Okay, I just looked it up, so screw you, grognards. HEAT rounds are indeed designed to be used against armored vehicles, just as I thought. If there’s supposed to be some sort of caveat about using them in modern combat, the game sure as heck didn’t do anything to inform me about it. And as near as I can tell, they do a fine job against armor and IFVs.
-Tom
Well, here’s the dev’s response:
I’ve been reading Tom Chick’s stuff for years, so I know full well who he is as I respond to his Blog…
First, I must say I am disappointed. That was the sort of juvenile, uniformed, whiney kind of review I would expect from a 16 year old, not something from a seasoned reviewer. I don’t know if Tom’s dog was run over that morning by the milk truck or what, but I think even that would be a poor excuse for that blog entry. He’s entitled to his opinion, of course, but so are we. So where to start?
It is obvious that Tom doesn’t know much, if anything, about contemporary warfare. His comment about helicopters proves that. They are highly vulnerable and prized targets for the enemy. This is why helo ops in Iraq are done only under very careful circumstances. The days of swooping in and dropping guys off went away with Somalia (and to be fair, even then they knew it was risky).
When helicopters are used it is for fire support and generally only in open terrain. The US military learned its lessons early in OIF and then in Fallujah. Combat Mission does include 2 types of helos for support with various different loadouts. I can say for sure that an Apache is a very welcome thing to have on your side. So whatever Tom Chick pictures helos doing in combat doesn’t have much to do with real combat, which is why his views are at odds with Combat Mission (and reality).
Tom also doesn’t apparently know much about what the Syrians are equipped with. He therefore dismisses our presentation of Syrian capabilities without real knowledge of the topic. We’ve used public and private intelligence estimates, news paper articles, reports on “shopping trips” to Russia, etc. for our information. Funny enough, he talks about us treating the Syrians as being “equal” to the US forces in terms of equipment. Yet we have resisted all calls to put in true state of the art Russian armor because, well, because they don’t have it! So no T-80s, for example. I guess I can’t fault Tom for not doing his homework, but he should at least give us the benefit of the doubt that we have done ours.
I suppose the biggest gripe I have is his description of our “half-assed” asymmetrical warfare model. From our standpoint it is a clever design to get around the impossibility of simulating a true civilian environment. And I mean that… impossibility. Unlike Tom, I have met the people working on multi-million Dollar simulations for the military and although they’ve been working on these things for years with teams of rather huge sizes. I know what they’ve achieved and I’m sure Tom would take issue with their stuff too. Perhaps Tom is working on another Blog entry chastising scientists working on solving the problems of Global Warming for not having developed a clean, renewable energy source that can be burned in a car and cost less than petroleum?
Moving along to his comments about the state the game was released in. Well, 'tis true that v1.0 isn’t what we wanted it to be. That’s why we have v1.01 already done (final testing being wrapped up as I sit here). In theory nobody should ever have to play version 1.0 because the second they get it there will be a patch waiting for them. Apparently Tom, unlike other reviewers like James Allen, didn’t think to ask us if there was a patch or to stay in touch with our publisher press contact who informed all press people where to get an early version of v1.01. As for Tom’s hardware problems… who knows what they are. You’d be surprised at how many so-called professional reviewers didn’t think to update their drivers and watch most, if not all, of their problems go away. I can’t count how many times that’s happened. Also, there is a SERIOUS problem with Microsoft’s power management software and certain multi-processor computers. MS has a quite fix for it (quiet because it degrades laptop battery life) and there is nothing we can do to fix it. From the sounds of it he has the Microsoft problem, which we can hardly be held responsible for.
The biggest laugh is about his issues with RealTime and the camera behavior. Well, gee… I wonder what game I’ve been playing! It sure looks like CM:SF, but I’ve been playing it exclusively in RealTime and have no problems with the camera. And I do quite well, if I do say so myself. Hmmm… guess we can chalk this up to him not wanting to give it a fair shake or it not being his cup of tea. Fine, but he shouldn’t assume just because he can’t handle it doesn’t mean there is something wrong with the game itself. More people hated CMx1’s WeGo system than liked it, yet I don’t think the CMx1 fans would think they were playing a substandard game.
If Tom read his manual he would also know that right-click-hold does the same thing as the ALT key behavior he apparently feels we so horribly missed including. Or he could have tried right-clicking. Usually that does something in a game, so you would think he’d have been curious to see what that button did.
Now, he is correct that there is no tutorial. That’s something that we simply don’t have the time, resources, or energy to do for a game of this size. Guilty on that charge. However, generally someone who buys a game will actually try to learn it, tutorial or not. We do, however, want to do more with feedback. Expect that in future patches.
