Future of this game

From the first clash at Manassas to the epic confrontation between Lee and Grant, the Brother Against Brother series will bring new levels of historical detail and realism to the battles of the Civil War. This regimental-level game, created by the developers of the award-winning Forge of Freedom, builds on that game’s acclaimed tactical engine, adding scrupulously researched orders of battle, high-quality map graphics, command and control rules reflecting the numerous challenges faced by army commanders, and plenty other features. Beginning with The Drawing of The Sword – which recreates the pivotal opening battles at Manassas , Wilson ’s Creek, Mill Springs and Williamsburg – Brother Against Brother lets you refight the Civil War from start to finish.

Moderators: ericbabe, Gil R.

sherlock1
Posts: 110
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 5:10 am
Location: new york

Future of this game

Post by sherlock1 »

Is there any plans to add new battles to this game. Hopefully there are
rickier65
Posts: 14241
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Future of this game

Post by rickier65 »

ORIGINAL: Jokco Clark

Is there any plans to add new battles to this game. Hopefully there are

I'm sure Gil will respond with better info. My understanding is that they are still planning to release more battles in this series. I certainly hope they do.

Thanks
Rick
User avatar
shoelessbivouac
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:15 pm

RE: Future of this game

Post by shoelessbivouac »

The last word from game reps here has heretofore and always been: Absolutely. But, no release date has been announced. By Christmas, you ask? Wouldn't that be nice.
Argue for your limitations, and sure enough they're yours --R. Bach
Rosseau
Posts: 2931
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 2:20 am

RE: Future of this game

Post by Rosseau »

Also, modding is still tedious compared to say Ageod or Paradox. Yes, I would like more for my $50. The announcement of a new scenario would put the game back in the "limelight" for a few days. My guess is sales were not that great, so we need to create a buzz somehow, or we all lose.
User avatar
Gil R.
Posts: 10820
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 4:22 am

RE: Future of this game

Post by Gil R. »

I'm not sure from the initial question whether it's about new battles for BAB#1 or new battles for the BAB series, so I guess I'll answer both, as well as the subsequent posts.

Regarding BAB#1, we most certainly do plan additional scenarios, including the official release of the Williamsburg 2-person one that has long been in public beta, but that needs to wait a bit longer, since I need to focus on preparing the first scenario for BAB#2 for internal testing. BAB#1 will remain only devoted to the current four battles, with any other battles being in new releases. The need to get new scenarios out there is not lost on us, but I'm the only one who can do that, and am spread incredibly thin (in no small part because of my day job).

Regarding BAB#2, I've by now done the lion's share of the work on the scenario files, but have more to do, and I also have to use our internal map-editor to assign terrain values to the map -- all something I am hoping to do during the month of November. This means, of course, that a Christmas release is impossible, but I am hopeful that we can get it out during the first quarter of 2016. (That is a hope, not a promise!)

Regarding modding, Rosseau, I'm wondering if you could indicate what is tedious about modding -- are you referring to changing the scenario files, or to positioning units, or both?

There's one thing I'm curious about, and would welcome your thoughts (as well as thoughts of people still on the fence about buying BAB). It is clear that some people find the four battles in BAB#1 to be too small to merit purchase, and as I've mentioned previously BAB#2 (as well as BAB#3) will be devoted to a much larger battle, one with roughly twice as many units as First Bull Run (currently our largest battle). How many scenarios do you think there should be when a battle is a big one? BAB#1 had around 20 at the time of release, but it is more difficult to come up with 20 different ideas for a single battle, so I am not confident that there would be 20 in BAB#2. What's your thinking on this issue?
Michael Jordan plays ball. Charles Manson kills people. I torment eager potential customers by not sharing screenshots of "Brother Against Brother." Everyone has a talent.
Ironclad
Posts: 1934
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 1:35 pm

RE: Future of this game

Post by Ironclad »

Thanks for the update Gil. I thought Christmas was a likely non-runner for BAB2 but hoped it might be available soon after but I'll just have to be more patient. You need to clone yourself or get a pixie helper!

As I tend to play multiplayer a smaller scenario is only of use as a learning tool. For me its the full battle preferably on an extended map with free or fixed deployment and the full duration although a day or late start scenario might appeal as a lesser option if the situation is interesting enough. Of course in the case of the really big battles that hopefully we may get to see in any later BABs, then localised scenarios of areas of the battlefield would also be of interest.

Rosseau
Posts: 2931
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 2:20 am

RE: Future of this game

Post by Rosseau »

Regarding modding, I'm referring to changing unit stats, etc.

Using Microsoft Works, it reminds me of modding the Close Combat series. The toughest thing for me is adding Union forces and messing up the whole numbering system for the confederates below.

