Battlefront's Ardennes WWII Game: Some News

[Grim.Reaper]

Where is the innovation or progression? New features? Maybe some update physics or particle system? Maybe a CAMPAIGN, like a REAL one, with an operational level and force pool. What about cooperative or 2v2 gameplay. It's 2014 for Gods sake.

It is the same game as Red Whatever It's Called, in a modern setting. How long is battlefront going to polish that turd of a game engine?

  For as long as rhetorical questions suggest there are other less objectionable game engines covering such topics to be had?

And that is probably why BF has shown little, in terms of progress. There is minimal competition, no need for progression or development, and people still buy the game. At least Slitherine is starting to include cooperative multiplayer modes in their games - not the best example company - but at least there is progress.

I think we all would love if there was competition to Combat Mission (and other niche games), but doesn't seem like any company is close to seriously competing with them.  Graviteam is probably the closest competition but don't think Battlefront views them as a serious threat at this point.  Like you said, people will continue to buy the game (me included) even with the same engine so don't see this changing anytime soon.

[panzerde]

I'm not sure that a lot of the people who play this game would agree with what you want out of the engine. I suspect that drives Battlefront's decisions more than anything else does. There's not much outcry for things like 2V2 cooperative multiplayer on the forums.


You might look at Graviteam Tactics if you haven't already. It does have an operational layer.

[Cyrano]

If it were a turd, you might have a point.  It simply isn't to those of us that enjoy it.  I don't expect to persuade anyone, but, frankly, my two favorite game companies (JTS and BFC) are built on refining an existing engine.  If you don't like that engine or don't think it's changed enough, I certainly respect that.  Saying 3.0 is the same as 1.0 in CMx2 is  inaccurate, it's only a question of whether you find it different enough.  I do and look forward to Ardennes and, of course, Black Sea, with great eagerness.

I will also note that there's a little proof in the market here.  BFC isn't a particularly big shop and there's no secret to the kind of game they're creating.  Where is the team trying to take them on?  Where is the team building better MP, a better engine, a campaign, a META game, and providing it all in one package for a single price?  Surely that would sell?  The silence there is telling.

Best,

Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)

[Apocalypse 31]

The silence there is telling.

Best,

Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)

Before Elvis there was no rock and roll - one could say the same for rock music.

I think it's going to take a wargaming "pioneer" to change the market. I see why BFC and JTS  stay the course; its economic survival.

As a player, i find it to be frustrating. If I had the time, I'd seriously just do it myself.

[jomni]

I also probably should have said if not clear, this is just another family of combat mission products, not some entirely new game.

Why do a new family? Why not just a module? Then we have patching confusion again. It would have been great if they stuck to their original plan. One main game, different modules. Now we have so many main games.

[undercovergeek]

Where is the innovation or progression? New features? Maybe some update physics or particle system? Maybe a CAMPAIGN, like a REAL one, with an operational level and force pool. What about cooperative or 2v2 gameplay. It's 2014 for Gods sake.

It is the same game as Red Whatever It's Called, in a modern setting. How long is battlefront going to polish that turd of a game engine?

Black Sea is packed with new features - it has to be if you consider today's TOE

[JasonPratt]

Where is the team building better MP, a better engine, a campaign, a META game, and providing it all in one package for a single price?  Surely that would sell?  The silence there is telling.

There was a team, back in the days of CMx1, and they did a pretty good job competing with Barbarossa to Berlin (precisely by including a real campaign generator) up through Panzer Command: Ostfront -- but then CMx2 arrived and they folded. :'(

Not that I'm complaining about CMx2.  :)

[Grim.Reaper]

Where is the team building better MP, a better engine, a campaign, a META game, and providing it all in one package for a single price?  Surely that would sell?  The silence there is telling.

There was a team, back in the days of CMx1, and they did a pretty good job competing with Barbarossa to Berlin (precisely by including a real campaign generator) up through Panzer Command: Ostfront -- but then CMx2 arrived and they folded. :'(

Not that I'm complaining about CMx2.  :)

Although I liked Combat Mission better, thought Panzer Command did have potential and enjoyed it....too bad it never had a chance to continue, would of been interesting to see where it ended up.

