Only one scenario? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Kharkov: Disaster on the Donets



Message

PzB74 -> Only one scenario? (5/1/2008 8:40:58 PM)

Kharkov looks promising, but I hope this game will "last" longer than Battlefront.

Greatly enjoyed the Market Garden scenario in Battlefront, but this game was the shortest lived of them all.
Pretty quickly I reverted back to playing custom made scenarios for Battles in Normandy.

I never complain about the price of Matrix excellent war games, and won't this time either.
Still, I got a feeling that Matrix is squeezing the lemon a bit by releasing very similar games as 'new designs' and hope that you will find time for a few more add ons and upgrades for Kharkov than what was made available for Battlefront.








TheHellPatrol -> RE: Only one scenario? (5/1/2008 8:56:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB

Still, I got a feeling that Matrix is squeezing the lemon a bit by releasing very similar games as 'new designs' and hope that you will find time for a few more add ons and upgrades for Kharkov than what was made available for Battlefront.

[:-]Which we're still waiting for...
Grim news, i had hoped for a change for the better[:(].



Hertston -> RE: Only one scenario? (5/1/2008 9:21:28 PM)

I'm afraid I have to agree. I would far rather have seen a 'stand alone expansion' to and partial 'relaunch' of the Battlefront system. I was very happy with that; it was just desperately in need of more scenarios, a higher profile, and a little TLC.

I'm going to take a lot of selling on this one. Admittedly, some of the new features look cool, but I really can't see enough to justify what looks like a big step backwards to a single campaign, albeit with 'variants'... no matter how meticulously researched it is. I don't disagree with Erik on such things casually, but I do here. Not enough content.. exactly why Battlefront never took off.



HercMighty -> RE: Only one scenario? (5/1/2008 9:54:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hertston

I'm afraid I have to agree. I would far rather have seen a 'stand alone expansion' to and partial 'relaunch' of the Battlefront system. I was very happy with that; it was just desperately in need of more scenarios, a higher profile, and a little TLC.

I'm going to take a lot of selling on this one. Admittedly, some of the new features look cool, but I really can't see enough to justify what looks like a big step backwards to a single campaign, albeit with 'variants'... no matter how meticulously researched it is. I don't disagree with Erik on such things casually, but I do here. Not enough content.. exactly why Battlefront never took off.


totally agree [:(]



PaulWRoberts -> RE: Only one scenario? (5/1/2008 11:00:20 PM)

Is there any chance that some (or even all?) of the major scenarios from the DB games could be adapted to this updated engine? At the very least, might there be a new Ardennes Offensive included?

I know Matrix/SSG want to keep the older titles viable, but with the inauguration of a new engine it seems unlikely that many people will want to step back to the old. I would certainly buy Donets if I thought I might eventually be able to play Normandy, Italy, and the Bulge in it.



PzB74 -> RE: Only one scenario? (5/1/2008 11:26:14 PM)

I'm still playing the older titles, Battles in Normandy (currently The Ardennes Offensive).
This was perfect, a solid engine and upcoming scenarios to keep the game alive after the main scenario was played out.

There are limits for how many times you want to see the paras defeated in Arnhem, and Battlefront didn't hold to many variations.
Perhaps Kharkov will, lets hope so.

Matrix will most likely follow the most profitable approach, but they will also listen to their customers,
especially if we provide constructive criticism and suggestion, and this is mine:

After Korsun Pocket was released there was an add on - Across the Donets.
This was good and kept the game alive.

So what I'd like to see is at least a couple of add on scenarios to each new major revamp of the game engine.
While programmers are busy updating the game engine, scenario designers can produce a few more scenarios to the last release of the game.



PaulWRoberts -> RE: Only one scenario? (5/1/2008 11:43:25 PM)

If SSG really wants to go with the HPS-style "improvements with each release" model, I hope they'll also go with the HPS style of patching those improvements into earlier releases.



Fred98 -> RE: Only one scenario? (5/2/2008 6:49:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Paul Roberts

I hope they'll also go with the HPS style of patching those improvements into earlier releases.



