Matrix Games And Other Wargaming Horrors

[Der Zeitgeist]

Continuing from this thread (http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=43572&page=2), a place to discuss the troubled lifes of Wargaming publishers and developers and their fanatic fanboys.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Still better than Talonsoft. They had virtually no customer relations with the public at all.

[Der Zeitgeist]

Quoting Chris Werb (http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=43572&p=1398096):

 

 

I was actually responsible for several additions of weapon loadouts to the Harpoon 2 DB and one downgrading of a base prior to CMANO. I share your criticism.

A huge problem is that one person in particular with control of the database, had a huge problem with the way the world really works. He would insist that only warloads that had actually been seen on an in service aircraft, almost invariably in peacetime, could be used in the game. The classic example was the 6xAIM-154 + 2 x AIM-9 loadout for the F-14 which he claimed was only ever done for publicity purposes and could not be used in reality because of bringback weight contstraints. Well, I found loads of photos of that loadout taken over many years and he would still not accept it, despite the fact that the dropping of surplus ordnance in the ocean to permit landing would be an operational decision, not a fundamental technical constraint. In wartime you almost always get aircraft with different loadouts to those seen in peacetime and, if the hardware exists to mount the weapon I see no problem with having that loadout in game - if nothing else you could label it as speculative.

His second huge problem was his almost evangelical belief that high sortie rates were impossibly despite huge amounts of historical evidence in the public domain that proved modern jet fighters did not require the pilot to go on a six week Snow Leopard watching trek in Tibet, or in the case of bombers, meet someone special and raise a family to college age between sorties. I would describe this individual as a "contrarian". His attitude turned me off the H2 big time.

 

Oh god, these endless discussions and arguments with Sunburn and Ragnar. I get exhausted even thinking about it.

 

When CMANO first came out, I was planning to do a series of scenarios for a Baltic "invasion of the Danish isles" project. I did quite a lot of research on the Soviet baltic fleet OOB, mine warfare in the Danish straits and other obscure subjects. Imagine my frustration when the database of CMANO only had two placeholder ships that could actually lay naval mines. After these developers spent years hyping this feature all the way back when the project was still called "Red Pill".

 

Sifting through the database, I then quickly found that there were countless of omissions and inaccuracies concerning loadouts, sensors, and weapon mounts, especially for non-US or non-Soviet platforms. Which is especially strange considering that most of that stuff was perfectly fine and covered by the previous DB2000 database for Harpoon 3. I never understood why they didn't just take the DB2000 and plug it into CMANO, instead of basically starting from scratch for some countries.

 

On their forum, they quickly started threads where you could request certain changes and new platforms if you "needed" these changes to build a scenario, for example. But everytime you made a request it turned into an argument with the developers just like Chris described. You had to provide detailed proof for every change, or they wouldn't even consider it. "Oh yeah? You want a B61 hanging on that German Tornado? Get me some sources!" "Oh, on that F-111F, too? I've never seen a loadout like this, show me the proof it exists!" It was maddening. Especially since at every turn, some user fanboys would jump in actually trying to refute your claims. Then there was the problem that for some reason, they actually have two databases covering different timeframes, with overlapping platforms. CWDB (1946-1975 or so) and DB3000 (1976-present day, IIRC). Two databases, with different people working on them, apparently not talking to each other. So you had things that were in one database, but not in the other. Of course, you couldn't just say "It's in the CWDB, just put it in the other one and it's fine." No, it was always show me the sources and proof, motherfucker, or we won't lift a finger for your requests! They just love having their customers begging at their feet after shelling out 80$ for their pet project horrorshow.

 

Well, at some point, I pretty much gave up, because it just became too frustrating. I resigned to just starting up CMANO once a year, quickly finding some stupid AI behaviour, pointing it out on their forum, and then getting my thread shut down by the Matrix CEO for daring to criticise the great work those developers were doing.

 

Well, at least there was this one guy crazy enough to wire me 80 bucks as a "refund" to make me stop criticising their holy grail of wargaming. That was fun.

Edited November 17, 2018 by Der Zeitgeist

[Chris Werb]

Ragnar....

 

I had to provide proof that RAF Saxa Vord did not have a runway that could operate fighters to get it taken out of the game - indeed it did not have a runway of any description.

 

 

 

 

I can laugh about it now.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Oh man, even I knew that.

