Grognard Games Megathread - stop making me want this I do not have $95 bux

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Grognard Games Megathread - stop making me want this I do not have $95 bux

«‹›593 »

fuf: Sep 12, 2004; haha

Alchenar posted:

Official Matrix response: "Reviewers are dumb and will just give our games bad reviews".

The constant insistence in that thread that because wargames are a ~special snowflake~ genre basic common sense doesn't apply is pretty infuriating.

Here's a couple of other good lines:

quote:

I doubt that even if they sold Command for $10 that it would make that much of a difference.

quote:

My main issue is if we consider Command an entry-level game for wargaming. Is Matrix passing up that potential market. Just knowing the naval wargaming market a little, I doubt that would be a successful strategy. The documentation and online support would be expensive. In fact, pricing at $80 keeps a lot of the needy new players out. There is sometimes something to be said for pricing at the high end of a market.

Selling more copies might cost Matrix money because they would have to provide "documentation and online support". :psyduck:

Mr. Showtime posted:

hell, give Tim Stone a copy and ask if he might write about it in the Flare Path column on RockPaperShotgun,

Didn't Tim Stone write a column recently complaining about Matrix prices? I think I'll email him.

# ? Sep 25, 2013 16:45

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 5, 2024 20:39

Diet Lime: Aug 11, 2013; by toby

Dark_Swordmaster posted:

I just wish they'd listen to loving irrefutable proof after it's tarred and feathered on them. It's ridiculous and the fact that their business model loosely translates to, "Take the idiot first adopters' money and wait for the rest to give up hope," is a little insulting. It's not treating me like a customer so much as hostile bartering. I'm only hostile in return because the pricing is flat loving gouging, no two ways about it. Your loving metric is that people WILL buy it at that price, not what it should cost.

The rest of the industry is pulling plenty of gouging bullshit too, the initial pricing for BF3 was $60+$60; and if you chose to buy the 3 $20-map-packs independently you didn't get ~premium~ access (despite having paid the same amount for the same content) - locking you out of %80 of the good servers. Furthermore, not buying the "DLC" was not an option because once a server added the new maps into it's rotation you would not be able to play there. This relegated me to either buying the thing or playing only on terrible unmoderated "24/7" servers and felt so lovely and so much like a gouge that I, personally, will not be buying any product published by EA ever again no matter how good it is or how badly I want it.

Oh, and here's the kicker, it's a 64 player dedicated server environment with a queue to join a full server. So maybe you have access to half a dozen good, optimal servers that haven't locked their doors now that the "PREMIUM" feature has been released. Guess who gets to cut in line in front of you in the queue.

# ? Sep 25, 2013 16:46

Tomn: Aug 23, 2007; And the angel said unto him
"Stop hitting yourself. Stop hitting yourself."
But lo he could not. For the angel was hitting him with his own hands

fuf posted:

Didn't Tim Stone write a column recently complaining about Matrix prices? I think I'll email him.

He actually had an interview with the Matrix Games guy, Iain McNeil where he gave him a few straight punches about pricing strategy and interface. Iain basically misinterpreted the question, went on a rant about unrelated/semi-related topics, and at one point mentioned how they were deliberately relying on cognitive dissonance in their pricing strategies.

# ? Sep 25, 2013 16:48

Alchenar: Apr 9, 2008

Diet Lime posted:

The rest of the industry is pulling plenty of gouging bullshit too, the initial pricing for BF3 was $60+$60; and if you chose to buy the 3 $20-map-packs independently you didn't get ~premium~ access (despite having paid the same amount for the same content) - locking you out of %80 of the good servers. Furthermore, not buying the "DLC" was not an option because once a server added the new maps into it's rotation you would not be able to play there. This relegated me to either buying the thing or playing only on terrible unmoderated "24/7" servers and felt so lovely and so much like a gouge that I, personally, will not be buying any product published by EA ever again no matter how good it is or how badly I want it.

Oh, and here's the kicker, it's a 64 player dedicated server environment with a queue to join a full server. So maybe you have access to half a dozen good, optimal servers that haven't locked their doors now that the "PREMIUM" feature has been released. Guess who gets to cut in line in front of you in the queue.

