CM Red Thunder page is up

[Redirected]

I guess since it was published at Wargamer, and Dorosh is an administrator there, Battlefront will probably post a link to it on the Home Page.  For those wanting even more discussion of the Blog, er...I mean 'review', the forum section at Wargamer has more.

There's no one 'right' way to write a review.  They can come in all shapes and sizes.  Heck, just look at the different ones I've done here

A Distant Plain:  http://grogheads.com/?p=3815  pretty straightforward
Eight Minute Empire: http://grogheads.com/?p=3407  straight-up review, with a bit of occasional snark; it is me, after all
Card Hunter:  http://grogheads.com/?p=2570  describe the game, and then all the implications for the game outside the game
Seasons:  http://grogheads.com/?p=2408  Maybe not the best review I've ever written, but certainly off the beaten path

There are lots of ways to write reviews.  The question really is "do you have enough information to make an informed decision about the game - even if the decision is 'no thanks' and you look elsewhere?"  If you got good info out of the review, fine.  If not, then either the review was lacking, or perhaps you were already more informed than the target audience of the review.  In any event, the style in which the review was written might not agree with you.  C'est la vie.

And a 'verdict' up front isn't wrong.  It's just different.  Some people live in a BLUF world. YMMV

Points taken.  But it seemed to be hastily written and also drifting away from it's own drafted 'questions'. 

I don't think the car analogy (75 mustang classic??) is quite correct.  I am not even sure what CM products it is even referencing.  In the case of CMSF, that car is no longer being 'made'.  His analogy might work for CMSF if BF does do a Product Improvement on it.  That remains to be seen.  But CMSF and CMRT are worlds apart.  Even CMBN 1.0 and CMRT are strange cousins.  I played a CMBN game with Elvis and he was, of course, not used to playing a version of the game so "far back".  I believe it may have been a 1.x version.  In any case, he can comment on his experience but I could see it was like being 'left back'. 

As an aside, BF really needs to update it's demos.  At this point, it is leaving a trail of work behind in its wake.  I wonder if a "all inclusive demo" that can showcase ALL theatres might be a viable solution.  They certainly need to get a 3.0 demo going...

I digress...The focus of the review seemed to be to get to what interested the author.  Mostly scenario design aspects and pontificating about other things.  It really seemed to be more a Blog than a review.  Since it was being written for a wargaming website, and the author is an administrator for that website, perhaps it should reflect the game primarily and not the interests of he author.  Maybe not. 

In any case, BLUF?  Hopefully not this...

http://bluf.com/blog.php?221

[Michael Dorosh]

I did like that I got personal positive shout out in it though.

You didn't, in that the comments weren't addressed to you by name or individually, but the sentiments regarding BFC's tech support were sincere, and as the lead you should rightly take pride in the good work all of you do.  The website still lists an "Ian" as an IT contact, for example, and I've talked to him via email in the past. Whoever "Schrullenhaft" is, I think just about everyone who has had a tech issue has been exposed to him over the course of the last dozen years or so as well. I assume there are other resources among the BFC staff and volunteers that you and the tech support team interact with to find out answers to questions - whatever you are doing seems to be working well.

My interactions with tech support have always been positive. The reps have been knowledgeable (or able to find answers quickly), friendly and helpful. You're doing great work that may not be much talked about but is certainly appreciated. Tech support is one of those things, like admin support or government, that gets discussed more when it is bad than when it is good.

The help desk on the website has been a useful addition and, although I'm not sure if this is your bailiwick or not, it was nice to see the Repository modified to include CM:RT so quickly.

[Michael Dorosh]

the author is an administrator for that website,

You've said that twice now, and both times you've been as incorrect as if you had suggested Ivor Novello was still alive.

[Redirected]

As far as Admin, it looks like when you use the link to jump to the forum to discuss it further, it appears as 'Wargamer Administrator'.  and then they repeat the whole thing.  In any case, I see there is a discussion on the maps and did the single person there answer your question?

[bayonetbrant]

I digress...The focus of the review seemed to be to get to what interested the author.

I went and looked.  It was a preview and not a review.  I don't know what WGer's standards are, but we're pretty loose with a preview here.

Regardless, please read the {MOD VOICE ON} post above and heed it going forward.  Thanks

[MengJiao]

Very good review at the Wargamer. I haven't seen much about how the new aircraft involvement affects gameplay. How well does the AA units engage the enemy aircraft and do the air units overpower the ground units? Any thoughts anyone? Also, should I buy now or wait until after any new patch improves the game?