I need to check your modding guide to see if that's addressed. [:)]
kennonlightfoot
Posts: 1695
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 7:51 pm
Contact:

RE: Future of this game

Post by kennonlightfoot »

There's one thing I'm curious about, and would welcome your thoughts (as well as thoughts of people still on the fence about buying BAB). It is clear that some people find the four battles in BAB#1 to be too small to merit purchase, and as I've mentioned previously BAB#2 (as well as BAB#3) will be devoted to a much larger battle, one with roughly twice as many units as First Bull Run (currently our largest battle). How many scenarios do you think there should be when a battle is a big one? BAB#1 had around 20 at the time of release, but it is more difficult to come up with 20 different ideas for a single battle, so I am not confident that there would be 20 in BAB#2. What's your thinking on this issue?

You have to look at what the main competition is for this type game. That is HPS/JT games which include hundreds of scenarios and usually multiple battles since they include entire campaigns in their releases. This is what the typical Civil War gamer is use to seeing. For instance HPS/JT's Campaign Antietam includes historic and alternate battle scenarios for Antietam, South Mountain, First Bull Run, Second Bull Run, Cedar Mountain, Chantilly, and a bunch of smaller pieces of these battles.

Your game system can't be as easily modified to handle so many alternatives but you do need to include more within a release to justify $50 price tag. Since you aren't producing a game with a huge jump in technology and change in game play like SOW series, I don't think you can expect gamers to buy games based around a single battle. The first release had only First Bull Run as a really well balanced battle. The other battles while nice were more of historical interest than playable games against an opponent. The first release should have included both First and Second Bull Run plus Cedar Mountain.

You are going to have a similar problem around your next release if it includes only Second Bull Run. A lot of players over on the ACWGC site are waiting for something they don't already have. The plus for BaB is that it doesn't have a new approach to the combat system for Civil War which I really like. But that is hard to sell to people who already have the battle being sold in two or three other formats. A large battle like Gettysburg could be sold as a stand alone game but I am afraid that Second Bull Run would be better handled as a low price upgrade to BAB #1.
Kennon
Rosseau
Posts: 2931
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 2:20 am

RE: Future of this game

Post by Rosseau »

+1

I am sure you are not going to charge another $50 for the next installment. Instead, do like Conflict of Heroes.

Yes, CoH was somewhat complex and quite different play style for me, but I always felt I was getting a lot of content from the games. [:)]
User avatar
zakblood
Posts: 22722
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:19 am

RE: Future of this game

Post by zakblood »

price for me is secondary, game and battle is more important, as i wish to support the makers so they can adapt or change to a new engine one day, with more sales this will happen sooner rather than later, with less it won't and maybe one day these and many others won't spend the time and effort on fringe games, where as FPS etc make better returns i'm sorry to say.

there's many good games out now days that didn't or don't get the support from gamers that maybe they should have, i've been on more than a few alpha's and beta's and seen some very good games not do so well and some right turkeys imo that sold better than most expected, me included, so the game itself mattered little, it was the feeling of others who made it, forums imo are the key, get a healthy one and the game seems to do better, have a less active one and little interest is kept with no new or less new players coming in weekly or monthly or at all for some.

which is a shame and will one day stop most war game development as cost v returns aren't what they used to be so costs at the start maybe getting higher as results / returns just don't pay the bills, so it's becoming more niche market not less in the years i've been playing, with the cost for some getting higher or staying high now for longer because of it, with more sales these would drop or go slightly lower
Windows 11 Pro 64-bit (10.0, Build 22621) (22621.ni_release.220506-1250)
User avatar
zakblood
Posts: 22722
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:19 am

RE: Future of this game

Post by zakblood »

i'll give another example,

a high end sports car costs more than a production car, as the costs of development are spread over less buyers, not more

standard car say 100,000 units or more, against a sports car of 50 to 200 made, cost of developments for each one is about the same, to make and build, parts used and advertise may be more or less, but still goes into the overall costs, so minus sales from development costs give the reason why a smaller user base / sales equals a higher cost for a more niche market, the more niche you go, ie the smaller the sales, the returns are less so the cost per unit rises, not falls, basic maths...

and same rule of thumb applies to Brother against Brother, as it does to let say War in the West etc, compared to lets say Warhammer, Panzer Corp or Order of Battle Pacific type of games re sales, which can be priced more agressively than others as the returns per sales are expected to be higher so a lower figure can be given at the start, as more spreads the load over a bigger user base...
Windows 11 Pro 64-bit (10.0, Build 22621) (22621.ni_release.220506-1250)
User avatar
Recognition
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2002 10:00 am
Location: A Brit in Holland / UK

RE: Future of this game

Post by Recognition »

I agree zakblood. Its the same in the Music Industry, almost impossible to make profit from record - CD sales nowadays due to illegal downloads, that's why most of the established bands still do extensive touring to make profits from the ticket sales and merchandise sales every few years. Its the only way.