I don't mind getting gouged so much if there's actual content I get from getting gouged, it at least remains my choice to stick with the product or not. I'm even happy to pay a 'niche genre' premium (gently caress, look at the Star Citizen thread. There's shitloads of people willing to pay money that Matrix dreams of being able to charge on what is effectively the resurrection cost of the Space-sim genre).

I would be happy to pay a AAA rate on a game like Command: Air Naval Operations out of my yearly 'gently caress it, have a punt on a wargame' budget.

But Matrix have gone so egregiously far out of this bracket that I need to vent some.

# ? Sep 25, 2013 16:57

Dark_Swordmaster: Oct 31, 2011

Diet Lime posted:

Price gouging and DLC

I'm right there. I was on the side of "Fifteen bux for five maps!?" when CoD did it. I didn't buy BF3 until it was cheap and I will never buy the map pack for more than $5, if that. At a certain point there's a niceness of paying a developer for extra effort, but it seems (about to :tinfoil:

) that they're holding back and then putting effort into extra revenue. $3 civs for Civ V? Not okay by me. $2 extraneous robes for Magicka? That's cool. But whatever, the rent is too drat high.

Tomn posted:

He actually had an interview with the Matrix Games guy, Iain McNeil where he gave him a few straight punches about pricing strategy and interface. Iain basically misinterpreted the question, went on a rant about unrelated/semi-related topics, and at one point mentioned how they were deliberately relying on cognitive dissonance in their pricing strategies.

Got a link handy? I'd love to read them make an rear end out of themselves.

# ? Sep 25, 2013 17:08

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

The problem is, even as full $60 games, most of the Matrix lineup feels extremely cheaply made, and it's tough to justify the value. It's not so much the looks, it's the design, and a lot of these games don't feel like they've been in the cooker long enough. If they remake CC3, the least they could do is fix the infantry-tank balance.

# ? Sep 25, 2013 17:15

Davin Valkri: Apr 8, 2011; Maybe you're weighing the moral pros and cons but let me assure you that OH MY GOD
SHOOT ME IN THE GODDAMNED FACE
WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?!

I found this one about pricing, and here's the interview itself, I think. We want a guy named Iain, right?

# ? Sep 25, 2013 17:17

Baloogan: Dec 5, 2004; Fun Shoe

I think we can all aggree its not COMMAND's fault it costs so much. We should judge command on its own merits. I got my beta tester coupon :3:

I'm gonna buy it as soon as I get home from work and then I'll show you how great the game is! (I can't post screenshots of the beta copy)

# ? Sep 25, 2013 17:23

Alchenar: Apr 9, 2008

Baloogan posted:

I think we can all aggree its not COMMAND's fault it costs so much. We should judge command on its own merits. I got my beta tester coupon I'm gonna buy it as soon as I get home from work and then I'll show you how great the game is! (I can't post screenshots of the beta copy)

Well... the the dumb guy making CMBN comparison in the Matrix Thread did accidentally have a point. There's a trend among wargame developers to try to make the 'one big wargame that does everything' and spend 5 years making it and it's so big and expensive (comparatively) that they have to charge $100 and are terrified of dropping the price lest a decade's work goes down the drain.

COMMAND would probably benefit from having started small and then following the Battlefront model of releasing module after module that expanded the unit/scenario set. Cheaper and faster to make, cheaper to sell.

# ? Sep 25, 2013 18:30

fuf: Sep 12, 2004; haha

Was this one of you? Best post in that thread probably.

e: yes it was. Nice work Tomn.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tomn

You know, looking at this argument, it seems the key point is this: If there is a wider available market for wargames, then pricing too high loses sales. If there is not a wider available market for wargames, then pricing too low loses profits. So the question is basically this: Is the market large enough to support a lower price that returns greater profits?

Before we begin that discussion, though, I think it would be useful to define what, exactly, a wargame is, as I think this gets muddled fairly often in such discussions. So what is a wargame? I would suggest that a wargame can most usefully be defined as "a game that attempts to simulate warfare, with a greater emphasis on historical realities than on gameplay requirements." We understand, of course, that any game developer must at some point rely on abstractions unless it is their intent to simulate the entire world at once, yet this seems to me a functional definition that lays down a clear difference between wargames and more mainstream strategy games like, say, Command & Conquer or even Total War.

