Scenario Design Notes: Delay on Tiger Route (Combat Mission: Battle for Normandy - Commonwealth Forces)

TWC Delay on Tiger Route was uploaded to the Battlefront.com Repository on 6 November 2012; this author was also the scenario designer. There were limited Designer's Notes appended to the scenario file. For those interested, a more detailed description of the genesis of this scenario is offered for review and, if desired, further discussion below.

Inspiration

The current evolution of the Combat Mission game engine favours smaller scale battles, and appeals by at least some in public venues, such as the official game forum, for small (i.e. company-strength or smaller) forces have been conspicuous. The author's interest has always been with historical situations (as opposed to obviously fictional engagements drawn up from whole cloth). 

There is a tradition among Combat Mission scenario designers in pushing the boundaries of what is available in the editor, to depict actions strictly outside the historical bounds set out by the program. For that reason, research into small-unit engagements taking place during Operation MARKET-GARDEN in September 1944 have been of interest to the author. Equipment, terrain, weather and order of battle information is adequately represented by that which is present in the editor, and scenarios set in that time-frame will hopefully whet the appetite for the promised official offering currently - it is said - under development.

Research

As the author discussed in detail in another venue1, there is some utility in reviewing the work of others before embarking on one's own design work. Not only is it a good idea to check on scenarios done for the same game/title to prevent duplication (though nothing says that multiple scenarios depicting the same action can't be widely different in design yet equally entertaining), but looking at scenarios in other game systems can also yield dividends as far as suggesting scenario design ideas, from basic idea inspiration to more detailed data such as force composition or suggested victory conditions.

Such was the case here. The scenario Delayed on Tiger Route (note the slight difference in the first word) was published by a third party publisher2, for the Advanced Squad Leader game system in 1996, accompanied by detailed designer's notes in the accompanying magazine.

Design

As with most ASL "conversions", major design changes had to be made to get this to work properly in Combat Mission.

Terrain

The most notable change was terrain; the wide open spaces of the Squad Leader boards are geared for a board game scaled at 40 metres per hex and contain large tracts of open ground. The boards are generic in nature and "woods" features are considered impenetrable at ranges past 40 metres, by either weapons or line of sight - though a type of "light woods" similar to the foliage in CM:BN is present in the form of "orchard" terrain. Line of sight is merely "hindered" through this terrain and represents less dense concentrations of trees.

The ASL map layout is featured at the ASL Scenario Archive (linked above) and appears as follows:

Michael Faulkner modified the "stock" ASL maps heavily (in addition to careful selection from among the 40+ extant geomorphic maps) to approximate the battlefield, suggesting he had done his homework on the actual terrain. Among the modifications were the removal of Level 1 hills, and addition of five overlays to increase the amount of buildings and woods hexes.

A modern Google Earth map of the battle zone, coupled with period photos and descriptions from a historical blog3, suggested a lay of the land quite close to what the ASL maps portrayed. The exact spot described in the historical snippet was only surmised; a thorough search of unit war diaries from archival sources, or even a better search of second-hand accounts in histories may have turned up better data, but the author was satisfied that a representative sample of terrain was found that would produce a workable scenario. 

Google View

 There were several key elements key to the terrain that needed to be captured on the map:

1. The main road to Oosterbeek (actually the Heelsum-Arnhem road), which British forces were attempting to travel down, the main purpose of their presence in the area,
2. A "side road", as mentioned in the source, from which opposing German forces were able to launch an attack,
3. Woods, part of the forested area west of Oosterbeek conspicuous on period maps and photos,
4. Fences; in actuality four-foot chain-link fences, mentioned as having influenced ASL scenario designer Faulkner's design choices (specifically, forbidding the use by players of a rule known as 'infantry bypass movement', restricting the mobility of infantry),
5. Limited elevation changes/contour, consistent with the unique nature of the Netherlands.

Delay on Tiger Route map, looking towards the north-east

Other clues to the terrain were garnered from the book Retake Arnhem Bridge, which also includes a full-colour reproduction of a wartime 1:50,000 contour and terrain map of the Arnhem area.

Building the map was relatively straight-forward; the desire from the start was to permit interesting LOS combinations diagonally across the map, and so taller trees with limited underbrush were selected for the most part.

Wire fences were used to simulated the chain-link fences mentioned by Faulkner (and visible in contemporary photos, such as that below:)

On the road to Arnhem, September 1944. Note the chain link fence.

