Didn't realize the was coming out so soon..
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3934616&mpage=1&key=�
I have the older version from matrix, I am supprised there is a newer version.
I've been waiting for this one a long, long time. I hope it does well because other modern historical and hypothetical conflicts using this engine could be next.
I'll be playing this on the weekend. Those new zoom levels will be great. I'm not much of a modern war guy but i am looking forward to this and the Vietnam game after, big campaign series guy.
Oooo! A-I Wars CS! 8)
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on September 21, 2015, 08:49:33 PM
Didn't realize the was coming out so soon..
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3934616&mpage=1&key=�
It was in the works for ages.
Quote from: jomni on September 21, 2015, 11:58:33 PM
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on September 21, 2015, 08:49:33 PM
Didn't realize the was coming out so soon..
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3934616&mpage=1&key=�
It was in the works for ages.
Yep, knew that...didn't realize the release date was this week.
Getting this one.
I was hoping this was the Flashpoint Campaigns middle east game. >:(
Easy day one purchase.
My love of the CS is a matter of record, this is a rarely covered era in warfare, and it will support the devs eventually back-loading their improvements to CS WWII which would make the latter one of the best WWII games of all time.
Most exciting!
Oh - thanks for the heads up O0
I really, really, REALLY wish these classic games would get a graphic upgrade. I don't mean a wee touch up either - I mean a proper graphic overhaul.
They are great games - so give them that extra push into the 21st century!
Moving the graphics from bmp based to png based is on the cards apparently..
Not many games with this subject matter so would like to purchase some time, but will depend on the pricing they come up with. I believe the older campaign series game is $30 so assuming it will be in that range, but one never knows with this company.
I'm kind of with the Judge on this one...that video didn't make me tingle.
While CS is the one series that sort of -- I stress sort of -- made the Battleground era 3D view work for me, I do not understand the dev's desire to to stay after that view in this iteration. They've done so much to make the 2D better -- principally making bigger, clearer NATO counters -- that messing with the 3D seems to me to be chasing an audience they'll never get. On Target has shown the way on this -- Bauhaus not withstanding -- and I would that others followed their lead.
Still, as I won't be PLAYING at that level, I suppose it doesn't matter overmuch. Still excited...
The ATGMs in the original Divided Ground were buggy as hell. Specifically ones fired from helos. Even though you'd have a clear LOS, the missile would exploded against terrain nowhere near your target when fired. Even the helos would run into hillsides and explode sometimes IIRC.
I'm sure that quick video was to show they've succeeded in creating a version that actually works. The sound effects are bad in the vid. Sounds like they came via desktop speakers much more distant than the mic, rather than recorded from the game itself.
Not a great feast for the eyes and ears, but if it works I'll have it sometime. Been wanting to dodge Saggers & shoot T-55/62s with my Centurions & M-60s for awhile. ^-^ Was so sad after buying the original to find that it was unplayable.
Agree with Judge and Jar.
Until it was highlighted I didn't even see there was a helicopter in that hex.
Also having watched the clip, once a helicopter has popped up you can't put it back to Nap of the Earth without moving it a hex first - that is either a bug or a rather clunky oversight.
Quote from: Cyrano on September 23, 2015, 11:19:13 AM
While CS is the one series that sort of -- I stress sort of -- made the Battleground era 3D view work for me, I do not understand the dev's desire to to stay after that view in this iteration. They've done so much to make the 2D better -- principally making bigger, clearer NATO counters -- that messing with the 3D seems to me to be chasing an audience they'll never get.
Quoting from an older thread here (http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=14151.msg367818#msg367818):
QuoteMaking use of the limited time and resources we have, in Middle East we have substantially revamped the 2D map modes, adding two new larger, zoomed-in 2D modes (50% and 100% larger than the earlier largest zoom), along with a host of other 2D improvements. To some of us (old board war game grognards), the game has shifted focus, with 2D the new primary playing modes, and 3D in secondary status. (Much like, say, TOAW, where 2D is the primary interface, and 3D is an afterthought.)
That said, we do have longer-range plans to buff the Campaign Series' 3D. Rome Wasn't Built in a Day.
We retain the older 3D, because it still works for some, and because we do indeed have plans to buff it in future. In fact, a complete 3D graphics overhaul might be in the offing. Much depends on having a person with just the right talents and expertise join the team, also their long-term commitment and dedication and work ethic.
(Do people fault TOAW so much because its 3D graphics are lackluster?)
QuoteStill, as I won't be PLAYING at that level, I suppose it doesn't matter overmuch. Still excited...
As are we! Thanks for your interest and support, Cyrano!
Quote from: Wolfe1759 on September 23, 2015, 12:32:43 PM
Also having watched the clip, once a helicopter has popped up you can't put it back to Nap of the Earth without moving it a hex first - that is either a bug or a rather clunky oversight.
The "no two consecutive ascents/descents in the same hex" rule is meant to enforce more natural flight paths. So that helos aren't vertically ascending/descending all the time.
In the video, the helo had moved to that one hex, then ascended from NOE to Low air level in order to sight the target and make the shot. Having ascended in that hex, it would then move back a hex, descend back down to NOE air level, in order to hide from view once again.
So the usual sequence would be: move forward one hex, ascend; fire; move backward one hex, descend. Rinse and repeat.
We have a Vietnam War combat veteran on the team (Australian) who is fine with the Air Model and how it portrays helos, and their flight pathing.
CS is not a flight sim.Not a bug, WAD. Clunky? Your Mileage May Vary.
Berto and the others spent a lot of effort on the 2D mode to make it at least equal in functionality to the 3D one.
But as somebody who was madly in love with the original East Front and East Front 2 back in the day, I still prefer 3D, and have found it to hold up very well.
Yeah. Not sure I get the comments on the 3d. The cs series was one of the only hex based wargames where it actually worked and even after all this time the models are still on a par with or far better than anything else in a hex based wargame. Day one buy especially if it helps the Vietnam game along.
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on September 23, 2015, 03:46:57 AM
Not many games with this subject matter so would like to purchase some time, but will depend on the pricing they come up with. I believe the older campaign series game is $30 so assuming it will be in that range, but one never knows with this company.
Good day.
I believe the retail price will be $39.99 USD for the download, $49.99 USD for the boxed version.
We thought that was both reasonable and competitive.
Jason Petho
Quote from: Nefaro on September 23, 2015, 11:35:16 AM
The ATGMs in the original Divided Ground were buggy as hell. Specifically ones fired from helos. Even though you'd have a clear LOS, the missile would exploded against terrain nowhere near your target when fired. Even the helos would run into hillsides and explode sometimes IIRC.
I'm sure that quick video was to show they've succeeded in creating a version that actually works. The sound effects are bad in the vid. Sounds like they came via desktop speakers much more distant than the mic, rather than recorded from the game itself.
Not a great feast for the eyes and ears, but if it works I'll have it sometime. Been wanting to dodge Saggers & shoot T-55/62s with my Centurions & M-60s for awhile. ^-^ Was so sad after buying the original to find that it was unplayable.
Guilty about the video.
I just purchased the Camtasia video software that day and that was my first attempt and putting together a quick video. My speakers were up too loud and I reduced the overall volume in the editing session without realizing it.
Lessons learned. There will be more videos in the near, hopefully they will be clearer... especially as I figure out how to use the software properly.
Jason Petho
As Berto has eluded to, there are plans for revamping the 3D in the future. That will come in time, but definitely on the radar.
The more successful Middle East is, the more likely the massive graphics upgrades will be coming in the future (which will be ported back to Middle East).
Jason Petho
paypal locked and loaded.
Hello all, I'm Mike, the graphics guy, specifically the 3d graphics guy! I have loved the CS since it's inception, and indeed started to mod the unit graphics with the original East Front. It always bothered me how a lot of them were shapeless lumps, and endeavored to improve on them when I could. I joined the Dev team a few years ago to tackle all the graphics at the time, settled into revamping the 2d views, which in itself was a very daunting project! After that, I began to tackle the very neglected, even more so than EF, WF, and RS titles, 3d graphics, oh boy!! The original Divided Ground team had two graphics artists, and as with the previous titles used a turntable with miniatures on them at the different facings, and photographed them, usually only in primer, later would be added color, if any. I work totally on the pixel level, and redo these graphics, a lot of them never even existed before, such as the Israeli Gillois Amphibian, and many, many others. This is an ongoing project, as I am the only 3d graphics guy on staff, although Jason has helped out immensely with the infantry. There are literally thousands of graphics, each made up of 6 facings to give you the view you see on the screen when you play. For sure, come tomorrow, when you open up an Israel-Egyptian scenario, you WILL see a difference, I assure you! More later, just wanted to pop in and say hey!
Quote from: Tamas on September 23, 2015, 02:14:17 PM
But as somebody who was madly in love with the original East Front and East Front 2 back in the day, I still prefer 3D, and have found it to hold up very well.
Same. I thought the pseudo-3D mode worked best for this series.
Game play in this series is simply great if you are into the periods covered and scale. East Front, West Front, and Rising Sun are classics of the genre and thanks to the efforts of the team that just posted above me here have remained very playable and enjoyable to the present day. This game will be an instant buy for me. I've been impatiently waiting for it to be released for over a year now. I suspect Jim and I will have it fired up for PBEM about ten minutes after it's released.
Nope, not everyone is going to enjoy it. It's a very groggy game, as is the series.
Quote from: Nefaro on September 23, 2015, 06:39:01 PM
Quote from: Tamas on September 23, 2015, 02:14:17 PM
But as somebody who was madly in love with the original East Front and East Front 2 back in the day, I still prefer 3D, and have found it to hold up very well.
Same. I thought the pseudo-3D mode worked best for this series.
I wholeheartedly concur!! Although I have moved over to the 2d side as well periodically, what with the new size I can actually see them! Added a crap-load of new NATO-Military symbols as well, and most units have a dedicated 2d AND 3d icon!!
What's the max rez that the game can display at?
Quote from: Warhorse on September 23, 2015, 06:49:02 PM
Quote from: Nefaro on September 23, 2015, 06:39:01 PM
Quote from: Tamas on September 23, 2015, 02:14:17 PM
But as somebody who was madly in love with the original East Front and East Front 2 back in the day, I still prefer 3D, and have found it to hold up very well.
Same. I thought the pseudo-3D mode worked best for this series.
I wholeheartedly concur!! Although I have moved over to the 2d side as well periodically, what with the new size I can actually see them! Added a crap-load of new NATO-Military symbols as well, and most units have a dedicated 2d AND 3d icon!!
Cyrano taunts me for it, but I like the 3D mode, too.
Quote from: Staggerwing on September 23, 2015, 06:57:35 PM
What's the max rez that the game can display at?
I'm playing the existing games at 1920x1080, so I'd expect at least that.
Quote from: Nefaro on September 23, 2015, 06:39:01 PM
Quote from: Tamas on September 23, 2015, 02:14:17 PM
But as somebody who was madly in love with the original East Front and East Front 2 back in the day, I still prefer 3D, and have found it to hold up very well.
Same. I thought the pseudo-3D mode worked best for this series.
+1
As a CS veteran. I'm not really hoping for any graphical upgrade. Just new post-WW2 scenarios.
Quote from: Jason Petho on September 23, 2015, 05:22:11 PM
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on September 23, 2015, 03:46:57 AM
Not many games with this subject matter so would like to purchase some time, but will depend on the pricing they come up with. I believe the older campaign series game is $30 so assuming it will be in that range, but one never knows with this company.
Good day.
I believe the retail price will be $39.99 USD for the download, $49.99 USD for the boxed version.
We thought that was both reasonable and competitive.
Jason Petho
Thanks for info...more than I expected so not sure if an immediate purchase, will monitor.
Quote from: Nefaro on September 23, 2015, 11:35:16 AM
The ATGMs in the original Divided Ground were buggy as hell. Specifically ones fired from helos. Even though you'd have a clear LOS, the missile would exploded against terrain nowhere near your target when fired. Even the helos would run into hillsides and explode sometimes IIRC.
I'm sure that quick video was to show they've succeeded in creating a version that actually works. The sound effects are bad in the vid. Sounds like they came via desktop speakers much more distant than the mic, rather than recorded from the game itself.
Not a great feast for the eyes and ears, but if it works I'll have it sometime. Been wanting to dodge Saggers & shoot T-55/62s with my Centurions & M-60s for awhile. ^-^ Was so sad after buying the original to find that it was unplayable.
Almost everything in the original Divided Ground was buggy. I was disappointed too because I wanted something on that scale that covered the "modern" era. I am confident that what they have put together this time will be well worth the cost. $40 seems reasonable.
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on September 23, 2015, 08:04:16 PM
Quote from: Jason Petho on September 23, 2015, 05:22:11 PM
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on September 23, 2015, 03:46:57 AM
Not many games with this subject matter so would like to purchase some time, but will depend on the pricing they come up with. I believe the older campaign series game is $30 so assuming it will be in that range, but one never knows with this company.
Good day.
I believe the retail price will be $39.99 USD for the download, $49.99 USD for the boxed version.
We thought that was both reasonable and competitive.
Jason Petho
Thanks for info...more than I expected so not sure if an immediate purchase, will monitor.
Agreed... 39 bucks for a 15 year old engine is a lil steep.. I know a lot of love and care went into it, but again, the program itself is very old, when I go back to the campaign series nowadays, I don't stay very long. But I do have fond memories when it first came out.
Quote from: Tuna on September 23, 2015, 08:34:22 PM
Agreed... 39 bucks for a 15 year old engine is a lil steep.. I know a lot of love and care went into it, but again, the program itself is very old, when I go back to the campaign series nowadays, I don't stay very long. But I do have fond memories when it first came out.
While there are elements of the engine that are the same, there are so many new features and advancements, it really isn't the same beast.
It would be like comparing a original BMW 3 series with a more current version. Principally, it's the same, but
very different under the hood.
Jason Petho
Quote from: Al on September 23, 2015, 08:33:09 PM
Almost everything in the original Divided Ground was buggy. I was disappointed too because I wanted something on that scale that covered the "modern" era. I am confident that what they have put together this time will be well worth the cost. $40 seems reasonable.
We decided to scrap Divided Ground. We found it subpar.
With that said, it has been built from the ground up as new. There may be some similar looking features, but that's where the similarities should end.
Jason Petho
Quote from: Tuna on September 23, 2015, 08:34:22 PM
Agreed... 39 bucks for a 15 year old engine is a lil steep.. I know a lot of love and care went into it, but again, the program itself is very old, when I go back to the campaign series nowadays, I don't stay very long. But I do have fond memories when it first came out.
But with 70+ scenarios in the initial release, and more on the way. Not to mention a full suite of editors, and other goodies.