At the end of the day we live in a world where people know the price of everything and the value of nothing.... if you want quality in a wargame you have to support the developers by buying the product which will have to be high end priced to return a quality wargame in this limited interested subject.

Cheers
https://twitter.com/WW1IEPER1917 INTEL i9-9900K @3600Ghz 3.60 GHz 48GB RAM
GeForce RTX 2080 Ti

sherlock1
Posts: 110
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 5:10 am
Location: new york

RE: Future of this game

Post by sherlock1 »

I have many of the HPS/JT series games and to this day still enjoy them. To me, there is nothing like them out there. I always wanted a game based on the Island hopping WW2 by the Marines The HPS game is just okay. BOB just gets tiresome quickly due to the battles selected.
User avatar
Gil R.
Posts: 10820
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 4:22 am

RE: Future of this game

Post by Gil R. »

Thanks for all your comments. It's our hope that if we can get two large battles out in 2016 that will bring in enough new players that it will be easier to work on future releases (with multiple battles each), and perhaps a modding community will develop. WCS decided to make highly vast, detailed maps and OOBs knowing that this would mean fewer battles overall, but did so with faith that if we produced an excellent product then enough modders would come along to cover some of the battles that we did not ourselves have the time to make. Since I'm the only one creating OOB's and sketching out the maps for our artist to make, and I have a real job there is an obvious choke point that limits our ability to produce a large number of battles AND maintain our high standards.

Michael Jordan plays ball. Charles Manson kills people. I torment eager potential customers by not sharing screenshots of "Brother Against Brother." Everyone has a talent.
kennonlightfoot
Posts: 1695
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 7:51 pm
Contact:

RE: Future of this game

Post by kennonlightfoot »

Right now modding is limited to existing maps which means modders can only create alternate scenarios. I would really be hard pressed to find a situation in the current game that your existing scenarios didn't cover. To cover battles other than what BaB doesn't would require access to the map editors.
Kennon
User avatar
Gil R.
Posts: 10820
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 4:22 am

RE: Future of this game

Post by Gil R. »

ORIGINAL: kwhitehead

Right now modding is limited to existing maps which means modders can only create alternate scenarios. I would really be hard pressed to find a situation in the current game that your existing scenarios didn't cover. To cover battles other than what BaB doesn't would require access to the map editors.

Sure. But perhaps at some point there will appear a modder (or modders?) with sufficient graphics skills to make a map. Sadly, that requires knowing more than just how to use Paint.
Michael Jordan plays ball. Charles Manson kills people. I torment eager potential customers by not sharing screenshots of "Brother Against Brother." Everyone has a talent.
User avatar
Recognition
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2002 10:00 am
Location: A Brit in Holland / UK

RE: Future of this game

Post by Recognition »

ORIGINAL: Gil R.
ORIGINAL: kwhitehead

Right now modding is limited to existing maps which means modders can only create alternate scenarios. I would really be hard pressed to find a situation in the current game that your existing scenarios didn't cover. To cover battles other than what BaB doesn't would require access to the map editors.

Sure. But perhaps at some point there will appear a modder (or modders?) with sufficient graphics skills to make a map. Sadly, that requires knowing more than just how to use Paint.

Many people are keen I think, maybe those with skills can share to get the ball rolling..
https://twitter.com/WW1IEPER1917 INTEL i9-9900K @3600Ghz 3.60 GHz 48GB RAM
GeForce RTX 2080 Ti

kennonlightfoot
Posts: 1695
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 7:51 pm
Contact:

RE: Future of this game

Post by kennonlightfoot »

Also requires an editor capable of linking map data (terrain factors) to the hex layout on the graphics. Right now you can edit the map graphics but you can't define things like roads and terrain types.
Kennon
Rosseau
Posts: 2931
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 2:20 am

RE: Future of this game

Post by Rosseau »

I bought your game during the slow season, but have a hard time coming back to it. After paying $50, don't you think I want to come back to it? I thought you had a team working on this game, not one or two guys part time. The one/two guy games have a bad track record and there are a good number here at Matrix that are dead.

If you can't release a new (free) scenario or utility of some sort to get out in the limelight again, it doesn't look good for you or me. [:(]
Delaware
Posts: 229
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 2:51 am

RE: Future of this game

Post by Delaware »

ORIGINAL: rosseau

I bought your game during the slow season, but have a hard time coming back to it. After paying $50, don't you think I want to come back to it? I thought you had a team working on this game, not one or two guys part time. The one/two guy games have a bad track record and there are a good number here at Matrix that are dead.

If you can't release a new (free) scenario or utility of some sort to get out in the limelight again, it doesn't look good for you or me. [:(]

Or me.... Was curious but my money could be more efficiently spent elsewhere. Perhaps if you dropped the price, it might be enough to get some curious people to take a gamble, but not at full price. Best of luck to you.
Post Reply

Return to “Brother against Brother: The Drawing of the Sword”