Brother against brother

[ArizonaTank]

It really bums me out when new game discussions immediately devolve to price discussions.   :-\

First of all I apologise.

But the price is important to me. I felt compelled to inform the developers that I couldn't pay that price. I wasn't actually telling them to reduce it. I wasn't bitching. I was just informing them the reason I wouldn't be buying it yet.

I was already thinking about picking it up as there was an issue with the online store which showed the price was exclusive of tax and Erik pointed out the price now showed including tax.

I also apologised if I got that wrong - but that's what I recalled seeing.

I for one don't think a discussion of price is out of line.  Many reviewers get the game for free so not an issue for the reviewer, but a high price tag is an issue for the rest of us.  This game, IMHO, has raised the price bar, past what I will pay for the feature set; I'll wait a year or so for it to go on sale...if it ever does. 

[mikeck]

I agree. The price is part of the game and is just as important to some gamers as graphics or resolution is to others. I can afford it but I just don't think the game has enough to justify that price. I paid a crap ton for WiTE, WitW, WitP and Command...because they have incredible depth and the complexity justifies the price. This is a tactical game which is based on an older game. Seems to me the price was set to make up for the unbelievable development time because i just don't see how the game justifies that price

I'm just guessing though.

[Gil R.]

That's an understandable but incorrect assumption re: pricing.  Whether development took seven months or seven years, the difference in cost to Matrix/Slitherine was negligible, since the cost of developing the game was that of WCS rather than Matrix/Slitherine.  So their decision regarding the price was based solely on current market considerations, not development time.

[JudgeDredd]

Seems there were glitches all over re pricing...so I'm glad I posted about the price.

The physical version is (imo) a reasonable £46.99 (if the kind of manual that comes with it is on a par with WitW - I don't know but I'm currently checking).

[spelk]

The Flare Path takes a look at BaB
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2015/04/17/the-flare-path-on-bloody-point

Not a massively glowing endorsement, but there are many positives highlighted on the way.

[Rayfer]

The Flare Path takes a look at BaB
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2015/04/17/the-flare-path-on-bloody-point

Not a massively glowing endorsement, but there are many positives highlighted on the way.

Yes, a disappointing review in that I've been thinking about this one since it released the other day. But it is RPS...their reviews are not always in alignment with how I see games.

[mikeck]

That's an understandable but incorrect assumption re: pricing.  Whether development took seven months or seven years, the difference in cost to Matrix/Slitherine was negligible, since the cost of developing the game was that of WCS rather than Matrix/Slitherine.  So their decision regarding the price was based solely on current market considerations, not development time.

Fair enough

[dinsdale]

To be honest that review makes me more likely to want the game.

Does anyone know if there is an option to use counters instead of the graphics?

[spelk]

Does anyone know if there is an option to use counters instead of the graphics?

Yes, you can have the sprites or the counters. In the zoomed out combat resolution mode, it defaults to the counters view.

In other news my two micro gripes (in my post higher up in the thread) are planned in the post-release patch. Zoomed in combat resolution, and flags attached to combat names in the details box! Woohoo!

There are two more planned improvements for this post-release. First, to add the flag next to the unit name in the combat report so that some cases where you have, for example, the East Tennessee unit firing on the Tennessee unit are less confusing.

The second is an option to stay zoomed in during combat.

[Boggit]

I always played the battles out too...unless they were very small.

The tactical battles in FoF were great and had some superb parameters and effects.

But I still wanted a beautiful FoF

I'm not saying I won't get this - just that I'm not overly enthused about not having a strat layer.

I love a strategy layer with my tactical games - sadly save for the likes of Total War and Achtung Panzer/Graviteam Tactics you don't often see it. :'(

[panzerde]

I was hoping you could default it to counters all of the time. The troop graphics were not thrilling me.

I'll probably grab it to give it a try this weekend.

[mikeck]

Ok, I'm not trying to bash this game as Gil has put a lot of work into it. I made my peace with the price and that has been discussed. I had assumed that it came with a number of different battles. I'm sure you guys probably know but I didn't... that it only comes with first Manassas, Wilson's Creek and Williamsburg? Why not some more interesting battles like maybe Chattanooga, Chickamauga, Shiloh or second Manassas? I don't know, maybe even the seven days campaign?

Just seems odd that I have to pay 60 bucks and after seven years of development I get three minor Civil War battles? I'm sure people will create their own and other DLC's will come out but I'm just kind of disappointed. I do really like scorch of war but I really wanted to play a text based tactical Civil War game and thought this was going to be it. It still might be eventually but I just can't justify purchasing this for those three battles.

I guess there's no real point to this post other than hoping someone will come out and say no Mike go to the site and there are a couple other battles you can download??

[bbmike]

I thought that too at first but the amount of detail in the scenarios and maps is incredible. And they did say that more scenarios were coming in the future.

[Gil R.]

Mikeck,
Your viewpoint is an understandable one, and it is not surprising that some potential customers would have this reaction, but let me explain our thinking a bit.

First, BAB is meant to be a series of releases that chronologically trace the war -- and, assuming that sales suggest that there is demand for more releases, it will indeed become one.  Ideally, BAB would end up as 6-7 releases.  I spent an enormous amount of time playing with the possibilities, and have sketched out what the releases would look like for a 4-game series, a 5-game one, etc.  So we did not include those other battles mainly because we expect to cover them in future releases.

Now, the original name of this release was to be "Opening Battles of the Civil War," but then we went with something more poetic.  Still, that's the theme:  the first eastern and western battles in 1861, and then the first two of the following year.  There weren't really other good candidates to add:  Seven Pines would require a massive map, and the nature of that battle suggests it wouldn't be ideal for a computer game, while adding the Seven Days Battles would have been so massive an amount of work that it would have added a year of development time.  The one battle that might have made sense was Fort Donelson, and indeed I began working on that as our fifth battle, but early on we decided that having one less battle would speed up development -- and since Fort Donelson is neither a large battle nor a well known one we did not feel it would impair sales.  So instead Fort Donelson will join Shiloh, Pea Ridge, and one or two others in BAB#3, on the western theater in 1862.  (Shiloh itself, arguably, could be an "opening battle," but that would have added even more to development time.  Plus Shiloh is a major enough battle that it deserves to be the centerpiece of its own release.)

Also, please note the scale of the maps.  Our largest possible map is 5 x 10 miles, and in this release we have 1st Manassas at something like 5 x 8 (going from memory here), while Williamsburg is 5 x 5.   In these and the other three maps the peripheral areas dwarf the central battlefield area, because we wanted to allow for maximum maneuver and replayability, especially for scenarios designed by modders.  So it is our belief that even if the battles themselves were small relative to Antietam, Gettysburg, etc. the size of the maps creates a large number of possibilities.

Finally, it has always been our hope that BAB would appeal to modders, both those skilled in scenario design and those who can make suitable maps.  While we do not currently plan to release a map-editor, I have promised to help work with modders who create maps for battles not currently planned for BAB, doing the map-editing myself so that their artwork can be snapped into the game and used.  So I am cautiously optimistic that before too long there will be other battles that one can play.

[mikeck]

Gil,
I appreciate the response. I have no doubt it is a superb product. I Have been following it for years and i know it's a labor of love. I DO like games that experiment with smaller battles or battles that are under-gamed.  That's what I like about Graviteam tactics.

I will pick this up at some point here as it looks beautiful and well done. Not for me now, but I didnt want to come across as pissing and moaning about the game. It is what you wanted it to be. Now if we could get as many hex based civil war:musket era games as we have space 4xs...we will be in bidness