The Direction of the FPC series (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Flashpoint Campaigns Series



Message

Mad Russian -> The Direction of the FPC series (10/31/2013 3:41:07 PM)

Alright then, we now have a thread that is alive for the sole reason for you guys to discuss with us the most pressing of all issues.

Where does FPC go from here?

Let me start this off with:

1) This game series is capable of supporting all combat models from 1939 to future conflicts.

2) This game series will, eventually, go to locations and times for all of those.


We have done research or are looking at collecting information on:

- Korea 1950 through future.
- China vs Russia 1950 through future.
- Chinese invasion of Taiwan 1950 through future.
- Vietnam 1950-1975. This would cover at least the 4 major combatants, US, ARVN, VC and NVA as well as possibly the French, Australian and South Koreans.
- Falklands.
- Middle East. From 67 through future. This would include all the major combatants in the area. It would also include the Iran-Iraq war.
- India-Pakistan. Would fit in somewhere.
- Pacific theater WWII.
- European theater WWII.
- Eastern Front theater WWII.
- Med theater WWII.

What determines where we go? That is a blend of:

Dev Team gamer interest.
Gaming community gamer interest.
Economics.
Support of the series.
Available data base for CD and MR.
Coding difficulty for Rob.
Natural progression of projects.

So, you see, your preferred subject may or may not be closer than you think. It doesn't hurt to lobby for your time period. The second item down is community gamer interest. That's one just one factor but it's an important one.

This debate seems to be forming into two sides.

Those that want WWII and those that would like anything but WWII.

There may be a compromise where we could rotate them or release some of the theaters/subjects simply as scenario packs.

What would you say to the idea of us doing say a Vietnam expansion and then a short time later doing a WWII pacific module/scenario pack? Since the two are closely related. Or doing a Korea 1950 with a NWE expansion/scenario pack?

Where an expansion is major changes and improvements to the game and would be like FPC:RS.

Where an expansions/scenario pack would have TO&E information relative to that specific theater, etc. Would come with say 10 scenarios and a campaign.

Would something like that be acceptable to you as a community?

Good Hunting.

MR




trebcourie -> RE: The Direction of the FPC series (10/31/2013 3:53:09 PM)

With 500m hexes, the game seems optimized for modern, fast-paced mechanized forces. That points me toward Arab-Israeli wars, Desert Storm, possibly modern Chinese-Russian conflicts, etc.



Plodder -> RE: The Direction of the FPC series (10/31/2013 3:57:56 PM)

My view is that this engine is suited more for a high-intensity, high-tempo conflict. I fail to see how this would work for Vietnam or the Falklands. I'm willing to be proven wrong of course [:D] but I'd prefer to see some more hypothetical conflicts depicting modern equipment. I'm on the fence in regards to WWII, I don't really care if the system goes there but I know it will be fun if it does.



76mm -> RE: The Direction of the FPC series (10/31/2013 4:24:05 PM)

oh goodie, excellent thread!

actually I think the camps seems broken down into:
1) anything but WWII; and
2) WWII along with whatever else you want to do.

I'm firmly in Camp II, but have some interest in 1980s Europe and fairly high interest in Arab-Israeli wars. Personally I'm not very interested in other hypothetical campaigns (China/Taiwan), anything jungle-related (Pac theater, Vietnam), or minor campaigns (Indo-Pak, China-Vietnam, etc.). Highest interest in WWII Eastern Front (duh).

I would guess that for now you'd focus on modules/scenarios to flesh out the 1980s OOBs (various other countries, national guard, airborne, Marine, etc.). Then maybe Arab-Israeli Wars. Then at some point (maybe a couple years, gulp) WWII East Front.

You've mentioned that you would need to redo the hex scale for WWII, which sounds like a major undertaking and which would presumably mean there would be no mixing and matching of maps or anything else between modern and WWII games? Is changing the scale really necessary?

One feature which I've always wanted to see is any ability for player/modders to create modules/packs/maps and monetize them by selling this content through the developer (who would keep a cut). To be clear I would never be able to create any content myself, but would really enjoy having a wider choice of content available. Not sure how feasible this is, I'm sure there'd be Q/C issues, etc., but I think it would be really cool.