Forces

Forces appropriate to the map size were an obvious concern, part of the balancing act of any design where time/forces/victory conditions have to be coordinated to provide the player with something workable. As stated in the introduction, there is a perception, at least among some, that the new CM game engine is at its best in depicting smaller scale actions. The source ASL scenario was notable for only pitting 3.5 squad-equivalents against 6. 

The command, control and leadership models of CM purport to be more sophisticated than ASL's more primitive modelling, so a straight-across transfer of forces was never contemplated. The flexibility of options in the editor, however permitted the variability of the German order of battle to be better portrayed. The forces present in the actual engagement consisted of a Panzer Grenadier Training and Replacement Battalion. To reflect this, wildly varying Motivation, Fitness, and Experience levels were selected. 

Faulkner's design included two platoons of British paratroopers, and the original CM scenario featured this as well, with a more homogenous set of characteristics, selected from the upper range of options. While the 1st Airborne Division was a well-trained formation, it was relatively inexperienced, despite the earlier deployment of some of its component formations to North Africa, Sicily, etc. Nonetheless, in order that the relatively brittle infantry might be able to use the light anti-tank weaponry on which the scenario might hinge, higher than normal experience and motivation levels were granted as a balancing measure.

Victory Conditions

The most difficult part of getting a Combat Mission scenario design playable is working out a set of victory conditions (in the CM editor, this is a complex combination of "Parameters", "Terrain Objectives", "Unit Objectives" for each side). The second generation Combat Mission game engine has increased in sophistication as far as the types of interwoven factors that decide victory or defeat, though being hard-coded, the designer is still constrained to operate within those parameters.

Again, the designer could not simply ape what was done in the ASL scenario, given the more flexible VC of that system (permissible because of the manual nature of the system). Faulkner's scenario granted points for exiting British forces of the eastern side of the map - something the CM allows for - but adds or subtracts from this point total based on the number of forces the German elects to also withdraw from the map (simulating the strategic necessity to redeploy to meet other threats). While CM does allow the scenario designer to alter basic victory point totals with the addition of "bonus" points, they are not conditional - at least, not in the current iteration of the game engine. One hopes this might be considered for future developments.

Another consideration when designing "exit" scenarios is that units marked for exit must exit or the points awarded for their exit are lost. This is different than in games, such as ASL, where the player is not penalized for failure to exit, other than not receiving the points (i.e. units not exited count as zero, not a negative number as in CM). For that reason, a bonus of 100 points is assigned to the British player to offset an estimated "acceptable" loss of units in a typical scenario. This seemed to work out well in playtesting. Given a choice, however, another suggested change to the engine would be to give the designer the option between the two models of handling points for non-exiting units (i.e. either deducting their value from the point total, or permiting them to remain on map without penalty).

Comparison

Faulkner describes his ASL scenario as "a short, fast paced scenario that forces the British player (to) take some chances, the German player to be dogged in his defense, and for both players to use every advantage their nationality gives them." In ASL, nationality factors weigh more heavily than in CM, where nationality is not explicity modelled (British troops in ASL are immune to a "Cowering" rule, for example, where "doubles" on the dice reduces firepower, for just one example). Otherwise, in playtest, the CM scenario played rather quickly, given the small area, and the conspicuousness of key weapons systems means that the game can be decided quickly if not careful or a lucky hit is achieved. But, both sides have the tools to win the scenario if handled properly.

In reality, the Germans hit quickly and withdrew in a hurry, taking prisoners then pulling back down the same side road that they struck from. This was the thrust of the ASL design. Many ASL designs came down, in my opinion, to factor counting and last-turn mathematics, which are hard to replicate in CM, and perhaps rightfully so. It was for that reason that the VC permitted Geman exit points to count against British exit points in the original design. Since the CM scenario was being designed primarily from the British perspective, it was felt there was little reason to include this option for the Germans, and the VC didn't permit this kind of conditional VC in any event.

My Question To You

Any feedback on the scenario is welcome, though I'd be most interested in your thoughts on Victory Conditions, whether in CM or tactical games in general, and the kinds of additional parameters or improvements (or deletions) you would like to see. What works well, what would you like to see more of?