The AI comments are truly, well… special. He’s comparing a rock-paper-scisors RTS game, that is now in its 15th year of production with tens of millions in development dollars, to Combat Mission. What am I supposed to do with that? Jump out a window because an incredibly simplistic “gamey” RTS game, funded with gobs of money and tons of time, can do AI better than we can? Tell me something I didn’t already know and should have some shame about, then I’ll think about the window. As it is I’ll instead suggest that Tom take a nice hot cup of tea and sit down for a while.
This comment, however, is a classic:
quote:I'm tired of hearing guff about how hard it is (note the manual's justification for their goofy stealth rules for unconventionals). Isn't that your job?
As stated above, I’m sure Tom is tired of hearing the global scientific community saying it is “hard” to find a replacement for oil and meet the cheap-skate “I want it, but I don’t want to pay for it” mentality of the lowbrowed consumer. What he wants out of CM is not possible to get out of a commercial wargame developer. No matter how much Tom whines and complains about that, and waives his tiny fist full of money at us, reality isn’t going to change. Give us a budget of $20,000,000 and 5 years, then we might have something he will find less than pathetic. Mind you, he’ll still only want to pay $50 and will probably complain that it didn’t come with a cup holder.
His next to last parting shot is ironic. He lambasts us for NOT putting out a decent single-player wargame (in his opinion) and then sorta excuses us for it because everybody else is doing it. Somehow he forgets to mention that nobody is trying to simulate contemporary warfare except for cartoon like RTS and FPS games. Yup, we’re getting zero credit for doing what nobody else has the balls to do, and instead getting slammed.
There we go. My opinion of his opinion. I’m sure he won’t take offense to what I’ve written any more than I have about what he’s written.
Steve
Whew! I’m kind of glad they dropped the ball on this one, as Civ4 is already going to be eating too much of my time.
Personally, I didn’t care much for the modern setting anyway. I really just wanted to see CM retooled, e.g. without the obvious square patches of terrain, the wonky road convoy mechanics, etc. Fantasy US vs. Syria just isn’t as cool as USSR Vs. 3rd Reich, even without getting into the lame modern day sabre rattling.
Given how badly Theatre of War turned out (not developed by Battlefront, but they consulted heavily on it), I’m a bit leery.
I find it hard to believe that the CM team could screw it up this badly. They’ve made three of the finest wargames ever created previously. I’m hoping that it’s just that Tom isn’t into the genre.
Tom doesn’t need any help from me, but for what it’s worth, I found the same camera, AI, interface, and (especially) pathfinding problems he did. He and I also played CM:BB for Tom vs. Bruce a few years ago and my impression was that he loved it - we both had a great time with the game. So I would be surprised if he were “not into the genre.”
Well, that’s not very promising. I generally agree with Tom’s assesments as well… I guess this one is just busted.
Also, you should post on the Battlefront forums. According to one of the posters, you’re the guy who would be qualified to review the game and “get it”… giving it a glowing review.
Looks like we need some third(-hand) opinions around here.
Tone aside, that dev response sounds a little like Derek Smart.
Well, come Friday I guess I’ll get to see whether 1.01 is the charm. I pre-ordered the download+physical package (I know, I’m a sucker) and I fully intend to spend some time this weekend with it.
I wasn’t too thrilled when they announced the setting either, as either NATO/WP quasi-historical or WWII would have been my preferred milieu for the next-gen CM engine. Battlefront has always said no one there really likes Cold War stuff (ok, Steve doesn’t like it), and I think they wanted to get the kinks out before they dove into the real hard-core stuff on the Eastern Front or whatnot.
I just hope the patch(es) get it to a state where it’s at least interesting to tool around with and not offensive to the eyes. I mean, stock CMBO had issues too, but that was, what, how many years ago? It’s like some of the stuff that comes out of Matrix’s stable of publishers. Interesting ideas that seem to have been developed in a time warp.
And this time, Battlefront doesn’t have the excuse of maintaining Mac compatibilty to fall back on, either, heh.
Yeah, I think the grog backlash comes because in modern anti-armor settings, APFSDS (heavy metal lawndarts really) tend to be the main tank killers, and the HEAT (shaped charge stuff) tends to be used for lighter targets like APCs. Depending on the target’s armor–number of layers, composition, spacing, etc.–some types of HEAT rounds, particularly large double-warhead missile rounds or top-attack rounds–can be effective, and older tanks like T-55s are pretty much dead meat for HEAT rounds.
Truth is though that against T-72s I imagine pretty much anything the 120 on an Abrams spits out will do the job…
In theory nobody should ever have to play version 1.0 because the second they get it there will be a patch waiting for them. Apparently Tom, unlike other reviewers like James Allen, didn’t think to ask us if there was a patch or to stay in touch with our publisher press contact who informed all press people where to get an early version of v1.01.
