Keep PBEM!!!!!!!!!!

[TufenHuden]

Please keep it :D ......

[The_Enigma]

huh ... what! they want to get rid of PBEM??!?!?! :eek: nooooo, i love pbem it rocks!

[Elmar Bijlsma]

They dont WANT to. They might HAVE to. With all the extra goodness they are putting in, filesizes may become excessive for sending through mail.

[bitterboy101]

I think if they do that they'll lose a lot of customers...

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:
They dont WANT to. They might HAVE to. With all the extra goodness they are putting in, filesizes may become excessive for sending through mail. File size shouldn't be that much of a bother. My GMail account will send and receive attachments of 10MB, which is 100 times the size of a typical QB PBEM file.

[Andreas]

And about 5x the size of a number of PBEM files of those scenario PBEMs I currently have going on, and less than 2x the size of some PBEMs I had in the past, so it can very easily become a problem.

I think we have gone round that particular block, and by now I would expect that whatever BFC have decided to do they have coded.

They have also said that they want to keep some form of asynchronous file exchange mode in, IIRC. Maybe looking at HistWar can give us a clue as to how that is done.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Originally posted by Soddball:
File size shouldn't be that much of a bother. My GMail account will send and receive attachments of 10MB, which is 100 times the size of a typical QB PBEM file. I dont know what QBs you are playing but my turn movies easily get to 1mb. 2mb and higher isnt too rare either. With all the new bells and whistles 10mb might very well be reached. And not everyone uses G-Mail so their mailboxes might fill rather quick!

Steve himself said they are really trying to get it in. They arent stupid so ofcourse they are trying that. Nor should we be under the impression we were given the heads up on this issue just to mess with our minds, if it was easy to implent PBEM they wouldve done so and kept quiet about the whole thing.

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by Andreas:
They have also said that they want to keep some form of asynchronous file exchange mode in, IIRC. Maybe looking at HistWar can give us a clue as to how that is done. What methods of asynchronous file exchange are there other than PBEM?

Thanks.

[Sgt Steiner]

I appreciate the problem here with file sizes but this would be a major blow to lose Pbem !!!

I do hope they find some workaround...........

[crocky]

Yes agree PBEM is probably 98% of the games I have played since CM came out .... would be a killer for me if it wasnt there

[Other Means]

Originally posted by Ace Pilot:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andreas:
They have also said that they want to keep some form of asynchronous file exchange mode in, IIRC. Maybe looking at HistWar can give us a clue as to how that is done. What methods of asynchronous file exchange are there other than PBEM?

Thanks. </font>[/QUOTE]It could ftp it to a CM server, or any web server, which could email the opponent to d/l it. All this could happen from a background service so you don't know have to do anything. Easy.

[Zweihorn]

Please keep PBEM. Not everyone has the time to play an online game in one piece.

[ August 26, 2005, 11:20 PM: Message edited by: Zweihorn ]

[GreenAsJade]

Other methods: async game server is one.

Your game connects to the server when you want to play and finds out the state at that time. When you
ve played your move it uploads the state to the server again. Of course, the same amount of data might have to be transferred, but it wouldn't have to be wrapped up in an email and subject to ISP email size constraints.

If the server actually did the calculations and saved the game state, then maybe less would need to be downloaded to your machine: just the movie info.

Of course this latter suggestion is a somewhat radical change in mechanics: perhaps unlikely at this point.

GaJ

[GJK]

Originally posted by GreenAsJade:
Other methods: async game server is one.

Your game connects to the server when you want to play and finds out the state at that time. Then you're asking BFC to run servers to hold/support all this data or to outsource that at a cost to a 3rd party. And when the server crashes and turns are lost, who is everyone going to start yelling at? Yes, you GaJ. tongue.gif

I wonder if some sort of a bit torrent thingie might be possible. Everyone playing and currently online helps push small packets of data (pieces of people's turns) behind the scenes. Lots of variables here too though, obviously.

[GreenAsJade]

Like I said - a bit too radical of a suggestion - mostly intended to illustrate that there are other options for asynch than PBEM.

Note that server based play would be a new business model too: pay for play instead of pay for a CD becomes possible...