Notes

1. Scenario Designer's Handbook, pp. XXX -XXX
2. Schwerpunkt, issue 1, 1996 Scenario Designer:Michael Faulkner
3. http://runningdutch.blogspot.ca/2012/08/run-through-history-of-battle-of-arnhem.html

Scenario Design, Historical Accuracy, and Rediscovering Stanley Hollis’ Sunken Lane

Whenever a new scenario-based tactical game depicting ground combat comes out, designers began anew in their quest to find situations to depict. Tastes vary, and while the quests may be different, for such things as balanced match-ups, armour-heavy battles, scenarios that highlight specific equipment, favourite (often ‘elite’) units, etc., the struggle for new inspiration is a constant.

The quest leads scenario designers to mine a variety of sources; I don’t know how common it is for designers in one medium to review scenarios in another, but I wonder if it isn’t more common than some may let on (a review of the extant designer’s notes for games like ASL, Combat Mission, Panzer Command, etc., leads one to believe that inspiration comes from either the heavens or the sacred scrolls of the Library of Congress, not “ripping off” a Flames of War booklet they bought second-hand on ebay).

Plagiarism would come most readily to mind as the most obvious hazard of this practice. Not just because of the taint of the accusation, which in reality is probably more harsh than any possible harm of actual legal repercussion. Some may recall the “ASL2CM” website which was a proponent of replicating ASL in Combat Mission. Rumours had swirled of legal action, particularly when the site closed down, though this thread on the CM forums seems to indicate nothing so drastic, and that the decision was simple time constraints on the webmaster. Before the end, though, the site developed into a detailed primer on translating the venerable boardgame's terrain into Combat Mission maps, and gave advice on reproducing force match-ups, leadership values, game lengths and other “conversions”. The end results, as far as the CMx1 game engine went, were mixed for the most part, as some scenarios really didn’t translate well, particularly the terrain, which was highly stylized to match John Hill’s concept of “Design for Effect” in the original Squad Leader board game. (For just one example, urban streets in SL/ASL were laid out in an abstract system 40 to 80 metres across while CM had a 20 metre terrain grid - directly translating the maps meant that crossing a street was unrealistically dangerous.) So the largest hazard of “plagiarism” was that in the end scenarios directly translated were often not all that good because of the differing natures of the games themselves.

Strange collision of two worlds; the "ASL Interface" seemed like a good idea at the time.
So did the terrain mods. "Fusion" is often better in theory than practice.

As inspiration, though, a scenario designer is missing out on a lot of opportunity by simply refusing to look at the work of others, with tens of thousands of tactical-level wargame scenarios set in the Second World War now in print for various game systems, probably at minimum 5,500 for Advanced Squad Leader alone. (As of this writing, The Scenario Archive has tracked 5,647, including one-offs and self-published works.) While not suitable for a straight conversion into a game system, like Combat Mission, that uses realistic terrain, order of battle, and command and control systems (ASL in its basic form has none of these), those printed scenario cards that the ASL community cranks out do have the stamp of historical verisimilitude on them and if nothing else provide the start point for one’s own historical research. Some designers, such as Evan Sherry of Schwerpunkt magazine, even go so far as to provide their historical source material references right on the cards.

And when you find a scenario design by a fellow like the late Ian Daglish, who has published bona fide and well-respected volumes on military history in addition to taking those scenario designs to the next level with “historical modules” based on actual terrain, you get the comforting feeling the historical background you’re holding in your hands is probably going to be pretty accurate even if the scenario itself is stylized for playability.

All of which presupposes that historical accuracy (as opposed to pure fiction) is a precondition for a good scenario, which is certainly not the case. More on this later on.

First Cristot

The more recent ASL products are based on more stringent historical research; the Normandy 1944 product is an example, and Ian Daglish's name looms large in the credits.

The scenario FIRST CRISTOT jumps out immediately; aside from the "hook" of involving Stanley Hollis, it had a unique proposition, or sub-plot if you will, presented alongside the main story-line. The basic story, or objective, was familiar - a British unit with little support was to attack across bocage and farm land up a hill and take heavy punishment from SS troops in the process. Daglish went further in modelling the lack of tank-infantry co-operation by permitting either infantry, or armour, to move in each player turn - but not both.

Scenario design for Combat Mission now involves story-telling as much as simply researching order of battle, and so the scenario was something of an inspiration. My initial design for FIRST CRACK AT CRISTOT revolved around exploring this theme; it was impossible to place restrictions on command and control in the abstract manner of the board game, so the solution was to widely divide the tanks from the infantry, but testing showed that the scenario didn't seem to go anywhere, and besides, it wasn't as interesting as historical source information that was uncovered, which gave fairly specific information regarding the location of German positions. To that end, the map was reworked, lines of sight re-tooled, and positions re-arranged. The ASL scenario included a single company of British infantry, and reviewing the historical notes, it seemed prudent to make use of the entire historical arena:

Reproduced from The Creully Club newsletter.

