The Direction of the FPC series

[Radagy]

Six Days War and Kippur War above all. Then Korea, Falklands, Iran-Iraq.
Desert Storm could too much unbalanced. I wonder if this engine could support Vietnam War without a substantial makeup.
Interest in hypotetical future wars (US vs. rest of the world... Russia, China, Iran and so on. ) just to test brand new gear.
Absolutely no interest in hypothetical past wars, apart from NATO-WP.
Last and least, a WWII add on would be welcome.

[jnpoint]

I usually like WW2 games, but I can see that some does not. So to please everyone I would probably vote for a compromise.

[Thomasew]

ORIGINAL: wodin

ORIGINAL: nukkxx



And I would vote STRONGLY AGAINST WW2, any front. Just got an overdose of it. ((

here we go again...This isn't a vote about what not to make but what you want them to make.. (I could real off a whole load of conflicts I think they should avoid due to financial and sales issues but I don't, as I know others want to see them, so give this not WW2 thing a rest.

... and I think you need to give this financial and sales thing a rest, as it's no longer a valid point. As I mentioned in my earlier post, the top selling expansion/addon from Graviteam ... is Operation Hooper, .. which takes place in the 80s i.e. Not WW II. SO, that kinda negates your theory about 'everyone' wanting WW II.

I had been very tempted by APOS, .. graphically it looked stunning, and I loved the technical aspects of it, but, as it was yet another WW II wargame, .. and worse, set in the Eastern Front .. I didn't buy it. When they released Operation Hooper, I bought APOS and Operation Hooper .. and have bought every Modern expansion they have released since then.

Also, .. Mad Russian did mention in his initial post .. "Those that want WWII and those that would like anything but WWII".

.. so, nukkxx's comments re NOT wanting WW II expansions/addons are not out of order. [:)]

There are so few decent wargames that simulate Modern Warfare, and I think that you are the one who is being selfish, by trying to deprive those that enjoy non-WW II conflicts, .. by trying to drag 'Flashpoint' back to WW II, .. and the Eastern Front of all places.(Ho Hum)

Mad Russian opened this thread to allow people to voice their opinions etc., on what they would like to see in future expansions/addons etc.. By all means, voice your opinion on what you would like to see, .. BUT, .. please stop mouthing off at people because their opinion does not agree with yours.


Chill out .. [:'(]


Cheers
Tom

[wodin]

Thomasnew..go ask Slitherine what sells the most. Infact if you went with them with a game that was set say in Angola they wouldn't take it..same game set in WW2 if good enough they would take it on. There is a reason behind it. Take it from me I'm aware of things that maybe your not and could back up my argument but that would break confidentiality, upto you whether to believe it or not. As for operation Hopper I think you'll find the biggest selling was actual Achtung Panzer OS itself;) So no I wont give it a rest..Slitherine know more than me and you..and I'm fully aware on what they say sells. If you really want to see a Indie team carry on your a fool if you tell them to stick with niche Wars\Theaters as you'll soon find they couldn't continue due to low sales. These sorts of wars\Theaters should be made, but make sure they have more popular Wars in the series aswell.

Buzz words for sales and Slitherine..WW2, NATO, Warsaw Pact, Nukes!

Seems your another selfish wargamer who only wants what he likes made and everyone else can go swivel..sad. I know that none of the naysayers will influence the team anyway as they are more than aware that Ww2 sells more than other Wars, my annoyance is the way people request them not to make the game there by in their eyes depriving others who would like it. As I said I'd never say don't make this or that as I know others may be desperate for it.



This is the last I'm saying on it..won't be coming back to this thread.

[Thomasew]

@Wodin

There you go again ... behaving like a petulant child. [:-]

.. as you have done on other forums when you're not getting your way.

I've been playing Wargames since before you were born. I've been buying and playing Computer Games since you were in nursery school.

I've been working in the Computer/IT field since 1975, which allowed me to pursue my Computer Wargaming hobby with a certain amount of viguor. Some have said .. excessively so. [:'(]

Please do not, for a second .. profess to even dare to think that you somehow know more than me when it comes to Computer Wargaming and/or Gaming.

Get over yourself, .. and, for the last time, .. when there is such a proliferation of WW II computer games on the market, .. YOU are the one that is being selfish, by forcing your will on others, to take a game, .. firmly targeted at Modern Warfare and Conflicts ... back to WW II. [:(]

.. and trying to tell them that the Marketing/Development Strategy is flawed, and, if the Developers want to make money .. they need to make WW II wargames.

Did it ever occur to you?, .. that Flashpoint et al was developed because the developers love and enjoy Modern Conflicts. [:)]


Tom

[nukkxx5058]

My friends, my friends ! calm down I didn't want to be in the center of a fight
We should try to keep a community spirit

I however have 2 remarks:

1- if the sales were the only criteria, then a good soccer FIFA game would do much better that a n-th WW2 East front game. Or why not a D&D-like role playing game ?

2- From the strategic point of view of Slitherine, having a modern theater wargame like Flashpoint in their portfolio is an optimal strategy. Because yes, as they already have plenty of great WW2 games on their shelves, having a pure modern warfare game allow them to attract the guys like me who would not anymore purchase a WW2 game.

My humble opinion...

[Radagy]

Just wondering if this asynchronous turn system could be applied to napoleonic or civil war battles.
Much work should be done and different people should be involved but the strong concept beneath this game could be greatly expanded and easily exported in other operational frameworks.

