Begging

[MrRoadrunner]

To Matrix, Slitherine, and the Campaign Series development team.

Please do not split the Series apart. Clean it up and give us new scenarios.
Do not port over the Middle East stuff and call it progress. Just play around with your new titles and make them to your hearts content.

What I have seen from the team is a desire to make the Campaign Series into the ME style game, with three separate titles. "Have to" do things for the "good" of the game?

Please, do not ruin this game bundle with your meddling. Keep it a classic.
What I have seen so far is that you will drive away the base and tear apart the community in an effort to get "younger" players who simply are not there in, the support your effort type numbers.

That is my New Years wish.

RR

[wings7]

We do need younger players to continue the tradition, we veterans won't live forever. [:(]

Patrick

[Lobster]

If a game company does this it is typically an attempt to make more money from the same title. You see it all the time in all genre.

[76mm]

Personally I have no problem paying for new content, but it would be very nice if all the paid content could be used within one game.

[Crossroads]

ORIGINAL: MrRoadrunner

To Matrix, Slitherine, and the Campaign Series development team.

Please do not split the Series apart. Clean it up and give us new scenarios.
Do not port over the Middle East stuff and call it progress. Just play around with your new titles and make them to your hearts content.

What I have seen from the team is a desire to make the Campaign Series into the ME style game, with three separate titles. "Have to" do things for the "good" of the game?

Please, do not ruin this game bundle with your meddling. Keep it a classic.
What I have seen so far is that you will drive away the base and tear apart the community in an effort to get "younger" players who simply are not there in, the support your effort type numbers.

That is my New Years wish.

RR

Hello Mr RR,

Continuing to support JTCS as a bundle was our intent as documented in these fora as well. Unfortunately towards that, the sheer size of the task ahead made it a practical impossibility.

In the game engine itself, the changes meant we are past the point of no return. New unit ID format to allow more variety with new parameters in place means the OoBs need to be rebuilt. As you know the OoBs between the various titles are not identical. Germans at East Front are a bit different to Germans at West Front. New OoBs then mean all scenarios need to be rebuilt.

As of Middle East, there's the graphics changes then. New zoom levels mean all unit and terrain graphics need to be remade. Middle East came with twelve nations, with JTCS there's what fifty of them.

With the size of the development team available, there's a grand roadmap in place. It has not only to do with the era, nations, nor wars, but with the game engine too. New User Interface features, new dialogs, all will come in a piecemeal fashion then ported back to previous titles. The intention is to be able to bring one new title out each year. New 3D zoom level for instance is on our wish list too. It will be an enormous task to get it done, but we are hopeful it can be brought in at some stage.

It will be quite an effort. This is not a day job nor will it ever be, so there's that too. All the development is done on our own free time. For what it is worth the free 2.0 UPDATE ensures the classic bundle as it is remains playable with new operation systems and new larger monitors. That took more than a year to have available too.

But going forward, there's no other way to do this I am afraid.

[Crossroads]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

If a game company does this it is typically an attempt to make more money from the same title. You see it all the time in all genre.

Hello Lobster,

And the other way too perhaps as an even more common life cycle to any game series. What made JTCS such a lucrative bundle is that it put together the old East Front, West Front, Rising Sun, and all the expansion disks such as Sealion and what not.

Building them towards the new standard gives us not much other options than to do it one game at a time. One year each, or three years together. The amount of work ahead is quite daunting but getting it done one game at a time is something we are positive can be done.

[Crossroads]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Personally I have no problem paying for new content, but it would be very nice if all the paid content could be used within one game.

Hello 76mm,

Not easily achievable I am afraid for the above mentioned reasons...

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Crossroads
Not easily achievable I am afraid for the above mentioned reasons...

Understood.

The developers of Command Ops have recently taken a very interesting design decision: their engine is free, and players pay for the content, all of which can be used with the engine. This is a very appealing model to me, but it does seem that it would be difficult to keep the engine and content synchronized during various updates to either or both. Dunno, I'm not a programmer...

I guess we'll see how it works out for them (or at least we'll see if they retain that business model or not).

[Crossroads]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Crossroads
Not easily achievable I am afraid for the above mentioned reasons...

Understood.

The developers of Command Ops have recently taken a very interesting design decision: their engine is free, and players pay for the content, all of which can be used with the engine. This is a very appealing model to me, but it does seem that it would be difficult to keep the engine and content synchronized during various updates to either or both. Dunno, I'm not a programmer...

I guess we'll see how it works out for them (or at least we'll see if they retain that business model or not).