I'm a Linux user for nearly 25 years (got in near the beginning). Some of the GNU components of the Linux ecosystem are 30 years old or more. Just like the CS, GNU/Linux is "old" software, but at their core, they are both solid, and they both continue to evolve. (Linux powers the Internet and rules server space. Google Android is Linux at heart.) Some things just get better and better with age.
Sorry - I don't mean to be rude, but I was actually talking about all the graphics. There might be enhancements to the graphics and I'm sure they were time consuming, but they are so subtle to the untrained eye that they just looked like the original graphics.
What about this? Not to everyone's taste, I'm sure
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1160.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq499%2Fwmar1967%2FMisc%2FSnap2_zpskwazfk4z.jpg&hash=5a5485b02315714c49df75d4687145403f7a624a)
Quote from: JudgeDredd on September 24, 2015, 01:02:05 AM
What about this? Not to everyone's taste, I'm sure
Yes, very pretty. But some of us are old school, prefer the classic board war game look. As you say, different tastes.
We also face the problem of introducing too drastic change. Sure to make old-timer CS aficionados howl.
Anyway, things will continue to evolve, the CS graphics -- both 2D & 3D -- included.
I may well pick this up if for nothing else than the subject - I've really wanted a Middle East game and I did enjoy the Campaign Series games (all those years ago).
But the AO certainly appeals to me. O0
Quote from: JudgeDredd on September 24, 2015, 02:09:13 AM
I may well pick this up if for nothing else than the subject - I've really wanted a Middle East game
Theres always this...
http://schwerpunkt.wargamer.com/MDEdesc.html
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fschwerpunkt.wargamer.com%2Ffiles%2Fwebpage2.jpg&hash=b67d94ec665a0211d735e9058f09c17103f42cc9)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fschwerpunkt.wargamer.com%2Ffiles%2Fwebpage5.jpg&hash=eff19a4d111499465e8e130d4881a68429e6a462)
Quote from: JudgeDredd on September 24, 2015, 01:02:05 AM
Sorry - I don't mean to be rude, but I was actually talking about all the graphics. There might be enhancements to the graphics and I'm sure they were time consuming, but they are so subtle to the untrained eye that they just looked like the original graphics.
What about this? Not to everyone's taste, I'm sure
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1160.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq499%2Fwmar1967%2FMisc%2FSnap2_zpskwazfk4z.jpg&hash=5a5485b02315714c49df75d4687145403f7a624a)
Hello, one more CS dev member here, my first post, be kind ...
I am working with the CS 2D graphics so I'd be interested to hear more about your thoughts as where we're specifically lacking still.
That's Flashpoints Campaigns, right?
So if you'd get three wishes, what is it that you'd like to see brought into CS titles
from there.
Unit stats and pips on counters is something we are talking about right now so I am guessing that would be one. Anything else.
For comparison, here's a little DAR I am writing at the moment: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3929704 (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3929704)
Given my question, spot anything particularly missing? I'd be interested for any detailed feedback for sure :)
Edit: To be specific I am curious as what you'd like to see introduced into the CS titles, not about a direct comparison to another series
Quote from: Crossroads on September 24, 2015, 06:06:13 AM
So if you'd get three wishes, what is it that you'd like to see brought into CS titles from there.
Unit stats and pips on counters is something we are talking about right now so I am guessing that would be one. Anything else.
No 1 for me is: Unit labels for designations i.e. 2/A/4-145 etc.
2: png support
3: can't think of anything else yet...
I am no graphics ho, but the Flashpoint graphics look crisper, better defined, and actually have a 3D look to them. Oveirall, the graphics in the CS game look very 1990s like.
Thanks guys! I need to log off for today so a couple of quick comments:
- re The two-dimensional appearance of our 2D view is a design decision. 3D unit counters on a flat 2D cardboard game. We can do better, this is 1.00 after all, but that is the aim. Different folks different tastes, so we want to make the game very mod friendly. I started a dev thread on 2D terrain, but it is only a brief introduction at the moment: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3932790 (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3932790). Modders welcome! :)
- re Unit labels. Our 2D Zoom-in counters are 44x44 (std) and 48x48 (alt), so we are discussing at the moment what to include there. Let us see how it goes.
- re Png graphics. Well as said that is a wishlist item. PNG graphics as such are not the holy grail, they do introduce some capabilities lacking from BMPs of course. (Semi)transparency probably the key one. But often times it is the size of icons that truly limits the look and feel.
crossroads....that is one well done DAR in the link you posted above. Thanks for sharing. It really clarifies a lot of aspects of this game that have been bantered about in this thread. I always loved the Campaign Series back in the day. You've reignited my interest.
Thanks :)
We are great fan of the series, the one game I've continuously played since 90's (TOAW another one). So good to see it come alive again!
Not all here will agree (will any?) but Panzer Leader was the apotheosis of counter design...achieve this and achieve victory...
Your commitment to this system is admirable and deserving of support (you'll certainly have mine), although the affection for the 3D continues to elude my aged brain.
Quote from: Crossroads on September 24, 2015, 06:06:13 AM
I am working with the CS 2D graphics so I'd be interested to hear more about your thoughts as where we're specifically lacking still...
I really appreciate you taking the time to read and respond here, really awesome considering the game has been released and I'm sure you have a million other things to do.
From the screenshots at Matrix it looks like there is no information on the counters. Is this correct? If yes, what's the difficulty in presenting 2D with the same level of detail modern boardgames are able to achieve with their graphics?
Just looking at a recently announced game, and while I am biased in favor of this style map and counters, I just find it looks spectacularly better than anything we ever see on the PC.
http://www.consimworld.com/post/129360409886/in-a-wordwow-hows-this-for-some-major
Not singling out your game, which has made one of the worst UI's in history look presentable, just genuinely curious about the difficulties in achieving this kind of thing.
Got home early today, after all :)
Quote from: Cyrano on September 24, 2015, 08:32:03 AM
As all here will agree Panzer Leader was the apotheosis of counter design...achieve this and achieve victory...
There, fixed that for you ;)
Quote from: dinsdale on September 24, 2015, 11:12:53 AM
I really appreciate you taking the time to read and respond here, really awesome considering the game has been released and I'm sure you have a million other things to do.
From the screenshots at Matrix it looks like there is no information on the counters. Is this correct? If yes, what's the difficulty in presenting 2D with the same level of detail modern boardgames are able to achieve with their graphics?
Just looking at a recently announced game, and while I am biased in favor of this style map and counters, I just find it looks spectacularly better than anything we ever see on the PC.
http://www.consimworld.com/post/129360409886/in-a-wordwow-hows-this-for-some-major
Not singling out your game, which has made one of the worst UI's in history look presentable, just genuinely curious about the difficulties in achieving this kind of thing.
After the hand off to Matrix/Slitherine to put together the installer and download package, we were basically just rolling our thumbs in eager (and nervous!) anticipation of the game to be released, as everyone else. Squeky bum time...
The information on counters that we have at the moment is the Thermometer drawn next to each counter. It can be toggled to display either Strength, Morale, or Action Points remaining. Yes, while aesthetically it is not on "in" a counter, it is technically the same thing. But no, in a manner you refer we don't have any counter info (yet?).
I believe the most pressing limitation technically is the size of the counter. To display text there while of course requires the time to write the code is imho less of a pressing issue.
Thanks for the link, I was not familiar with the game. For a boardgame geek such as myself they don't come better than that. Let us have a look, then.
First, the counters:
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F41.media.tumblr.com%2Febf8af4f27e268d1be7458603e7346a7%2Ftumblr_nuvw0hoyDz1qdgn6bo4_500.jpg&hash=9cb6240cd54b0498a3ba8665be58d085a4db905c)
While they obviously look great (and they do!), the size of the counter at least in this picture is like 84x84 pixels give or take a pixel or too. It looks so nice because first that is a great design and second there's the room to display all the details.
Let us consider this, then:
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F40.media.tumblr.com%2F1567f206a837dd1f1860e89c3b1f7bd9%2Ftumblr_nuvw0hoyDz1qdgn6bo2_1280.jpg&hash=902f89291a114a9a7685aa98600999fb6f367dac)
Here, the counters are 43x43 pixels plus/minus, so pretty much the same size than ours. Then the question is that are those counters really readable at this zoom level (is it a zoom level?). Or would there need to be less information, or different information given the size available. In theory we could do the very same thing, but could you read the unit information? So what is a great design with larger counters, becomes a bit of a strain to eyes at this zoom level. At least to my eyes. I am not taking anything away from the game, mind. Just making a point about the
size matters thing.
Posting now, to see if I managed to link the pictures properly in this forum...
It worked, yay!
Then for the Terrain on the game. Simply beautiful. That looks like a static map though, ie it is drawn exactly as it is there, instead of been built from generic tiles as some others game do CS, TOAW for instance. WitW,WitE, Flashpoint Campaigns, they all have static maps with hexes on top of them. It is a bit of a challenge to be able to do the same with generic tiles, but as I wrote earlier this is 1.00 and we've only started.
To my shame I was not aware of this forum. Happy to be here, and any questions regarding the CS titles shoot, one of us is sure to pick up :)
Quote from: Crossroads on September 24, 2015, 12:02:38 PM
While they obviously look great (and they do!), the size of the counter at least in this picture is like 84x84 pixels give or take a pixel or too. It looks so nice because first that is a great design and second there's the room to display all the details. ...Here, the counters are 43x43 pixels plus/minus, so pretty much the same size than ours. Then the question is that are those counters really readable at this zoom level (is it a zoom level?). Or would there need to be less information, or different information given the size available. In theory we could do the very same thing, but could you read the unit information?
I would say the smaller size makes them look too busy and almost unreadable. I think the game (and others) would need to alter the zoom sizes and then reduce information on the counters as they get zoomed out.
Should be done by lunchtime no :)
The one advantage to putting more on the counters is that you could theoretically get rid of the detail sidebar and use the space to for more hexes. I'm not suggesting this is possible for CS given the need to support 3D and 2D, but just for wargame design in general.
Quote from: berto on September 23, 2015, 01:23:20 PM
Quote from: Wolfe1759 on September 23, 2015, 12:32:43 PM
Also having watched the clip, once a helicopter has popped up you can't put it back to Nap of the Earth without moving it a hex first - that is either a bug or a rather clunky oversight.
The "no two consecutive ascents/descents in the same hex" rule is meant to enforce more natural flight paths. So that helos aren't vertically ascending/descending all the time.
In the video, the helo had moved to that one hex, then ascended from NOE to Low air level in order to sight the target and make the shot. Having ascended in that hex, it would then move back a hex, descend back down to NOE air level, in order to hide from view once again.
So the usual sequence would be: move forward one hex, ascend; fire; move backward one hex, descend. Rinse and repeat.
We have a Vietnam War combat veteran on the team (Australian) who is fine with the Air Model and how it portrays helos, and their flight pathing.
CS is not a flight sim.
Not a bug, WAD. Clunky? Your Mileage May Vary.
Berto - thanks for the detailed reply, makes sense and now you've explained it I agree not a bug and not clunky just WAD :)
The zoomed-out 2D does look better than the original CS series.
The original's map & counters blended together too much. Your updated ones are certainly more crisp & defined, making it easier to see.
While I generally gave most orders in 3D view, I did still use some zoomed-out 2D views to get better overall pictures of the situation, in between. The new one looks better, especially the map terrain. O0
Quote from: Crossroads on September 24, 2015, 12:02:38 PM
Let us consider this, then:
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F40.media.tumblr.com%2F1567f206a837dd1f1860e89c3b1f7bd9%2Ftumblr_nuvw0hoyDz1qdgn6bo2_1280.jpg&hash=902f89291a114a9a7685aa98600999fb6f367dac)
Several random comments:
- See how crowded it gets when you have counters stacked three deep? In Middle East (as in all the CS games), you can have counters stacked six deep (even more than that)! It would get impossibly overcrowded to show counters, with stats, six (or more) levels deep.
- Middle East has four levels of 2D zoom. The stats (and pips & markers etc.) displayed on-counter would need to differ at each level of zoom.
- In Middle East, about the sidebar Info Box stealing space from the map: Hit the U hot key to toggle between the full sidebar and the one-unit-only floating unit Info Box.
On-counter stats, markers, etc. -- It's a matter of current debate in the CS dev forum. We'll be doing something in future, we just haven't decided exactly what yet!
It's out.
http://www.matrixgames.com/products/582/details/Campaign.Series:.Middle.East.1948.-1985
Quote from: jomni on September 24, 2015, 05:10:30 PM
It's out.
http://www.matrixgames.com/products/582/details/Campaign.Series:.Middle.East.1948.-1985
I played it happily for 3 hours last night. It was sort of a nostalgia fest. I had forgotten how much CS I played 15 years ago.
I generally don't worry too much about graphics. I tend to play fairly zoomed out in 2d. I was happy to find a lot of French and UK
units for 1956 scenarios, but I played the Last stop in the Negev scenario since I've never seen a comprehensible version of that battle.
The scenario in this game is very good, though as usual I wonder about the gear the Israelis have. For example, by late 1948 I'm pretty sure they had quite a few 3-inch mortars since they could make those themselves and plenty of machine guns since they over-produced their own MG ammo (for Bren guns I guess?).
Ooooo... :D
Can't wait to add it to my "serious gaming," collection!
Well, spent some time with it last night.
Simple answers:
If you're at ALL into the period, get it.
If you like groggy games, get it.
If you like supporting developers that develop groggy games, get it.
My impatience as they work on their Viet Nam and WWII games may become unbearable...
Quote from: Toonces on September 22, 2015, 07:05:18 PM
I was hoping this was the Flashpoint Campaigns middle east game. >:(
That one's scheduled for 2021. Or about the time most of y'all bother to make it to Origins
Quote from: bayonetbrant on September 25, 2015, 12:49:52 PM
Quote from: Toonces on September 22, 2015, 07:05:18 PM
I was hoping this was the Flashpoint Campaigns middle east game. >:(
That one's scheduled for 2021. Or about the time most of y'all bother to make it to Origins
That's an aggressive timetable. For Origins, I mean.
Quote from: MengJiao on September 25, 2015, 08:23:42 AM
I played it happily for 3 hours last night. It was sort of a nostalgia fest. I had forgotten how much CS I played 15 years ago.
I'm glad you're enjoying it!
Quote from: MengJiao on September 25, 2015, 08:23:42 AM
I generally don't worry too much about graphics. I tend to play fairly zoomed out in 2d. I was happy to find a lot of French and UK
units for 1956 scenarios, but I played the Last stop in the Negev scenario since I've never seen a comprehensible version of that battle.