GaJ

[hellfish]

I would sacrifice PBEM in a heartbeat if it meant we could have true multi-multi player. I've got a gang of 5 other guys I play with on a fairly regular basis and besides TacOps there are absolutely no wargames that we can play all together. Plenty of FPS and sim games, but we all like CM and want to play together.

[TufenHuden]

Winzip.....

[mrbadexample]

Winzip never did much to shrink the size of .TXT files for me - maybe I have a different version.

[acrashb]

Hear, hear.

Size? It doesn't matter - http://www.yousendit.com/ - up to a gig. 56k players will be in trouble, but they already are.

[Caesar]

The files are already compressed. Winzip will not make the tranmission shorter, in fact it will make it slightly longer

[Battlefront.com]

Just to restate what has been said in some long and heated threads before...

We want PBEM in. Very much so. We fully understand the importance of it. However, we might (and I stress MIGHT) run into technical issues that nix the feature. We don't think this will happen, but we don't want to promise something that we aren't very sure we can deliver. The whole problem with the previous debates is that people, emotionally, wanted us to promise that no matter what it will be in. And that is something we can not do.

Sometimes a moment of clarity hits me and I can understand why telling lies is so routine in game PR as well as the rest of the world. And when I realize this I am tempted to give into the Dark Side. But I get over it and instead wind up wasting a few days yelling back at people who are yelling at me. Someday I'll get tired of it and lie instead. That day ain't here yet :D

Steve

[Tagwyn]

Good for you Steve!! Keep it up. Tag

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Sometimes a moment of clarity hits me and I can understand why telling lies is so routine in game PR as well as the rest of the world. And when I realize this I am tempted to give into the Dark Side. But I get over it and instead wind up wasting a few days yelling back at people who are yelling at me. Someday I'll get tired of it and lie instead. That day ain't here yet :D

Steve Classic!

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Originally posted by Tagwyn:
Good for you Steve!! Keep it up. Tag What....lying?

;)

Regards

Jim R.

[Salkin]

Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Sometimes a moment of clarity hits me and I can understand why telling lies is so routine in game PR as well as the rest of the world. And when I realize this I am tempted to give into the Dark Side. But I get over it and instead wind up wasting a few days yelling back at people who are yelling at me. Someday I'll get tired of it and lie instead. That day ain't here yet :D

Steve Classic! </font>[/QUOTE]Steve is KING !

//Salkin

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:
They dont WANT to. They might HAVE to. With all the extra goodness they are putting in, filesizes may become excessive for sending through mail. Everyone here seems to believe that PBEM files MUST be bigger in CM2 then in CM1. Why?

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Originally posted by Scipio:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:
They dont WANT to. They might HAVE to. With all the extra goodness they are putting in, filesizes may become excessive for sending through mail. Everyone here seems to believe that PBEM files MUST be bigger in CM2 then in CM1. Why? </font>[/QUOTE]Because. (http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=003519;p=6)

[General Bolt]

[reverse psychology] Everything will be fine if they dump PBEM. [/reverse psychology]

[Scipio]

I see.

Well, you can digitalise a movie by scanning each single image and save it to disk in an uncompressed file format, meaning you will have some Exabyte of data.
You save the same movie in MPEG-2 on a DVD.
Of course you have some loss of detail - but watching DVDs is still great, isn't it?

Fact is, the movie files are the real big files. Of course, there will be much more details in the new engine, but how much info about each single unit must be avaiable during the 'action phase' as it is now? That's what we finally talking about, right?
I mean, how often do someone really have a look on each of his units to see if and how the moral does change during the battle, just as example? Of course, there will someone pop up and cry, but seriously, this wouldn't keep somebody away from playing the game.

But I guess it would keep a lot of people away if the PBEM feature should be cut out. I'm not sure if I would play to the same extend as I do now if I can only play by Internet (I never play the AI).

The problem here is just, I don't have very often the time to play a full battle over some hours. I have two jobs. I'm already happy when I can keep my 5 or 6 PBEM games going each day. But if I miss to answer a turn for one or two days, it's not a problem. If I can not play PBEM anymore, I can not keep on playing at all. Well, maybe that's just my personal problem. But I have heard about people with families, or friends, or other real life stuff...

