Why BFC is screwed

[kineas]

IMO BFC's greatest mistake was turning a wargame into a realtime shooter, or a simulator at best. The resultant product won't attract the casual gamers enough, and the old wargamers will depart.

But they keep saying they have sold enough copies already, who knows, maybe they are right. I for one finished with the CMx2-series and started to explore another products.

[Copper]

So what are you playing now Kineas??

[kineas]

CMBB, CMAK, and - ASL SK#1!!

[Copper]

LOL... ok.

[mugger2006]

Hi there,
Yeah with the QB generator they made a big mistake. As a CMBO/BB/AK player one is used to control every aspect of the QB with the main part being the force selection INCLUDUING your edge of control of the map.
I recently played a short battle with redbear which ended after the first turn. He managed to kill my red fighters all at once since he started in the same area. I don't know if I even got a kill on his side!!!
So BFC should really change the QB generator to the old versions:stir:. This would help a lot.

[redbear415 (FGM)]

yep alll the forces where on the same side of the map, also some of the vehicles in my side where inside houses i think a change on the QB generator must be done

[falco]

(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.

Very very good post post by Sgt Barker here. A lot of good points made including one or two I for one hadnt thought of. Cant disagree with anything you said really.....

- falco.