Is it a requirement, then, that wargames must possess an impenetrable interface, no real tutorial to speak of, lousy documentation and all the accessibility of a spreadsheet? Many modern wargames are like this, true, but if we are to say that a wargame can only be said to be a wargame if it included all these features, it appears that we would have to remove Panzer General and Close Combat and Unity of Command and any number of great hits past and present from the list of wargames. I propose that the above definition is enough to cover wargames in general, and that we might make a subgenre for games that go into such complex detail that it is quite impossible to spare any time or effort whatsoever to improving accessibility - call it "grognard" games, for now.

If we accept this as a definition of wargames, then, can we say that wargames are truly a small niche that would not benefit from a lower pricepoint? Can we say that the amount of those interested in a more realistic strategic depiction of war is too low to support a lower price?

This seems to me unlikely. Why? Well, right at this point in time, on the Steam 100 top-seller list, I can see a game about simulating life as an immigration officer in a dystopic Soviet country, a game simulating being a truck driver in Europe running a truck driving business (realistically enough I might add that it models driver fatigue, among other things), a great many adventure games (which until lately have been thought to be extinct as a genre), and a game simulating the space program in quite explicit detail, where orbital calculations are required to get off the ground and onto the Moon analogue or the Mars analogue or anything else in the solar system. That's just what's on the list RIGHT NOW. Previous top-sellers included train simulators and agricultural tractor simulators, among other oddities. Are we supposed to imagine, then, that games depicting war (one of the single most popular subjects in the world for all of humanity, let alone gamers!) in a realistic fashion are a SMALLER niche than realistic games about the space program or truck driving?

Then, too, let us consider the historical successes of wargames. It is common now to say that wargames are a tiny niche and ever will be a tiny niche, but what of such games as Panzer General or the early Close Combat games? These may not have sold as well as the Warcraft games or Command & Conquer, but neither were they tiny and insignificant - they made and left no small splash on the marketplace in their time. Indeed, was there not a time when wargames were the dominant genre in the games industry, long in a distant past? Was there not a time when companies such as Strategic Simulations Inc. were as well-known as any other?

It seems to me, then, that there almost certainly DOES exist a large market for wargames - for realistic depictions of war. There ARE people interested in games that simulate warfare with more depth than that which goes into common RTS games. If such a market exists, then, wargames CAN benefit from a lower price point, and CAN sell enough copies to recoup any loss of per-product profit. Not only would they make more money overall, they would find more fans and more people willing to enjoy the game, causing a snowballing effect as word of mouth brings in more and more people who earlier on would not have considered joining the hobby, or of paying the current high prices sight unseen. Should the market exist, and as we have seen the evidence point to its existence, high prices do more harm than good to a developer even if they aren't actually ruinous.

But I will concede that there does not, perhaps, exist as great a market for the aforementioned grognard games. In order to reach out to a niche which had previously been untapped, it would be necessary to make it accessible for these newcomers - they must be welcomed and eased into the game, so that they do not quit from frustration and complain to their friends. Games like Unity of Command or Panzer General 2 are proof positive that this can be done, and done successfully, and for games such as these (or even for games only moderately more complex than these!) I believe it can be seen that there should indeed be a market. But for games which are so immensely complex, that model such an incredible amount of detail that it is completely, utterly, and totally impossible to even contemplate trying to ease a new gamer in, that I could agree with as being too small a niche to accept new blood and new money, and which would probably only survive at the currently high prices.

From what I have heard, however, Command is not such a game - I've heard in fact that they've taken pains to improve the interface and try to allow a newcomer to understand it. I wonder, then, if the current pricing is really the best choice for it?

# ? Sep 25, 2013 19:15

Dark_Swordmaster: Oct 31, 2011

Yeah that's a great post and all by this "Tomn," but he's clearly a stupidface who doesn't know they have :pseudo:

analytics and sales figures that show that if one person steals from a store everyone else has to dig into their pockets and pay $5 more.

God, to count the "I'd buy it but not at that price" posts I've seen here and on another forum, if it were just $50 they'd have so many more dollars now! Someone go post some bad math in that thread for a point!

Also, we should start an internet petition for as much as complaining and citing facts will loving do us. :suicide:

Dark_Swordmaster fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Sep 25, 2013

# ? Sep 25, 2013 19:49

Chump Farts: May 9, 2009; There is no Coordinator but Narduzzi, and Shilique is his Prophet.

I hope one day they go steam crazy. I would buy every single Close Combat for ten bucks each.