The scenario in this game is very good, though as usual I wonder about the gear the Israelis have. For example, by late 1948 I'm pretty sure they had quite a few 3-inch mortars since they could make those themselves and plenty of machine guns since they over-produced their own MG ammo (for Bren guns I guess?).
The Bren's are included in the infantry stats, generally speaking. If I couldn't find reference to an overabundance, so I didn't include separate MG units.
Same goes for the 3 inch mortars. I was hardpressed to find the mortars assigned to the units involved in the scenario (from the sources I used in Section 9.1 of the manual), so erred on the side of caution and kept them from the OOB.
Fortunately, Middle East is a living game and if it is found that there were these extras, we can add them in future UPDATES.
I hope you continue to enjoy the series and if you spot anything else that you find odd, please note it and I will comment and address it.
Hope you're well
Jason Petho
Quote from: spelk on September 25, 2015, 10:55:23 AM
Twitch stream..
Thanks for posting that.
It's too bad they didn't include the chat on the side, I filled it with a lot of tidbits and/or corrected some misspoken items.
Jason Petho
I'm playing a linked campaign as the Israelis VS the Egyptians. Thought i'd post some screenshots of the different views. We fought over this ground during the last scenario when i was unable to push the Egyptians back. This time there attacking my positions. Israelis in blue.
View #7
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1144.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo484%2Fronnie8691%2FScreenShot099_zps1kgjdtdp.jpg&hash=6c39abb2ed62ff0fb7adadd3524089b4a55d2895)
View #6
Nato and graphical unit icons
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1144.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo484%2Fronnie8691%2Fview6_zps51shulid.jpg&hash=2ce9222efd0d70956583801f21e96261304e4046)
View#5
Nato and graphical
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1144.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo484%2Fronnie8691%2Fview5_zps77zwp5in.jpg&hash=48f527cae093b4fab41da8d6e31436d60db704a7)
View #4
Nato and graphical
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1144.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo484%2Fronnie8691%2Fview4_zpsjo8ahff0.jpg&hash=1192f4eb731def2b700e969587ebd21f9647ff41)
View #3
3D
probably the one i use the least, if at all
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1144.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo484%2Fronnie8691%2FScreenShot105_zpsqlggbclj.jpg&hash=f0c9510c958add6c4c9de74b49c811164380682a)
View #2
3D
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1144.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo484%2Fronnie8691%2FScreenShot106_zpsopa7zrrf.jpg&hash=1e6caee0217e1b12f70e4a7d654e766193a35dcf)
View #1
3D
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1144.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo484%2Fronnie8691%2FScreenShot107_zpsswpwu6jb.jpg&hash=a3c9236c67c293860d1b175810a0462125492031)
Plays well, no major bugs that affect game play and a very supportive team.The AI has handles itself well no obviously stupid moves, haven't seen any backtracking yet and it places and uses its AT assets well on defense, i was impressed when it held fire and remained hidden to wait for a juicy shot at my tanks. Between this and flashpoint campaigns i might have to broaden my WW2 horizons and play more modern stuff......this game is fun
Enjoyed the 3D sprite views...the battlefield was littered with armor wrecks. Great screenies budd!
This looks promising. After coming straight on during turn 3 looks like the AI is moving left to get around my right flank. it got my attention i relocated an MG and a mortar unit to the right side. The AI's approaches with their armor are limited by all the marsh terrain, especially on their left. I' have good LOS on the their right. Curious to see if the AI continues to try to move around my right.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1144.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo484%2Fronnie8691%2FScreenShot109_zpstdkszree.jpg&hash=9de09adce61e17b768aab8a3f56af77eba00073f)
I'm finding that the AI is no slouch in this game. It definitely uses terrain and cover to it's advantage and will flank. My first game in I went in without due care in a night engagement and it trashed me.
One thing the AI doesn't do is to know when enough is enough and it keeps coming. Of course i don't know if an AI can be programmed to call it off. We do complain that the AI is tame on the attack. The AI continued to try to move around my right. I moved a tank unit to join the MG and mortar unit to fight it off. It tried to gets some tanks shifted but really the terrain just wasn't good for that and i cut them down while they were shifting to my right. I eventually killed the main thrust in the center and tried to push on my left with a tank company but it was too late in the scenario. All in all i think the AI did a good job, if it could of got some armor on my right it would have made me nervous.
Quote from: -budd- on September 27, 2015, 03:50:53 PM
Between this and flashpoint campaigns i might have to broaden my WW2 horizons and play more modern stuff......this game is fun
Come to the Dark Side. We have LOTS of toys to play with. >:D
O0
Quote from: -budd- on September 27, 2015, 06:11:07 PM
One thing the AI doesn't do is to know when enough is enough and it keeps coming. Of course i don't know if an AI can be programmed to call it off. We do complain that the AI is tame on the attack. The AI continued to try to move around my right. I moved a tank unit to join the MG and mortar unit to fight it off. It tried to gets some tanks shifted but really the terrain just wasn't good for that and i cut them down while they were shifting to my right. I eventually killed the main thrust in the center and tried to push on my left with a tank company but it was too late in the scenario. All in all i think the AI did a good job, if it could of got some armor on my right it would have made me nervous.
Cheers Budd, thanks for the great screenies! One think you might want to experiment if you haven't already is to look at tha A/I menu options, and to sort of give A/I a helping hand. So if you feel they should go on defense, you could set the AI to Cautious, or if opposite, to Audacious. There's the slider available too for something in between.
Quote from: Jason Petho on September 25, 2015, 05:35:51 PM
Quote from: MengJiao on September 25, 2015, 08:23:42 AM
I played it happily for 3 hours last night. It was sort of a nostalgia fest. I had forgotten how much CS I played 15 years ago.
I'm glad you're enjoying it!
Quote from: MengJiao on September 25, 2015, 08:23:42 AM
I generally don't worry too much about graphics. I tend to play fairly zoomed out in 2d. I was happy to find a lot of French and UK
units for 1956 scenarios, but I played the Last stop in the Negev scenario since I've never seen a comprehensible version of that battle.
The scenario in this game is very good, though as usual I wonder about the gear the Israelis have. For example, by late 1948 I'm pretty sure they had quite a few 3-inch mortars since they could make those themselves and plenty of machine guns since they over-produced their own MG ammo (for Bren guns I guess?).
The Bren's are included in the infantry stats, generally speaking. If I couldn't find reference to an overabundance, so I didn't include separate MG units.
Same goes for the 3 inch mortars. I was hardpressed to find the mortars assigned to the units involved in the scenario (from the sources I used in Section 9.1 of the manual), so erred on the side of caution and kept them from the OOB.
Fortunately, Middle East is a living game and if it is found that there were these extras, we can add them in future UPDATES.
I hope you continue to enjoy the series and if you spot anything else that you find odd, please note it and I will comment and address it.
Hope you're well
Jason Petho
Actually this game is the best I've seen for covering the strangeness of the 1948 battles. It turns out to be 9mm ammunition that was overproduced. People were not as eager to use their submachine guns as they had been expected to be. I'm not sure about the 3-inch mortars, but there were a lot of them around in 1948, though again, they may have ended up more as back-up weapons for not-particularly-well-trained garrisons than as front-line weapons in the fighting formations.
I built an "Evacuate the Etzioni Block" scenario last night using the game's built-in OOB organizations and it was pretty revealing about why things did not go well at Etzioni: Not enough transport (or probably radios) in the early Israeli infantry units -- which I think is pretty realistic.
Anyway, a great game and very well-researched it seems to me.
QuoteAnyway, a great game and very well-researched it seems to me.
Thank you, MengJiao!
I intended to include some more 1948 scenarios, but alas, ran out of time. For example, I have a Jerusalem 1948 map complete and the OOB's mostly complete. Fallujah is also on my hit list, along with a number of other fairly significant battles.
They will be included in future UPDATES.
Jason Petho
For example, Operation Yiftach, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Yiftach (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Yiftach).
That scenario is already built. I've played it. But it was deemed unfit for some reason, was pulled from the intial public release. Pretty good scenario. I hope it can be restored.
Quote from: berto on September 29, 2015, 02:00:07 AM
For example, Operation Yiftach, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Yiftach (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Yiftach).
That scenario is already built. I've played it. But it was deemed unfit for some reason, was pulled from the intial public release. Pretty good scenario. I hope it can be restored.
Looks like you might need more options for both sides since the UK forces are pulling out, the locals are very mixed and so on. Plus that early and with the Palmach, a lot of real effects might be hard to work out in the game.
Those are some very key reasons why it was pulled. While it was a fun scenario, the original designer didn't present an accurate picture of what happened. The OOB was incorrect and the map was incorrect.
It didn't meet our basic standards so had to be pulled.
Quote from: Jason Petho on September 28, 2015, 05:54:58 PM
QuoteAnyway, a great game and very well-researched it seems to me.
Thank you, MengJiao!
I intended to include some more 1948 scenarios, but alas, ran out of time. For example, I have a Jerusalem 1948 map complete and the OOB's mostly complete. Fallujah is also on my hit list, along with a number of other fairly significant battles.
They will be included in future UPDATES.
Jason Petho
Fallujah would be interesting. Didn't operation Yoav just by-pass it (leaving the pocket, which held out until after the ceasefire/treaty in 1949 if I remember correctly? What does a Fallujah scenario cover?
One element of the Fallujah pocket I would like to portray is the action during the night of December 27-28 by two Israeli battalions against the Eastern side of the pocket (focusing on 'Iraq al-Manshiya). All in all, the battle was an uncoordinated disaster and in the midmorning a general retreat was called. It was the last attempt to capture the pocket.
Isn't Fallujah in Iraq?
In 1948, there was a Fallujah in Palestine.
With this last series of posts? I declare this thread Groggy.
And AWESOME!
Quote from: Jason Petho on September 30, 2015, 05:31:15 PM
In 1948, there was a Fallujah in Palestine.
Different spelling?
Quote from: jomni on September 30, 2015, 07:47:21 PM
Quote from: Jason Petho on September 30, 2015, 05:31:15 PM
In 1948, there was a Fallujah in Palestine.
Different spelling?
Quite possibly, or more than likely, I am not at home yet to check my references.
Might be one l and no h.
Yes. Even the Arabic spelling is different by one letter.
Quote from: Cyrano on September 30, 2015, 06:16:21 PM
With this last series of posts? I declare this thread Groggy.
And AWESOME!
Yes we are talking about spelling now.
Thanks for the correction!
Quote from: Jason Petho on September 30, 2015, 05:24:28 PM
One element of the Fallujah pocket I would like to portray is the action during the night of December 27-28 by two Israeli battalions against the Eastern side of the pocket (focusing on 'Iraq al-Manshiya). All in all, the battle was an uncoordinated disaster and in the midmorning a general retreat was called. It was the last attempt to capture the pocket.
There was a lot of action around there at the end of the First Truce. The Egyptians launched an offensive just before the Israelis launched an offensive. Bang-bang-bang from June 8 to June 18. Pretty bloody. And the Egyptians did gave as good as they got, mostly. Possibly too big and too much in terms of command-level problems for both sides.
Lots to do then! That's great news!
Once things die down with the release, I'll finish up the map and get started on some new scenarios.
Thank you for the input!!
Quote from: jomni on September 30, 2015, 08:03:24 PM
Quote from: Cyrano on September 30, 2015, 06:16:21 PM
With this last series of posts? I declare this thread Groggy.
And AWESOME!
Yes we are talking about spelling now.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Forig08.deviantart.net%2F31af%2Ff%2F2011%2F039%2F4%2F2%2Fspelling_demotivational_by_neonvictorian-d393ih6.jpg&hash=6863de86782815ae91646866196b1e3774fb349f)
Started a little DAR with a 1973 scenario by the Suez Canal at the AAR forum, here: http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=14980.0
(how do I include the url inside text?)
Berto - no peeking! :knuppel2:
Quote from: Crossroads on October 03, 2015, 07:32:43 AM
Started a little DAR with a 1973 scenario by the Suez Canal at the AAR forum, here: http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=14980.0
(how do I include the url inside text?)
Berto - no peeking! :knuppel2:
I'll be following....on the edge of making my purchase and this might help push it over the top:)
No pressure then !! :D
Quote from: Crossroads on October 03, 2015, 07:45:33 AM
No pressure then !! :D
My purchase will be dictated by whether you win or not:)
Ha, a deal it is then! For I will lose for sure. I assume that is what you meant yes :smitten:
Quote from: Crossroads on October 03, 2015, 07:57:33 AM
Ha, a deal it is then! For I will lose for sure. I assume that is what you meant yes :smitten:
I was purposely vague:)
It is all good. Any questions during the play just ask!
Crossroads, it look like you guys did an excellent job on this game!
Quote from: Crossroads on October 03, 2015, 07:32:43 AM
(how do I include the url inside text?)
Like this!
"Started a little DAR with a 1973 scenario by the Suez Canal at the AAR forum, here (http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=14980.0)"
Click on this button above the text entry space: (https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgrogheads.com%2Fforums%2FThemes%2Fdefault%2Fimages%2Fbbc%2Furl.gif&hash=ff5a9200afa7c8f6324dafd71de55da03d9ecdaf) and put the word(s) you want visible between the url tags. Then put an equals sign (=) in the first tag with the actual URL right behind it. It will look like this:
(url=zombo.com)Hey you! Click here!(/url), except that all the ()s should be []s and you get this: Hey you! Click here! (http://zombo.com)
Don't wait just buy it, excellent fun to be had. I'm playing the 121st campaign and having a rough go, 2 draws, 1 minor victory, 1 major victory and 1 major defeat and a lot of fun.
Thanks guys :)
Thanks for the url tip too - that's my signature sorted, among other things.
I have to agree: if you are at all interested in the topic and turn-based wargames, you will enjoy this. There are a huge number of well-researched, challenging scenarios, units equipped with hundreds of different types of equipment, in battles fought over varied and challenging terrain.
You can do everything from small infantry actions involving irregular troops to full-on division sized armor clashes with air and artillery support. The manual is not only great in terms of playing the game, but there's a substantial section on modding, as well.
The mods Crossroads has released since the game went on sale are really nice, too. This is one that will stay on my hard drive for a long time...right along with the original Campaign Series.
So I am really intrigued by the period and area covered, no issue there....one of the reasons I am undecided is I own the Mideast 67 game from HPS...never really got into it much, even though I liked the material. I know this game is not the same, but I am concerned the same thing will happen with this game. Not that I want to detract from this game, but if anyone owns both, can they tell me their opinion on the differences?
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on October 03, 2015, 11:35:12 AM
So I am really intrigued by the period and area covered, no issue there....one of the reasons I am undecided is I own the Mideast 67 game from HPS...never really got into it much, even though I liked the material. I know this game is not the same, but I am concerned the same thing will happen with this game. Not that I want to detract from this game, but if anyone owns both, can they tell me their opinion on the differences?