[Cyrano]

I bought, installed, and played the PC games.  They had some great idea -- and I liked its terrain engine as a nice step up from CMx1.  It was also greatly assisted, I think, by the participation of top-end scenario people (lookin' at you, MR).  In the end, though it had some really weird limitations (un-enterable buildings among them, IIRC), its code never felt quite as polished, and WWII CMx2 wound up being the better product and remains the market standard.

I should be clear, I'd love competition in this area as in all the areas of gaming I care about.  It's good for me as a consumer.  Heck, one of the reasons I bought PC was to see what its developers could do over time.  My observations go more to the facts on the ground than any desire state.  They should also not be taken to imply that I don't think CMx2 an astoundingly good product, because I do...

As to it being a new family, I believe that was always the plan.  However, with the new installers (just launched) end-users should -- stress on the should -- find the going a bit easier.  It will always be easier for those who buy it all along the way.  I've never had a problem with any of the CMx2 installs.  I would be lying if I said I was a fan of this approach, but it's their circus being run on terms that they think are necessary for their business to continue and I want in to see the show.

Best,

Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)

[panzerde]

I really did like Panzer Command Ost Front, despite having fairly dated graphics by the time it was released. As you say, the scenario design was excellent (thanks Steve!).


I can't say that I thought that the campaign engine was terribly different from what goes on in CMx2. It certainly wasn't the operational layer from Graviteam or the ad hoc system some folks are using by combining JTS games with CM. I may be misremembering a level of depth there though; it's been some time since I played it.


Chris Maiorana has done some interesting stuff with platoon level scenarios using Command Ops. There are some scaling issues but it's a good first step at a serious wargame doing some things that CM doesn't. I have hopes that the company/platoon level engine Panther has talked about in the past eventually comes to fruition.

[sandman2575]

Agree with a lot of what is being said here.  I got many solid hours of enjoyment from Panzer Command Kharkov, and have huge respect for the guys like MadRussian who (as I understand it) independently salvaged the game when Koios folded, and created something even much more impressive in PC Ostfront.

That said, I find it impossible to go back to PC or CMx1 at this point.  Compared to CMx2 and Graviteam Tactics Op. Star, they feel primitive now. PC's handling of infantry was particularly clunky, even in its time. Also I agree with Panzerde, the campaigns weren't a huge step beyond what CM offered, and to this day, no one has managed to implement the kind of dynamic campaign that you get in Op. Star.

Anyway, I eagerly look forward to the Ardennes campaign. I understand some of the complaints about the engine (and please let's not have this thread devolve into yet another argument about BF's drm policies). But to my mind, nothing, not even Grav. Tactics, approaches what you get in CMx2 as a tactical WW2 simulation (and I say that as someone who loves Op. Star). 

[Father Ted]

I often see this is combat flightsim forum wars - the criticism games because they're not higher-functioning products.  Obviously devs shouldn't just accept the status quo or there'd be no change, but there's usually a technological or economic limit to game design.  People who make these things are enthusiasts themselves, so they want the best product too.

Also ANY game can be picked apart for it does not do in the opinion of a player.

[Michael Dorosh]

I also probably should have said if not clear, this is just another family of combat mission products, not some entirely new game.

Why do a new family? Why not just a module? Then we have patching confusion again. It would have been great if they stuck to their original plan. One main game, different modules. Now we have so many main games.

Different families was ALWAYS the plan. They're doing exactly what they said they would.

[Elvis]

I think that the complaint about the engine not advancing is a little unfair. I recently fired up CMSF after a very long absence and the difference in the engine from then until now is pretty huge, in my opinion. To be fair, it is easy to lose sight of that because of how gradual the change has been over the last 7 years or so. Black Sea will introduce some new things necessary for the setting but it will still be based on the 3.x engine. Will Bulge be based on a 4.0 engine? We'll see.

I would also be interested in seeing other games covering a similar level of battle. I purchased PC because the guys making it sounded like they were passionate about what they were doing and seemed like a nice bunch of people. But I had a hard time getting into it.

And Dorosh is correct. The various families has always been the plan.