 

Id love to contribute to a game where the developers are actually open to input. Maybe im biased but it seems to me games developers are open in a near inverse rule to how much effort they put into a game.

[Der Zeitgeist]

Oh man, even I knew that.

 

Id love to contribute to a game where the developers are actually open to input. Maybe im biased but it seems to me games developers are open in a near inverse rule to how much effort they put into a game.

 

Unfortunately, really open game development rarely works. Because it tends to attract a certain subset of gamers who are investing waaaayyy to much passion into a project to be healthy. Just look at the way Star Citizen went off the rails.

 

I think the best way currently is to open your game up as much as possible to modding, if it is feasible, but otherwise keep tight control of the core feature set. Think ARMA3 or a lot of the games from Paradox.

Edited November 17, 2018 by Der Zeitgeist

[FlyingCanOpener]

I remember reading on RockPaperShotgun an interview with Battlefront who, when asked about putting even the original Combat Mission games on Steam, said that Steam players are not their core market and aren't too interested in expanding their market. I know that Steam takes 50% of sales, but not even releasing their original Combat Mission games in a final version on Steam or even GOG to get new players into playing their games is just elitist. I guess Fortysomethings who don't know how to pirate their easily-cracked games are their market, because if you ever sail the high seas, there's every version of their Combat Mission games available with a couple of people seeding torrents for them.

 

Matrix is almost as bad, as they are so in love with their products they charge release-date prices for games that are 7 years old--and I'm not even talking about something like War in the East that's honestly worth the $80 8 years later. At least Slitherine gets their stuff out in the open.

[Stargrunt6]

I will say Slitherine was patient in dealing with my complaining ass on their Flashpoint Red Storm forums. One of my complaints caused a change, which was mobile Sam's wouldn't displace after firing.

 

I have an icon corner for Grigsby for Steel Panthers, but I won't touch War in the East. It seems to have that plain white bread feel that turned me off of TOAW.

 

Combat Mission is honestly the perfect tactical level wargame. But you are confirming the notion that Battlefronts marketing is stuck in the 90s.

Edited November 18, 2018 by Stargrunt6

[Harold Jones]

I remember reading on RockPaperShotgun an interview with Battlefront who, when asked about putting even the original Combat Mission games on Steam, said that Steam players are not their core market and aren't too interested in expanding their market. I know that Steam takes 50% of sales, but not even releasing their original Combat Mission games in a final version on Steam or even GOG to get new players into playing their games is just elitist. I guess Fortysomethings who don't know how to pirate their easily-cracked games are their market, because if you ever sail the high seas, there's every version of their Combat Mission games available with a couple of people seeding torrents for them.

 

Matrix is almost as bad, as they are so in love with their products they charge release-date prices for games that are 7 years old--and I'm not even talking about something like War in the East that's honestly worth the $80 8 years later. At least Slitherine gets their stuff out in the open.

I don't know that it's elitist, I'm guessing that BF just doesn't want the hassle of dealing with steam and they may feel the small increase in sales wouldn't be worth dealing with the typical steam customer.

[RETAC21]

Ragnar....

 

I had to provide proof that RAF Saxa Vord did not have a runway that could operate fighters to get it taken out of the game - indeed it did not have a runway of any description.

 

 

 

 

I can laugh about it now.

 

But, but, but, it was in the original Harpoon, Larry Bond couldn't be wrong!

 

I was involved with TOAW-III from the scenario design side (yes, I was one of them selecting those scenarios...) and there's a lot of passion involved, more as the size and complexity grows, as being a hobby, those willing to invest time feel like you are insulting them if anything gets criticised (FFZ level discussions being the civilised ones). Devoting the time to creating the thing from the ground up without being paid evidently sparks even more emotion.

 

Matrix mostly rehashes old titles but let's not forget big game companies don't give a shit about wargaming and won't support their products anyway.

 

The perfect wargame is likely to be just a scenario editor where each gamer can do as he wants.

[Chris Werb]

 

 

 

The perfect wargame is likely to be just a scenario editor where each gamer can do as he wants.

 

 

Exactly. In SB I only play scenarios I make myself. It's a shame you can't modify the platforms in the game (although you can obviously change the ammunition loadouts and the type of infantry and loadouts they have with an APC or IFV).

 

As an aside, Shetland is bizarrely well appointed with airfields for its size - Scatsta, Tingwall and Sumburgh could all potentially host Typhoons. I haven't checked if any of them are in CMANO.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Im disappointed they dont model the secret underground bunker for the Astra and Aurora at RAF Macrihanish.