There's a massive difference in scale. JTS/HPS Mideast 67 is operational, with units that are at least companies and usually larger. Turns are, IIRC, a couple of hours and hexes are a kilometer or more. ME 67 is intended to model entire operations, with you in the role of a senior commander.
CS:ME is grand tactical/tactical. Units are platoons, turns are shorter (I think length can vary by scenario) and hexes are 250m. The result is a game where weapons systems have a more obvious impact on combat and where the combat is much faster and more dramatic. CS:ME models the smaller engagements that would be the fights you have over a turn or two in ME 67. Your role is more that of the task force commander rather than say, a corps commander.
Don't get me wrong; I quite enjoy ME 67. Operational games tend to be somewhat dry for a lot of players though, and tougher to get into than tactical games. I find CS:ME at the right scale for me tactically: squad level "firefights" aren't my favorite because they usually don't capture enough of an engagement to be meaningful. CS:ME is a step up from that is scale, and you can get an entire "battle" rather than just a firefight.
CS:ME also covers conflicts that ME 67 doesn't. ME 67 is primarily focused on the Six-Day War with some scenarios that cover other Arab-Israeli conflicts. CS:ME covers all of the Arab-Israeli conflicts ftom the 1948 War of Independence up through the 1980s, but also has scenarios covering the Anglo-French attack on Port Said during the Suez Crisis, Jordanian actions against the PLO, Syrian attacks versus Jordan, the Egyptian police action in Aden/Yemen, and a variety of raids and other smaller actions. There's a lot of content in this game at a very accessible level - smaller scenarios might have only 20 or so units per side.
Hope that helps!
Thank you very much for the additional information...does sound like a good game. Likely won't survive the weekend without making the purchase:)
Just do it ;)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Forig05.deviantart.net%2F7239%2Ff%2F2015%2F181%2Ff%2F9%2Farnold_schwarzenegger_do_it_now_meme_by_therealmdgaming-d8zfbn4.jpg&hash=abba5dc362cdfbddabaaf5bef3164daba3853c17)
Your not helping either:) In recent days I have bought Heroes in Normandie, Grand Ages Medieval, NBA 2k16, FHM2, etc....trying to at least let the CC cool off a bit....
Buy it now before you max out your limit with something foolish, like groceries or gas.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1144.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo484%2Fronnie8691%2Fdownload_zpsuog9edbz.jpg&hash=c390fd39ec28abc2c610a79e336d13bd3663aef1)
http://matrixgames.com/store/582/Campaign.Series:.Middle.East.1948-1985
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1144.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo484%2Fronnie8691%2Fimages_zpsvlpcdkiy.jpg&hash=329d0288ff9f867e4995536f4da7817cdbf82707)
Really, would budd and mirth steer you wrong? O0
Well, I bit. Will have to wait until tomorrow to play.
welcome aboard.......I think we have a movement going on here.
If you're just getting started with the game, don't overlook some of the cool extras like the JTCS Unit Viewer that have been included. Really useful for learning the specifics of a unit and for comparing the characteristics of units. There are a lot of detailed characteristics modeled for each platoon type in the game. The Unit Viewer can really help understand them.
Thanks for the tip!
Haven't watched in myself yet, but they just put up a video tutorial on one of the boot camp missions...gonna watch now:)
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3941689
Thanks very much for the support guys, it is VERY much appreciated!!
Jafele posted this link over at the Matrix JTCS forum .... should be useful to help get me up to speed on some modern tanks.
Thanks Jafele.
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/
Also, as some may not know, some countrys tanks have night vision equipment, so beware! The Egyptian T-54, T-55, T-62 for instance have this equipment on them!
Quote from: -budd- on October 03, 2015, 09:03:24 PM
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1144.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo484%2Fronnie8691%2Fdownload_zpsuog9edbz.jpg&hash=c390fd39ec28abc2c610a79e336d13bd3663aef1)
Because his grocery budget went to buying games lately? ;D
I recommend intermittent fasting. Not only can you buy more games, but you'll lose weight while doing that O0
Quote from: Crossroads on October 05, 2015, 12:17:52 AM
I recommend intermittent fasting. Not only can you buy more games, but you'll lose weight while doing that O0
I've substituted a pot of coffee for the occasional meal, but the ulcers don't like that at all. All that clean easy living from my youth limits the options. :))
CS Legion crew, you guys done good. The more I play this the more I'm enjoying it. I'm playing the Jiradi Pass scenario now, which I'm familiar with from playing the same battle in Tiller's Mideast 67. Really enjoyable being able to play it at this scale. The new 2D views are just great.
Thanks for a great game!
Quote from: panzerde on October 05, 2015, 09:17:49 PM
CS Legion crew, you guys done good. The more I play this the more I'm enjoying it. I'm playing the Jiradi Pass scenario now, which I'm familiar with from playing the same battle in Tiller's Mideast 67. Really enjoyable being able to play it at this scale. The new 2D views are just great.
Thanks for a great game!
Thanks for the kind words and encouragement!
There's more to come!
Jason Petho
Quote from: Jason Petho on October 05, 2015, 09:32:39 PM
There's more to come!
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.matrixgames.com%2Fforums%2Fupfiles%2F32195%2F74267EEF06024E6F83214F831238121F.jpg&hash=64ab895b1699333786ea80dd9c822ef26e0d470b)
"squee"
I saw that in your post in the Matrix forums. I can't wait for that!
Quote from: Crossroads on October 05, 2015, 11:11:31 PM
Quote from: Jason Petho on October 05, 2015, 09:32:39 PM
There's more to come!
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.matrixgames.com%2Fforums%2Fupfiles%2F32195%2F74267EEF06024E6F83214F831238121F.jpg&hash=64ab895b1699333786ea80dd9c822ef26e0d470b)
"squee"
Oh Man!
Squeeeee is right! :o O0
Quote from: Barthheart on October 06, 2015, 07:53:10 AM
Oh Man! Squeeeee is right! :o O0
That would be great! totally different feel for the game!
They will be available in the 1.01 UPDATE!
:smitten:
The one I wanted to post is inappropriate...even for this website...
Quote from: Crossroads on October 05, 2015, 11:11:31 PM
Quote from: Jason Petho on October 05, 2015, 09:32:39 PM
There's more to come!
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.matrixgames.com%2Fforums%2Fupfiles%2F32195%2F74267EEF06024E6F83214F831238121F.jpg&hash=64ab895b1699333786ea80dd9c822ef26e0d470b)
"squee"
Sorry, I'm a little dense today. Are those Smurfs?
Them's proper wargamin' counters there!!
Don't make me come over there and regulate your high-falutin' notions of the proper ways for wargames to appear! C:-)
Oh, you mean da leetle numbers? See- I told you I was a little stupider than normal today. :))
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT3o_D6IK74 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT3o_D6IK74)
There's a link to the video for BOOTCAMP 2.
I slowed down the text a bit, which should be more readable.
Hope that helps
Jason Petho
Quote from: Staggerwing on October 06, 2015, 01:28:14 PM
Sorry, I'm a little dense today. Are those Smurfs?
Ain't nothing funny about an Arm'd Smurf Bde heading your way O0
Played turn #4 of my Into Africa! DAR (http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=14980.msg392744#new) with these little AIW counters. :smitten:
duh that's turn #4 of course. fixed. and the link works now. yay
Any chance we can get you Campaign Series types to post some more sneak peak screenshots here? O0
Quote from: Cyrano on October 06, 2015, 01:38:26 PM
Them's proper wargamin' counters there!!
Don't make me come over there and regulate your high-falutin' notions of the proper ways for wargames to appear! C:-)
I'm not seeing NATO symbols on those counters.
I will admit that this one is on the shortlist of games to get once I have more time to game again.
Quote from: Bison on October 12, 2015, 05:24:42 PM
I will admit that this one is on the shortlist of games to get once I have more time to game again.
Definitely worth it. NATO counters are one of the defaults, too!
I ended up purchasing this recently....only been through tutorials so far, but liking it a lot. The developers also seem committed to further enhancements so seems like this will have good longevity.
Here's some NATO symbols for ya!! From Into the Valley.
Quote from: panzerde on October 12, 2015, 05:25:45 PM
Quote from: Bison on October 12, 2015, 05:24:42 PM
I will admit that this one is on the shortlist of games to get once I have more time to game again.
Definitely worth it. NATO counters are one of the defaults, too!
Cool. I was just busting Cyano's chops about the NATO counters. :)
Nice!! Ah well, needed a screenie of the NATO's anyhow, and it gave me an excuse to try it out here! :coolsmiley:
The counters look nice. I hope they are that clear at high resolutions.
Here is another shot using the revised NATO icon sheet. We are at the moment adding a bit more detail into them. New wreck markers too. We are very committed to enhancing the game as we go along, so anything you guys spot let us know :)
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.matrixgames.com%2Fforums%2Fupfiles%2F32195%2F29FD6F435C3A455483130D1185DA4229.jpg&hash=a2112cd38315878f9eef52e54579278039e6aa80)
Counter stats are from top left to bottom right: Strength, Morale, Assault, Defense. With FOW present, you don't see enemy stats, apart the Strenght in case concealment factors allowing. Additionally, there's the Thermometers for action points as seen here.
Edit: Fire values against soft and hard targets is not shown on counters, as they vary per distance. There's a separate Unit Handbook dialog and a Unit Viewer tool to observing all other aspects of a unit while in play.
Edit2: Warhorse put some 420 (!) individual NATO icons in place. This is a platoon scaled game, after all, so there is the need to identify as much about the unit from its NATO icon as possible :)
Edit 3 (there had to be one right!): Here's a little DAR (http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=14980.0) I am doing at the moment at the AAR section. And there's more of them at the Matrix CS:ME forum, if you follow the link from my signature.
Now, I obviously need another morning cuppa!
Integrated Unit Viewer:
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpikt.org%2Fmatrix%2Fcs%2Fgraphics%2FUnitViewer1.jpg&hash=cf373117ec4492835b5a82791dd6625ecd42e7d2)
Available in the forthcoming ME 1.01.
My skirt is starting to blow.
Hahahah that's awesome
Would be even more cool, if those counters were introduced into the JTCS. They look fantastic ! O0
We fully intend to back port "those counters". But we will be unbundling the older games into separate, standalone WF 3.0, EF 3.0 & RS 3.0, you should know. Of course, Rome Wasn't Built in a Day.
Quote from: berto on October 13, 2015, 12:27:10 PM
We fully intend to back port "those counters". But we will be unbundling the older games into separate, standalone WF 3.0, EF 3.0 & RS 3.0, you should know. Of course, Rome Wasn't Built in a Day.
Hmm...would it just be a counter update?
In an ongoing DAR (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3940494 (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3940494); opponent's DAR here: http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=14980.0 (http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=14980.0)), plotting Egyptian airstrikes and artillery:
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpikt.org%2Fmatrix%2Fcs%2Fgraphics%2FDARIntoAfricaPetriVsBertoPBEM18.jpg&hash=01029b585d4c58dee8069130dc92110f0236f354)
Displaying the on-counter unit stats available in the forthcoming ME 1.01.
Quote from: Bison on October 13, 2015, 12:40:43 PM
Quote from: berto on October 13, 2015, 12:27:10 PM
We fully intend to back port "those counters". But we will be unbundling the older games into separate, standalone WF 3.0, EF 3.0 & RS 3.0, you should know. Of course, Rome Wasn't Built in a Day.
Hmm...would it just be a counter update?
No, much more than that, a complete revamp of each game. In addition to the new counters, also incorporating the many, many new features and improvements in Middle East, and the subsequent Vietnam game. New scenarios and artwork too. Well worth the wait.
When is the counter update scheduled in?
I believe enhancements coming in next update which estimated to be end of November.
That is correct, Grim.Reaper!
Played all the tutorials yesterday and enjoyed it a lot. Some reason, really loving the helicopter use and mechanics....like using them to transport, but also blowing up stuff:)
Glad you're enjoying them!
It was a challenge to keep them simple, but take them to whole new heights (pun intended) in order to improve the game play.
When you get comfortable, I'd recommend playing The End in the Sahara as Side A (French), it is a good combined arms scenario with ground forces and helibourne forces.
Then play it against a human for more of a challenge.
Quote from: berto on October 13, 2015, 12:27:10 PM
We fully intend to back port "those counters". But we will be unbundling the older games into separate, standalone WF 3.0, EF 3.0 & RS 3.0, you should know. Of course, Rome Wasn't Built in a Day.
So if version 3.0 WF, EF and RS are separately sold, what will be the price? And will the owners of Matrix JTCS be able to get any discount?
Quote from: PAK on October 14, 2015, 04:51:09 AM
Quote from: berto on October 13, 2015, 12:27:10 PM
We fully intend to back port "those counters". But we will be unbundling the older games into separate, standalone WF 3.0, EF 3.0 & RS 3.0, you should know. Of course, Rome Wasn't Built in a Day.
So if version 3.0 WF, EF and RS are separately sold, what will be the price? And will the owners of Matrix JTCS be able to get any discount?
Can't say, because we don't set the price; Matrix/Slitherine do. Can't say about any discounts either. We are talking here about games to be released over the course of several years from now.
Remember: These games will be substantially revamped. They will not be mere repackaging of the old JTCS. So much of the data, graphics included, are being reworked. New code is being written, and old code is being overhauled. The game engine etc. continue to evolve incrementally.
...
Speaking not to you or anybody in particular, some general comments:
From a marketing perspective, and financially, it is entirely unfeasible to sell, at less than premium price, a game bundle with well over 700+ scenarios (officially supported; and the entirely new scenarios planned; not counting the many 100s more available from elsewhere). Even when unbundled, each of WF 3.0, EF 3.0 & RS 3.0 will have 200+ scenarios apiece. That, and with all the game play & OOB & map & graphics & other improvements we have planned, is it not right and proper that M/S sell them as they would any new mid-priced game?
Bottom line: If former customers, who have been enjoying freebie upgrades of the original JTCS for years; if such customers can't accept the new marketing/pricing model; and if we can't attract enough entirely new customers -- that spells the end of the Campaign Series. Finis. There will be no more freebie updates (we don't follow the DLC model). And there would be no new games. There would be no incentive for the Dev Team to slave away producing them, and no incentive for M/S to publish them. A Labor of Love mentality can only take us so far. M/S' gotta pay its employees, the Devs too gotta eat, not to mention otherwise have a Real Life outside of CS.