The map in "First Crack at Cristot"

The final scenario is much larger - beyond the company-sized comfort level that by consensus seems to be "just right" for squad-based tactical games. Given the limited tactical options that individual companies had on the actual day, the scenario designer is hard pressed to split off individual actions into anything playable. In the actual event, The Green Howards lost 250 men, which would represent over half of the fighting strength of the battalion when one considers just the rifle companies. The challenge for the player of FIRST CRACK AT CRISTOT is to better utilize the resources at hand, or perhaps see if his luck is any better, than his historical counter-parts.

Bil Hardenberger’s Sunken Road

It occurred to me a week into the project that it might be wasted effort if someone else had already published something on the topic. A search on “Combat Mission Cristot” led me to a thread on an existing scenario, but to my surprise, it referred to one on the release disc for the original Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord from 2000.

I had not been involved in the CM community until well after release; however, one of the pre-release highlights had been a publicly disseminated battle between scenario designer Bil Hardenberger and beta tester Fionn Kelly.1 The original scenario had garnered much attention.

Bil Hardenberger's THE SUNKEN LANE from the original CM:BO release disc.
Forgotten now is the fact that this may have been the first CM scenario to orient the battle at 45 degrees to the map edges.

Map Design

There is nothing new to the idea that books often get judged by their covers; in CM a scenario's worth is determined in part by its map design. Not just whether the map is an appropriate size for the forces involved, or offers interesting tactical choices to both sides (criterion on which it naturally deserves to be judged), but also on aesthetics. This too is natural, and there is something visceral about the notion that a pleasant looking map is more fun to play on. The map from THE SUNKEN LANE was particularly unique in that the action was oriented at 45 degrees to the playing surface, helping prevent unrealistic use of the map edge as a secure flank, and widening the possible avenues of maneuver for the attacker.

In CMx1, good designers came up with different methods of providing visual interest to their maps; mixing up terrain types in unexpected combinations or choosing well-known historical locations to emulate. Going over maps with an eye for detail was the best way to cement the notion that the designer had done his homework; roads were smoothed out and straightened, buildings not allowed to overlap other terrain, slopes were smoothed off and made to look natural, billiard-flat terrain altered for relief, foliage arranged with the appearance of randomness, as it would in nature, etc.

In CMx2, the increased palette available to map designers gives greater power to provide convincing terrain. The cynical might note it gives greater ability to disguise poor scenario designs. The designer also faces more labour in his efforts; while the new elevation shaping tools have assisted in levelling the ground, other details have to be added painstakingly, such as road tiles, individual trees and bushes, and "flavor objects" which add verisimilitude, as well as the personalization of buildings by altering details of windowsill ornamentation, balconies, numbers of windows and doors, etc.



The 3-D terrain depictions in CM have come a long way. The inset shows the actual "Sunken Lane" south of Cristot, the colour screenshot comes from the CM:BN scenario. Second inset are the unit insignia of forces participating in the battle.

Game Designer as Story Teller

As alluded to above, the (good) CM scenario designer is now a story teller. Certainly when designing for solo play, the creation of AI plans almost requires a script of the action beforehand. The strategic AI requires the scenario designer to plan moves in advance, and in effect, to anticipate the actions of scenario players. It's a difficult proposition, and the ability to make the Tac AI appear to be operating randomly is to provide multiple plans to select from, none of which are chosen by the Strat AI according to the evolving tactical situation. It's not a complaint, but a truism that the scenario designer now must be able to script these AI plans and predict well what a reasonable player might do when playing solo. It may be fair to say that the CM player today has to be a better player himself, when designing for the new game engine, than in the past, or at the very least, a poor player had a better likelihood of sneaking a good design into publication and past the discerning eyes of those who would play it.