[ August 28, 2005, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[KG_Jag]

Put simply PBEM is a critical feature in accomplishing human vs. human play. I am in the great state of Texas and am playing a fellow in New Zealand and another fellow in the UK. With such great time differences and the demands of real life, we simply would not be able to play one another without PBEM. I would rather lose some additional features over dropping PBEM.

At KG we have very large CMBB multiplayer games--both in terms of map size and number of forces. As I recall the files can grow to as large as 3 MB. We have not yet had problems sending them back and forth in an unzipped format. Of course hi-speed internet is a big plus, but is not required to play these large games.

[huhrlass]

keep the pbem i like it

[Pete7777]

Hi Guys

I'm not normally one to log into forums, just don't have the time with work & the family.

However.. I just saw this thread & could not sit by with-out joining up to comment.

Have been playing war games for 30 plus years.. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, the CM series is the best tactical war game I have ever played... bar none!!. Simply put, the success of this game rests on quite a few different things. The thing that really gives this game the edge over all others is the way the turn system works & its compatibility with playing play by e-mail.

I honestly think that if the play by e-mail feature it removed from the game, it would translate into a large loss of games sales. CM has a huge grass roots following of players like myself who only use pbem. I can't think of any other game that has resided on my hard drive for so long.

Everything else I'm hearing about CMX2 sounds great.

For CMX3... I would really like to see a strategical & combined tactical game, that would be really cool. Well, lets get CMX2 done first smile.gif

CMX1 was (& still is) a bloody brilliant game, please don't drop the "pbem" ball on CMX2!

Pete

[Cirrus]

Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:
Because. (http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=003519;p=6) About the profiling of CM gamers in that other thread linked above. Has there been some kind of gallup where those playtypes has been profiled (solo/internet/pbem)? I can say that since I've purchased these games I have played zero solo plays. I would have betted that solo playing in CM is not very popular...

And the fact that Battlefront is considering internet play more important that pbem play is fact that I can't understand. I have played few sessions that way, but they usually take 2-4 hours atleast. I tend to think my moves long time since I am not that good gamer... And it's rare occasion where I have to to sit down for that long session of CM.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Originally posted by Cirrus:

And the fact that Battlefront is considering internet play more important that pbem play is fact that I can't understand. I have played few sessions that way, but they usually take 2-4 hours atleast. I tend to think my moves long time since I am not that good gamer... And it's rare occasion where I have to to sit down for that long session of CM. Where have you picked up that BFC considered PBEM less important then internet play? It is, and has always been, a question of what is realistically feasible to implement. These guys have been giving us the wargamers dream for the last five years and suddenly they've had their brains eaten by zombies and are out of touch with their fans? God knows there have been plenty of fans in an uproar (over nothing)so they are aware of what the community wants. They have clearely stated that they are hoping to include PBEM, they just aren't in the postion to promise anything about that yet given the limits of PBEM file sizes.
Now, if any other company would say that they can't make promises that means that there is no way in Hades it's going to happen. If BFC says they can't make promises, they aren't fully 100% certain of it yet. Yes, a company being truthful towards their customers is unexpected and confusing. ;)

So calm down, read what BFC has actually said on the issue, then calm down some more.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Originally posted by Cirrus:
About the profiling of CM gamers in that other thread linked above. Has there been some kind of gallup where those playtypes has been profiled (solo/internet/pbem)? I can say that since I've purchased these games I have played zero solo plays. I would have betted that solo playing in CM is not very popular...BFC and other game manufacturers are well aware that the VAST majority of all games that have a single player and multiplayer option will be sold to people that will never even consider playing against another human being. For every one of us on these forums, who primarily play pbem, ip, etc, there are many CM players who do not.

[Canuck]

Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Soddball:
File size shouldn't be that much of a bother. My GMail account will send and receive attachments of 10MB, which is 100 times the size of a typical QB PBEM file. I dont know what QBs you are playing but my turn movies easily get to 1mb. 2mb and higher isnt too rare either. With all the new bells and whistles 10mb might very well be reached. And not everyone uses G-Mail so their mailboxes might fill rather quick!

