Why BFC is screwed

[Sgt Barker]

(Opinion time here.)

:soap: Because CM is not a PzC game. CMx2, even the WWII version, is doomed because it cannot work with the business model they’ve set out.

PzC works because they can sell the “same” game over and over, based on engine upgrades and in depth research and scenario design and development. Those two things alone make each game worth the purchase price. There’s never a “where’s the beef” question with a PzC game, because they know what the value add is and make it happen for each title.

While in theory available to any game system that model is not workable with a tactical level game. No matter what anyone says about campaigns and scenarios, tactical level games live or die on their “quick battle” platform. That is what gets buzz going, and that’s what attracts people to a tactical game. Without it people simply will not shell out their $40.00, no matter how good a value it is in dollars-per-hour-played terms. Maybe not rational, but reality.

But good “quick battles” demand a robust, user driven, force build system. And that kills the ability to sell the “same game” next time. If the system is truly robust, then it’s replayability is very high. And if a game is replayable, well, that’s what you play. And you don’t go buy a new version of it.

In summation, my paying $40.00 for Operation Typhoon, then $40.00 for Operation Mars, then $40.00 for the destruction of Army Group Center, works, even though it’s all the “same game.” Trying to recreate that with squad level action won’t.

[Runyan99]

There is something to what you say. Adding a few new uniforms and tanks seems like a poor way to add value for the next game in the series. I know I'm not terribly interested in the proposed Marines expansion for CMSF.

[RedMike]

I hate quick battles, never play them.

Squad Battles works the same way as PzC/MC. Same game engine with updates, different content.

:smoke:

[kineas]

erm...what are PzC games? :chin:

[Sgt Barker]

I hate quick battles, never play them.

Squad Battles works the same way as PzC/MC. Same game engine with updates, different content.

:smoke:

Oh go ahead. Wreck my thesis with evidence.

Still, aren't SB more along the lines of CM, with content being much "larger" than that in a PzC game? More of a toolbox - one game you can recreate the entire East Front, another all of the Pacific, etc? So they won't have the dozens of titles possible in PzC?

[Sgt Barker]

erm...what are PzC games? :chin:

Operational level WWII games from HPS. It stands for "Panzer Campaigns."

[RedMike]

Sgt Barker...

All I can tell you is there's lot's of SqB "content" in the works. So we'll see.

[McIvan]

SqB is a lot broader than CMX2 is going to be tho. Eagles Strike covers all US in the western ETO and Med. CMX2 is probably only going to cover one linked series of battles, not one theatre.

[general_solomon]

I would like to see a game that plays like sqb and looks like cmsf.

[Liebchen]

CMX2 is probably only going to cover one linked series of battles, not one theatre.

This is, IMHO, BFC's biggest mistake. They won't make a game that covers a front. Hell, they won't even make a game that covers an entire battle. They'll make a game that covers a single force's participation in a single battle, and then sell "modules" that add other forces that participated in the battle.

So if you really like the Normandy campaign, you'd have to probably buy a game for the U.S. landings, a module for the British ops, and a module for the airborne. Hell, don't even think about Cobra or Falaise...

That business model stinks, if you ask me.