The game engines of each SSG game are quite different so a patch is not possible. The old engines would not support the newer features.
-




Gregor_SSG -> RE: Only one scenario? (5/2/2008 7:28:37 AM)

Naturally, each person must make up their own mind as to what constitutes value for them. However, I would like to make a few points on the subject.

The inclusion of Areas of Operations is a big deal. It makes a huge point of difference with all our previous Decisive Battles/Battlefront games and makes a huge difference to how you play the game, especially when used with the mystery variants.

While it looks like just another bullet point on a marketing department's list, it was the type of change that required a lot of work under the hood and this took a considerable amount of time.

If you look at where this started with the original Ardennes game then we have come a long way in game design terms. It would have been easier, and more profitable, if we hadn't made constant design changes and just churned out scenarios, but we have chosen to innovate and improve the game system.

The good news on that front is that we are very happy with the new design and the next game will use this design, which should make it much easier to keep scenarios compatible.

On that note I can say that extra scenarios are already being worked on and we will look seriously at what is involved in updating our older titles.

We have also enlisted the help of Chris Merchant, a long time supporter, who has worked hard to update the Battlefront manual and to continue that improvement into Kharkov.

You will also be pleased to know that Kharkov does include a tutorial, something we acknowledge was missing from Battlefront. We also took the opportunity that the new design afforded to simplify the movement and supply systems which will make gamer's life easier.

I feel confident that once people start playing the Kharkov game then any doubts will be banished. It is an exceptionally exciting battle and in my opinion, our best yet, nudging in front of Market Garden and Across the Dnepr.

Gregor



Noakesy -> RE: Only one scenario? (5/2/2008 12:06:17 PM)

I love the SSG games, and own them all (way back to TAO1), although I've never been totally enamoured with BF I must admit. and will definitely wait to see what comes before making any public criticisms. It looks nice, and the AO concept sounds very interesting, and I'm sure it will be a good game, I just hope it ships with more than one scenario.

I think you also have to be a bit careful with all the negativity coming out here. I'm sure the new AOs and so on require a lot of work from SSG, they might start thinking that it's just not economically viable to produce these games with all this flak flying around...



Tomus -> RE: Only one scenario? (5/2/2008 12:14:06 PM)

I must admit I prefer the one battle focus to the multiple battle ones. This release looks good and I love this series of games.



PzB74 -> RE: Only one scenario? (5/2/2008 1:45:39 PM)

This sounds promising Gregor, just what I was hoping to hear.
My main concern was that longevity for the last title dropped markedly compared to earlier releases.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG

The good news on that front is that we are very happy with the new design and the next game will use this design, which should make it much easier to keep scenarios compatible.

On that note I can say that extra scenarios are already being worked on and we will look seriously at what is involved in updating our older titles.





Grell -> RE: Only one scenario? (5/2/2008 2:29:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hertston

I'm afraid I have to agree. I would far rather have seen a 'stand alone expansion' to and partial 'relaunch' of the Battlefront system. I was very happy with that; it was just desperately in need of more scenarios, a higher profile, and a little TLC.

I'm going to take a lot of selling on this one. Admittedly, some of the new features look cool, but I really can't see enough to justify what looks like a big step backwards to a single campaign, albeit with 'variants'... no matter how meticulously researched it is. I don't disagree with Erik on such things casually, but I do here. Not enough content.. exactly why Battlefront never took off.


I sadly must agree with Hertston. This game is even worse than Battlefront. I will pass on it.

Regards,

Greg



Capitaine -> RE: Only one scenario? (5/2/2008 2:47:49 PM)

I liked a lot of the features of Battlefront, and am not sure I'll like the simplification of supply or movement in this new title.  I tend to agree that if there were any issue with Battlefront it was more content-related than anything else.  I guess I'm confused about why there's another engine change after only one title with Battlefront.

I too own every SSG title back to TAO1, so I'm a fan.  Just don't know enough about what the change is all about.

EDIT: I should add that I don't mind a single campaign release. It works for HPS and I've bought a lot of those. But HPS does update all of their titles when they add new campaigns, so the older stuff is always up to date. Also, their graphics are moddable and better looking stuff can be found than their stock graphics. This combination enhances the longevity of the products.