Steve himself said they are really trying to get it in. They arent stupid so ofcourse they are trying that. Nor should we be under the impression we were given the heads up on this issue just to mess with our minds, if it was easy to implent PBEM they wouldve done so and kept quiet about the whole thing. </font>[/QUOTE]There's really no excuse for not having a Gmail account. I'm sure there are tons of us on here with 50 invites each so all you have to do is ask and thou shall receive. And is it really possible that PBEM might not be included? I thought this thread was a joke at first-the very idea of it not being included seemed ridiculous. But Steve's comments lead me to believe otherwise.

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:
Where have you picked up that BFC considered PBEM less important then internet play? ... [snip] Maybe you should read the threat that you've kindly linked as 'Because' above:

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
PBEM is certainly something that is used quite frequently, but compared to solo play it doesn't likely come close to matching it. Inernet play is probably 3rd (after Solo and PBEM) with Hotseat coming in a distant 4th.

But the times they are a changing, and so is CMx2 with it. We expect the order to be solo, Interent, PBEM (if we can do it), and hotseat for CMx2. When we introduce CoPlay (co-op multiplaye) lateron we still expect solo to be 1st, though CoPlay will likely be a much closer 2nd than any CMx1 options are to solo play.

Steve Well, I don't know how BFC figures out if CM is played more solo then PBEM. I nearly never play vs the AI. To win or lose vs a machine is just pointless for me. But well, I guess they know what they are talking about.

But I don't think that online live matches will ever take the lead over PBEM, except the whole system will be changed into a RT game with battles no longer then 30 minutes, speaking of real time, not in-game-time. Combat Mission: Total War :rolleyes:

[imported_KG_ThorsHammer]

Although programming issues are understandable, i think a lot of business would be lost if it was a direct connection play only. Too many people are too busy to commit the time needed to sit down for several hours of direct play. I myself never play the computer and although I have a decent amount of time and could play direct, most of my games are always PBEM due to time zone differences and opponents schedules. As it all comes down to the bottom line in business, I think it would be a mistake to remove this important feature.

[MartinEden]

I'm really KG_Soldier, but for some reason I'm no longer able to log on as such (probably due to lack of posting). Here at the KG clan, we make extensive use of Teamspeak, making tcip/ip games pretty easy to play. We also have several team games going on all the time through PBEM. Single player PBEM games abound too. I love the quick decision making required in tcip/ip games, but they do require at least 3 or 4 hours to play (which is hard to find for most). I purchased CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK. I plot on a pbem game or play tcip/ip almost daily (lately a lot of CMAK and rarely against the AI). As much as it hurts me to say this, I feel it necessary. I WILL NOT PURCHASE CMx2 UNLESS IT HAS AN E-MAIL FUNCTION!

Sorry,
KG_Soldier

[Doodlebug]

PBEM constitutes 100% of my game play in CMBB and CMAK. I never went back to CMBO after the others in the series were released. For me it would be terminal to lose PBEM. An alternative form of asynchronous play would be acceptable but it would need to be there for me to use. The we-go system that these games have pioneered is the "hook" that got me addicted to these awesome games. I adore the replays I get back from my opponents. It is fantastic to be able to watch and replay the actions and incidents over and over again.
Watch, replay, enjoy, think, plot. That's what PBEM format gives me. Oh, that and the privilege of having made the aquaintance of many fine and knowledgeable gamers spanning the globe, in completely different time zones, that I could never, ever, have played against without the PBEM/asynchronous play option.

[Palantir]

I doubt that I would purchase CMx2 without a PBEM ability. I don't have the time to sit and play on the internet for 3-4 straight hours.

Plus, I agree with everything Doodlebug said above.

Maybe when CMx3 comes out I'll buy that, if it has PBEM. Then again if a competitor comes out with a good PBEM system...

[Chipaev]

Please keep PBEM. As KG_Jag mentioned earlier there are things we do with PBEM that cannot be accomplished with a TCP/IP game especially with time restrictions. I think you guys will lose a lot of hardcore players if you do not include it in the next version. As for file sizes, I have never had any problems sending files upwards to 3 megs.