Thomasew -> RE: The Direction of the FPC series (10/31/2013 4:26:33 PM)

Hi MR,


I don't see Angola on that list. Graviteam released an 'Operation Hooper' addon to their Achtung Panzer Operation Star series. It was their first non-WWII, non-Eastern Front addon. According to Andrey at Graviteam, .. it is their top-selling addon. [:)]

'Operation Hooper' was the 2nd of 4 Operations that took place in the 'Battle of Cuito Cuanavale' during 1987/1988 between the forces of Cuba, MPLA & SWAPO; and the forces of Unita and South Africa. The other Operations were .. 'Modular', 'Packer' and 'Displace'. It was during Operation Modular, that the South African forces captured the newly developed Soviet SA-8 SAM system, that sparked much interest with the US and NATO Countries.

Lots of Armoured Warfare with Tactical Air Support, with Soviet vs NATO weaponry. [:)]

Other than that .. anything modern would make me happy. Once the Modern stuff is done, then, by all means do something with WWII. North Africa would be cool, .. Western Front .. Pacific. [:)]

I have so many board and computer wargames that deal with WWII (been playing WW II board wargames for over 40 years), .. but, on a Modern Land Warfare front .. and in terms of Computer Wargames .. I only have Flashpoint. [:)]

As has been said before, .. more people play WWII wargames, .. but that's only because they have so many to choose from. I love WW II games, .. but, enough is enough. Let's move on. [:)]

Although not really Wargames, .. I very much doubt you will see 'Call of Duty' or 'Battlefield' returning to WWII. Since they moved to Modern Warfare their sales have soared.

I think the new/next generation of wargamers want to play games they can relate to, or are aware of. How many WW I computer games do you know of? The same applies to WW II for many of them. My son, now 28, and also an ardent gamer, refers to WW I and WW II as the Dark Ages. Still a brat! [:'(]

Anyhoo, .. just my thoughts.[:)]


Cheers
Tom



Jimbo123 -> RE: The Direction of the FPC series (10/31/2013 4:42:10 PM)

I believe you have created a game engine which is unlike any other I am aware of. Like most I am a WWII fan and would love to battle it out on the East or West front. Having said that the quality of the system, support and the commitment of the design team would have my interest no matter where you go. Economics for me would drive WWII. Your not selling out by not doing some less popular niche. It is my belief you would bring your game engine to the largest audience and this game engine deserves a chance at mass appeal. IMAO it's that good. Remember with success comes freedom and those other era's will still be there. The more popular the engine the more likely they will be successful as well! Regardless of your decision I will support your product. I'm finishing up my first game ( see AAR ) and it has exceeded my expectations which is a major achievement.

Thanks for this game!!



Mad Russian -> RE: The Direction of the FPC series (10/31/2013 4:52:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BROJD

With 500m hexes, the game seems optimized for modern, fast-paced mechanized forces. That points me toward Arab-Israeli wars, Desert Storm, possibly modern Chinese-Russian conflicts, etc.


The game series may well evolve into at least one other scale other than 500 meters per hex. The series is very flexible. We have discussed what it would take to get some of the time frames to work. One of the things may be a time and scale alteration.

Good Hunting.

MR



Mad Russian -> RE: The Direction of the FPC series (10/31/2013 4:55:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: The Plodder

My view is that this engine is suited more for a high-intensity, high-tempo conflict. I fail to see how this would work for Vietnam or the Falklands. I'm willing to be proven wrong of course [:D] but I'd prefer to see some more hypothetical conflicts depicting modern equipment. I'm on the fence in regards to WWII, I don't really care if the system goes there but I know it will be fun if it does.


Vietnam would need a scale change, but so would any WWII games.

The battles would be smaller but I can't imagine they would be less intense. We would have to take a look at that and see when the time comes.

Like many other theaters it's been under represented.

Good Hunting.

MR



Mad Russian -> RE: The Direction of the FPC series (10/31/2013 5:02:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

You've mentioned that you would need to redo the hex scale for WWII, which sounds like a major undertaking and which would presumably mean there would be no mixing and matching of maps or anything else between modern and WWII games? Is changing the scale really necessary?


The code was created with this in mind.

Consider this.

Red Storm - M1A1/Leopard 2/Challenger range 4000 meters. T-80 range 3000 meters. (roughly, depending on gunner and conditions)

WWII - PzII range is 500 meters. (roughly)

Working off the top of my head here at the moment.

So, where we have a 3000m engagement in Red Storm that's 6 hexes. You have a 500m engagement in WWII and that would be in hex.

That's why there would probably be a scale change.


quote:


One feature which I've always wanted to see is any ability for player/modders to create modules/packs/maps and monetize them by selling this content through the developer (who would keep a cut). To be clear I would never be able to create any content myself, but would really enjoy having a wider choice of content available. Not sure how feasible this is, I'm sure there'd be Q/C issues, etc., but I think it would be really cool.