[Mad Russian]

The asynchronous turn system is no mean feat to accomplish. That is the culmination of 8 years of development. They were just waiting for the right scenario designer to join the team and show it off in the best light. [:D]


Good Hunting.

MR

[Panta_slith]

I love the FPC scale (platoon/Co & 500m to a hex), and I also love WW2 battles. So said, I wonder if the FPC kind of approach would be suitable for games where infantry moves mostly on foot. I some FPC scenarios I had to wait for my dismounted platoons to advance into enemy territory and I found it too slow compared to the troops mounted on vehicles.
Concerning the future gamelets, each one of us has his/her own agenda of preferences, but undeniably the need to have a reasonable market for the final products is paramount, after all, designers, programmers et al need to be paid for their sweat, if not always lavishly (many of them are real amateurs), at least reasonably, since they are professionals.
Some periods may be interesting in theory but I also wonder how many westerner gamers would be ready to buy an India vs Pakistan scenario, for instance, and so forth.
In my personal case, for instance, I have been waiting for ME scenarios since FPG, but I don't think that I would buy Falklands or Korean scenarios, but that's just me.
Perhaps it would be interesting to make a poll of the preferences to get a more accurate idea of the players' tastes.

[Monkie]

Before moving on to other conflicts I'd prefer to see the current subject matter expanded and more command options added.

More countries, new maps and terrain, airmobile operations (would be necessary to develop before even thinking of a Vietnam setting) etc etc.

How about expanding the scenario editor to have triggers, random events, random units entering, etc so as to give scenario designers more tools to work with?

The game system is a winner, I say perfect it, let it evolve a bit and then move on to other conflicts and time periods.

[wodin]

Monkie I think thats already a given mate . I imagine this thread is for peoples wants in the long run.(though I too said the same thing:))

I'm 100% certain that this War\Theater will be expanded until they feel they can't do any more with regards to Nations\ Equip, Terrain and Seasons.

[kemmo]

As I've mentioned before I'm happy with whatever direction Flashpoint takes, but China v Russia or China v US  would be interesting.

[wodin]

China,USA, Japan, Australia and New Zealand..now they would be Nations I'd have in that Wargame (Russia may get involved aswell). Maybe some European Nations getting involved at some point.

[british exil]

It is mostly a matter of taste and interest. I know WWII games are out on the market 100's if not 1000's of them. I wouldn't mind playing a nice panzer battle using the FCRS engine, a small battle or larger would please me. Living in the 80's as an army child there is a certain aspect to the Falklands conflict, would be interesting.

Vietnam, Korea yes these are wars the western world knows about and there would be some interest there too. India/Pakistan I know nothing about, would this interest me, I doubt it. But that is my taste and interest. There are others who would love an India/Pakistan game. Should I say they are wrong? Just because their interest differs from mine? That would be quite unfair to take that stance.

I feel the person who put all the work into the games, modding the game, changing maps etc. they are the artists, they are the creators. They can/should decide what way FPC should go. Either we follow or say so far the journey was nice our ways part for a while, may we meet up agian.

Mat

[wodin]

Well said BE!

[Mad Russian]

Part of the draw for me is trying things I know about, as well as trying things I don't know about.

India-Pakistan I know little to nothing about. Iran-Iraq I know little to nothing about. For me, those would be learning experiences that would broaden my horizons. Would I become an avid fan of those conflicts? Probably not. Would I find them interesting to learn what happened between them? Absolutely.

Kursk has been done to death. In fact, the entire Russian Front has been. In case my nickname didn't give it away, I like the Eastern Front. For me, what's been happening in the past 5-6 years with all the books coming out of Russia, that tell the other side of the story, could make that all fresh again.

Besides, I have a way of making even familiar battles not end up being, 'the same old thing'. That's what I do. If you like how I do it then we are in for an exciting ride!!!

Good Hunting.

MR

[OldSarge]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
You can literally pick any conflict you like. I wasn't being exclusive with the list of theaters and wars. Those are off the top of my head without doing any research on the subject of where wars have taken place in the past 68 years since WWII ended. This planet is a violent place.

Good Hunting.

MR

That is the key, this world is a very violent place, there have been so many conflicts around the world since WWII. So many possibiliities, but only a few are really interesting enough for an entire game.

I'm less interested in the numerous border conflicts of the modern era, than I am the knock-down brawls that have (or might) occured between the regional powers - perhaps with the backing or involvement of the major powers. Korea and the Middle East are the two regions that readily come to mind, both regions are rich with past conflict(s) and just taking a breather waiting for the next round.

[Grim.Reaper]

I would really like to see the Mideast conflicts....those have always interested me and not enough games out there, especially like this game engine.

[Mad Russian]

Russia 1941 and Arab/Israeli Wars 67/73 have exactly the same issue for scenario modeling. How do you dumb down one side enough to make them historically accurate and still have an interesting combat situation?

We discuss M1A1's and T-80's now. How the dominance of one over the other often comes down to numbers. No place in history is this more true than Russia 1941 and Arab/Israeli Wars 67/73. They are a scenario designers nightmare come true. These three time periods are so unbalanced they are EXTREMELY difficult to make scenarios that are interesting.

Not saying it can't be done. Just that it's very challenging. There are other lesser battles/wars where one side is so dominant militarily that there is little to attract a good scenario to depict the fighting.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Grim.Reaper]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

Russia 1941 and Arab/Israeli Wars 67/73 have exactly the same issue for scenario modeling. How do you dumb down one side enough to make them historically accurate and still have an interesting combat situation?

That's why the world has scenario experts like you to figure it out:) I know you can do it:)