  I tried out airplanes last night in a modified version of what is probably the ANGRIFF scenario.  It's out there in some form in the Quick Battles Maps oddly enough and its a huge battle.  Anyway so if you are a Russian there is this huge cordon defense of 76mm AT guns stretched over rolling terrain behind some scrubby woodsy barriers in little valleys (for concealment and to force close range action).  Anyway, you don't know where the Germans are going to strike and they open the battle with a massive smoke barrage so...it was a good thing I gave the Germans some extra flak and brought in some PE-2s (heavily loaded) for the Russians....because I could spot the main German effort by watching the flak and bombs.  Sure enough they came right up the big bare hunk of high ground that the defenses surround to make a killing ground and the first three KingTigers through the barrages and smoke and woods and bombs were promptly knocked out with close range shots flanking shots from 85mm guns.
  Heavy bombs make blasts big enough to be quite visible even to my usual wandering Real time eyes.  The aircraft engine noises add a certain amount of immersion at least the first time you hear them.

  Wow.  I looked at Angriff and this mysterious scenario lurking in the Quick Battle Maps is not that.  Maybe its Gog and Magog?  Anyway it is an astounding scenario.  The Russian defense is so beautifully laid out as to be a work of art in itself.

[Redirected]

I digress...The focus of the review seemed to be to get to what interested the author.

I went and looked.  It was a preview and not a review.  I don't know what WGer's standards are, but we're pretty loose with a preview here.

Regardless, please read the {MOD VOICE ON} post above and heed it going forward.  Thanks

Yes, I pointed out that it was titled a Preview, but it is being called a review by the author here.  As far as I know, a preview is when an unreleased product is given to someone to test out before release.  I am pretty sure this was not the case. 

[Michael Dorosh]

Yes, I pointed out that it was titled a Preview, but it is being called a review by the author here.  As far as I know, a preview is when an unreleased product is given to someone to test out before release.  I am pretty sure this was not the case.

If the wargamer.com site is inaccurately listing the article, that should be brought up to the administrators there. It seems irrelevent in this thread, unless there is a point I'm missing.

[Michael Dorosh]

  Wow.  I looked at Angriff and this mysterious scenario lurking in the Quick Battle Maps is not that.  Maybe its Gog and Magog?  Anyway it is an astounding scenario.  The Russian defense is so beautifully laid out as to be a work of art in itself.

I opened up one of the QB maps in the editor myself the other day to see if I could use it as the basis for another scenario and noticed that BFC had stripped out part of the information from one of their scenarios before converting it to a QB battle - but left the Mission data for the Allied side in by mistake. I guess these are the BFC equivalent of easter eggs. The stuff is invisible when loaded as a QB so no harm done.

Has anyone started the campaigns yet?

[Jarhead0331]

I digress...The focus of the review seemed to be to get to what interested the author.

I went and looked.  It was a preview and not a review.  I don't know what WGer's standards are, but we're pretty loose with a preview here.

Regardless, please read the {MOD VOICE ON} post above and heed it going forward.  Thanks

Yes, I pointed out that it was titled a Preview, but it is being called a review by the author here.  As far as I know, a preview is when an unreleased product is given to someone to test out before release.  I am pretty sure this was not the case.

Redirected...who the hell cares at this point?

Brant has posted a very polite, professional and succinct statement of the kind of forum demeanor we expect here.  We have given you every benefit of the doubt and extended to you a lot of rope. You seem to have failed to receive the message, or are simply ignoring it on purpose so you can continue to carry on your personal battle with MD.  Enough already.

I'm not as nice or as patient as Brant. That is why they keep me around. So, yes, I am talking to you directly, and this is your last warning. Knock off the attacks, and the passive aggressive comments, or you are gone.

[Keunert]

Combat Mission quarrels: i never get the point. Like some guy having an opinion but not actually trying the demo.
I am glad that this series is still around and i may take the plunge again with the newest offering.

[Redirected]

Combat Mission quarrels: i never get the point. Like some guy having an opinion but not actually trying the demo.
I am glad that this series is still around and i may take the plunge again with the newest offering.

If you liked previous CMBN/CMFI, then I think you would be happy with the CMRT iteration.  It is certainly evolving as a system, hence the 3.0 product level, and is rapidly leaving CMSF and CMBN 1.0 far behind.  Considering the present jump-in price for a CMBN bundle, I would think the real available value is with CMRT.

I don't see any major goofs with the product.  Things like bridge behaviors in Market Garden, which seemed broken at first, have not popped up yet in CMRT.  I may have issue with the armor penetration modeling, but that remains to be seen.  It takes time to take it all in. 

[Redirected]

To expand on this...

It is probably best to compare/review/analyze CMRT, a Family Starter, to the other Family Starters...namely CMBN and CMFI.

CMBN and CMFI shared a very limited number of formations and vehicles and substance (if you will).  One might describe it as almost intentionally narrow.  The thought being is that they are going to expand things with modules.