[Scipio]

I wonder were are all the solo players asking for improvments on the AI, if they are so many. I do see a lot of people poping up to post for the first time as well as the players from the first hour, sharping knifes and collecting tar and feathers, just because Steve has said 'maybe we have to cut out the PBEM feature', while no one seems to be interested into an AI that's able to lead an attack. Not here, and not in other forums.

The unique we-go system avoids cheating. Who needs a system that avoids cheating, if he's playing vs a machine?

[Ardem]

The unique we-go system avoids cheating. Who needs a system that avoids cheating, if he's playing vs a machine? [/QB]Hmm the benefits of WEGO system is not about cheating, its about having orders that are distributed and unchangeable, also not the click fest of an RTS.

I have never thought of the WEGO system as an anti-cheat system.

[NiG]

Wow... long time since I've been here :eek:

...but this topic has brought me back. I find it incredulous that the designers are optioning to drop PBEM. Every single game I've played in the last two years has been PBEM and I would not have been able to play any of them if the feature didn't exist.

I can see that if CMx2 doesn't have this feature then it will be pointless buying it.

After playing an 'live' opponent the AI games are just plain boring as the AI is too predictable and I simply don't have time to TCP/IP with my opponents in the States (5-8 hours behind) or 'Down under' (8-11 hours ahead) as I'm in the UK.

In a nutshell CMx2 without PBEM = forget it, you're wasting your time.

I prefer to have no pre-built scenarios, no solo game feature and no TCP/IP than lose PBEM- it's the most important bit :(

[GreenAsJade]

I think you mean "incredible".

However, if you had taken the time to read the extensive discussion of this issue, you would be less incredulous.

The basic fact put before us is that despite long threads of people here saying that they won't buy CM if it doesn't have PBEM (I'm one of them) ... despite that, BTS have stated that their biggest market by far is people playing against the AI.

IF this is true, then it's obvious why PBEM doesn't have #1 priority for them.

And you would think they would be the ones who know how their game is being played, wouldn't you?

I can see that if CMx2 doesn't have this feature then it will be pointless buying it. You mean pointless for you, right? Do you think anyone cares that much? Do you think BTS care that much? If you do, then you are wrong: they have said they care about the AI players most, because there's the most of those out there. Hard to argue with that, no matter how disappointing it is.

And it's not even at the point of being disappointing yet, because they haven't said they aren't doing it yet!!!

GaJ

[NiG]

Incredulous = Expressions of disbelief - what's wrong with that?

What kind of idiot are you? You don't understand English and are basically telling me my opinion doesn't count!?

Okay if that's the case then what's the point of this discussion. I'm a customer and so is everyone else here, our opinions count and we are entitled to them.

You also suggest no-one cares what I think! We'll I sincerely hope you're wrong on that one as most of the guys posted above are my opponents around the globe - I really hope they'd be as dissapointed if they lost me as an opponent as I would if I lost them. :mad:

[ August 31, 2005, 01:26 AM: Message edited by: NiG ]

[Derfel]

OK, just for the sake of balance, and to show that there are other opinions on this issue;

Personally I never play PBEM and wouldn't miss it if it didn't show up in CMX and since I don't use this feature I would prefer the designers focus their energy on all the other things that could do with a little improvement.

-Derfel

[Boff]

[pops head above parapet]
I note the 'chill out' comments from Steve but I feel I need to make my voice heard as well. I only ever play via PBEM, mostly in tournaments. Without some sort of PBEM-like system in CM2 I can foresee that a lot of people like me would stick to CMBB and CMAK for the majority of our games, and CM2 would be of curiosity value rather than the next must-have CM release..
[ducks]

[Taki]

I also have to comment on this. And im not lying. If PBEM isnt in, im out. smile.gif

The one thing that keep you motivated playing CM over and over again is the PBEM Game and buy the other Modules. Not that Much Focus on TCP/IP cause this Games took Minimum of 2,5 HOurs if you play a Med to Small Game. PBEM is essential.

These things are looking more and more going to RTS :(

[Canuck]

Originally posted by Scipio:
Well, I don't know how BFC figures out if CM is played more solo then PBEM. I nearly never play vs the AI. To win or lose vs a machine is just pointless for me. But well, I guess they know what they are talking about.