Adam Parker -> RE: Only one scenario? (5/2/2008 3:14:18 PM)

And remember in HPS Kharkov 42:

quote:

  Scenarios range from a series of 34 starter and intermediate historical scenarios, up to the full 140 turn campaign game.
 
We're talking stacks of value plus a 140 turn campaign.
 
We'll have to see what the answer is to my "Scale" thread before a real final pre-launch comparison can be made.
 
But why oh why didn't SSG go Kharkov 43? Or better still, if this game is going to be regimental, offer real value and give us the full "Kharkov Experience" - with scenarios '41, '42, '43?



e_barkmann -> RE: Only one scenario? (5/2/2008 3:14:29 PM)

quote:

am not sure I'll like the simplification of supply or movement in this new title


Capitaine,

IMHO, I think that the 'simplification' of supply and movement in K:DOTD works well. The less I have to think about supply trucks/delivered OP's and more about the positioning of my formation HQ's is realistic from where I see it; and it means that now - these HQ's are really, really important, and provides a focal point for the needs and bonuses for combat units wheras in the past it was a chore to look after the 'trucks' as well as everything else. Gives me more brain CPU for the combat units!

This version of the engine is a keeper. Sometimes things take a while to mature.

cheers




hank -> RE: Only one scenario? (5/2/2008 6:06:55 PM)

Gregor_SSG quote ...

"The good news on that front is that we are very happy with the new design and the next game will use this design, which should make it much easier to keep scenarios compatible.

On that note I can say that extra scenarios are already being worked on and we will look seriously at what is involved in updating our older titles."

[&o]
This is probably the most encouraging words I've heard about SSG games in a couple of years.

Does this mean K:DotD is the game engine SSG is going to settle on for a while and start putting out other battles and enhancement patches?

One advantage of choosing Kharkhov as the signature battle is that there were two major battles in and around the same map area.  Since I haven't seen a full map yet, I can only hope the map stretches from Belgorad to south of Izium.  (today is the 1st I've heard of this)

Not sure I'm ready to buy yet but it sounds OK so far.  Maybe with further discussion here my opinions will improve from just "OK" to good or excellent.

One thing I'm sure hasn't been changed I wish was different in BF is the option to use artillery to add combat shifts to assaults (or melee attacks) or to conduct individual direct fire operations (which is all you can do in BF).

The simplified movement and supply features sound reasonable to me.

The biggest thing I'm going to be looking for before I buy is that SSG is committed to supporting this engine and issue subsequent battle packs; additions I would be willing to pay a reasonable price for like I did for the "Across the Dnepr" add-on to Korsun.

I've been saving money for Panther Games Battle from the Bulge; now I may have to work OT to get this one.



Gregor_SSG -> RE: Only one scenario? (5/3/2008 9:11:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: hank

Gregor_SSG quote ...

"The good news on that front is that we are very happy with the new design and the next game will use this design, which should make it much easier to keep scenarios compatible.

On that note I can say that extra scenarios are already being worked on and we will look seriously at what is involved in updating our older titles."

[&o]
This is probably the most encouraging words I've heard about SSG games in a couple of years.

Does this mean K:DotD is the game engine SSG is going to settle on for a while and start putting out other battles and enhancement patches?

One advantage of choosing Kharkhov as the signature battle is that there were two major battles in and around the same map area. Since I haven't seen a full map yet, I can only hope the map stretches from Belgorad to south of Izium. (today is the 1st I've heard of this)

Not sure I'm ready to buy yet but it sounds OK so far. Maybe with further discussion here my opinions will improve from just "OK" to good or excellent.

One thing I'm sure hasn't been changed I wish was different in BF is the option to use artillery to add combat shifts to assaults (or melee attacks) or to conduct individual direct fire operations (which is all you can do in BF).

The simplified movement and supply features sound reasonable to me.

The biggest thing I'm going to be looking for before I buy is that SSG is committed to supporting this engine and issue subsequent battle packs; additions I would be willing to pay a reasonable price for like I did for the "Across the Dnepr" add-on to Korsun.