Well said Berto. O0
Quote from: berto on October 14, 2015, 06:46:04 AM
Quote from: PAK on October 14, 2015, 04:51:09 AM
Quote from: berto on October 13, 2015, 12:27:10 PM
We fully intend to back port "those counters". But we will be unbundling the older games into separate, standalone WF 3.0, EF 3.0 & RS 3.0, you should know. Of course, Rome Wasn't Built in a Day.
So if version 3.0 WF, EF and RS are separately sold, what will be the price? And will the owners of Matrix JTCS be able to get any discount?
Can't say, because we don't set the price; Matrix/Slitherine do. Can't say about any discounts either. We are talking here about games to be released over the course of several years from now.
Remember: These games will be substantially revamped. They will not be mere repackaging of the old JTCS. So much of the data, graphics included, are being reworked. New code is being written, and old code is being overhauled. The game engine etc. continue to evolve incrementally.
...
Speaking not to you or anybody in particular, some general comments:
From a marketing perspective, and financially, it is entirely unfeasible to sell, at less than premium price, a game bundle with well over 700+ scenarios (officially supported; and the entirely new scenarios planned; not counting the many 100s more available from elsewhere). Even when unbundled, each of WF 3.0, EF 3.0 & RS 3.0 will have 200+ scenarios apiece. That, and with all the game play & OOB & map & graphics & other improvements we have planned, is it not right and proper that M/S sell them as they would any new mid-priced game?
Bottom line: If former customers, who have been enjoying freebie upgrades of the original JTCS for years; if such customers can't accept the new marketing/pricing model; and if we can't attract enough entirely new customers -- that spells the end of the Campaign Series. Finis. There will be no more freebie updates (we don't follow the DLC model). And there would be no new games. There would be no incentive for the Dev Team to slave away producing them, and no incentive for M/S to publish them. A Labor of Love mentality can only take us so far. M/S' gotta pay its employees, the Devs too gotta eat, not to mention otherwise have a Real Life outside of CS.
Why spend time and effort to enhance JTCS? I find that it does the job well already. Why not focus on new eras like Vietnam / modern?
Vietnam is next.
Cold War and NATO War will be worked on in the background while the World War Two games are updated.
There are lots of big things coming for the series! We are super excited!
Oddball question but are pbem files able to be encrypted?
Quote from: Jason Petho on October 14, 2015, 07:42:38 AM
Vietnam is next.
Cold War and NATO War will be worked on in the background while the World War Two games are updated.
There are lots of big things coming for the series! We are super excited!
I see. Lots of thing going on.
Not yet, but that's on the chopping block to get done.
Definitely lots going on and lots to do!
I'm extremely interested in the Cold War and NATO War games, but I still have a lot of OOB building to do before they can be ready to be worked on. That takes the most time, on the data side.
So You will stop updating/enhancing JTCS, if I want to get updated I will have to buy three new games. Ok, I fully understand Your reasons, although I'm not fully happy with it. >:D
Price of progress?
Although, in my humbled and biased opinion, well worth the price of admission.
We'll see. Although, personally I would prefer If You keep the games bundled and gave it a proportional (I mean higher - 3 games in one package, updated to the level of the newest title) price. But, that's just my 5 cents.
What do you think a fair price point would be for such a package?
I remember the original East Front and West Front games as having very long AI turns in big scenarios-- the D-Day scenario, and not being able to save game during the scenario. Is this still the case in both instances?
Just release them as stand alone and bundle them when there all done. I imagine doing them all as a bundle from start would take a lot more time.
Quote from: Jason Petho on October 14, 2015, 09:40:49 AM
What do you think a fair price point would be for such a package?
In case of JTCS - around 100 bucks
Quote from: PAK on October 14, 2015, 11:31:08 AM
Quote from: Jason Petho on October 14, 2015, 09:40:49 AM
What do you think a fair price point would be for such a package?
In case of JTCS - around 100 bucks
You are kidding right?
Quote from: Tuna on October 14, 2015, 12:19:18 PM
Quote from: PAK on October 14, 2015, 11:31:08 AM
Quote from: Jason Petho on October 14, 2015, 09:40:49 AM
What do you think a fair price point would be for such a package?
In case of JTCS - around 100 bucks
You are kidding right?
Why kidding? For a game bundle that would be several years in the making and include a number approaching 1,000 scenarios?
For that many scenarios, not to mention the OOBs, custom graphics, etc. to go with it -- other game projects would charge for the original game, then also "expansion packs", or DLCs, or "gold version".
In any case, (re)bundling ain't ever gonna happen (again), so why even speculate about it?
Quote from: berto on October 14, 2015, 12:31:50 PM
Quote from: Tuna on October 14, 2015, 12:19:18 PM
Quote from: PAK on October 14, 2015, 11:31:08 AM
Quote from: Jason Petho on October 14, 2015, 09:40:49 AM
What do you think a fair price point would be for such a package?
In case of JTCS - around 100 bucks
You are kidding right?
Why kidding? For a game bundle that would be several years in the making and include a number approaching 1,000 scenarios?
For that many scenarios, not to mention the OOBs, custom graphics, etc. to go with it -- other game projects would charge for the original game, then also "expansion packs", or DLCs, or "gold version".
In any case, (re)bundling ain't ever gonna happen (again), so why even speculate about it?
For a game engine that is about ten years old.. Might as well jack the price of Steel Panthers up again..
I'd be inclined to disagree. That statement seems to suggest that the engine has been stagnant for 10 years, which it most certainly hasn't, as shown with the recent release of Middle East.
Fundamentally it is similar, sure, but it is hardly the same. And with each passing month there are improvements with more more improvements to come.
Quote from: Jason Petho on October 14, 2015, 01:09:40 PM
I'd be inclined to disagree. That statement seems to suggest that the engine has been stagnant for 10 years, which it most certainly hasn't, as shown with the recent release of Middle East.
Fundamentally it is similar, sure, but it is hardly the same. And with each passing month there are improvements with more more improvements to come.
The thing is, you want to make the most money possible. When you hit 'certain' price points.. you turn off people. You have a lot of hard core fans, you'll get them whatever you charge.. But you want to get more than that initial bang. More reasonable would be 20 bucks each.. then if you want to bundle at 60 (but again, there are people who are not going to dump 60 into a one shot purchase). Again, if word gets out and you sell a lot more units you make more.
I paid 80 for WITE the day it came out. Never again, there wasn't anything there that was 'more' to make me think it was money well spent. I have yet to buy SPWAW (because of the price point). You can get people to buy more, by not hitting them so hard in the 'single' purchase.
Again, you'll have fans that will pay 100.. You won't have the outcry there was with World in Flames because it is more stable. But you also are going to have a lot of 'non' sales that you won't even 'know' about.
No worries, we're not doing the bundling thing.
I suspect the initial releases will be between 30 and 40 USD each. I'm not 100% sure though.
Quote from: Tuna on October 14, 2015, 12:57:49 PM
Quote from: berto on October 14, 2015, 12:31:50 PM
Quote from: Tuna on October 14, 2015, 12:19:18 PM
Quote from: PAK on October 14, 2015, 11:31:08 AM
Quote from: Jason Petho on October 14, 2015, 09:40:49 AM
What do you think a fair price point would be for such a package?
In case of JTCS - around 100 bucks
You are kidding right?
Why kidding? For a game bundle that would be several years in the making and include a number approaching 1,000 scenarios?
For that many scenarios, not to mention the OOBs, custom graphics, etc. to go with it -- other game projects would charge for the original game, then also "expansion packs", or DLCs, or "gold version".
In any case, (re)bundling ain't ever gonna happen (again), so why even speculate about it?
For a game engine that is about ten years old.. Might as well jack the price of Steel Panthers up again..
Quote from: berto on October 14, 2015, 06:46:04 AM
Quote from: PAK on October 14, 2015, 04:51:09 AM
Quote from: berto on October 13, 2015, 12:27:10 PM
We fully intend to back port "those counters". But we will be unbundling the older games into separate, standalone WF 3.0, EF 3.0 & RS 3.0, you should know. Of course, Rome Wasn't Built in a Day.
So if version 3.0 WF, EF and RS are separately sold, what will be the price? And will the owners of Matrix JTCS be able to get any discount?
Remember: These games will be substantially revamped. They will not be mere repackaging of the old JTCS. So much of the data, graphics included, are being reworked. New code is being written, and old code is being overhauled. The game engine etc. continue to evolve incrementally.
In similar fashion, Windows has evolved over the course of its near 25-year history -- incremental evolution. With each new version of Windows, was Microsoft supposed to sell at an ever more discounted price an "OS engine" that was 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 years old? And so too with MS Office. Do you think that Microsoft rebuilt Office every few years out of an aversion to "old engines"? Was Office always supposed to sell at a(n ever) discounted price because at its core it was "old" technology?
In the gaming world, you do know that, to give one example, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition was built on a code foundation -- Uncommon Valor -- that dates back to the early 2000s. When WITP:AE came out, was Matrix supposed to sell the game for less than the original Uncommon Valor? Or perhaps $10 more (due to the additional content of covering the entire war), because it was an "old game engine"? (Hmm, don't answer that.)
I could give many other examples in the video and PC gaming world where supposedly "new engines" were really evolutionary advances over the "old".
Half-Life, then
Half-Life 2, for example.
I don't understand the focus on "new engine". New engines built entirely new from the ground up. With all new bugs, and years of field testing to discover all the new and inevitable flaws. Why is "new" always better than "old"? What's wrong with "tried and true [and evolved]"?
Some people -- present company excepted, of course ;) -- blithely throw around the term "new engine" without having any idea how difficult it is, how long it takes, to create such a beast. And suggest in effect that, every five years or so, a game dev should just chuck the "old engine" and start all over again with something New! and! Improved!
I've purchased and played "new engine" games, sometimes at premium prices. In many cases ... yuck! :buck2:
There's no winning this argument. An argument perhaps unique to the PC war gaming market.
So sorry that you and others are unhappy with the new direction that the CS will be taking. :(
Quote from: Tuna on October 14, 2015, 01:15:20 PM
Quote from: Jason Petho on October 14, 2015, 01:09:40 PM
I'd be inclined to disagree. That statement seems to suggest that the engine has been stagnant for 10 years, which it most certainly hasn't, as shown with the recent release of Middle East.
Fundamentally it is similar, sure, but it is hardly the same. And with each passing month there are improvements with more more improvements to come.
The thing is, you want to make the most money possible. When you hit 'certain' price points.. you turn off people. You have a lot of hard core fans, you'll get them whatever you charge.. But you want to get more than that initial bang. More reasonable would be 20 bucks each.. then if you want to bundle at 60 (but again, there are people who are not going to dump 60 into a one shot purchase). Again, if word gets out and you sell a lot more units you make more.
I paid 80 for WITE the day it came out. Never again, there wasn't anything there that was 'more' to make me think it was money well spent. I have yet to buy SPWAW (because of the price point). You can get people to buy more, by not hitting them so hard in the 'single' purchase.
Again, you'll have fans that will pay 100.. You won't have the outcry there was with World in Flames because it is more stable. But you also are going to have a lot of 'non' sales that you won't even 'know' about.
You're raising the issue of price "elasticity" of demand. I suppose there is less elasticity here than you might imagine. Slitherine (which bought out Matrix) is a successful and growing company. There is much money at stake in their understanding their market(s) and getting their games' pricing "right" (so as to maximize their profits). I trust that Slitherine has studied this carefully, knows its business, and knows best how to price its products.
Quote from: berto on October 14, 2015, 01:47:25 PM
There's no winning this argument. An argument perhaps unique to the PC war gaming market.
So sorry that you and others are unhappy with the new direction that the CS will be taking. :(
Even more true in an era of $.99 "apps" being considered "normal."
I'm most definitely in the camp of "not unhappy with this direction." I play CS and the JTS/HPS games specifically because the game engines are well-developed and have had nearly all of the rough edges worn off. That, and the fact that once I've learned to play one of these games I don't have to relearn the engine to play the next. I can concentrate on learning the part I want to learn, which is being a better commander of troops in whatever era is represented in the game.
There is HUGE value in the consistency of a stable software product. Polishing UI and adding features worked out across years of actual use is considerably different than the featureitis and "chrome" of an "oooh, shiney!" software project. I'll take your 10 year-old engine, along with its much appreciated new features, but what I'll PAY for is exactly what you're talking about doing: more scenarios, better OOBs, improved graphics, and the works.
This is a niche hobby. Sorry but it's
always going to be a niche hobby. Despite the dreams of some people, wargaming is never going to be mainstream. The economics of being a niche hobby mean that you're going to pay more for CS: Cold War than Angry Birds. Developers and publishers have to make money, and in this hobby that is
never going to happen through volume.
"Unhappy" perhaps is a too big word, maybe "not fully satisfied" is better. But I'm a customer and You're doing the business, our goals are simply different, I understand and respect this. And I fully appreciate what You guys did with JTCS.
As for pricing, Camo Workshop Steel Panthers cost 40 bucks apiece (SP World War 2 and SP Main Battle Tank). For long time I was considering this price as too steep for such old games, but when I finally bought both Camo's SP's, I didn't regret it. Camo team twisted the game code to the extreme, those Steel Panthers are still great. My view on JTCS progress is similar. Of course I would be most happy to pay only for a big update that levels JTCS with Middle East or Vietnam but if the team decide to take a different path - it is their right to do it. Depending on how many changes there would be, I probably would buy at least two titles out of three (probably EF and WF). Maybe I would do this with teeth a little clenched :coolsmiley:
The problem with the JTCS reboot is that it is also competing with the original JTCS witch is so much value for money compared to what I'm hearing about the reboot.
The customers don't care about how much time developers spend. What they care about is how much time they are going to spend playing.
So assuming if they spend the same time playing "reboot" and "original" and get the same level of satisfaction, original JTCS wins. The OOB, engine changes, 2D and additional scenarios don't matter.
I have to admit. I am buying Mid East not for the changes under the hood but for the setting and scenarios. I don't even like the 2D counters.
Quote from: jomni on October 14, 2015, 05:44:36 PM
The problem with the JTCS reboot is that it is also competing with the original JTCS witch is so much value for money compared to what I'm hearing about the reboot.
The customers don't care about how much time developers spend. What they care about is how much time they are going to spend playing.
So assuming if they spend the same time playing "reboot" and "original" and get the same level of satisfaction. The OOB, engine changes and additional scenarios don't matter.
To you. Clearly that is not the case with many other players, given the number of people that have purchased at least three different versions of Command Ops, or have purchased multiple Combat Mission 2 or 3 games that replicate the same battles found in CM1. Or the many, many people that bought AGEOD's ACW2, or BOA2 or...
If you're talking about people that don't have the game already, I would guess that Matrix isn't going to keep selling the original JTCS once they start publishing the new games.