I'm sure they've probably taken into account the number of total sales and compared it to the number of people registered on this forum. I'm just guessing but I'd say 20% would be an extremely generous percentage as to how many registered members play PBEM on a regular basis. Then compare that to the total number of units sold and you can see how they could possibly think that PBEM is not such a big of a factor as some of us might thing.

(Not that it would be a good thing to take it out. I'm sure they will probably end up keeping it.)

Will file saves really be that much bigger? Yes of course the graphics are much better but all that should be client based-only the calculations should have to be transmitted and there can't be that many more than with CMBO.

Or am I totally wrong here? Maybe Steve has already stated otherwise and I missed it.

[GJK]

Well, not to start YADACMx2D* but if you read Steve's post on page 1 (http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=000023;p=1#000 020) of this thread, he alludes to it being a "technical issue" which might preclude pbem capabilities. I read that as filesize may not be 100% of the total problem here. And yes, I can see Steve and the gang rolling their eyes saying "here they go on a wild guess again....". smile.gif

* Yet Another Debate About CMx2 Development

[KG_Cloghaun]

Originally posted by Canuck
I'm just guessing but I'd say 20% would be an extremely generous percentage as to how many registered members play PBEM on a regular basis.Now shifting focus for a minute onto how many people actually play PBEM vs AI -
I would say that is quite a low estimate. 20%? I honestly find that hard to believe. My experience with online CM communities points heavily in favor of PBEM. Not including my small war gaming club, off the top of my head I can name StrategyZoneOnline, Rugged Defense Club, FGM, Band of Brothers (sorry if I'm missing a site)- all of which run either ladders or at least tournaments that are focused on playing PBEM. Combined, your talking about hundreds of war gamers. Maybe I'm wrong, but I fail to see any of these sites, which are the most prominent in the online world of CM, focusing on AI play. And while it can be argued that "hundreds" of people represent only a fraction of total sales, these are the "hardcore" fans of the game that have gone so far as to create and/or belong to these communities.

In fairness to the issue, I'd like to see a poll on these numbers or some evidence to support this "supposed" AI majority.

Respectfully,
KG_Cloghaun

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Originally posted by KG_Cloghaun:
Originally posted by Canuck
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I'm just guessing but I'd say 20% would be an extremely generous percentage as to how many registered members play PBEM on a regular basis.Now shifting focus for a minute onto how many people actually play PBEM vs AI -
I would say that is quite a low estimate. 20%? I honestly find that hard to believe. My experience with online CM communities points heavily in favor of PBEM. Not including my small war gaming club, off the top of my head I can name StrategyZoneOnline, Rugged Defense Club, FGM, Band of Brothers (sorry if I'm missing a site)- all of which run either ladders or at least tournaments that are focused on playing PBEM. Combined, your talking about hundreds of war gamers. Maybe I'm wrong, but I fail to see any of these sites, which are the most prominent in the online world of CM, focusing on AI play. And while it can be argued that "hundreds" of people represent only a fraction of total sales, these are the "hardcore" fans of the game that have gone so far as to create and/or belong to these communities.

In fairness to the issue, I'd like to see a poll on these numbers or some evidence to support this "supposed" AI majority.

Respectfully,
KG_Cloghaun </font>[/QUOTE]Problem with your whole calculation is that you are considering the habits of people that are online, indeed, they are online players. Most people do not use the internet much at all.
I think it's a fair bet most people buy CM from BFC and that is the last time they do anything online related to CM. Hence they are invisible to us who are part of the online community, who are inherently prone to play PBEM and TCP/IP.

[KG_AGCent]

Originally posted by Canuck:
I'm just guessing but I'd say 20% would be an extremely generous percentage as to how many registered members play PBEM on a regular basis. If by "registered members" you mean those who are registered and post here on a regular basis then I would point you HERE (http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=000002) take a perusal then tell me how many you think DON'T PBEM. A vast majority of the posts made in that thread ask for PBEM to be kept as a feature of the game. Our membership is made up of 30-somethings mostly and the balancing act between family, career and gaming can be precarious at best. PBEM gives those of us who must balance, that means of enjoying our hobby while keeping our jobs and wives too.

So, as you can see, keeping the PBEM feature in game will not only ensure the integrity of our great nations social and moral fabric it is also nearly singlehandedly responsible keeping our economy afloat.