Changing Appetites?
If there ever was an appetite for strictly historical scenarios - and I'm not positive there really ever has been a huge following for such things - it is clearly diminishing as Combat Mission matures, perhaps in inverse proportion to the average age of its followers. It would be interesting to see what the new CM: Touch and other Apple applications will do to the demographics. Sadly, BFC may jealously guard these details as closely as they guard their sales figures, which is their prerogative as entrepreneurs. But the appeal of wargaming has always seemed to be more of a 'war is fun' approach than a strict retelling of history. The most successful games seem to have taken that approach - Advanced Squad Leader, for all its pretend gravitas, and those 5,500 deathly serious scenario cards, is about as realistic as Rick Jason ordering Vic Morrow around on a Hollywood backlot. Boardgames like Ambush! are still fondly recalled for their homage to war-as-fantasy/adventure, and even CM's designers seem to have cut their ties to reality firstly with the unique (for its setting and backstory) Shock Force project in its entirety, but also by indulging their scenario designers on the release disc of CM:BN, with a number of fictional and "semi-historical" scenarios. The community has responded in kind, with the most popular user-submitted download on their Repository to date being a unique, story-driven campaign which improves on CMX2's linear structure by introducing decision trees and a character-driven narrative of a kind lacking in the official release fare. Devil's Descent seems purposefully reminiscent of Ubisoft's Brothers in Arms, which isn't such a bad thing. The most successful scenarios seem to be those that engage the desire for action-adventure rather than just a sense of reliving history.

My Final Word
Panzer Command:Ostfront, with its attention to historical fidelity (3D terrain models of historical locations like the Stalingrad Train Station trump even Combat Mission for "you are there" immersion), came and went with little fanfare. Is it the scale - company-level, squad-based tactics set in the Second World War - that is starting to seem 'done to death'? New game systems seem to be appearing in bunches; Fighting Formations and Band of Brothers are relative newcomers now in the boardgaming world. New miniatures sets appear with some regularity also - James Day's rework of his venerable Panzer rules is still highly sought. And on the computer, Tigers Unleashed and a number of other board-game like treatments have come along while Combat Mission continues to feel its way into new territory.

And in the meantime, first person shooters and massively-multi-player online role-playing games rake in the disposable cash of the mainstream, eager for action and adventure.

Perhaps we're just not getting it, but having tried World of Tanks, I can't get excited about resource gathering and treating tanks as if they were elves.

But I am getting the feeling that the strict history stuff is quickly going the way of the Dodo.

My Question to You
Whither next? I'm having trouble getting excited about iOS games if only because, from my limited perspective, they don't seem to offer much opportunity for community input, which is where traditionally the best scenario designers have come from, regardless of which game system one cares to name. Perhaps that will or is changing, but the PC communities have a lively feel right now. Can that be replicated if tactical wargaming makes a major shift to tablets as the platform of choice?

Notes

1. My only experience playing Fionn was in the so-called "CMBO Invitational Tourney of the Stars", which was a series of 1500-point purchase scenarios, all meeting engagements, on custom maps by Treeburst155 (Mike M.)  Fionn's stardom was assured by his known skill at the game; mine definitely not any great skill at playing CM. His reputation preceded him and his paratroopers drove me off the field in an 81-19 rout whose score probably doesn't reflect accurately the nature of the beat-down I was given. He gave some generous pointers on tactics after the game in a debrief though the exact conversation is now lost to memory and does not appear in my files.

Eight Thoughts About Combat Mission: Touch

Some people confessed to be stunned by the announcement of the release of Combat Mission: Touch, but there were signs that something like this was going to happen. Battlefront.com (“BFC” hereafter) has hinted about some unspecified “big news” for a long time – one presumes this has to be it. Anyone following the rise in popularity of devices and games, and the conversations among wargamers who are now clamouring for wargame-themed apps, may have even predicted this.

I would not have guessed nor am I in the camp of those desiring such things, but the news is nonetheless a thought-provoking one. Here are eight such thoughts of mine after having had a day to process the news:

The Timing – BFC has had a consistently inconsistent relationship with its own consumer base. When the first major change to the PC-based game engine was initially discussed (the passing from so-called "CMX1" that powered their first three releases circa 2000-2003 to "CMX2" in 2007), the developers announced, in advance and with candidness, that they were prepared to exchange some of their older customers/fans for new ones as a result of the new direction they wanted to take with their vision. In business, it’s a practical approach to adopt (not necessarily to admit), though the forum signature tag line of one of their customer service reps from the period still stands out in memory - “Battlefront.com – your best friend, your worst enemy” – if only as an indicator of what can be interpreted as an ambivalence towards those that support them.