Quote from: panzerde on October 14, 2015, 05:53:50 PM
Quote from: jomni on October 14, 2015, 05:44:36 PM
The problem with the JTCS reboot is that it is also competing with the original JTCS witch is so much value for money compared to what I'm hearing about the reboot.
The customers don't care about how much time developers spend. What they care about is how much time they are going to spend playing.
So assuming if they spend the same time playing "reboot" and "original" and get the same level of satisfaction. The OOB, engine changes and additional scenarios don't matter.
To you. Clearly that is not the case with many other players, given the number of people that have purchased at least three different versions of Command Ops, or have purchased multiple Combat Mission 2 or 3 games that replicate the same battles found in CM1. Or the many, many people that bought AGEOD's ACW2, or BOA2 or...
If you're talking about people that don't have the game already, I would guess that Matrix isn't going to keep selling the original JTCS once they start publishing the new games.
I bought East Front, East Front II, West Front, Rising Sun.. then later JTCS.. not going to pay a lot for act 3.. no biggie, it's your choice and your model and I wish you the best of luck. But when you offer no 'upgrade' price to the existing owners, kind of turns off some of the buyers. Like I said before, you have some big fans, that will pay whatever you want to charge.
And the wargaming niche thing doesn't work anymore, because Paradox is thriving with their Clauswitz Engine (due to their aggressive prices). That stuff is not for the faint of heart. But yet they get tons of people to buy their product who will never use it. JTCS is much easier to jump into, but with the age of the engine could never enjoy that type of success. BTW my 16 year old is a Paradox expert, but I have not spent very much time in any of the big three CK2, Vicky2, EUVI (because I just don't get them).
Combat Mission is pricey but a great value for the money, because it 'is' a new engine. But still. I have not 'bought' into the 'paid' updates.
Command Ops, bought version 1, did not fall for Version 2
Ageod still works for me, it's relatively new, and they're prices are certainly not outrageous.
In response to statements like "AGEOD is relatively new" I'll just point out that AGEOD's Birth of America was published in 2006 making it a "nearly 10 year old engine." The engine in Thirty Years War is exactly the same engine, just polished up a bit and with new content.
Thirty Year's War retails for $29.99. I believe the next AGEOD game in the pipeline is Wars of Napoleon, which is a remake of the 2007 title Napoleon's Campaigns. Matrix/AGEOD recently released Revolution Under Siege Gold, priced at $19.99. However, if you own the previous game, you get an 80% discount off of RuS Gold, making it $5. They did exactly the same thing for Rise of Prussia Gold.
The real world evidence is that older games are remade and released all of the time. Matrix frequently provides discounts on these games. Jomni himself bought Pike and Shot, and then about a year later bought Pike and Shot Campaigns - which is exactly the same engine with a not very sophisticated campaign system grafted on to it, but which significantly added to the number of scenarios and army lists available. The game engine in question is the Battle Academy engine, which is also older at this point. Again, for people that owned Pike and Shot, Matrix offered a great discount and the new game ended up being something like $5.00.
So here we have some developers that have come to the forums to share with us all of the very cool things they are planning to do with the game engine in the future. In fairly short order the discussion devolves into statements about how "people are not going to buy that" and "customers don't care how long you worked on it or if you added a bunch of content." Of course, a developer that showed up and said "We have a new engine but the content is exactly the same as what you had ten years ago" would get piled on about having no new content (and rightfully so, IMHO).
The damn games aren't even in development yet. The developers have said that Vietnam and Cold War are the next targets, with Vietnam definitely being completed before the WW2 games. Matrix hasn't put forward any pricing. No one from the publisher has announced that there will be no upgrade pricing. One developer speculated that they might price the games similarly to other new games they sell, in the $30 to $40 range (you know, like Thirty Years War at $30).
But some of you guys already know that you are going to buy the game because the non-existent no-upgrade pricing "turns off some of the buyers." Seriously? You can't fathom why a developer of CS would do exactly what AGEOD and a ton of other publishers have obviously done in remaking a game using the same engine because it "competes with the existing game." Despite the fact that you, yourself have demonstrably purchased games that have done exactly this.
I give.
Keep in mind that a decision to offer discounts for owners of JTCS hasn't been made one way or the other. Slitherine/matrix may well choose to do so.
I'll buy it no matter what. It's been on the hard drive for a awhile and looking forward to the upgrades so it can stay on the hard drive for many years to come. I like the direction there going and the improvements they've made and look forward to more improvements. I think with wargames a mature engine just works better, maybe not for the fancy graphics but as far as game play is concerned. CSME is one of the cleanest releases that i can remember, QA did a great job. I'd like to see improvements in the 3d terrain and units and hope those can be improved [the new 2d views are fantastic, thx] and that the AI will get on going improvement[seems to play better in ME]. I guess just by looking you might think its an old engine but CSME certainly doesn't play like an old engine.
Hey Tuna- take another look at CO2, maybe not to buy the ones you already own but there is a new module out and one on the way soon. The Westwall is out and Knock On All Doors is coming. I think people miss the fact that one of the biggest changes with CO2 is size of the maps possible. Check out the Knock On all Doors thread and look at the size of the maps.
Lol! I'll buy every pike and shot iteration. Especially if are new eras and settings.
As for JTCS. I'm not ready to buy just another WW2 game.
The buying decision is easier if it were another era. My stace is to embrace every CS game out there. But the news of a WW2 reboot and splitting them into 3 got me thinking (just hope the price of entry is not really steep). That said, I will now shut up about WW2 from now until we get more details.
Back to regular programming. :P
Quote from: panzerde on October 14, 2015, 07:24:32 PM
In response to statements like "AGEOD is relatively new" I'll just point out that AGEOD's Birth of America was published in 2006 making it a "nearly 10 year old engine." The engine in Thirty Years War is exactly the same engine, just polished up a bit and with new content.
Thirty Year's War retails for $29.99. I believe the next AGEOD game in the pipeline is Wars of Napoleon, which is a remake of the 2007 title Napoleon's Campaigns. Matrix/AGEOD recently released Revolution Under Siege Gold, priced at $19.99. However, if you own the previous game, you get an 80% discount off of RuS Gold, making it $5. They did exactly the same thing for Rise of Prussia Gold.
The real world evidence is that older games are remade and released all of the time. Matrix frequently provides discounts on these games. Jomni himself bought Pike and Shot, and then about a year later bought Pike and Shot Campaigns - which is exactly the same engine with a not very sophisticated campaign system grafted on to it, but which significantly added to the number of scenarios and army lists available. The game engine in question is the Battle Academy engine, which is also older at this point. Again, for people that owned Pike and Shot, Matrix offered a great discount and the new game ended up being something like $5.00.
So here we have some developers that have come to the forums to share with us all of the very cool things they are planning to do with the game engine in the future. In fairly short order the discussion devolves into statements about how "people are not going to buy that" and "customers don't care how long you worked on it or if you added a bunch of content." Of course, a developer that showed up and said "We have a new engine but the content is exactly the same as what you had ten years ago" would get piled on about having no new content (and rightfully so, IMHO).
The damn games aren't even in development yet. The developers have said that Vietnam and Cold War are the next targets, with Vietnam definitely being completed before the WW2 games. Matrix hasn't put forward any pricing. No one from the publisher has announced that there will be no upgrade pricing. One developer speculated that they might price the games similarly to other new games they sell, in the $30 to $40 range (you know, like Thirty Years War at $30).
But some of you guys already know that you are going to buy the game because the non-existent no-upgrade pricing "turns off some of the buyers." Seriously? You can't fathom why a developer of CS would do exactly what AGEOD and a ton of other publishers have obviously done in remaking a game using the same engine because it "competes with the existing game." Despite the fact that you, yourself have demonstrably purchased games that have done exactly this.
I give.
Take a look at Birth of America, then take a look at Thirty Year war.. Big difference.... and I don't own Thirty Year.. I'm just looking at the screen shots and saying "Wow"! This games screen shots do not make me say Wow.. and when my eyes bleed it takes a lot of enjoyment out of the game (and I used to love the game, spent many hours in it). Sounds.. Music.. also can be a turn off.
I'm not slamming the developer and not slamming the fans.. I'm just telling them why they 'might' lose some sales. And someone did mention pricing that is why I responded. No need to get 'angry'.. that is one of the reasons I was glad to find Grogheads, people could speak freely without worrying about getting trampled on for having an opinion. One reason I left Matrix and Wargamer.
Quote from: panzerde on October 14, 2015, 07:24:32 PM
In response to statements like "AGEOD is relatively new" I'll just point out that AGEOD's Birth of America was published in 2006 making it a "nearly 10 year old engine." The engine in Thirty Years War is exactly the same engine, just polished up a bit and with new content.
Thirty Year's War retails for $29.99. I believe the next AGEOD game in the pipeline is Wars of Napoleon, which is a remake of the 2007 title Napoleon's Campaigns. Matrix/AGEOD recently released Revolution Under Siege Gold, priced at $19.99. However, if you own the previous game, you get an 80% discount off of RuS Gold, making it $5. They did exactly the same thing for Rise of Prussia Gold.
The AGEOD engine was upgraded significantly to a new version several years ago. I don't know how much changed, but it is definitely not the same as BOA internally. Externally, the graphics and UI are significantly different, I don't know if I would describe them as better as I loved the BOA style, but they are different.
Quote
The real world evidence is that older games are remade and released all of the time...
Your examples aren't really good for demonstrating the point. Pike & Shot essentially bolted a new component on a 1 year old game and gave it away for nothing, either included in the price of the game or a nominal upgrade fee. AGEOD's updates were also a nominal fee for owners of the original game.
You could have gone with Football Manager or the EA Sports games which sell incremental upgrades for a premium price, that would at least illustrate that some games are able to maintain a price point above the norm.
Quote
But some of you guys already know that you are going to buy the game because the non-existent no-upgrade pricing "turns off some of the buyers." Seriously? You can't fathom why a developer of CS would do exactly what AGEOD and a ton of other publishers have obviously done in remaking a game using the same engine because it "competes with the existing game." Despite the fact that you, yourself have demonstrably purchased games that have done exactly this.
I give.
Personally, I think the Tiller games would have to be at full price because the new market for a 20 year old (not 10) game is marginal. However, many of the discussions I have made about price are not to get a cheaper game, but to hopefully see the folks at Matrix et al realize that the world has changed and that the market for full price games is not what it was 10 years ago.
Hardcore flight simulators, RPGs, adventures and just about every other genre have been able to take advantage of a new digital market where certain price points stimulate purchases and increase profit. For some reason, wargames are special, wargames are only for a select few, wargames need to be sold at $80 or $40 because..... well just because.
I hope the JTSC team make money, I hope the games are wildly successful, they absolutely deserve a great deal of credit for what they have been able to do, and I hope they find a way to continue. But being outraged, or shocked because prices are a discussion point is to ignore that it is 2015 and that the game market, including for wargames and strategy games, has changed significantly.
Quote from: dinsdale on October 14, 2015, 08:53:38 PM
I hope the JTSC team make money, I hope the games are wildly successful, they absolutely deserve a great deal of credit for what they have been able to do, and I hope they find a way to continue. But being outraged, or shocked because prices are a discussion point is to ignore that it is 2015 and that the game market, including for wargames and strategy games, has changed significantly.
+1 Complete agreement. For the record, I own JTCS and I've held off on this purchase because of the price. I'll wait and pick it up on sale at some point. If that means I wait a year or more, so be it. I have a huge backlog of other games to fill the time.
I know I'm not shocked, or outraged, by a frank discussion on cost.
It's quite informative!
Thank you for everyone's input so far!
Quote from: Jason Petho on October 14, 2015, 09:14:17 PM
I know I'm not shocked, or outraged, by a frank discussion on cost.
It's quite informative!
Thank you for everyone's input so far!
Hey Jason, just think, 20 years ago you could have done 1/3 of the work and put this into a dozen brick and mortar stores for 49.99 or 59.99! It's really not fair, your team has transformed this title and made it practically a new game.
You could do the Paradox thing; sell the game and 10 scenarios at 20, then 5 expansions at $5 each, and we'd moan. Or you could sell them for $40 and we'd moan. Or, make it free to play and charge money for armoured vehicles or extra ammunition :)
Whatever you do, I wish you all the very best
Thank you for the encouragement!
Happy thoughts and positive vibes.
On top of the hard work and dedicated support, of course!
Someone in this very thread, whose name will not be spoken, indicated a dislike of the 2D counters in CSME. This is grievous heresy. I'm sure these ill-considered words were spoken in a moment of weakness. Let us think of them no more.
As to the price, it's evident that the developer and the publisher are reading and watching. I trust that they are not fools and if they thought they'd make up in volume what they'd lose in price, then they would adjust the price accordingly. It can, as mirth intuits, be no joy to be a niche developer in this day and age when so many other amazing games compete for our attention, groggy and otherwise.
The Paradox comparison is an interesting one as it raises a basic and substantive issue re: price, viz.: you have to like the game. I haven't liked EU since II. Yeah, I know, I know. I've enjoyed MoE -- a lot actually, but it's Napoleonic -- and have never been able to get into CKII. HoI is definitely on my radar but, directly to the point, there's no way I buy it at full price. The AGEOD system is an utter loss to me. You'll always early adopt the stuff you love which is why I'll be standing outside the door on the day the updates to the CS are released demanding that they take my money.
And besides, while I'll stipulate that much of what Paradox does is groggy indeed, comparing its corporate resources -- and the ability to absorb discounts -- to the structure behind CS:ME is a bit much. Perhaps, in this grand time, we now need "niche" and "niche-niche".
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
He of the Knights Who Say "Niche"
And let me be clear. Though I may balk at the price, I wish the dev team nothing but success. They've clearly poured their hearts and souls into the game (and the entire series) and deserve to be compensated for that effort. And for those of you have already dove in and purchased the game, I am a tad envious.
Quote from: mirth on October 14, 2015, 09:07:30 PM
Quote from: dinsdale on October 14, 2015, 08:53:38 PM
I hope the JTSC team make money, I hope the games are wildly successful, they absolutely deserve a great deal of credit for what they have been able to do, and I hope they find a way to continue. But being outraged, or shocked because prices are a discussion point is to ignore that it is 2015 and that the game market, including for wargames and strategy games, has changed significantly.
+1 Complete agreement. For the record, I own JTCS and I've held off on this purchase because of the price. I'll wait and pick it up on sale at some point. If that means I wait a year or more, so be it. I have a huge backlog of other games to fill the time.
I'd merely observe...