Because of all the legal issues that's a headache. Not saying it couldn't be done. Just saying that's why it's not done often.

Good Hunting.

MR



GrumpyMel -> RE: The Direction of the FPC series (10/31/2013 5:02:41 PM)

I'm mostly a WWII gamer but I bought the game and have really enjoyed it so far. Eventualy I'd like to see you do WWII but I think initialy your game is really well suited to address some other modern conflicts that haven't gotten alot of treatment. I think Vietnam would make a great next module as it's emphasis and feel would be different from the current scenarios but still seems like it could fit well within the current system with a few tweaks - maybe something that could model "civilian casualties" from use of area of effect weapons in urban areas and VP costs, etc.

The engine would seem to fit well for the Arab-Israeli conflict, but that may be a bit too similar in feel to the current module. It would also be interesting to see you approach other 80's "WWIII" Theatres. My 2 cents.



Mad Russian -> RE: The Direction of the FPC series (10/31/2013 5:04:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Thomasew

Hi MR,

I don't see Angola on that list. Graviteam released an 'Operation Hooper' addon to their Achtung Panzer Operation Star series. It was their first non-WWII, non-Eastern Front addon. According to Andrey at Graviteam, .. it is their top-selling addon. [:)]

Cheers
Tom



You can literally pick any conflict you like. I wasn't being exclusive with the list of theaters and wars. Those are off the top of my head without doing any research on the subject of where wars have taken place in the past 68 years since WWII ended. This planet is a violent place.

Good Hunting.

MR



kipanderson -> RE: The Direction of the FPC series (10/31/2013 5:51:52 PM)

MR, hi,

Don’t fight it... all wargames end up on the East Front eventually..[;)] .

Really, go with the majority first, even if silent majority and knock off the big subjects first. Then turn to the subjects with more niche appeal. If you want to see this forum and sales take off even more the big subjects, which does mean WWII, are the ones to hit first.

Even for quality, top end wargames which is a niche anyway... anything other than WWII is even more niche.

Plus... don’t be tempted to nudge the engine more towards the tactical end of things. Its great strength is it operational, command game features. Don’t be tempted to reduce the scale.

All good fun,
All the best,
Kip.





wodin -> RE: The Direction of the FPC series (10/31/2013 5:58:06 PM)

Vietnam then Pacific WW2 sounds great.

I think you should stay away from more obscure minor conflicts just thinking of sales..maybe do those as expansion packs?

I would like to see...



Expansions for this game taking it to the Winter..and other parts of the World like Finland, Iceland, Alaska etc.

Then

Vietnam (need heli insertions)
Modern Korean War
War between USA, Japan and Allies Vs China and Allies


Then for WW2 which as mentioned probably needs the scale to drop to 100m o 250m..in order of preference. Though only east front would come ahead of the choices above.

East front
Pacific
Hypothetical like Sealion
Crete\Africa
NWE

I think if you finish this War\Theater off then see where you are money wise..if you need a big influx then go for an East front or West front WW2 game..if money isn't a HUGE issue then do a couple of popular other wars, not to obscure and niche..then do a WW2..then after the WW2 hopefully you'll have enough to fund the more Obscure Wars.. I really think you need to think financially rather than emotionally.



Mad Russian -> RE: The Direction of the FPC series (10/31/2013 6:05:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kipanderson

MR, hi,

Plus... don’t be tempted to nudge the engine more towards the tactical end of things. Its great strength is it operational, command game features. Don’t be tempted to reduce the scale.

All good fun,
All the best,
Kip.



When we are talking about reducing scale, that is terrain scale, not unit scale.

Good Hunting.

MR



TomBombadil711 -> RE: The Direction of the FPC series (10/31/2013 6:06:32 PM)

With only a few games on the market dealing with the Vietnam War my vote would be Vietnam, then Middle East.



76mm -> RE: The Direction of the FPC series (10/31/2013 6:26:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
That's why there would probably be a scale change.


Yeah, I hear ya.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
Because of all the legal issues that's a headache. Not saying it couldn't be done. Just saying that's why it's not done often.


ditto



nukkxx5058 -> RE: The Direction of the FPC series (10/31/2013 6:39:46 PM)

I would vote for an hypothetical but highly plausible 2015 Gulf conflict between NATO+Israel vs. Iran+Syria+Russia+ (maybe) China. Entries in the conflict should be gradual. First Israel against Iran/Syria, then NATO joins, then Russia joins against NATO. Egypt role could also be modeled.