[Stargrunt6]

Matrix mostly rehashes old titles but let's not forget big game companies don't give a shit about wargaming and won't support their products anyway.

 

The perfect wargame is likely to be just a scenario editor where each gamer can do as he wants.

If it wasn't for the internet, pc war gaming would have faded away. Ditto air combat sims, although there's only one I can find. It's easier to advertise to niche markets these days.

 

I'm not over what they did to Close Combat, check my rant over in FCO's thread.

[FlyingCanOpener]

I don't know that it's elitist, I'm guessing that BF just doesn't want the hassle of dealing with steam and they may feel the small increase in sales wouldn't be worth dealing with the typical steam customer.

Maybe I'm being a bit harsh on them, but Steam and GOG has shown that older games do have a market in their final version, and for a studio like Battlefront, tossing something like Barbarossa to Berlin doesn't require a lot of resources to prepare (Especially for GOG where there's no DRM) and well-received games are generally well-received there as well. To me there's a lot of plusses and almost no negatives, and to just dismiss it and say they don't really want to expand their market beyond what they have now seems a little odd for a business. Then again, looking at Battlefront's forums and the responses of folks on this thread about how developers are big fans of their sycophants, at least there's some internal logic there.

[Ssnake]

To me there's a lot of plusses and almost no negatives, and to just dismiss it and say they don't really want to expand their market beyond what they have now seems a little odd for a business.

 

I cannot speak for Battlefront, but one factor often forgotten is how much support effort you have to invest when expanding your market. This can be a deterrent; not saying that it's a good reason for a pure game developer but if, say, you would like to maintain a certain standard expanding your capacity to service a much bigger audience may be difficult. Say you have a team of ten guys, one of which does all customer support, and they make a regular income that supports ten guys. You then have the opportunity to maybe inflate the number of players by a factor of three going to Steam/GOG, but then you'd need to make enough money to triple the number of people rendering customer support; also, you have to find three new guys that are competent, socially compatible to both your team and customers, and interested in becoming support team members of a wargame developer team.

The next question is whether that's still a lucrative proposal, or a net zero or even negative ROI decision, given that your profit margin per copy sold shrinks dramatically. It's difficult to make the call here without looking at the exact numbers, but bigger audience does not automatically lead to bigger profits.

[FlyingCanOpener]

Again, a good point; no shame in businesses knowing their limits, but the tone of some responses by developers of expanding their goods to a "non-traditional" market comes across as being not totally an economic decision. Things like your DRM and more importantly your contracts with governments means that you don't need the more general gaming market; not all developers are a privileged though.

 

I guess I'm a bit jaded about wargaming companies and Battlefront in particular from being on their forums in the early days of Combat Mission where the elitism was real. I'm probably the poster child for casual wargamers (Eager to play, thrown off by complexity and not a real grognard, so mistakes in minutiae aren't a gamestopper for me), and you're not really going to get my business unless you're on Steam or GOG because I'm never going to come across it.

[rmgill]

I spent some time trying to help the guys at Cornered Rat Software with WWII Online. I rather gave up when I couldn't convince them of some details about the Daimler Armoured Car. One of the issues was the location of the turret crewman who was positioned center line to the turret more or less where the main gun would be recoiling through. Other things were items like driver's armored vision slots and the like having 3 modes.

[Chris Werb]

I spent some time trying to help the guys at Cornered Rat Software with WWII Online. I rather gave up when I couldn't convince them of some details about the Daimler Armoured Car. One of the issues was the location of the turret crewman who was positioned center line to the turret more or less where the main gun would be recoiling through. Other things were items like driver's armored vision slots and the like having 3 modes.

 

If you told me the interior was painted pink, I would believe you

[rmgill]

Hah!

[Stargrunt6]

 

 

I spent some time trying to help the guys at Cornered Rat Software with WWII Online. I rather gave up when I couldn't convince them of some details about the Daimler Armoured Car. One of the issues was the location of the turret crewman who was positioned center line to the turret more or less where the main gun would be recoiling through. Other things were items like driver's armored vision slots and the like having 3 modes.

If you told me the interior was painted pink, I would believe you

It is quite the soothing color.

[Chris Werb]

Hah!

 

If Pink Pistols are to your liking, why not pink AFV interiors?

[Stuart Galbraith]

Was this the Origin of the Pink Panther, the sensitive armoured wing of the Panzerwaffe?