Then again, feeling bitter about getting drunk and buying WitE for 80 bucks is probably the only reason I play it.

# ? Sep 25, 2013 19:51

fuf: Sep 12, 2004; haha

Tim Stone responded to my email.

quote:

I was intending to share some first impressions of CMANO in this week's FP, but the combination of an extremely slow download (I've given up twice) and some other topical stories (Steel Beasts 3.0 and the end of the DCS WWII kickstarter) means I'll probably hold fire until next week. When I do get round to it, I'm not sure how I can avoid talking about pricing. Where Slitherine/Matrix's business model is concerned I'm always happy to "waste my time".

(I mentioned that in the thread the Matrix guy said we were wasting our time.)

Also this trailer got posted:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLc-iSbiV5g&feature=youtu.be

# ? Sep 25, 2013 20:15

Tomn: Aug 23, 2007; And the angel said unto him
"Stop hitting yourself. Stop hitting yourself."
But lo he could not. For the angel was hitting him with his own hands

I have a bad habit of making long-winded posts in debates where the folks on the other side have already made up their minds and are unlikely to change it. v :shobon:

v

But yeah, the last time I tried arguing with Matrix about this (in the very thread the dude linked earlier, in fact!), they basically said "NOPE WE DID OUR RESEARCH BASED ON DATA WE ALREADY HAVE THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT NEW BUYERS OUT THERE." They're INCREDIBLY WEDDED to the idea that wargaming is this special and unique niche that is completely and utterly different from anything else on the market.

There is some hope, though - they mentioned that they've expanded their staff pretty significantly lately in response to reasonable success (in particular mobile app successes which they've been flabbergasted by) and one of the reasons they shut down the last thread was "We've had these arguments internally already so we don't see any point in reprising them with forum users." It might be possible that their new hires will eventually convince their old guards to get with the times.

The amount of doublethink going on in the company is impressive, though. "The wargaming industry is doing well and we are expanding steadily and increasing sales constantly. There are not enough untapped gamers to justify lowering the price" is their best one.

Jakse posted:

I hope one day they go steam crazy. I would buy every single Close Combat for ten bucks each.

Then again, feeling bitter about getting drunk and buying WitE for 80 bucks is probably the only reason I play it.

Proof that the Matrix system works!

# ? Sep 25, 2013 20:18

Dark_Swordmaster: Oct 31, 2011

Oh my God! We're in an abusive relationship! :stonk:

# ? Sep 25, 2013 20:38

ArchangeI: Jul 15, 2010

Jakse posted:

I hope one day they go steam crazy. I would buy every single Close Combat for ten bucks each.

Then again, feeling bitter about getting drunk and buying WitE for 80 bucks is probably the only reason I play it.

WitE is actually a great example. When GH did his LP of it I, like most grognards, went to the matrixstore to look at the price, did a doubletake and hit the back button, because haha what the poo poo, right? A few weeks later I ran across a translated version in a store in Germany for 39 euros and bought it without a second thought.

# ? Sep 25, 2013 20:50

Baloogan: Dec 5, 2004; Fun Shoe

Common people just buy it at the price they want; what else are you going to spend it on? Chillycheese dogs you horrible goons! 105bux is only a nice dinner! You might get laid after a nice dinner, while wargames are guarenteed to safeguard your virginity! What else do you want from wargames?!

# ? Sep 25, 2013 21:04

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

It would be cool if when matrix games put out 80 dollar games they actually had some replayability and random scenario generators. If you want to put out a low-feature wargame that's fine, but price it like one. Unity of Command is cheap so it's fine not to have too many features and such, but when you put out games with about as many features at 60 bucks it's very hard to stomach.

Command Ops could really use that random scenario generator and better multiplayer features because gosh that game could be so good.

# ? Sep 25, 2013 21:10

Baloogan: Dec 5, 2004; Fun Shoe

I'm working on a dynamic campaign generator for Command, which is why I hope lots of you buy it :ssh:

I plan to release for 30,000 bux tho. Its what the market can support!

