Grumblers musing

[Jim von Krieg]

To address some of your concerns expressed here at the Blitz,

Trust me, nobody on the development team is getting rich on this and all of us put in a tremendous amount of time into it that will never be adequately compensated by sales.  Nobody is quitting their day jobs.  We have to work with Slitherine which holds the rights to the games, so we aren't in total control of all aspects of our production.  Capitalism at its finest and worst.

Separation of the games for WW2 CS are more about our manpower and resources.  We are few and each on the team brings a unique skill set to the production.  None of CS was developed as individual games and essentially are still individual games with a menu overlaid on it.  As each game has its own unique code, we are developing it separately as that is the only way to manage it effectively.  We could keep it together, but then the next update would be in about 2035.  Somewhat exaggerated, but I think you get my point.

We are going to modernize the underlying code of each game to better unify the series.  In many ways that will be transparent to the gamer, but so essential for the development group to be able to efficiently work on the game and update it in the future.  Current CS code is a hodge podge of ancient and more recent code (recent being a relative term for post JT work done over the years).  Berto has made tremendous strides in modernizing the code for CSME.

Considering that nobody is going to force you to buy the game and/or games and that what is on your hard drive is still on your hard drive, I'm not seeing a reason to panic about the future. However, considering that the same sentiment was expressed in the transition from EF to EF2 and the world didn't end I think that view is exaggerated.  We are going to work on making the game more "realistic" in a simulation/historical aspect and if those that are uncomfortable decide you don't care to participate in the future of CS that is your choice.  You will still have your current games for quite some time. 

To be honest, if you don't make the journey it will be the community's loss because this is such a narrow slice of humanity that each one that walks away diminishes us overall.  Yet, things happen and interests change.  It's life.  I've gamed CS from Korea starting in 1996, to the US, Iraq, and Afghanistan.  Real life has pulled me away for extended periods of time.  It happens, but I have returned on many occasions.

IMHO, not getting the new CS will be like the EF guys that never made the transition to EF2 and slowly over time faded away.  However, if you decide to come with us on our future CS journey, I'd love to see you guys develop some scenarios and game with you.  We've expanded CS time frame to 1985.  That is a big chunk of time and technological change to explore on the electronic battlefield.  If you are getting frustrated with game play, you might want to review how you are going about things.  In many ways, this is the modern battlefield which means there are many things out there that will just ruin your day and if your reconnaissance was lax your opponent burned you.  Learn from what happened and adjust.  Its the same thing you did when you first started playing EF or WF or RS.  I was great against the AI, but was 0-7 my first PBEM games.  There is going to be an adjustment period as its not the same old World War Two game for the past 15 years.

Additionally, it has been my experience over the decades that we wargamers are our own worst enemy at times.  Everyone wants it their way and rarely see change as progress because it disturbs our routine.  God forbid it makes us learn a new way of doing things.  If we approached CS with that attitude, we would probably still be running it on Win XP (if we could run it at all) because there never would have been the fixes to make it work in Win 7/8/10 or any future updates of Windows. 

Its the same negative energy that almost led to the collapse of the Blitz on several occasions in the early days.  Then there is the constant and passionate debate over extreme assault and the role of half-tracks.  I love EA because I personally think its more realistic than the surround disrupt and overrun of the assault routine it replaced.  Nobody is "forced" to use it, but there are still folks that howl about it even being optional. 

Bridges that drop in minutes?  CS has always had a one turn ability to build a bridge on the map if the probabilities rolled in your favor.  With an AVLB, what took hours previously for heavier bridges occurs in mere minutes.  Technological revolution occurred and CSME reflects many of those new tools of warfare such as AVLBs, Dozer Tanks, Minelayers, helicopters, ATGMs, MANPADs, SAMs, and a whole arsenal of new weapons systems.  As to the time span of the game, six minutes is nowhere in ME.  For most newer scenarios in CS its been disregarded as a unit of time measurement for quite some time. 

Want a tough scenario to play in CSME, then Humbling the Tank is it.  It is an excellent scenario and has multiple ways to fight it, but if you think you as the Israeli player you are going to overcome the introduction of the Sagger, think again.  That is about as accurate a historical scenario reflecting technical revolution as there is in any CS game.  I was playing one of Jason's Tournament scenarios and literally wiped out a battalion column of T-72s in one turn during a test game because the Cobra Gunships with ATGMs rolled in from the flanks as the Israeli Merkava hit them from the front.  Man was that brutal and very realistic.  So, while not perfect, we are getting many aspects of modern combat right and will massage the game engine as issues arise.  We've already dealt with a lot of stuff over the last six months and if I'd have had my way we would have probably waited a bit more to release, but you know what I don't really have a problem with releasing when we did.  After all, we had to pull the trigger at some point.  This development has been going on a long time and we are still learning all the time.

For this game to survive into the future, changes and updates have to be made.  Is everyone going to love everything we do?  No.  Considering that a CS update is over two years away based on our current production chart not even we have looked at just what the updated "CS" will look like.  We are still working the kinks and bugs out of a game that has been released about a month.  In the real world, there was a time the M1 Abrams was considered a lemon because it used too much fuel, had an inadequate gun, and didn't work well in the sand.  Nobody thinks that now.  Its one of the premier tanks in the world and is continuously going through upgrades.

IMHO, if you aren't learning, you aren't really trying.  Sure you've always done it this way, but that does not necessarily mean that is the only method or process around that works.  We look at all comments and consider it as part of our development feedback process.  You will see us on most of the wargaming website message boards responding to questions, concerns, and issues.  We are very interested in what folks have to say.  Just like you, we are first and foremost wargamers that are passionate about our games and want to get it as right as we can.  However, if you can't accept an "optional" rule that is pretty ridiculous on the face of it.  Keep the big picture and the possibilities of the future open.  If you don't buy or like the game, we'll continue to do what we do because for us it ain't about the money.  We are passionate about CS and will honor it by keeping it alive.

Best Regards and love from the electronic trenches,

Jim von Krieg
Founder of the Blitzkrieg Wargaming Club (and still paying the bills with all your great support)
and
Member of Campaign Series Legion (CSME Development Team)