I've been saving money for Panther Games Battle from the Bulge; now I may have to work OT to get this one.


The map includes Belgorod in the north and Dnepropetrovsk in the south, which means we go well south of Izyum and so there's a fair amount of ground to play with.

I can definitely say that this system will be used in our next game, although obviously I can't publicly say what that game will be.


Gregor



HercMighty -> RE: Only one scenario? (5/3/2008 11:18:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG


I can definitely say that this system will be used in our next game, although obviously I can't publicly say what that game will be.


Gregor


And this will be the death of SSG. You have a niche market that you think you know. And as a result we have seen SSG's titles slowly dwindle to this. You hide away in your bat cave concoting what you think we'll like and then are disapointed and don't understand when we complain. It's will even be harder to sell your titles now as the world economy suffers. Energy prices, food, the necesseties are going to eat into our budgets.

I said it over on your forums. Your stance of not discussing anything with your fan base is stupid. Sure some questions here and there get answered but that isn't what I am talking about. You need to engage your fan base and discuss your titles and really listen to what we are asking for, because we make up the niche market, not you.

And with the economy the way it is and people trying to decide if they want to support this title I would implore you to rethink the above statement by you.



Ola Berli -> RE: Only one scenario? (5/4/2008 12:00:45 AM)

HercMighty,

You repeat yourself in all threads. I think You have made Your point Sir!

Stop crying about life in USA. For the price in my country for a Golf WW. You can get a Lexus or big Mercerdes in USA. Do You know what 1 liter petrol cost in Norway? Answer: 4$ . And we drill after oil in the whole North sea being the 5 biggest producer of oil in the world.



PzB74 -> RE: Only one scenario? (5/4/2008 1:08:23 AM)

That's a bit much, closer to 2.5 USD per l liter fuel here in Norway.
Pretty sure average salaries are much higher than those in the US as well.
The price for another Battlefront game cost me less than 1.5 hours at work.

Right shall be right [;)] but I agree, point has been made.

The expansion pack for WitP (AE) is created upon wishes from gaming community and a lot of volunteer effort.
So I don't recognize all of Mr Mighty's arguments - but it is possible that more community involvement is desirable?


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ola Berli

HercMighty,

You repeat yourself in all threads. I think You have made Your point Sir!

Stop crying about life in USA. For the price in my country for a Golf WW. You can get a Lexus or big Mercerdes in USA. Do You know what 1 liter petrol cost in Norway? Answer: 4$ . And we drill after oil in the whole North sea being the 5 biggest producer of oil in the world.




JudgeDredd -> RE: Only one scenario? (5/4/2008 1:23:59 AM)

This will probably be my one and only post in this forum...I don't want to piss on peoples parades that are looking forward to it...but I wanted to say this, whilst SSG were visible

The main issue I have with your games is lack of content and until I see you produce a game with content worthy of my ever increasingly diminishing ££s due to the increases worldwide on just about every product required for life, then I will not hand over my money.

The last game I had from you was Carriers at War, and content was severely lacking. The game had some excellent options...but they wore thin very, very fast...no content and a map which didn't afford the gamer much in the way of tactics and certainly very little replayability.

So I just wanted to express the same concerns other people have. Take note. It is a genuine concern and one which stops you receiving my money.

I will now depart and allow the people who wish to talk constructively and enthusiastically about this up coming release.



Ola Berli -> RE: Only one scenario? (5/4/2008 3:01:07 AM)

PzB,

ops I sat the price a bit high. Close to 3 $. You also know that the price is higher outside Oslo. After all a price on petrol who I think had fired up a little revolution in the states. Or perhaps Pzb have a small sosialdemocrat in his stomach and think the price is at it should be ? [:D]



Duck Doc -> RE: Only one scenario? (5/4/2008 3:04:00 AM)

I have KP, BiN, BiI & BF (& CaW). I have been playing SSG's games since the release of TAO. Although I have not been playing BF much lately & although I have not played it nearly as much as I have the other two, similar titles I own I consider it a valuable addition to my gaming collection & I do not regret its purchase at all. I have plenty of games on my shelf I don't play often & a few I play a lot. That is the way gaming goes for me. BiI & BiN have repaid me many times over.

