrespective of type/ style. Panther games have - commendingly - targeted less well known, smaller battles/ operations.

(I know that Market Garden was a huge battle but a) the Allies lost and b) it was predominantly holding actions and small breakthroughs focused around bridges and towns. In terms of excitment factor, it is not something that will appeal to all.)

As a barrier to purchase however, targeting smaller and less well known battles is a significant wall to jump over when buying something that presents an innovative game engine and ostensibly simplistic graphics, sounds and so on.

I would suggest that the move to Battle of the Bulge for the next game is sound and will result in improved sales based purely on the amount of interest - especially the USA - that this operation holds with the wargaming public. It also has tanks - lots - which are the sexy end of war for most people. (The fact that the battle took place in forests and generally territory/ weather unsutable for tanks will be lost on a lot of people until they buy the game. Once purchased however, the unique game engine and potential of the game will, I believe, create a loyal following.) The big seller will be when the Afrika Corps and Rommel's names comes out. People don't seem to care what engine a game is on, they just go out and buy it irrespective when the Desert Fox is present.

I assume that there is a valid reason why Panther has focussed on less well-know WWII actions - god knows that there are enough games covering the well know areas. My point is that I would have thought that from a marketing perspective, Panther should have got people over the line with the new engine and game characteristics by beginning with a battle or area of operations that most people know and like - anything Afrika Corps related, Americain victories etc.., then branch out into the peripheral battles once everyone is hooked. By appealing to the masses they would give themselves a larger initial target market. Get them on board first, any way possible. That money finances the cool excursions into less well know/ covered areas such as Geece, Malta and so on. Those that know and love the engine (Me!) will buy it regardless, new purchasers need a greater level of assurance and subject matter is one way of delivering this.

Sorry to go on so long.
Shaka

I'm staying out of this conversation for the most part. You had me with RDOA.[:D]

I do agree with Pia though, in that a commercial success needs the ability to appeal to a broad swath of players. Most ppl, I would imagine, are put off by "study sims", games that limit themselves to one particular battle or campaign. They want a broader scope.

So, my suggestion is:

get BFTB out quick. From there, you need to create a "Mega" AA game, one with a complete map/estab/oob editor. By then you need a full OOB stretching from 39-45. Then let the community have at it.

Good luck!


***Edited because I'm typing on Nyquil ;-D

ORIGINAL: Arjuna
Eddy,

Would you have any objections if we upload your intro.avi file for users to download here and get an idea of what we're talking about? Do they need to have the xVid codec to view it?

No problem.

About the codec used : I think it was a bog-standard DivX codec - I'll check tonight to be sure, but almost everyone should be able to view it without having to install a new codec first.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

Good thanks Eddy.

Pia,
 
Thanks for your initial comments. Most appreciated.
 

The ladder guy wants QB's.

 
Am I right in deducing that QB stands for "quick battle" ( a la from a scenario or quick battle generator )?

Re Scenario or quick battle generator: This is not a trivial feature to add, well to do right anyway. I will start another thread in which we can discuss the features you all think should be in one. This is not to say we are going to do one, but It's worth scoping the solution even if we subsequently do not select it.

Well, from my point of view, the only thing missing right now is cooperative play against the AI. For my group, gaming is very,very social. We get together each week and play games. We like to be on the same side, as we're all in the same room (or sometimes on the same phone line) and it's hard to compete in that mode. We loved Sid Meier's Gettysburg and Antietam... and I know we'd love COTA. It's got everything we want, including a realistic slow speed and great order delays.

Maybe someday...

ORIGINAL: TJ

As a barrier to purchase however, targeting smaller and less well known battles is a significant wall to jump over when buying something that presents an innovative game engine and ostensibly simplistic graphics, sounds and so on.

I hate to say that, but this is a very good conclusion. Putting the focus on some less worn-out theaters, or (in case of covering the OPs in Greece) on theaters the casual wargamer (they aren't all grogs, are they? [;)]) doesn't like/know, might have been somewhat counterproductive in terms of creating proper sales. Although these (indeed) very interesting battles work for me, they might not work for the average wargamer. There are chances that BFTB and especially the North Africa theater will turn the tide, eventually, imho.

Focusing on a well-known/popular theater to introduce this engine might have been better than selecting a niche (uncommon theaters) within a niche sector. Well, like I said, this works for me, but it seems that it doesn't work for the average gamer, although this engine is by far the best you can find on the market.

DOS wasn't the best solution back then, but still prevailed..... I guess it's like that, inferior products prevail, often, hehe. [:D]

G'day

Fellow Australian and probably the demographic you want to target next.

I not a hardcore grog, nor am I a total newbie, rather something in between.

A few months back when COTA, Panzer Command, TOAW3 and HarpIII were released almost simultaneously I was in the difficult position were I could buy one of them (my birthday). Not for lack of funds but rather time.

I thought long and hard about that purchase. I seriously considered COTA but in the end I got Panzer Command. I wasn't disappointed and ended up writing the editor for it along with scenario and tank modelling; I am now part of the beta team for the next expansion.

Strangely I still long for what the AA engine represents, and frequently (enviously) read these forums.

Truthfully what swayed me in the end was firstly the theatre of operations and secondly the audio/visual experience. Don't let 'em fool you; the dirty masses are graphics whores, even if just a little bit.

The good news is that you have a winning methodology no doubt!

You know where you are now.

You know where you would like to be; with a gorgeous 2D/3D engine (beautiful maps and counters); maps of all the ETO and PTO. An engine which can scale the entire spectrum from the strategic to operational to the tactical, along with estabs for all combatants at each of these scales. Powerful user content creation tools, to a lesser extent a random battle generator.

This would, I believe, effectively represent the pre-eminent war-game on the planet at possibly all scales, moving at once from a niche to the mainstream (or at least closer to it).

The question is how to get there. It seems to me that the development of the AA engine after RDOA (which was revolutionary) has been incremental with each new game release and that this will also hold true for the bulge (which, has already been stated is a step in the right sales direction re: popular operations). I think the next game after bulge needs to be 'revolutionary' again.

I don't know what the status of Panther's financial reserve is, or whether it could survive the burden of a long positive cash flow drought that the next revolutionary step would entail. May be you could "get there" incrementally with infusions along the way? In that case *my* advice, for what it is worth as a likely future customer (I will probably break down and get bulge anyway) is:

Concentrate on the audio/visual experience, scope and user content creation tools above everything else. These tools must allow every facet of the game to be user editable. Do this at the expensive of "included scenario/campaign content" if need be. The success and longevity of TOAW, for example is due to these very reasons - not because of its small starting portfolio of scenarios.

Anyway Dave, somthing else to think about.