I can confirm that I was never notified by publisher PR about 1.01. If I was, I never got the email. No sign of it in my spam filter.
And it’s not my job to ask if there is a patch or if this is the real release candidate. Was Tom supposed to say “You guys are kidding, right? This sucks too much to be real.” If they screwed up and sent out the wrong version, that’s not press responsibility.
James Allen is an unfair comparison since he’s a scenario designer for the game and so is already plugged into the development channels.
Troy
I played the CM games quite a bit and tried to get a friend into them but he just didn’t “get” it. I will try it after patch blah, blah, blah but I’m sure it’s not that much different…although I never liked the 60 second phases and am more excited about the RTS part of it…slowed down if possible.
The whole “he played version 1.0 but most is fixed in 1.1” is ridiculous. You don’t program a game for years and then in a few weeks fix all the pathing and AI issues.
A little further down the thread, Steve weighs in again…
Indeed, there are echoes of Mr. Smart here. Too bad, because it doesn’t help the PR effort much to circle the wagons. Still, I guess nobody likes being told that their baby is ugly.
Oh no, not CM!! Put an arrow through my heart, will ya?
I find it curious that many of the issues Tom has with this one were already present in Theatre of War even when the developer was different. Oh well, we’ll see with the demo…
All I can say is: yikes!
Jon
Steve hasn’t really understood anything about talking to his customers to my mind. He did this weird thing a few years back when he basically said that we were horrible people for “making him do” CM:BB since we didn’t pay enough for it to cover up the time spent and also that we wanted something similar (WW2) as their next project.
There are some beautiful people working for BFC and testing for them. The boards were a glorious place back inna day, esp before 9/11. I mean The Peng Thread is still around and we started that one eight years ago. I still think CM:BB (and the CM:BO demo blew me away at the time) is one of the best games ever made.
CM:SF IIRC was originally being made as an instruction sim for the US military but I guess that fell through. That Tom had hardware problems with his early build, I think they still code on Macs. Which worked beautiful for them before. A bit weird if Tom didn’t get a manual? BFC used to do mother-beautiful manuals. And missing right-click also sounds a bit odd.
Personally not the least bit interested in this kind of warfare, esp since the real problems involved in invading a country today is not simulated. The interesting thing, from my point of view, is where they take the engine next. Hopefully, we’ll see that Giant Space Lobsters sim we’ve all been waiting for. Or a new East Front sim.
I’ve had this debate on the site, and the answer is “because they are retards”. The long version is “oMgz0r why are we paiying for the foumz omg!? Ads will help !”.
I, like others, made a bookmark from the opening the forum frame an discarding the ad one. It’s just silly.
Well this made my next purchase really simple, Civ4:BTS here I come!
Sorry I couldn’t help pouring a little gasoline on the fire. I hate snobbery in all its forms (thats why I don’t got to Qt3’s R&P forum).
OK, I have to weigh in here after seeing the developer attacks on Tom:
Creds: Wargaming on the computer since the first SSI bookshelf games back in what, 1980? Wargaming with cardboard for years before that. Military history fanatic with 3 huge bookshelves in the basement, organized by era and type of warfare and type (i.e., naval combat in the late 1800s, modern armored warfare, etc.) Read 'em all, more than once. Raised in a military family.
Also played just about every freakin’ wargame available for 25 years or so, including the Combat Mission games, of which I’m a huge fan. I do know the details of HEAT, SABOTS, and did work in the real world on some composites for modern armored opfor energy dissipation.
I just list that crap so to say that I’m no noob and I totally agree with Tom’s review, and would have written one very close to that had I been reviewing the game. Maybe harsher, because the expectations of a wargame carrying the CM label are so high. The reviewer should have asked if there was a patch and no one should play 1.0? Then why in the hell release a version that no one should play??? You release it, it’s fair game for review. You don’t want it reviewed, don’t release it.
The A.I. is weak. The interface is clumsy. The attempt to model assymetric warfare just doesn’t work well, and just because someone says that million dollar professional simulations also have difficulty just means to me that someone is really getting ripped off at that level. I mean, if I’m reviewing a dish at a restaurant and the meat is cooked poorly and tastes bad and the chef says, well, that kind of meat is really hard to cook well, does that mean I should be OK with it?
I’m tired and rambling a bit (just got back in from a long trip) but Tom’s review was on the nose as far as I’m concerned. Had the game come from someone else, with a different name, I would have just written it off and not been so dissapointed, but this was like getting a new Sid Meier game that had a sucky interface and no fun factor whatsoever.