I particularly appreciated the advances made in the game engine with the release of BF & I consider it a challenge to master. I am returning to BF with a friend & we will be doing some PBEM games. I was disappointed that there have not been more additional scenarios released for BF but the one that has been, Crusader, is a great scenario. That is five battles, one small, one medium, three big ones. That is plenty.

There have been problems prgramming the AI for BF scenarios but I would be more than happy with scenarios meant to be played just by PBEM.

I have been frustrated with SSG's approach at times, especially with the way the manuals are written & some of the game concepts are a bit opaque & difficult for me to wrap my brain around. However I love the game engine & have since I first played TAO. Wargaming doesn't get any better.

I too am on a budget. I have to consider my gaming purchases more carefully these days but I plan on buying Kharkov because I am excited about the evolution of the game engine & I consider it my duty as a gamer to support designers who make the games I enjoy playing through thick & thin.

I also consider it necessary to trust the designers even when they don't seem to be listening. I would like to get responses to my posts but I am mature enough to live with the disappointment. I am not that important. Imagine trying to make something by committee, especially one as huge & vocal as the wargaming one. Trying to please everyone is impossible. Every gamer knows how it should be done. Sid Meier's response to similar criticism was, "Ok, go out & learn C & program it yourself!"

If you don't like the game concept or consider it not worth the investment then by all means don't buy. But remember, it is an investment. You pay as you go along & the games get made. Nobody is getting rich developing wargames & I consider my self lucky that SSG has been making the games I love to play & I would be very sad if they stopped.

If all this makes me a "fanboy" sycophant then so be it. I don't look at it that way.



Howard7x -> RE: Only one scenario? (5/4/2008 10:12:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HercMighty

And this will be the death of SSG. You have a niche market that you think you know. And as a result we have seen SSG's titles slowly dwindle to this. You hide away in your bat cave concoting what you think we'll like and then are disapointed and don't understand when we complain. It's will even be harder to sell your titles now as the world economy suffers. Energy prices, food, the necesseties are going to eat into our budgets.

I said it over on your forums. Your stance of not discussing anything with your fan base is stupid. Sure some questions here and there get answered but that isn't what I am talking about. You need to engage your fan base and discuss your titles and really listen to what we are asking for, because we make up the niche market, not you.

And with the economy the way it is and people trying to decide if they want to support this title I would implore you to rethink the above statement by you.


HercMighty, you have made your point. Now move on please. Quite frankly your criticism is not justified to the level its been given. If you dont like the fact that theres one main map and 10 scenarios based on that map, im afraid you are missing the point of SSG's titles.

BF was a bad release from SSG's point of view. They realise the issues they faced and have moved on from that, thats why they didnt support it + they were working on CaW. If you dont see that then im sorry. If this new engine is a keeper and they are able to mod like they could in BII, i dont see why you have a problem as there will be loads of great scenarios made for this game. If you go to SSG's main site and look at the scenarios page, BII's editor allowed for some truely fantastic user based scenarios. Judging by what ive read thus far, SSG have refined the editor so that this will once again be the case.

Looks to me like development time has been spent on the engine and the AO and mystery systems rather than the number of scenarios at hand. If they get a system that works well and they can build on and add new scenarios to, i dont see the number of scenarios with the release being an issue. You can bet your bottom dollar that the main modders over at RUN5 already have their hands on the editor and are working on custom scenarios for just after the release date.

As someone who has been playing SSG's titles continually for the last few years, i was also bitterly dissapointed with BF.

Im looking positively towards this release.



tevans6220 -> RE: Only one scenario? (5/5/2008 4:26:30 AM)

BF would not have been a bad release if the editing tools had really been usable. Even after learning how to make maps and enter all the data there was still the question of how to program the AI. From what I read on the SSG forums there were only two people who ever made anything with the BF AI (Roger & Ian) and they had no time to write a guide since they were busy with work. That in my opinion is why BF was not a success. SSG gave us the tools to make scenarios but couldn't be bothered explaining the parts they left out of the manual. If the same thing happens with this game, I predict it will have the same fate as BF at a faster pace since there's only one scenario. SSG if you're going to give us the tools then please have the courtesy to at least teach us how to use them. It will aid in the longevity of your game.