Things have changed in many ways since then. Their most aggressive customer rep has moved on, and their public relations efforts have been improving. A case can be made that the rollout of the latest CM module was skilfully handled, with informative public videos, after-action reports (i.e. public replays) in advance of release, and generally much slicker pre-release material than that which preceded earlier CM titles – such as one memorable preview posted to their YouTube feed in which unedited footage of an outclassed enemy being shot to pieces (narrated in a matter-of-fact monotone) was used to sell the game. It’s one thing to note that playing Shermans against Tigers is a tactical challenge that nonetheless happened with historical regularity in the Normandy bocage; quite another to post a movie of the massacre of a third world opponent by American Strykers and then think it is going to act as an incentive to rush out and buy your game. However, they’ve come a long way since then, albeit not without the occasional glitch. The Commonwealth Module logo depicting a P17 rifle was quickly replaced on their website when the inappropriateness of same was pointed out by multiple parties.

The announcement of CM: Touch should have been an easy hit out of the park; tablet/iOS games are all the rage now, and wargame treatments for same are in high demand, as for example a recent and relatively popular thread at boardgamegeek demonstrated. How do you mess up the announcement of something highly anticipated, and completely unexpected?

Answer: make it look like an April Fool’s joke. Just about every bit of positive feedback on release day was tempered with caveats starting with words to the effect of “Highly suspect this isn't real, but…”

The lack of belief was understandable, given that BFC has not made a tangible peep about this specific product, and the screenshots and videos were just “alien” enough to BFC’s existing project line to lack conviction. But BFC didn’t help matters by replying on their official forums with characteristic “hey, if you don’t want it, don’t buy it” aloofness.

The Business Model – I’ve thrown in these thoughts in a couple of other places but will collate them here. Micro-transactions seem to be the way of the future, though as far as wargaming goes, aren’t really anything new, either. Multi-Man Publishing has made a killing in recent years selling scenario packs to die-hard fans of their Advanced Squad Leader board game empire, often selling out their pre-order lists in a single weekend. If it works for hex and cardboard gear, it’s far easier to institute in the digital domain, and companies like Turbine, who are using it to make MMORPGs such as Lord of the Rings Online lucrative even in a free-to-play model, are doing quite well at it. BFC had mentioned a similar scheme for micro-transactions once before, when their Repository went online in support of their PC-based games, as an online file-sharing site for scenarios and mods. There was an immediate backlash against the notion that some sort of fee schedule be instituted for the site, probably because there were already fan/community sites providing a similar service that were well-established. However, this brings us to:

The Content Providers – Combat Mission on the PC has always had the advantage of shipping with a powerful map and scenario editor; additional content for the games was instantly provided via the fan and community base. Outstanding effort was rewarded within the community by name recognition (compare to the ASL community, for example, where it took decades before scenario designers were ever recognized by having their names attached to their designs) and word of mouth. Often, community-produced designs exceeded the quality of those that came with the original games, since those that produced them had the advantage of spending far more time with the products than the beta testers who had deadlines and the disadvantage of working in a closed environment, rather than the open feedback of the entire community to draw on.

The financial success of the new micro-transaction model would appear to rely on a proprietary scenario format and the necessity for BFC (or their agents) to be the sole creators of same. But this is debatable, too; despite the lawsuit between Critical Hit and the publishers of ASL, the latter have survived the growing number of third party scenario designs published for sale, mostly because most aficionados will buy “official” scenarios before those of the so-called Third Party Publishers (TPP) that are held in lower regard.

At any rate, it is confirmed that CM: Touch will not have an editor, so the question is raised as to who will provide the new content. Given the surprise raised by some of BFC’s own regular Combat Mission beta testers on the official forums regarding the very existence of the new game, another question that comes up is – who has provided the content that is already there?

Duration of Interest – The last point begs another question though, which is ultimately how many scenarios does a 5 or 6 dollar “time-waster” really require. The game itself apparently has a time cap of 15 minutes (30 turns of 30 seconds each). The game is obviously limited by the hardware, and the interface (just your “war fingers”). None of which is a criticism, but an observation without even having seen the actual product personally. Will it be the kind of game one plays over and over? Will new scenarios really feel all that different? Will the intent be to sell new games every six months with different theatres of war to make up for that?