Vive' la PBEM!

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:
Problem with your whole calculation is that you are considering the habits of people that are online, indeed, they are online players. Most people do not use the internet much at all.
I think it's a fair bet most people buy CM from BFC and that is the last time they do anything online related to CM. Hence they are invisible to us who are part of the online community, who are inherently prone to play PBEM and TCP/IP. It's hard for me to believe that a majority of people purchase CM and play the game so extensive and over such a long time that it makes Steve saying 'Most games are played vs the AI', and that the same masses are absolutly not interested into clubs, forums, mods or any other kind of online activity or appearance. If those masses doesn't show up somewhere, how can someone know if they are still playing the game?

From my own experience, to play vs the AI is nice when you have purchased a new game. But after some time it just gets boring. I surely would never consider to play CM for nearly 5 years now vs the AI. I can't believe that someone else does. Sounds like being married with a rubber doll.

[dalem]

Originally posted by KG_AGCent:
If by "registered members" you mean those who are registered and post here on a regular basis then I would point you HERE (http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=000002) take a perusal then tell me how many you think DON'T PBEM. A couple of hundred guys. Out of a forum with 18k+ registered members over the last 6 years. Out of a customer base of X who play the game regularly, out of a customer base of Y who bought a version of the game.

That thread is a good sample of some of the the hardest of the hard core, but that is all.

None of which means PBEM as we know it is uncommon, but neither does it mean that it is supercritical.

-dale

[dalem]

Originally posted by Scipio:
I surely would never consider to play CM for nearly 5 years now vs the AI. I can't believe that someone else does. Believe it. I still do. And I suspect that there are tons of guys just like me.

The ability to play a good wargame against a fairly capable opponent on my own time is
The.
Most.
Important.
Feature.

To me. PBEM is around 2nd place somewhere.

-dale

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by dalem:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scipio:
I surely would never consider to play CM for nearly 5 years now vs the AI. I can't believe that someone else does. Believe it. I still do. And I suspect that there are tons of guys just like me.

The ability to play a good wargame against a fairly capable opponent on my own time is
The.
Most.
Important.
Feature.

To me. PBEM is around 2nd place somewhere.

-dale </font>[/QUOTE]If CMX2 has a decent AI and more importantly a decent way of providing context to individual battles, I'll play solo more often too.

Would be neat to see a kind of multiplayer-solo-campaign - by that I mean you and your buddies play against the AI, with each player commanding a different battalion of a division. Game results get passed back and forth like PBEM files, and how well you do affects the dynamics of the campaign, and the future battles of yourseld and the other human players on your "side."

[Tripps]

Keep PBEM

If its mostly us online guys playing CM, and BF caters more for those at home playing the AI, even if there are more of them - it will surely get lonely here methinks smile.gif

[Scipio]

Originally posted by dalem:
Believe it. I still do. And I suspect that there are tons of guys just like me.

The ability to play a good wargame against a fairly capable opponent on my own time is
The.
Most.
Important.
Feature.

To me. PBEM is around 2nd place somewhere.

-dale Sorry, to make this clear: the AI is a fairly capable opponent to you, while a human opponent is not, or at least to the degree as the AI? Have you ever spoken with your doctor about this problem? ;)
If you are standing for the majority of players, then mankind is doomed. :D

[British Tommy]

Originally posted by Derfel:
OK, just for the sake of balance, and to show that there are other opinions on this issue;

Personally I never play PBEM and wouldn't miss it if it didn't show up in CMX and since I don't use this feature I would prefer the designers focus their energy on all the other things that could do with a little improvement.

-Derfel Honestly mate, you don't know what your missing. Just give it a try and you will be hooked like the rest of us! :D
I have also made many great friends around the globe due to PBEM so I would like to say to Steve and the guys, THANK YOU FOR THE CM GAMES!

[dalem]

Originally posted by Scipio:
Sorry, to make this clear: the AI is a fairly capable opponent to you, while a human opponent is not, or at least to the degree as the AI? Have you ever spoken with your doctor about this problem? ;)
If you are standing for the majority of players, then mankind is doomed. :D The AI is a fairly capapble opponent when you set things up to not take advantage of its weaknesses, yes.