Gregor_SSG -> RE: Only one scenario? (5/5/2008 8:34:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tevans6220

BF would not have been a bad release if the editing tools had really been usable. Even after learning how to make maps and enter all the data there was still the question of how to program the AI. From what I read on the SSG forums there were only two people who ever made anything with the BF AI (Roger & Ian) and they had no time to write a guide since they were busy with work. That in my opinion is why BF was not a success. SSG gave us the tools to make scenarios but couldn't be bothered explaining the parts they left out of the manual. If the same thing happens with this game, I predict it will have the same fate as BF at a faster pace since there's only one scenario. SSG if you're going to give us the tools then please have the courtesy to at least teach us how to use them. It will aid in the longevity of your game.


The AI is always going to be the hardest part of scenario creation to explain, and we haven't done a good job of doing that, partly because it has kept changing as we have kept improving it. However, since it isn't going to change significantly for the next two games, we will make a better job of doing just that.

However, this something that will have to wait until after the game is released. For one thing, the new improved game manual is allready butting up against Matrix's 200 page limit. For another, the task will require a united effort from Roger, Ian and myself and that just won't be feasible until after the game itself is out.


Gregor



tevans6220 -> RE: Only one scenario? (5/5/2008 10:39:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gregor_SSG


quote:

ORIGINAL: tevans6220

BF would not have been a bad release if the editing tools had really been usable. Even after learning how to make maps and enter all the data there was still the question of how to program the AI. From what I read on the SSG forums there were only two people who ever made anything with the BF AI (Roger & Ian) and they had no time to write a guide since they were busy with work. That in my opinion is why BF was not a success. SSG gave us the tools to make scenarios but couldn't be bothered explaining the parts they left out of the manual. If the same thing happens with this game, I predict it will have the same fate as BF at a faster pace since there's only one scenario. SSG if you're going to give us the tools then please have the courtesy to at least teach us how to use them. It will aid in the longevity of your game.


The AI is always going to be the hardest part of scenario creation to explain, and we haven't done a good job of doing that, partly because it has kept changing as we have kept improving it. However, since it isn't going to change significantly for the next two games, we will make a better job of doing just that.

However, this something that will have to wait until after the game is released. For one thing, the new improved game manual is allready butting up against Matrix's 200 page limit. For another, the task will require a united effort from Roger, Ian and myself and that just won't be feasible until after the game itself is out.


Gregor


Gregor I wasn't trying to be overly critical. I've purchased every SSG game going back to the C64 days and I'll be purchasing this one too. I'm just looking for some assurances that documentation on AI programming will be forthcoming for this game. Battlefront was and still is a great system but I think that not having the proper support (AI documentation) held it back as far as scenario building was concerned. Hoping that people will just figure it out or stating that nobody has the time to write a guide just isn't in the best interest of sales. Especially when similar systems such as the TOAW system comes fully documented. I just want to make sure this game doesn't run into the same problem. And since there is basically going to be only one battle the success of this game will rely heavily on user created material that will hopefully be playable against an AI.



Adam Parker -> RE: Only one scenario? (5/5/2008 11:07:38 AM)

I think it's ok for Herc to voice his opinion - it's the first I've seen it as I don't visit Run5 unless I'm playing a game and have a question.

But had BF been supplied with more professionaly created scenarios and Carriers at War been released with the variety supplied in the current patch, well, I'd be playing them now but I'm not.



Berkut -> RE: Only one scenario? (5/5/2008 6:42:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker

I think it's ok for Herc to voice his opinion - it's the first I've seen it as I don't visit Run5 unless I'm playing a game and have a question.

But had BF been supplied with more professionaly created scenarios and Carriers at War been released with the variety supplied in the current patch, well, I'd be playing them now but I'm not.


Indeed.

Herc, you keep right on voicing your concerns and opinions. Internet bytes are pretty much free, and fi people think you are over-stating your case, they are welcome to not read your posts.

Demands that people stop posting criticism is weak BS, IMO.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.5625