- I have both JTSC, the original Divided Ground, and ME48-85, so can speak with some knowledge on the subject
- ME48-85 is graphically an improvement over both Divided Ground and JTCS
- Jason and his team have improved the game engine in several respects, and has done a lot of work on the Divided Ground scenarios (plus some new ones too IIRC)
- If you like Tiller games, then you'll probably like this, but your expectations may fall somewhat short if you're not into Tiller games.
- The one thing I really miss both in JTCS and in ME is the lack of a variable turn ending option, as seen with later John Tiller games published by HPS or JTS - which usually gives 4-6 bonus turns to a game making a scenario a bit more flexible.
[/list][/list][/list] That's just me screwing up the formatting!
All in all I think Jason and his team has done a good job, but I'm glad to learn it's still a work in progress. O0
FYI
All the divided ground organizations, scenarios, maps and campaigns were scrapped.
Everything has been rebuilt to reflect the enhancements to the engine.
It really is a whole new beast.
Quote from: Jason Petho on October 15, 2015, 10:40:54 AM
FYI
All the divided ground organizations, scenarios, maps and campaigns were scrapped.
Everything has been rebuilt to reflect the enhancements to the engine.
It really is a whole new beast.
At first sight there are a lot of similarities with JTCS and the original DG, but indeed there are a lot of game enhancements, and the graphics are much improved. I've been messing around with it and JTCS quite a bit over the last week or so, and the more I play with it the more nuances I've seen.
In my opinion, I can tell a lot of work has been put into it, and is a credit to you and your team. O0
Thank you, the kind words are appreciated!
Quote from: Cyrano on October 15, 2015, 09:50:31 AM
SI trust that they are not fools and if they thought they'd make up in volume what they'd lose in price, then they would adjust the price accordingly.
I've noticed a big change in their price scheme the last 12 months, they are moving some games toward steam-like pricing. I hope it works out for them. At the same time, they are selling Maximum Football from 2006 at a higher price than EA football games from last year.
To be clear though, I think the 40 per game for Tiller to be about the only way they can go. There isn't a great deal in these games for casual players and they have to make money off their audience.
Quote
And besides, while I'll stipulate that much of what Paradox does is groggy indeed, comparing its corporate resources -- and the ability to absorb discounts -- to the structure behind CS:ME is a bit much. Perhaps, in this grand time, we now need "niche" and "niche-niche".
Paradox were close to going out of business and the CEO bought them very cheaply. I think it took them some years of following this strategy for it to pay off, but they've turned a game about medieval inheritance into a mainstream hit.
While the DLC quantity rivals a butter mountain, they have been able to bring people into the game who would not have bought it for $50 and make money off DLCs and sales. The fact that we can consider the company making Victoria and EU to be not quite so groggy anymore is amazing, they are the cheap heroin street dealer of strategy and it gives us some good games.
Though IMHO, EU hasn't been the same since EU2, but it's still a decent enough game. Sadly they couldn't survive without the changes, so I have to compromise my expectations in the products they put out now.
Quote from: Cyrano on October 15, 2015, 09:50:31 AM
Someone in this very thread, whose name will not be spoken, indicated a dislike of the 2D counters in CSME. This is grievous heresy. I'm sure these ill-considered words were spoken in a moment of weakness. Let us think of them no more.
That's probably me. My reasoning is I've been playing Campaign Series for a long time already and really like the plastic toy soldier images. I would like to play more of it.
If it becomes 2D then the game reminds me of JohnTiller Panzer Campaigns or Panzer Battles (same scale) and loses the original Campaign Series feel. So devs, please don't forget to give the 3D spites some love.
That's in the works, jomni.
I love the 3D and mostly play with 3D.
I'll be purchasing 3D Studio Max and Visual Nature Studio 3 soon to get started on revamping the 3D.
We are hoping for an additional 3D zoom, but haven't figured out if it is possible yet.
Jason Petho
sweet....although i've suddenly started playing more in 2D.....it's crossroads fault :)
Quote from: Jason Petho on October 15, 2015, 05:52:55 PM
That's in the works, jomni.
I love the 3D and mostly play with 3D.
I'll be purchasing 3D Studio Max and Visual Nature Studio 3 soon to get started on revamping the 3D.
We are hoping for an additional 3D zoom, but haven't figured out if it is possible yet.
Jason Petho
Sounds great.
That's the plan.
Keep in mind, it will take some time.
Hopefully we'll be using the results in Vietnam. Happy thoughts!
There are a few great games from Matrix-Slitherine I've been wanting to pick up. This being one.
But I've been putting it off since I haven't been playing PC games quite so rabidly in the past year or two. And, specifically, wargames. Frankly, the price tags make me waffle since I know they probably won't get as much play time in the near future as they should, from me, were I to immediately buy. Despite these recent games from Slitherine being fairly priced.
I feel a bit bad about this, because I know game developers generally concentrate on the initial sales, rather than the trickle from later, as an indicator of success & encouragement. I'll eventually get them, when I'm sure to devote proper time to them, and hope they enjoy a respectable launch in the meantime.
Based on initial sales, were told, in essence, to abandon this project.
Fortunately, the team is beyond passionate about the series and want to see it succeed. We know it will be an uphill battle. We have very long term plans for the series, including many enhancements to the engine and graphics. Both of these elements do take time.
With Middle East, and eventually Vietnam, we are really trying to show that the game is not just the same old with some lipstick. We all believe it truly isn't.
I just wanted to give kudos to the team, without them, the future of the Campaign Series wouldn't be possible.
Quote from: Jason Petho on October 16, 2015, 06:57:47 AM
Based on initial sales, were told, in essence, to abandon this project.
Really! Shocked!
Maybe it's the publisher's fault. Who knows maybe there are different results when they cut the price by $10?
Quote from: Jason Petho on October 16, 2015, 06:57:47 AM
Based on initial sales, were told, in essence, to abandon this project.
Fortunately, the team is beyond passionate about the series and want to see it succeed. We know it will be an uphill battle. We have very long term plans for the series, including many enhancements to the engine and graphics. Both of these elements do take time.
With Middle East, and eventually Vietnam, we are really trying to show that the game is not just the same old with some lipstick. We all believe it truly isn't.
I just wanted to give kudos to the team, without them, the future of the Campaign Series wouldn't be possible.
I don't know, maybe they expected the series to pick up immediately where JTCS left it when it came out. Campaign Series, in its various forms, has afterall been quite a commercial success too.
As Jason put it, we are definitively here to stay. Build The Field And They Will Come, and all that. We did not expect this to be GTA V from day one.
I know a good game when I see it, and there's still a ton of potential to be unleashed. True, some aspects of the game are showing its age, user interface for instance. We are diligently enhancing them, low hanging fruits are picked quicker, while some other usability features will take more time.
The feedback after CS:ME launch has been truly heartwarming and encouraging. We are committed to stay active with our user base, we are listening to what is working and what enhancements you are looking forward, and with the upcoming 1.01 some of them are already seeing the daylight. Keep the constructive feedback coming, for it is truly appreciated!
Vietnam should be an exciting game for anyone looking forward to hex based platoon scale wargaming capturing that conflict, and after that it is likely time to hit the WW II battlefields for the first enhanced title there. Each time something significant is introduced, we are commited to port them back to previous titles via free updates. JTCS 2.0 is a testament to that, quite an effort to be able to have it out, and it was delivered as a free update, for the community deserved that for staying loyal to the series.
So while product pricing is out of our hands, we are doing our outmost to make every release more than worth its cost, be the price what it may. O0
Quote from: Cyrano on October 15, 2015, 09:50:31 AM
He of the Knights Who Say "Niche"
Ha. We intend to be the very best of our own niche. Hex based platoon scaled games with a solid 2D and 3D offering (listed in numerical order).
Quote from: jomni on October 15, 2015, 05:01:49 PM
My reasoning is I've been playing Campaign Series for a long time already and really like the plastic toy soldier images. I would like to play more of it.
If it becomes 2D then the game reminds me of JohnTiller Panzer Campaigns or Panzer Battles (same scale) and loses the original Campaign Series feel. So devs, please don't forget to give the 3D spites some love.
While I am now mostly working with 2D, and wanting it to be what it can be, we all love the 3D part of this game to pieces. Used to build 1:72 models as kid, I am huge fan of our miniature model 3D look.
Quote from: -budd- on October 15, 2015, 05:59:35 PM
sweet....although i've suddenly started playing more in 2D.....it's crossroads fault :)
Oh, we're just getting started!
Quote from: Nefaro on October 16, 2015, 05:11:44 AM
[snip]
I feel a bit bad about this, because I know game developers generally concentrate on the initial sales, rather than the trickle from later, as an indicator of success & encouragement. I'll eventually get them, when I'm sure to devote proper time to them, and hope they enjoy a respectable launch in the meantime.
Trickle is good :)
I am like that too. There's so many good games and books out there, but I only buy them when I am sure I'll have the time and long term interest to enjoy them too.
Don't worry, they are getting a serious overhaul!!
Quote from: Jason Petho on October 16, 2015, 06:57:47 AM
Based on initial sales, were told, in essence, to abandon this project.
So they would rather discontinue than drop the price. It's not like they rolled out the PR machine for the release. I appreciate that you guys are moving forward with it and hope its pays off for you guys in the long run. I'm looking forward to ME 1.01 and the Vietnam release and all the other improvements you have planned.
No worries.
They won't abandon us, they just wanted more sales so offered us their new engine. They like the new and flashy.
We are a good team, productive and supportive. Let alone not costing them anything.
There is no reason for them to abandon us or the series.
I am a little confused.....will this series still go forward with Matrix? Disappointed to hear about the sales, but happy with my purchase so far.
How you doing so far Grim? I'm still losing as much as i win :D
Quote from: -budd- on October 16, 2015, 07:56:17 PM
How you doing so far Grim? I'm still losing as much as i win :D
Unfortunately, work got in the way all week...besides playing the tutorials, did not have a lot of time this week:(
I think it's a theatre that attracts a smaller group of war gamers. There is a reason why ww2 games sell ... even though there are tons of them ... they just appeal to a wider audience.
Wishing all kinds of luck to the entire Campaign Series team. I'm looking forward to many long hours of gaming and learning about a theatre I am not as familiar with.
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on October 16, 2015, 07:50:05 PM
I am a little confused.....will this series still go forward with Matrix? Disappointed to hear about the sales, but happy with my purchase so far.
Yes, the series will go forward, we are commited.
The sales are fine by my standards, just less that what
they were expecting. Which really don't matter, since they don't have cash invested in our product or team. It's been the team putting in the work and labour.
Jason Petho
Well JTCS is one of my favorite wargames of all time, so I'm looking forward to seeing what in store for the future.
Yes, turns out it was a compliment rather, a sales pitch to those not interested. 'Those' being us O:-)
Creating something new and flashy and making an App of it while at it might be the call of the day, but that's not us. We'd rather be
Quote from: Cyrano on September 25, 2015, 10:15:19 AM
developers that develop groggy games
:smitten:
Quote from: Panman on October 16, 2015, 09:14:32 PM
Wishing all kinds of luck to the entire Campaign Series team. I'm looking forward to many long hours of gaming and learning about a theatre I am not as familiar with.
Quote from: Bison on October 16, 2015, 11:47:51 PM
Well JTCS is one of my favorite wargames of all time, so I'm looking forward to seeing what in store for the future.
Thanks guys, your support is appreciated!
Back to gaming now. The new weekly 1.01 BETA out today from Berto. Among new features:
- For on-counter unit stats, fixed an issue where the Morale stat was not displaying properly.
- Implemented new reveal rules for the display of counter and Info Box unit stats.
- Under ExtFOW, the Damage Report is no longer useless. It now displays much, but not quite all, of the info that a non FOW Damage Report would.
- Fixed a design decision where, under ExtFOW, the Display Disrupted highlight was not highlighting friendlies. Under ExtFOW, enemy disrupts still remain unhighlighted.
- Removed the multi-saves warning. (A useless, and otherwise offensive, anti-cheat measure.) Downloading... Lock and Load! To be tested and documented also in the Into Africa! DAR (http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=14980.msg394845#new) I am writing under the AAR subforum later today.
I had to forgot to list this one!
QuoteORIGINAL: berto
Oh, in the new 1.01 Betas 20151016, I forgot to mention this one important [link=http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=3946786]new feature[/link]:
- With a unit selected, hitting the F3 hot key (etc.) opens the Unit Viewer directly on the info page for that unit. (Before, it would just open on a blank page, and you would have to hunt for the unit.)
Please test that one also!
Quote from: Crossroads on October 16, 2015, 11:49:05 PM
Yes, turns out it was a compliment rather, a sales pitch to those not interested. 'Those' being us O:-)
"
It" being the new, replacement game engine they were promoting.
Like Crossroads said, not interested.
Quote from: Jason Petho on October 16, 2015, 11:40:21 PM
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on October 16, 2015, 07:50:05 PM
I am a little confused.....will this series still go forward with Matrix? Disappointed to hear about the sales, but happy with my purchase so far.
Yes, the series will go forward, we are commited.
The sales are fine by my standards, just less that what they were expecting. Which really don't matter, since they don't have cash invested in our product or team. It's been the team putting in the work and labour.
Jason Petho
Thanks for the clarification....glad to know things don't depend on Matrix since looking forward to future updates and modules.
will the unit viewer will work with both your units and the enemy units?
Quote from: -budd- on October 17, 2015, 05:11:57 AM
will the unit viewer will work with both your units and the enemy units?
Friendly units, in all cases yes. Enemy units? When FOW is in effect, no, in the sense that automatically summoning the selected unit's info page will not work. There is nothing stopping you from digging in the Unit Viewer for enemy info, though. (Remember: The Unit Viewer is an outside app. We ourselves don't code it, so there are limits to the interactivity with the official game EXEs.)
yea was just wondering if i was going to save myself the digging time looking up enemy units and their capabilities. don't suppose this could be setting for players.
Yeah...sorry to hear sales have not met with expectations. I'm not sure what matrix anticipated, but I can't say I'm surprised. It "looks" like an older game, covers a somewhat obscure theater, and has a high price tag. On top of all that, it's a wargame, so you're dealing with a smaller pool of interested gamers to begin with.
Seems like the game has a lot riding against it from a sales perspective. If the game was 19.99, I think sales would be significantly higher. And for the record, I'm not suggesting that the game is not worth the asking price, only that pricing can be very psychological for the consumer.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on October 17, 2015, 05:42:49 AM
Yeah...sorry to hear sales have not met with expectations. I'm not sure what matrix anticipated, but I can't say I'm surprised. It "looks" like an older game, covers a somewhat obscure theater, and has a high price tag. On top of all that, it's a wargame, so you're dealing with a smaller pool of interested gamers to begin with.
I think that's the biggest factor right there. So many people have wished that this was YAWW2 (Yet Another World War 2) game instead.