Would need an off-nap arty support from naval forces stationed in the gulf. Pakistan role should be modeled. I know it's very ambitious but Flashpoint would be the sole turn based wargame in the market covering this highly plausible conflict.

This would in fact be the begining of global WW3.

And I would vote STRONGLY AGAINST WW2, any front. Just got an overdose of it. :-(((



wodin -> RE: The Direction of the FPC series (10/31/2013 6:48:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: nukkxx



And I would vote STRONGLY AGAINST WW2, any front. Just got an overdose of it. :-(((


here we go again...This isn't a vote about what not to make but what you want them to make.. (I could real off a whole load of conflicts I think they should avoid due to financial and sales issues but I don't, as I know others want to see them, so give this not WW2 thing a rest.



Mad Russian -> RE: The Direction of the FPC series (10/31/2013 6:50:14 PM)

Opinions are accepted here with no bias.

Tell us what you think.

Good Hunting.

MR



jubriqueno -> RE: The Direction of the FPC series (10/31/2013 6:56:07 PM)

Another WWII wargame, God have mercy on my !!!!! seriously, Nam, Malvinas/Falklands, Iran-Irak, Six days war........perfect for this engine.



Radagy -> RE: The Direction of the FPC series (10/31/2013 7:15:01 PM)

Six Days War and Kippur War above all. Then Korea, Falklands, Iran-Iraq.
Desert Storm could too much unbalanced. I wonder if this engine could support Vietnam War without a substantial makeup.
Interest in hypotetical future wars (US vs. rest of the world... Russia, China, Iran and so on. ) just to test brand new gear.
Absolutely no interest in hypothetical past wars, apart from NATO-WP.
Last and least, a WWII add on would be welcome.



jnpoint -> RE: The Direction of the FPC series (10/31/2013 7:19:48 PM)

I usually like WW2 games, but I can see that some does not. So to please everyone I would probably vote for a compromise.



Thomasew -> RE: The Direction of the FPC series (10/31/2013 7:31:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

quote:

ORIGINAL: nukkxx



And I would vote STRONGLY AGAINST WW2, any front. Just got an overdose of it. :-(((


here we go again...This isn't a vote about what not to make but what you want them to make.. (I could real off a whole load of conflicts I think they should avoid due to financial and sales issues but I don't, as I know others want to see them, so give this not WW2 thing a rest.


... and I think you need to give this financial and sales thing a rest, as it's no longer a valid point. As I mentioned in my earlier post, the top selling expansion/addon from Graviteam ... is Operation Hooper, .. which takes place in the 80s i.e. Not WW II. SO, that kinda negates your theory about 'everyone' wanting WW II.

I had been very tempted by APOS, .. graphically it looked stunning, and I loved the technical aspects of it, but, as it was yet another WW II wargame, .. and worse, set in the Eastern Front .. I didn't buy it. When they released Operation Hooper, I bought APOS and Operation Hooper .. and have bought every Modern expansion they have released since then.

Also, .. Mad Russian did mention in his initial post .. "Those that want WWII and those that would like anything but WWII".

.. so, nukkxx's comments re NOT wanting WW II expansions/addons are not out of order. [:)]

There are so few decent wargames that simulate Modern Warfare, and I think that you are the one who is being selfish, by trying to deprive those that enjoy non-WW II conflicts, .. by trying to drag 'Flashpoint' back to WW II, .. and the Eastern Front of all places.(Ho Hum)

Mad Russian opened this thread to allow people to voice their opinions etc., on what they would like to see in future expansions/addons etc.. By all means, voice your opinion on what you would like to see, .. BUT, .. please stop mouthing off at people because their opinion does not agree with yours.


Chill out .. [:'(]


Cheers
Tom





wodin -> RE: The Direction of the FPC series (10/31/2013 8:16:25 PM)

Thomasnew..go ask Slitherine what sells the most. Infact if you went with them with a game that was set say in Angola they wouldn't take it..same game set in WW2 if good enough they would take it on. There is a reason behind it. Take it from me I'm aware of things that maybe your not and could back up my argument but that would break confidentiality, upto you whether to believe it or not. As for operation Hopper I think you'll find the biggest selling was actual Achtung Panzer OS itself;) So no I wont give it a rest..Slitherine know more than me and you..and I'm fully aware on what they say sells. If you really want to see a Indie team carry on your a fool if you tell them to stick with niche Wars\Theaters as you'll soon find they couldn't continue due to low sales. These sorts of wars\Theaters should be made, but make sure they have more popular Wars in the series aswell.