# ? Sep 25, 2013 21:24

Cabbage Disrespect: Apr 24, 2009; ROBUST COMBAT
Leonard Riflepiss; Soiled Meat

Baloogan posted:

I think we can all aggree its not COMMAND's fault it costs so much. We should judge command on its own merits. I got my beta tester coupon I'm gonna buy it as soon as I get home from work and then I'll show you how great the game is! (I can't post screenshots of the beta copy)

The worst part of this is that I'm genuinely interested in/excited about Command; the price is what's holding me back. You'd better not make my buy it anyway :argh:

# ? Sep 25, 2013 21:35

ArchangeI: Jul 15, 2010

Baloogan posted:

I'm working on a dynamic campaign generator for Command, which is why I hope lots of you buy it

I plan to release for 30,000 bux tho. Its what the market can support!

That's only a nice car!

# ? Sep 25, 2013 21:42

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

Panzeh posted:

It would be cool if when matrix games put out 80 dollar games they actually had some replayability and random scenario generators.

Goddamn, this so hard. Decisive Campaigns gave us a (relatively) easy to use editor and alternate scenarios and even a full-fledged variable set-up while WITE has the temerity to charge 15 bucks for Sudden Death rules and they're probably not going to release a "milder First Winter" variant for another 2-3 months and their editor isn't just user-unfriendly, it's downright hostile.

# ? Sep 25, 2013 21:46

Chump Farts: May 9, 2009; There is no Coordinator but Narduzzi, and Shilique is his Prophet.

gradenko_2000 posted:

Goddamn, this so hard. Decisive Campaigns gave us a (relatively) easy to use editor and alternate scenarios and even a full-fledged variable set-up while WITE has the temerity to charge 15 bucks for Sudden Death rules and they're probably not going to release a "milder First Winter" variant for another 2-3 months and their editor isn't just user-unfriendly, it's downright hostile.

For real, even though DC is just a few scenarios, the variant and set-up options are loving endless.

Have they ever posted their full data? I want to link them to baby's first supply and demand curves and scream at them.

# ? Sep 25, 2013 23:03

Saint Celestine: Dec 17, 2008; Lay a fire within your soul and another between your hands, and let both be your weapons.
For one is faith and the other is victory and neither may ever be put out.
- Saint Sabbat, Lessons; Grimey Drawer

The hell? Matrix has mobile app games?

# ? Sep 25, 2013 23:08

1stGear: Jan 16, 2010; Here's to the new us.

Jakse posted:

Have they ever posted their full data? I want to link them to baby's first supply and demand curves and scream at them.

Spoilers: There is no data. Or if there is, it would probably prove the exact opposite of Matrix's sale strategy.

# ? Sep 25, 2013 23:12

Fintilgin: Sep 29, 2004; Fintilgin sweeps!

All this bitching about wargaming companies got me in a cranky mood, and then I saw a thread over on Battlefront about someone who couldn't play their game because of their nutty DRM, and the support guy says:

quote:

If you have made certain changes to your computer, this could invalidate your activation and produce this error. Is this specifically for AoD ? Please open a ticket in the Helpdesk and we can send you some utilities to delete your current AoD activation and allow you to reactivate with your current hardware configuration.

If you have recently connected a new USB or Bluetooth device, then simply disconnecting that would allow the game to run without the error. However if this USB device should be plugged in normally while playing AoD, then you will probably want to go through the process of deleting your current activation and then reactivating.

Hey, buddy, if you must leave your new USB drive or controller plugged in all the time you'll need to submit a support ticket and get approval to download a special app to reset your games license.

It sounds like that's not even the problem the guy is having, but hey, it speaks volumes when that is the first thing support thinks might be wrong. :negative:

I really shouldn't waste my time...

Irritable Fintilgin posted:

Or, maybe, if adding a new USB device to your computer could potentially require you to relicense your games, you guys could, oh I dunno, come into the 21st century with your digital distribution and drop the draconian DRM?

Just saying!

This BS turns off a lot of customers, and discourages old ones from buying new games.

# ? Sep 25, 2013 23:17

smr: Dec 18, 2002

I'm going to be the Devil's Advocate here and say that a game like Command _should_ cost $80 because it's far too groggy to ever get a big enough uptake, even at $20, to make the same amount of money. That's all I have to say about price.

As for the GAME... ruddy loving brilliant. It's a Harpoon that works, with the entire globe as your playspace. I've had no crashes, the AI has tossed my rear end silly on the first few small-scale missions, but, in retrospect, I know what I hosed up and how it hosed me... this game is really good, and it's basically a universal toolkit for any naval/air op of the modern era.

I've heard some folks are having download issues, but I did not have any. It's been perfectly stable as well.