At first, I too wasn't so interested in the subject matter. Despite memories from my youth about the excitement we all felt by Israel's miraculous victory in the 1967 Six Day War. I remember vividly, too, following the 1973 Yom Kippur War when I was in college. Still, with the passage of time, and the fading of those memories...
Then I read up on the subject.
Intensely fascinating! I'm a dyed in the wool American Civil War and WWII Pacific fan. But to my great surprise, I have taken a real liking to Middle East. It is now one of my favorite games!
QuoteSeems like the game has a lot riding against it from a sales perspective. If the game was 19.99, I think sales would be significantly higher. And for the record, I'm not suggesting that the game is not worth the asking price, only that pricing can be very psychological for the consumer.
We would have sold a few more units to a few more casual collectors, and to people who would play the game for a week or two until the next shiny new game was released (like Heroes of Normandie, which unfortunately for us released the immediate next week). But I personally am skeptical that we would have made up on volume what we would lose in price. Given the great amount of content, and the promise of future continuing free updates and support, I think the game is priced just right. It was Matrix/Slitherine's decision, their well considered price point, and I support it 100%. Anyway, there will be future promotional sales. Then maybe the fence sitters will come off the proverbial fence.
I know I am in the minority, but if this was just the WW2 version improved, I likely would not have purchased it at all.....to me the biggest selling point was the Middle East and in general just a different time period than WW2. But I get it.....most other people are the opposite, which may have given you a few extra bucks:)
Revised NATO icons, new Wreck markers, lighter blue Israeli counters preview available now at the CS:ME Mods and Scenarios (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3950011) forum.
Anything out of place let me know!
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.matrixgames.com%2Fforums%2Fupfiles%2F32195%2FB333CC0C17804CFA937EE374B8824665.jpg&hash=4e2856b4e06bfef15bc500408a0520baeb7b46db)
You almost had my heart jump when showing the unit ratings on the counter was in the preview picture, until I read the fine print where not available to the next update patch:)
Yeah, better wait for berto's new executables shipping with 1.01. Stats would be sort of static if we'd need to rely on ones I'd write on the counters themselves :))
Just a reminder that the Middle East 1.01 UPDATE is expected to be released at the end of November or early December, depending on when Matrix/Slitherine can fit it in their release schedule.
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on October 17, 2015, 06:58:56 AM
I know I am in the minority, but if this was just the WW2 version improved, I likely would not have purchased it at all.....to me the biggest selling point was the Middle East and in general just a different time period than WW2. But I get it.....most other people are the opposite, which may have given you a few extra bucks:)
In the minority, here, too.
I wouldn't even contemplate picking it up had it been another WW2 game.
I think I'm going to buy a few extra copies for holiday gifts ... getting close to that time of year anyways O0
Well that's super good news! Thank you for your additional support!!
Quote from: Nefaro on October 17, 2015, 12:39:18 PM
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on October 17, 2015, 06:58:56 AM
I know I am in the minority, but if this was just the WW2 version improved, I likely would not have purchased it at all.....to me the biggest selling point was the Middle East and in general just a different time period than WW2. But I get it.....most other people are the opposite, which may have given you a few extra bucks:)
In the minority, here, too.
I wouldn't even contemplate picking it up had it been another WW2 game.
Personally I think JTSC could do with the ME makeover, as graphically far nicer (and more readable in a 1920*1080 environment), as well as the game engine improvements.
Quote from: Boggit on October 17, 2015, 07:48:00 PM
Personally I think JTSC could do with the ME makeover, as graphically far nicer (and more readable in a 1920*1080 environment), as well as the game engine improvements.
Something like this is on our drawing board. Once Vietnam is done it will be one of the WW II titles to create next. As things stand however we've pretty much lost all compatibility with the old series, so any new WW II title will be more or less a complete remake.
That said, we do plan to have conversion tools available, to be able to convert all old JTCS scenarios to new games.
Although I know you can't tell us specifics, but do you have a general time line in mind for future releases? Are you trying to release one of these games each year or is it more likely we won't see Vietnam until 2017? Either way is fine, just curious.
Yes, we are looking at a release schedule of one game per year. Vietnam next, by the end of 2016 at the earliest.
Crossroads is correct. For reasons of data incompatibility with the latest engine, but also for other reasons, the old JTCS is terminally dead. Any more WWII titles coming from us will be substantially (if not quite totally) revamped and unbundled games.
Thanks for the information....can't wait for the Vietnam version, something totally different and not main stream compared to the other era's covered....I'll likely sit out the revamps of the WWII stuff so glad to see this is next.....you'll just have to endure a lot of "Are we there yet?" comments since it is quite far away:)
I'll be buying the Vietnam game but i am most excited about the revamp WW2 games, i think its long over due. I've been playing JTCS on and off for a long time and the revamp should take me through the next few decades. Looking forward to see what you guys do with the 3d units and terrain. I don't remember if this has been answered, are there any plans to bring the DCG's to ME?
Cheers Budd,
We consider the DCG engine to be in a need of a quite an overhaul, so that will take some time. Hopefully that overhaul will make it to CS:Vietnam game. Once there, the DCG engine would become available in CS:ME as part of keeping each title and its game engine on a same level.
Then, there'd need to be the DCGs designed for ME, but at least it would be possible.
Here's a few screenshots from the coming 1.01 UPDATE, that we hope would hit the download sites in about a month.
I am playing Syrians in a Golan´82 What-If. The victory levels would require me to hit positive points for a Draw (0VP), while a Minor Win would be 250VP and Major one 500VP. Minor and Major Losses at -250 and -500VP, respectively.
At turn #11/(30), I've just broke through the weakly held Israeli Northern flank, with an intention to secure the plateau below, taking over the two Objectives there. Wreck markers mostly mine... The battle to secure the northern Israeli Pillbox complex was particularly bloody, as evident in the surroundings. They had a Milan team there, while their Cobra flights were hitting me badly before I managed to introduce enough AA capability in the area to keep them away from the airspace.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.matrixgames.com%2Fforums%2Fupfiles%2F32195%2F61D8201BE50E423FBCEB8606D7711867.jpg&hash=f1cef9171d81751539e792b6a48a1ad30d96abd8)
Two turns later, there's a tally of 9 burning Merkavas with wreck markers on left, with a rising tally of 20 burning T-72s with some T-55 Eng tanks in the mix. It's been tough going, but little by little I've been able to fly in with my transport helos more and more not only infantry, but ATGM and MANPAD teams too.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.matrixgames.com%2Fforums%2Fupfiles%2F32195%2FE0CA1E4ED2374D8E96AC15254E99E9D5.jpg&hash=a6526dbcb5463fcc2e592ae022f6fa8889a986e3)
Points are at +74 at this stage... But I really need to clear the area in the next few turns, for the Israeli relief column is soon on its way.
Quite a nailbiter, this one!
Does it let you do a 'mix' of Nato symbols on the board and vehicle pictures in the Unit Cards? I really like the zoomed 2D option. I've been back in JTCS lately and the 2D zoom there is too far out.
Quote from: Tuna on October 27, 2015, 06:23:03 AM
Does it let you do a 'mix' of Nato symbols on the board and vehicle pictures in the Unit Cards? I really like the zoomed 2D option. I've been back in JTCS lately and the 2D zoom there is too far out.
Hello Tuna! Well not with 2D unit icon sheet... You could have the NATO sheet on 2D map while the 3D unit graphics on Unit Cards. A bit like with TOAW:
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi900.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fac206%2Fphn_at_cs%2Ftoaw_zpsbsutwmzu.png&hash=62ca830060112b1f78bd16a21305b5ca21749806)
But yes, been thinking adding an option to select Hex Infobox graphic independently from on-map units to our Wish List myself too, if that's what you meant?
Those are beautiful nato counters. I'm excited at the possibility of them being implemented in a re-release of western and eastern front.
As far as NATO counters go, I think I prefer these:
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FVmAXmRD.jpg&hash=0b560889c7d5fa61de925176591a453a2b724865)
Quote from: Philippe on October 27, 2015, 11:09:07 AM
As far as NATO counters go, I think I prefer these:
Very nice! That's a PzC title with the Map Mod in place?
We also have an option for NATO counters with white background only:
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi900.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fac206%2Fphn_at_cs%2Fbwnato101_zpspbns0rek.jpg&hash=96e82d3169c6e264778b3ebf61ad6e6b6932d02f)
But with no color at all, just using the counter background color? Had not thought about that!
Give me a few minutes here.... :D
It's a mod I was working on last year that I never got around to finishing.
Quote from: Philippe on October 27, 2015, 11:29:06 AM
It's a mod I was working on last year that I never got around to finishing.
Very nice! I really,
really like how you've put all the colors in with such a perfect blend (or how do you say it? English is not my language...) so it creates this nice overall harmony :)
Meanwhile, here's our counters with a NATO sheet with no color in the boxes.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi900.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fac206%2Fphn_at_cs%2Fnobckgrnd_zpsoo7eyqol.jpg&hash=f7fe3a2b290b0224f1560095b0f6053e6885d0bc)
We've overdone the counters a bit for we wanted them to have this little gloss like cardboard counters on a mapboard.
Would be very easy to mod, together with our terrain. Wink wink hint hint! O:-)
Jpg conversion giving me the griefs again >:(
The issue I have with the new tiller zoom view is that the counters scale in a very pixelated manner. The tller engine already suffers from an outdated UI and the zoomed in counters do not help relieve that issue. I think rather it exacerbates this issue of the engine being outdated. Of course it does help ailing eyes see the board better, but is not bringing a new generation of wargamers to the titles unfortunately. Yes I think the aestitics of the games look has an effect on gamers even old grognards more then they care to admit.
Quote from: Bison on October 27, 2015, 11:54:25 AM
The issue I have with the new tiller zoom view is that the counters scale in a very pixelated manner. The tller engine already suffers from an outdated UI and the zoomed in counters do not help relieve that issue. I think rather it exacerbates this issue of the engine being outdated. Of course it does help ailing eyes see the board better, but is not bringing a new generation of wargamers to the titles unfortunately. Yes I think the aestitics of the games look has an effect on gamers even old grognards more then they care to admit.
Yep, there's no magic bullet for scaling up with an algorithm. I think TOAW has a zoom level that is an algorithm too, it just does not work out.
Scaling down works reasonably well, but for new zoom-in levels there's no alternative but to create all graphics anew manually. Otherwise it is pixelated and ugly.
It's been awhile since I last played toaw 3, but I don't recall the zoomed in counters being too horrid. Tbh it's hard to look at games wite, witw, or flashpoint counters and not wonder "what if". Anyway it looks like you all are going about it in the right manner and doing the painful but hopefully appreciated work of rebuilding the counters from the ground up and not using a short cut that makes them just bigger and ultimately uglier counters.
Quote from: Bison on October 27, 2015, 12:22:58 PM
It's been awhile since I last played toaw 3, but I don't recall the zoomed in counters being too horrid. Tbh it's hard to look at games wite, witw, or flashpoint counters and not wonder "what if". Anyway it looks like you all are going about it in the right manner and doing the painful but hopefully appreciated work of rebuilding the counters from the ground up and not using a short cut that makes them just bigger and ultimately uglier counters.
With PNG toggled OFF the bitmap counters lack the 2D Huge files and it is scaled up instead iirc. You know you have the right (or wrong rather) setting when you see them... Not that you want to play with them, but a good example that there's no alternative to actual right sized files.
I am shockingly grateful for the JTS ultra-zoom. It really does make my day better. I also very much appreciate the effort made in CS:ME to offer MANY levels of zoom...even accommodating those who, for reasons that continue to evade me :), like the 3D models.
I will say, I prefer the NATO counters WITHOUT the background. Is that a future release, or have I just missed it?
Quote from: Crossroads on October 27, 2015, 10:06:56 AM
Quote from: Tuna on October 27, 2015, 06:23:03 AM
Does it let you do a 'mix' of Nato symbols on the board and vehicle pictures in the Unit Cards? I really like the zoomed 2D option. I've been back in JTCS lately and the 2D zoom there is too far out.
Hello Tuna! Well not with 2D unit icon sheet... You could have the NATO sheet on 2D map while the 3D unit graphics on Unit Cards. A bit like with TOAW:
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi900.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fac206%2Fphn_at_cs%2Ftoaw_zpsbsutwmzu.png&hash=62ca830060112b1f78bd16a21305b5ca21749806)
But yes, been thinking adding an option to select Hex Infobox graphic independently from on-map units to our Wish List myself too, if that's what you meant?
This is exactly what I meant! Very cool, so you can use the NATO symbols, but have the ability to quickly see what model of vehicle it is on the unit card.
Quote from: Cyrano on October 27, 2015, 02:17:08 PM
I am shockingly grateful for the JTS ultra-zoom. It really does make my day better. I also very much appreciate the effort made in CS:ME to offer MANY levels of zoom...even accommodating those who, for reasons that continue to evade me :), like the 3D models.
I think of it as the difference between those who prefer miniatures wargaming and those that prefer board wargaming. It's great that the CS gives us the option of both.
Quote from: Cyrano on October 27, 2015, 02:17:08 PM
I will say, I prefer the NATO counters WITHOUT the background. Is that a future release, or have I just missed it?
Well if you like them I could put them into CS:ME 1.01 as a mod. Why not. :)
Quote from: Tuna on October 27, 2015, 02:31:42 PM
This is exactly what I meant! Very cool, so you can use the NATO symbols, but have the ability to quickly see what model of vehicle it is on the unit card.
OK. It is supported already. Options -> Infobox Counters places the 2D counter view into Hex Infobox (Unit Card), so if you have NATO icons that's what you will have there too. By making sure it is not selected, these 3D graphics are shown instead.
Quote from: Pinetree on October 27, 2015, 02:34:39 PM
I think of it as the difference between those who prefer miniatures wargaming and those that prefer board wargaming. It's great that the CS gives us the option of both.
They take a lot of work to create but they are going nowhere. 2D and 3D will both continue to be supported. Each platoon has it's specific 3D sheet with six facings, so it is far easier to do things in 2D. But yeah, both will stay for sure.
Yeah, 3d graphics are my baby, pain in the butt to make, but I like doing them! They were a mess, so it's taking a ton of time to redo, and/or create new ones as I go through the countries. There are thousands of them, each with 6 facings.
Quote from: Warhorse on October 27, 2015, 03:46:56 PM
Yeah, 3d graphics are my baby, pain in the butt to make, but I like doing them! They were a mess, so it's taking a ton of time to redo, and/or create new ones as I go through the countries. There are thousands of them, each with 6 facings.
So your saying its going to be a couple weeks till we get them ;D Appreciate the effort and dedication, thanks.
LOL, yeah something like that!!