Buzz words for sales and Slitherine..WW2, NATO, Warsaw Pact, Nukes!

Seems your another selfish wargamer who only wants what he likes made and everyone else can go swivel..sad. I know that none of the naysayers will influence the team anyway as they are more than aware that Ww2 sells more than other Wars, my annoyance is the way people request them not to make the game there by in their eyes depriving others who would like it. As I said I'd never say don't make this or that as I know others may be desperate for it.



This is the last I'm saying on it..won't be coming back to this thread.



Thomasew -> RE: The Direction of the FPC series (10/31/2013 8:38:29 PM)

@Wodin

There you go again ... behaving like a petulant child. [:-]

.. as you have done on other forums when you're not getting your way.

I've been playing Wargames since before you were born. I've been buying and playing Computer Games since you were in nursery school.

I've been working in the Computer/IT field since 1975, which allowed me to pursue my Computer Wargaming hobby with a certain amount of viguor. Some have said .. excessively so. [:'(]

Please do not, for a second .. profess to even dare to think that you somehow know more than me when it comes to Computer Wargaming and/or Gaming.

Get over yourself, .. and, for the last time, .. when there is such a proliferation of WW II computer games on the market, .. YOU are the one that is being selfish, by forcing your will on others, to take a game, .. firmly targeted at Modern Warfare and Conflicts ... back to WW II. [:(]

.. and trying to tell them that the Marketing/Development Strategy is flawed, and, if the Developers want to make money .. they need to make WW II wargames.

Did it ever occur to you?, .. that Flashpoint et al was developed because the developers love and enjoy Modern Conflicts. [:)]


Tom



nukkxx5058 -> RE: The Direction of the FPC series (10/31/2013 8:44:42 PM)

My friends, my friends ! calm down :-) I didn't want to be in the center of a fight :-)
We should try to keep a community spirit ;-)

I however have 2 remarks:

1- if the sales were the only criteria, then a good soccer FIFA game would do much better that a n-th WW2 East front game. Or why not a D&D-like role playing game ?

2- From the strategic point of view of Slitherine, having a modern theater wargame like Flashpoint in their portfolio is an optimal strategy. Because yes, as they already have plenty of great WW2 games on their shelves, having a pure modern warfare game allow them to attract the guys like me who would not anymore purchase a WW2 game.

My humble opinion... :-)



Radagy -> RE: The Direction of the FPC series (10/31/2013 8:46:44 PM)

Just wondering if this asynchronous turn system could be applied to napoleonic or civil war battles.
Much work should be done and different people should be involved but the strong concept beneath this game could be greatly expanded and easily exported in other operational frameworks.



Mad Russian -> RE: The Direction of the FPC series (10/31/2013 9:03:32 PM)

The asynchronous turn system is no mean feat to accomplish. That is the culmination of 8 years of development. They were just waiting for the right scenario designer to join the team and show it off in the best light. [:D]


Good Hunting.

MR



Panta_slith -> RE: The Direction of the FPC series (10/31/2013 9:22:55 PM)

I love the FPC scale (platoon/Co & 500m to a hex), and I also love WW2 battles. So said, I wonder if the FPC kind of approach would be suitable for games where infantry moves mostly on foot. I some FPC scenarios I had to wait for my dismounted platoons to advance into enemy territory and I found it too slow compared to the troops mounted on vehicles.
Concerning the future gamelets, each one of us has his/her own agenda of preferences, but undeniably the need to have a reasonable market for the final products is paramount, after all, designers, programmers et al need to be paid for their sweat, if not always lavishly (many of them are real amateurs), at least reasonably, since they are professionals.
Some periods may be interesting in theory but I also wonder how many westerner gamers would be ready to buy an India vs Pakistan scenario, for instance, and so forth.
In my personal case, for instance, I have been waiting for ME scenarios since FPG, but I don't think that I would buy Falklands or Korean scenarios, but that's just me.
Perhaps it would be interesting to make a poll of the preferences to get a more accurate idea of the players' tastes.



Monkie -> RE: The Direction of the FPC series (10/31/2013 9:26:34 PM)

Before moving on to other conflicts I'd prefer to see the current subject matter expanded and more command options added.

More countries, new maps and terrain, airmobile operations (would be necessary to develop before even thinking of a Vietnam setting) etc etc.

How about expanding the scenario editor to have triggers, random events, random units entering, etc so as to give scenario designers more tools to work with?

The game system is a winner, I say perfect it, let it evolve a bit and then move on to other conflicts and time periods.



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.640625