[rmgill]

Faded red lead...

[Skywalkre]

Quoting Chris Werb (http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=43572&p=1398096):

 

 

I was actually responsible for several additions of weapon loadouts to the Harpoon 2 DB and one downgrading of a base prior to CMANO. I share your criticism.

A huge problem is that one person in particular with control of the database, had a huge problem with the way the world really works. He would insist that only warloads that had actually been seen on an in service aircraft, almost invariably in peacetime, could be used in the game. The classic example was the 6xAIM-154 + 2 x AIM-9 loadout for the F-14 which he claimed was only ever done for publicity purposes and could not be used in reality because of bringback weight contstraints. Well, I found loads of photos of that loadout taken over many years and he would still not accept it, despite the fact that the dropping of surplus ordnance in the ocean to permit landing would be an operational decision, not a fundamental technical constraint. In wartime you almost always get aircraft with different loadouts to those seen in peacetime and, if the hardware exists to mount the weapon I see no problem with having that loadout in game - if nothing else you could label it as speculative.

His second huge problem was his almost evangelical belief that high sortie rates were impossibly despite huge amounts of historical evidence in the public domain that proved modern jet fighters did not require the pilot to go on a six week Snow Leopard watching trek in Tibet, or in the case of bombers, meet someone special and raise a family to college age between sorties. I would describe this individual as a "contrarian". His attitude turned me off the H2 big time.

 

Oh god, these endless discussions and arguments with Sunburn and Ragnar. I get exhausted even thinking about it.

 

When CMANO first came out, I was planning to do a series of scenarios for a Baltic "invasion of the Danish isles" project. I did quite a lot of research on the Soviet baltic fleet OOB, mine warfare in the Danish straits and other obscure subjects. Imagine my frustration when the database of CMANO only had two placeholder ships that could actually lay naval mines. After these developers spent years hyping this feature all the way back when the project was still called "Red Pill".

 

Sifting through the database, I then quickly found that there were countless of omissions and inaccuracies concerning loadouts, sensors, and weapon mounts, especially for non-US or non-Soviet platforms. Which is especially strange considering that most of that stuff was perfectly fine and covered by the previous DB2000 database for Harpoon 3. I never understood why they didn't just take the DB2000 and plug it into CMANO, instead of basically starting from scratch for some countries.

 

On their forum, they quickly started threads where you could request certain changes and new platforms if you "needed" these changes to build a scenario, for example. But everytime you made a request it turned into an argument with the developers just like Chris described. You had to provide detailed proof for every change, or they wouldn't even consider it. "Oh yeah? You want a B61 hanging on that German Tornado? Get me some sources!" "Oh, on that F-111F, too? I've never seen a loadout like this, show me the proof it exists!" It was maddening. Especially since at every turn, some user fanboys would jump in actually trying to refute your claims. Then there was the problem that for some reason, they actually have two databases covering different timeframes, with overlapping platforms. CWDB (1946-1975 or so) and DB3000 (1976-present day, IIRC). Two databases, with different people working on them, apparently not talking to each other. So you had things that were in one database, but not in the other. Of course, you couldn't just say "It's in the CWDB, just put it in the other one and it's fine." No, it was always show me the sources and proof, motherfucker, or we won't lift a finger for your requests! They just love having their customers begging at their feet after shelling out 80$ for their pet project horrorshow.

 

Well, at some point, I pretty much gave up, because it just became too frustrating. I resigned to just starting up CMANO once a year, quickly finding some stupid AI behaviour, pointing it out on their forum, and then getting my thread shut down by the Matrix CEO for daring to criticise the great work those developers were doing.

 

Well, at least there was this one guy crazy enough to wire me 80 bucks as a "refund" to make me stop criticising their holy grail of wargaming. That was fun.

So... with comments like this is CMANO worth it? It's on sale again on Steam but after reading this I'm half tempted to wait til Cold Waters goes on sale in a month.

[Stuart Galbraith]

I really went off Cold Waters when it was clear the devs wanted a game, not a simulation. You can present information to them from the CIA's own files and they will reject it because they know better. And thats fine, I dont have to buy their future DLC either.

 

CMANO is very good actually. Ill not its flawless but its capable of creating massive naval actions. In my case probably much larger than I can ever hope to get working properly. There is nothing better out there, whatever the criticism made of it.

Edited November 27, 2018 by Stuart Galbraith