Plus, I can always unbalance it - I sometimes use fewer points than allotted when purchasing forces, leave all vehicles in column at the rear as if they are a just-arrived force or relief force, take all infantry against an Mechanized AI force, set the turn counter low, etc.

The AI isn't as capable as a human player, but it's not always a pushover either. Especially in a smaller scenario, say 500 points, one mis-step or lucky shot can change the whole dynamic quite significantly.

-dale

[KG_Jag]

If Battlefront loses the "hardcore" it will lose the "hardcore" of its customer base, as well as its way. This is not a mass market game series. For years it was available in the country of its origin (the largest single market) only by purchase by way of the net. Such games cannot afford to lose their true believers. Most of the true believers play other humans, and do it most frequently by PBEM.

The AI is lousy, especially on the offensive. It advances infantry like lines of ants. I hope to be proven wrong, but I can't conceive of the new game engine moving the AI forward enough quantim levels to make it truly competitive in all circumstances against a decent player.

The best games are against other humans. The only way that we humans with real lives can play against other humans on a consistant and frequent basis is by PBEM. It is also the only way to play opponents located half way around the world--indeed in all the time zones spanning the USA.

[ August 31, 2005, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: KG_Jag ]

[dalem]

Originally posted by KG_Jag:
If Battlefront loses the "hardcore" it will lose the "hardcore" of its customer base, as well as its way. This is not a mass market game series. For years it was available in the country of its origin (the largest single market) only by purchase by way of the net. Such games cannot afford to lose their true believers. Most of the true believers play other humans, and do it most frequently by PBEM. I don't know that any of your claims above are necessarily true. They may certainly be. But I just don't know. What I do know is a group of 3 or 4 guys who play CM intermittently and rarely by PBEM, almost exclusively vs. the AI, and who never post on any of the forums.

All that being said, I dearly hope that PBEM stays, because I love it.


The AI is lousy, especially on the offensive. It advances infantry like lines of ants. I hope to be proven wrong, but I can't conceive of the new game engine moving the AI forward enough quantim levels to make it truly competitive in all circumstances against a decent player.Like I said, the AI can be made into a fun and capable opponent, if you try.


The best games are against other humans. The only way that we humans with real lives can play against other humans on a consistant and frequent basis is by PBEM. It is also the only way to play opponents located half way around the world--indeed in all the time zones spanning the USA. We don't know that. Maybe something with FTP servers can be worked out.

-dale

[Canuck]

If PBEM is left out, which I seriously doubt it will be, I'm sure it will be for a technical reason that makes it impossible and not because the larger audience doesn't play PBEM. So there's basically nothing we can do but wait.

I consider myself fairly "hardcore" (i peruse this site all the time and post a little less often.) But I am one of those people who don't play PBEM. Why? Well for one thing I don't have the patience for games that stretch out over weeks. Playing against the AI allows me to both, take all the time I want and at the same time play as much as I want. Also while I would enjoy a battle of wits against a human opponent, I really only enjoy that when I'm playing against my friends (bragging rights) and since none of my friends play the game im not really interested.

Don't get me wrong-I hope to God they include it and if they don't I won't consider it a complete game.

[Battlefront.com]

Remember, even if there is no PBEM there will still be TCP/IP, LAN, and Hotseat options. So the argument that no PBEM = no Human challenge is pure nonsense. It might not be the way some people want to play multi-player, but that isn't the same as saying the options do not exist at all.

The majority of our players play solo. At least most of the time. Having said that, as I have said hundreds of times before, we understand that PBEM is an important part of the enjoyment for a significant (though minority) slice of our customer base. We do not wish to cut this feature any more than they do. But if we must cut it for technical reasons, we must.

Remeber that I don't think it will come to cutting PBEM, we just refuse to promise something without knowing if we can honor the promise. Which makes yet another thread like this rather silly since nothing is going to change. Some people love PEBEM... no kidding :D We GET IT. So what's the point in wasting time and energy typing up yet another near endless thread about this topic. Ooo!! I know... there is no point, yet some people can't help posting anyway. And guess what... I got a solution for that :D

<snap>

Steve