The UI is bog-standard Windows GUI widgets, so no typical dumb wargame custom UI poo poo is getting in the way.

If anything bugs me, it could use a bit more chrome. The devs were asked about the lack of pics and text in a huge db for perusal like used to be somewhat standard (thinking of Steel Panthers' impressive OOB Encyclopedia) and they stated that a) the cost for media on all the pics of all the gear that you can actually choose to use in the game was beyond prohibitive and b) they figured the community would take care of that sort of wiki-esque stuff. And it has: http://www.warfaresims.com/?page_id=1876. The database viewer in-game was designed to be able to pull in graphics and text files from elsewhere, making it easy to mod in.

The groggiest of the grogs, ie, the veterans of Sissy-Pigs, aka comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical, just about the last text Usenet group about games that has ANY on-topic traffic, all concur that this game is very, very good (disclosure: I'm one of like the last 8 regulars that still posts there).

If you can get past the pricing thing, which I can understand _for this type of giant wargame and scenario kit_, it's really fuckin' brilliant. I can finally toss the buggy piles of poo poo that are the last few versions of Harpoon I've bought over the years into the trash where they belong.

# ? Sep 25, 2013 23:32

Tomn: Aug 23, 2007; And the angel said unto him
"Stop hitting yourself. Stop hitting yourself."
But lo he could not. For the angel was hitting him with his own hands

Saint Celestine posted:

The hell? Matrix has mobile app games?

Ayep.

They were shocked when it sold thirty times better than their PC offering, and are yet incapable of parsing that perhaps the price might have an influence (even if the price is pretty high for an app) or that such success helps prove the existence of a large wargaming market.

By the way...

Alchenar posted:

Actually their business apparently grew by 100% over the last year, which they're really proud of.

Of course, they're still orders of magnitude behind the general growth of digital distribution over the last ten years but don't let little details like that get them down!

Do you have any hard data about the growth of digital distribution available?

Tomn fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Sep 25, 2013

# ? Sep 25, 2013 23:49

Dark_Swordmaster: Oct 31, 2011

smr posted:

Usenet Grog

That's the thing, YOU are who they are pandering to. You're not the problem or at fault, so this isn't meant to be aggressive, but they're selling the game to you and 7 dudes (argument number) willing to pay $80 who have been in a grognard usenet chat since its inception. That's 8 x $80 = $640. They COULD have a LARGE number of people buy it at $50, maybe even $60 (though that's still a bit high) and make a TON more, in addition to the guaranteed purchases you and your ilk represent. It's not like lowering the price is going to make you NOT buy it. The only thing it would possibly do is give them more purchases, and more money. We're talking about a potential loss of $30 (argument number) per copy for the sales that they don't sell to the mainstream crowd, but they're not going to buy it at $50, $80, or any number that isn't below their "I can afford to throw this money in the garbage" amount. Meanwhile, there's several of us who would willingly purchase the title if it were a more reasonable price.

I'm literally unable to see a monetary downside to them having a lower price, at least not one that tanks the company or forces layoffs.

# ? Sep 26, 2013 00:15

Alchenar: Apr 9, 2008

Tomn posted:

I have a bad habit of making long-winded posts in debates where the folks on the other side have already made up their minds and are unlikely to change it. vv

But yeah, the last time I tried arguing with Matrix about this (in the very thread the dude linked earlier, in fact!), they basically said "NOPE WE DID OUR RESEARCH BASED ON DATA WE ALREADY HAVE THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT NEW BUYERS OUT THERE." They're INCREDIBLY WEDDED to the idea that wargaming is this special and unique niche that is completely and utterly different from anything else on the market.

This is the thing, Matrix consists of a bunch of guys from an old wargamer rag that got together and started publishing. They actually consider themselves to be the god-saviours of the genre and really their first priority is going to be to make sure that the games they like keep getting made and not let anything threaten that.

# ? Sep 26, 2013 00:44

Baloogan: Dec 5, 2004; Fun Shoe

Some days it feels as though I account for a quarter of Matrix's revenue.

# ? Sep 26, 2013 01:10

Saint Celestine: Dec 17, 2008; Lay a fire within your soul and another between your hands, and let both be your weapons.
For one is faith and the other is victory and neither may ever be put out.
- Saint Sabbat, Lessons; Grimey Drawer

Someone should show one of the Matrix guys Steam and what Valve managed to do.