I would not be surprised by the latter, particularly given the interest expressed on the forums for the PC game in theatres such as the Pacific, the Eastern Front, or even France 1940 or NATO vs. Warsaw Pact circa the 1970s. (Though how alienated would the PC crowd feel if Touch went to France and the PC game never got there? Probably a bit, but BFC would survive it just as they survived when the Australian Army got a custom edition of CM:AK and the “paying customers” had to wait. I think by now the remaining BFC fans have something akin to battered wife syndrome; there wasn’t as much as a cross word on the official forums at the lack of prior discussion about CM: Touch. Surprise announcements are now just the order of the day in the tight-knit community there.)

Much would depend on how the revenue streams go, and of course – BFC doesn’t discuss that. Ever. In the meantime:

Development Stream – …the question raised by at least a couple of nervous fans in a couple of venues, is what impact this new game has had on the development of the current BFC flagship, the PC version of Combat Mission. What we do know is that the new game engine – CMX2 – premiered in 2007 to a rocky start but has maintained a loyal fan base. CMX2 has seemingly split into two development streams – Shock Force, a game about near-future combat in Syria (or perhaps “near-past” circa 2008, I’m not sure anymore), and Battle for Normandy (CM:BN), which apparently has one more module on the slate, to include, if I am reading things correctly, terrain and forces circa Operation MARKET-GARDEN in the autumn of 1944. The plan was then to create more games – which may or may not have been compatible with CM:BN (i.e. they may have been standalones), to cover the Battle of the Bulge in World War II, and eventually the Eastern Front of World War II (in an ambitious scheme that would split the war into three or four games (1 per year) and each game into modules, or something like 9 or 12 products in total).

What hasn’t been discussed publicly is just how much manpower BFC has devoted to CM:Touch. They have partnered with a company whose specialty is producing apps for Apple. Any number of scenarios are possible, including the notion that BFC has simply licensed their trademark CM name and some of their in-game artwork (notably the disc-shaped icons) and let a fresh set of programmers do the heavy lifting in exchange for a share of the rewards. Perhaps they’ve hired more programmers to work behind the scene. Or, perhaps their already busy, and small, programming and development staff is hard at work shaping the future of CM: Touch. The latter would not be happy news for fans of CM for the PC, I think, given the want/feature lists for CMX2 that keep appearing on the official forums, alongside a sprinkling of nagging bug reports and/or requests for explanation of current features that just don’t seem to sit right with the existing community (things like World War II tanks firing on the move with Abrams-like accuracy, which have been officially explained as “abstractions”.)

The Splintered Community – There may be a debate in some circles as to whether CM: Touch is a wargame, presuming enough people are interested enough to engage in public discussion about it. Those discussions tend to take place when “popular” games hit the mainstream, so perhaps such a debate is premature. Twilight Struggle is the classic example from the boardgame world. These debates probably shouldn’t concern fans of BFC or even fans of the game; they’re just so much noise in discussion circles. What may be of more concern is how the developers themselves relate to their own creations, and where the CM series as a whole goes a year from now should one form of CM prove vastly more popular than the other. For those with an investment in the “serious” side of wargaming, there is more at stake.

Reaction among the fans at the official forums seems to indicate there does not need to be a schism; those fans of the PC game that also happen to own an iPad seem happy to pick up CM: Touch as an augment to their gaming library. A reasonable proposition that has been noted in the past is that games of a given genre usually appeal collectively. When it was suggested that Panzer Command was a “competitor” of Combat Mission, I added my voice to the chorus of those who said it was nonsense – anyone interested in Second World War tactical combat games was likely to pick up both games for their library. (Again, from the boardgaming world, when the Advanced Squad Leader Starter Kits hit the market as a “gateway” to the venerable tactical gaming system, some of the most ardent consumers of the new kits – were the oldest veterans of the system, some who introduced new players with the kits, others who just wanted to collect them, still others who genuinely just enjoyed the new feel of the ASLSKs and wanted something different to play.)

With this game, however, one wonders if BFC isn’t more interested in appealing to casual or non-wargamers than in engaging their existing hardcore wargaming fanbase. I seem to recall the same being said about much more hardcore products such as CM:SF. The best case scenario – perhaps optimistically, from BFC’s perspective – is that Touch serves as a gateway, so instead of just selling $1 scenario packs, you eventually hook people on $40 CMX2 games.

Any real “threat” to the PC Combat Mission community would come from a splintering of resources among the developers, but if the plan is to use Touch as a gateway, BFC would be foolish to let that happen. Despite their occasional marketing glitch, the fact remains they are still in business and doing what they need to do to produce what their fans apparently want.