Interesting, thanks.

Do they regulate access to editors then?

With CS the full set of editors is included for free, including full OoBs and map tempaltes for the periods supported per game. For Middle East this is 1948-1985. This, with us supporting any scenario designers via the fora. So yes, a completely different approach.

(Also there's the Battle Generator for generating random battles per parameters which by the way is to be overhauled at some stage too. But that's another thing and not related to what you were saying.)

[Crossroads]

By the way Jason Petho is traveling at the moment so what I wrote here is how I am seeing and have understood things.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Crossroads
Do they regulate access to editors then?

No, AFAIK there is a fairly active mod community (I've only tinkered with this game a bit). But the company has released quite a few scenario packs or whatever you call them.

While I'm not saying there aren't other issues, I don't think including random battles would be precluded by such an approach--OOBs, etc. could be part of the paid content. So if you want to play a random battle with Jordanian and British forces, you'd need to buy both forces' OOBs.

Anyway, I just wanted to point out alternative approaches that other devs have adopted.

[Big Ivan]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Crossroads
Do they regulate access to editors then?

No, AFAIK there is a fairly active mod community (I've only tinkered with this game a bit). But the company has released quite a few scenario packs or whatever you call them.

While I'm not saying there aren't other issues, I don't think including random battles would be precluded by such an approach--OOBs, etc. could be part of the paid content. So if you want to play a random battle with Jordanian and British forces, you'd need to buy both forces' OOBs.

Anyway, I just wanted to point out alternative approaches that other devs have adopted.

Not receptive to that idea at all!

Having the OOB's free to me all these years for CS and then suddenly having to pay for them so I could have a little spice and variety would turn me totally off!!
I'd probably walk away from the game and system if that happened.

I understand the need for Matrix to un-bundle from the tech end, but its more importantly a business ($$$$) decision.
Bottom line Matrix needs to make money to stay in business.

I have to agree with Roadrunner in principle. I can accept CS being individual games but the Middle East should stay Middle East.
Sure there are some nice features that would make the WWII games quite enjoyable IMHO, but please temper those features with good judgment.
There is no way you can rewrite over 5,000 logged scenarios in CS data bases across the world.
Perhaps setting up an ongoing poll for changes (with examples) to CS would give some kind of feedback from the community as to whether a change has merit or not.

Thanks
Big Ivan

[Crossroads]

I believe the financial model will stay as it is currently with Middle East. These are niche games, so they will not be dirt cheap, while on the other hand keeping the scopes limited will not make them monsters either. That is the idea especially towards WW II titles.

So the model will be that there is the price, but once you're in you can expect updates that keep the games up-to-date towards the latest development.

Once there's new titles in, and as time goes by, I am expecting older titles will be featuring with Matrix Sales as it is with other games. We have no control over pricing policies, but having said that we are happy with how it's was done with CSME and how its been with JTCS.

Regarding the WW II titles, they all will be more or less complete rebuilds. Not much of the old can be reused, especially should the new 3D Zoom view come in place. It will be completely new games as of then, with the classic look and feel to it all of course. With legacy scenarios to support and to keep available where possible.

Middle East was developed from scratch. The Divided Ground code base was there but it was not used at all, instead having developed the common codebase engine it was further developed instead. The mechanism to have certain features limited to certain titles is there, so for instance modern weapon systems will not be available to WW II titles and so forth.

What to include and to whom, these are always difficult questions. There's the PBEM crowd and vs-AI crowd, there's the certain Optional rules that are preferred and so on.

One of the goals we've set is to try and have options available, so to keep things as they were would be an option, as would be trying out new things as well. There's the balance of keeping the game simple (enough) to play while at it. Tens and tens of options lead to overtly complications in their own.

Next WW II title is still two years from now at least, for CS: Vietnam is next, something we hope to have available at the end of play 2016.

So plenty of time to wish for new features, or to wish for excluding features. The Wish List topics are available. We do appreciate all feedback. Keep it coming please!


edit typos

[Crossroads]

But again, this just me trying to answer what was asked. I will tip Jason to comment upon his return [:)]

[berto]

ORIGINAL: Big Ivan

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Crossroads
Do they regulate access to editors then?

No, AFAIK there is a fairly active mod community (I've only tinkered with this game a bit). But the company has released quite a few scenario packs or whatever you call them.

While I'm not saying there aren't other issues, I don't think including random battles would be precluded by such an approach--OOBs, etc. could be part of the paid content. So if you want to play a random battle with Jordanian and British forces, you'd need to buy both forces' OOBs.