CMRT comes with a fairly broad range of vehicles and armor.  One could even make up battles from '1943' in many cases it would seem.  I am starting to move to playing Quick Battles and the whole 'Scenario Designer Artist' doesn't make or break my gaming experience.  I think CMRT quick battles are great ways to get extended value from the game.  It has enough varied terrain that I don't feel boxed into a "operational area".

CMBN started out 1.0 and it really needed a steep curve as far as fixing issues.  CMFI sort of stole a march and debuted as 2.0 and set a standard.  The 'back-porting' of the technology with an Upgrade to CMBN was received well (always with some not liking to pay) and so was the following patch.  The game had matured.  CMRT again sets a standard, so it is buying the latest at this point.

CMBN has two modules and is finished out, CMFI has one and is also "finished" (save for any Upgrade or possible "packs").  CMRT is said to cover through the end of the war.  Considering the actual combat actions that can be modeled from June 44 to May 45, CMRT (as a Family) will cover more time and forces than CMBN (since 'Bulge' will start a new family).  CMFI is the apparent 'runt' of the lot, at least it might be in Sales.  I don't own it and can't speak much except, IF it gets a 3.0 Upgrade AND is a bundle sale (CMFI+Gustov) THEN I might buy it.  Perhaps it became a cautionary tale for what is included in CMRT.

So, for the short term, if you want to play a game and have a budget nearing $55.00, and that game is Combat Mission, then I would highly recommend that you buy CMRT.

I think the time has come to stop comparing the present Combat Mission products to the old Combat Mission games.   These are clunkers now and relegated to a box in the corner.  They seem to play more in people's minds than on their computers.

[Cyrano]

I am pleased that Wargamer chose someone of Mr. Dorosh's knowledge of the system and its history to review it.  He is fair-minded and open about his background and biases which sets him well ahead of many who do reviews.

Perhaps it's because of the way my reading habits have changed over the decades ((, for one, no longer subscribe to a dead-tree magazine), but I have little interest in reviewer rankings as opposed to their narratives.  "Early access" and similar development schemes have only changed this conversation further.  This weighs, I think, against Mr. Dorosh's attempt to, well, rate --not review! - the game in a state he takes as incomplete.  Unless I wildly miss my guess, very few future PC games will be released in a fashion that this standard holds to be "complete".  Taking two recent examples, Rome II: Total War still isn't complete and neither is EUIV.  They're both playable in their own way -- in the latter case a very eccentric and opaque way -- but the patch change logs make clear they're not "done".

I am fortunate to have a great many games on my hard drive;  more than I could ever possibly play through.  With a gun to my head, though, I would give them all up save the Combat Mission series.  From the little I've been able to peck out of it, RT is a fine addition and I'm more than happy to contribute whatever percentage of the profits is rolled back into the creation of what I hope will be many successors.  This is BF's model and it appears to be a successful one.

And, as a regular listener to "Three Moves Ahead", I must now discover what the Tom Chick affair is!

Best,

Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)

[Zonso]

Combat Mission quarrels: i never get the point. Like some guy having an opinion but not actually trying the demo.
I am glad that this series is still around and i may take the plunge again with the newest offering.

If you liked previous CMBN/CMFI, then I think you would be happy with the CMRT iteration.  It is certainly evolving as a system, hence the 3.0 product level, and is rapidly leaving CMSF and CMBN 1.0 far behind.  Considering the present jump-in price for a CMBN bundle, I would think the real available value is with CMRT.

I don't see any major goofs with the product.  Things like bridge behaviors in Market Garden, which seemed broken at first, have not popped up yet in CMRT.  I may have issue with the armor penetration modeling, but that remains to be seen.  It takes time to take it all in.

Yes, anyone familiar with the series immediately sees and feels the refinement and improvements with Red Thunder. It is not just the new forces (Russian play is different), terrain or palette, there's that too of course, but a subtle difference in the simulation itself. I have only played two scenarios so may be mistaken, but am very familiar with CMBN & CMFI, so there are apparent changes already to me, more play will determine if so - troops seems more resistant to artillery, ATGs are harder to spot, and the tank aquiring/firing process seems less automatic with more of a delay involved. As noted earlier BFC does not include notes for every tweak in their change log so you are not 100% certain. I'm certain though there are more changes to discover as I play more, in that regard I welcome BFC's approach as play is rewarded.

In a similar vein I tend to side with Redirected on the relevance of the review from Wargamer as it seems to slightly miss the mark on the game and the target audience, whether old or new. To highlight one area from my brief play, I can say without hesitation AI triggers are a game changer for SP play in RT. No question, in the hands of third party scenario designers it can only mean more good things to come for customers. This cup half empty stuff does get tiresome, as each and every release from BFC has been a complete and rewarding experience unto itself. The old adage it's the journey not the destination bears repeating. It may be an age thing nowadays I do not know, though I am in agreement with part of the article - to quote "Taken in total, there is more about the new game engine than first meets the eye." Ain't life grand?