# ? Sep 26, 2013 01:18

uPen: Jan 25, 2010; Zu Rodina!

Baloogan posted:

Some days it feels as though I account for a quarter of Matrix's revenue.

Just imagine if they lowered their prices and they couldn't milk you for all you're worth, they'd be ruined!

# ? Sep 26, 2013 01:19

Baloogan: Dec 5, 2004; Fun Shoe

code:



Product                                  Qty     Unit Price      Ext. Price
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Command - Modern Air / Naval Operations - 1     CAD   104.99   CAD   104.99
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  $20 off: CAD       -21.95
                                                 Shipping: CAD         6.58
                                                    Total: CAD        89.61

# ? Sep 26, 2013 01:25

Baloogan: Dec 5, 2004; Fun Shoe

I ... I think I have a problem.

Harpoon Commander Edition
Harpoon3
Harpoon3 Advanced Naval Warfare
Harpoon3 Ultimate Advanced Naval Warfare
...

# ? Sep 26, 2013 01:35

Lichtenstein: May 31, 2012; It'll make sense, eventually.

So, how is the game in terms of delegating command to AI, or in other words, how true is the "Command Ops: Harpoon" thing?

Horrible tediousness is my biggest pet peeve with non-cardboard wargames, there's so much unnecessary poo poo to micro around. I love games like Airborne Assault/Command Ops or Scourge of War where I can immerse in my role and simply deal with my direct subordinates and once in a while intervene directly with some sort of "brilliant" plan.

Or, on the second though, don't make me want it. :smithicide:

# ? Sep 26, 2013 01:44

Baloogan: Dec 5, 2004; Fun Shoe

Its my favorite game; its one of the best naval warfare simulations ever.

I'm thinking of streaming some gameplay at some point on twitch.tv.

But to awnser your question, it has a tactical AI; but the AI will not automatically decide that it should attack some radar instalation. You create misisons which have say a flight of escort F16s, a flight of SEAD aircraft, a flight of strike aircraft and they will then go attack the radar instalation.

Quite a few things happen automatically, you don't need to tell your inbound Migs to Hi-Lo-Hi strike, they do that sort of thing automatically; and its attached to loadout, so they will use long range standoff weapons at high altitude to get the most range out of the weapons.

Baloogan fucked around with this message at 01:54 on Sep 26, 2013

# ? Sep 26, 2013 01:51

Dark_Swordmaster: Oct 31, 2011

Looks like we've got a fuckin' narc boys...

# ? Sep 26, 2013 01:52

1stGear: Jan 16, 2010; Here's to the new us.

Baloogan posted:

Its my favorite game; its one of the best naval warfare simulations ever.

I'm thinking of streaming some gameplay at some point on twitch.tv.

But to awnser your question, it has a tactical AI; but the AI will not automatically decide that it should attack some radar instalation. You create misisons which have say a flight of escort F16s, a flight of SEAD aircraft, a flight of strike aircraft and they will then go attack the radar instalation.

Quite a few things happen automatically, you don't need to tell your inbound Migs to Hi-Lo-Hi strike, they do that sort of thing automatically; and its attached to loadout, so they will use long range standoff weapons at high altitude to get the most range out of the weapons.

God, this sounds rad as gently caress and is basically exactly what I want out of wargames.

# ? Sep 26, 2013 01:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 5, 2024 20:39

uPen: Jan 25, 2010; Zu Rodina!

Baloogan posted:

Its my favorite game; its one of the best naval warfare simulations ever.

I'm thinking of streaming some gameplay at some point on twitch.tv.

But to awnser your question, it has a tactical AI; but the AI will not automatically decide that it should attack some radar instalation. You create misisons which have say a flight of escort F16s, a flight of SEAD aircraft, a flight of strike aircraft and they will then go attack the radar instalation.

Quite a few things happen automatically, you don't need to tell your inbound Migs to Hi-Lo-Hi strike, they do that sort of thing automatically; and its attached to loadout, so they will use long range standoff weapons at high altitude to get the most range out of the weapons.

You're the biggest jerk.

e: If you do stream it and link it in here I'm giving 50/50 odds I cave and buy it.

# ? Sep 26, 2013 02:17

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Grognard Games Megathread - stop making me want this I do not have $95 bux

«‹›593 »