The Right Decision – wargamers tend to think that the companies who make these games are charities who make these games for the love of the hobby. BFC wrote a manifesto in 1999 and appeared to their fans to be a little company that was different from the big bad corporations, but they’ve (perhaps sensibly) moved away from that. Their decisions, too, will be made by the bottom line. There would be no way for an outside commentator to observe accurately whether or not CM: Touch was a bold decision, or even a good decision, without access to BFC’s balance sheets. Time will tell. For now, the consumer simply wins by having a new product in their hands. It will all, ultimately, come down to how much money BFC can make off of it. That’s the reality of the wargaming industry (I don’t call it a hobby), no different than any other.

Staying Focused – But per the last point, one does note BFC’s track record of being side-tracked into unprofitable territory. They have burned through a number of ventures with other developers, and games have come and gone from their website with some regularity over the years as they’ve struggled to find relevant ventures to augment their flagship titles. CM:SF got off to its aforementioned rocky start by an unfortunate partnership with a retailer that forced a premature product release. Panther Games came and went with Airborne Assault, Histwar: Les Grognards was a non-starter, and some less-mainstream projects such as T-72 (a Balkans Wars tank simulator) passed through to little fanfare. Some stories were heart-breaking, such as Combat Mission: Campaigns, which apparently nearly bankrupted independent designer Bruce Poon of Hunting Tank Software as they struggled with BFC to design an operational-level interface for the flagship. Others were too strange to be believed, such as the notion that Drop Ship, the science fiction game, was being developed into a World War II tactics game (would there really have been a need for this alongside BFCs other two World War II tactics titles, Theatre of War and Combat Mission?)

Not as crazy as it sounds; Dropship had a realistic physics engine and 3-D modelling. At least one fellow saw the logic in a World War II version.

 A lot of these projects fall under the “sounded great at the time” category, though naturally it is very easy to criticize in hindsight. I’d still love to see a product like Combat Mission: Campaigns. As a member of the beta team, while not directly involved with the coding of CM:C, I was certainly witness to the enthusiastic support it received from the scenario/campaign designers. I am certain its failure was not due to a lack of effort.

No one will know whether or not CM: Touch will represent a drain on BFC’s resources or not; to speculate on a company stretching their resources against their better interests is probably foolish, especially with no inside information to back up any such assertion. The only lesson to be drawn here, however, is a general lack of success among a number of “side-projects” (which probably cost them little or nothing in terms of resources such as capital or manpower), which one can attribute as easily in the absence of any detailed information to bad luck. I know I wouldn’t want to try and gauge in advance what sells or what does not in something as volatile as the videogame market, in a niche as small as wargaming.

If I was in that position, I would never have guessed that Theatre of War would have been a success, and probably would have jettisoned it for being too much like Combat Mission. Yet there it remains, with its sequels, apparently none the worse for wear for its similarity in scope and theme to CM. So perhaps the smart money is to just figure BFC knows what its doing based on the successes it does continue to enjoy.

Conclusion

Most have said all along that if BFC does well – I suppose to mean remains solvent while producing games – it is good for the wargaming industry. I’m not sure I’ve ever fully agreed with that. Good games are what are best for the wargaming industry. Anyone that proves to be capable of doing that is by extension good for the industry.

This gets more than a little complicated. If CM: Touch fills Battlefront’s coffers, but takes away development time from the PC flagship, those who are fans of the latter but not the former will no doubt fail to see any benefit from BFC’s success, for themselves or the industry. But as noted, if managed well, the Touch has the ability to be a lucrative venture. It’s all in the hands of the consumer.

And, apparently, a small “chosen few” of scenario designers.

Or, thinking larger, other game producers, who may see a BFC success as a gateway of their own. Perhaps, for example, the most detailed, fully realized Sherman tank simulator to hit the market in the 21st Century will not be a PC game at all – but an app?

My Question to You

Should wargamers embrace this as the future of wargaming? The potential is for widespread, mainstream acceptance of this game, with its cute sprites and easy to use interface coupled with deeper gameplay. At best, it would augment CM for the PC for those that own it, and act as a gateway for those that have not yet experienced it.

Or should wargamers shun this as “not a wargame” and reject it as a threat to the hobby, for fear it will simply eat up production time better spent on “real wargames”, promote a further dumbing down of games and interfaces to the lowest common denominator, and add more fuel to the exodus away from games like CM, Close Combat and Steel Panthers and back towards Panzer Claws?