Anyway, I just wanted to point out alternative approaches that other devs have adopted.

Not receptive to that idea at all!

Without revealing any details (we can't), legacy ownership and licensing arrangements constrain what we can and can't do. We are not completely free to refashion the business model as we would like.

I understand the need for Matrix to un-bundle from the tech end, but its more importantly a business ($$$$) decision.
Bottom line Matrix needs to make money to stay in business.

+1

Also without revealing any personal details (we shouldn't need to), financial realities compel us to do some things as we do.

Without the (limited, constrained) freedom to unbundle the games and to schedule and market them as we have planned, the incentive to keep working on these games -- make no mistake, it is indeed work -- would approach zero.

Without the right incentives, the Dev Team would disband. The game would once again be orphaned. The remaining , and dwindling, player community could then go back to debating the question: "Is this game dead?" [8|]

Sure there are some nice features that would make the WWII games quite enjoyable IMHO, but please temper those features with good judgment.

Of course. It goes without saying.

There is no way you can rewrite over 5,000 logged scenarios in CS data bases across the world.

Preserving backward compatibility is of paramount importance.

Perhaps setting up an ongoing poll for changes (with examples) to CS would give some kind of feedback from the community as to whether a change has merit or not.

Polling? Um, no. But informal wish lists? Yes.

[berto]

Also without our revealing too many details, people here should know:

[*]the number of active forum participants is an order of magnitude less than
[*]the known population of CS PBEMers (e.g., at The Blitz), which is at least an order of magnitude less than
[*]the number of JTCS players, also the growing number of CSME players to date

In other words, people expressing their opinions here are just the tip of the iceberg, a very small fraction of the total. The JTCS and CSME player communities are much bigger than many people realize!

[Crossroads]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Crossroads
Do they regulate access to editors then?

No, AFAIK there is a fairly active mod community (I've only tinkered with this game a bit). But the company has released quite a few scenario packs or whatever you call them.

While I'm not saying there aren't other issues, I don't think including random battles would be precluded by such an approach--OOBs, etc. could be part of the paid content. So if you want to play a random battle with Jordanian and British forces, you'd need to buy both forces' OOBs.

Anyway, I just wanted to point out alternative approaches that other devs have adopted.

Out of curiosity I had a look at their site. It is an interesting pricing model for sure. Core game free, then a price for game modules, and a price to update them too. It sounds it can get awfully confusing to keep the modules up to date though, but why not especially if ones interested about certain battles only.

Our game titles with covering a wider era and several conflicts is not well suited to that I don't think. At least for me it makes more sense to just get in at some stage, be it at a launch or maybe later when game's on sale perhaps. And then just have everything available.

Thanks for pointing this out though!

[dox44]

CS: Vietnam is next

great! i can't code or build a game but i will buy it when you get it ready.

now back to work [:)]

[MrRoadrunner]

ORIGINAL: berto


Also without our revealing too many details, people here should know:

[*]the number of active forum participants is an order of magnitude less than
[*]the known population of CS PBEMers (e.g., at The Blitz), which is at least an order of magnitude less than
[*]the number of JTCS players, also the growing number of CSME players to date

In other words, people expressing their opinions here are just the tip of the iceberg, a very small fraction of the total. The JTCS and CSME player communities are much bigger than many people realize!

Bullshit.

You are going to unbundle the series because it is what you want to do. It does not have to make sense and if you sell it to Matrix as a way to make money then that is what you are doing.

Make all the "niche" ME crap you want. I'm sure all the various titles will sell. How much will sell will remain to be seen?

Break the series up at its peril.
You won't (or don't) have to care, right? You don't like (or play) PBEM. You prefer 2-D gaming. You want to port over all the garbage that ME contains making the series a moot point anyway? And, breaking the series apart will give you personal longevity?

Maybe the "newness" will have rubbed off and the ruin will take it's place? Then you will wish for a dedicated core of players?
Maybe not. You have to believe in customer service to understand it. I just don't think you get it.

Sad, to see this happen.
This will be like watching a slowly ticking New Years clock wind down. After it hits you will be drunk and dazed, and wonder what happened, just like all those others with a hangover.

RR

[carll11]

I may not post here much but, I have been playing Tiller games since, well the hand painted maps ( compliments of humongous efforts by John and Allan Hamilton) since their first issue in talonsoft….

I am trying to understand the angst- is that the present EF,WF,RS series will be ported to the new ME ‘game’ style engine etc. ?