panzermartin

Hopefully the 1.05 will make MOUT much more fun to play. Now, honestly it is a kind of masochistic torture. I dont blame BFC. 1:1 was a right choice but is simply impossible to program individual soldiers to respond intelligently to high tech modern weaponry in such a complex environment. Auto-formation doesnt really work but unfortunately there is no possible user input here to counter this. I really really really wish we could be able to specifically pack a squad behind a vehicle, set line formation along a wall, the way Company of Heroes does. Things would be so much easier for us. When you are in a building things are more or less easy but once you get out of the door..brrrr. Its like letting a bunch of blind people walk across interstate 88 or something. On rural setting there are problems too, mainly that Los/Lof through crest lines etc but the game is less of a headache. This is one of the reasons (plus all the up to that date improvements) that I think the WW2 game will be far superior in gameplay. Less Mout, less lethal weapons, more interesting rural setting = vastly more enjoyable game.

Pathfinding is not that bad imo. Actually CMx2 will be a great game the day infantry will be useful in some way (and TCP/ip working ) . Even the arcadish Company of Heroes has infantry behaviour that actually is instantly understood, its very flexible and it feels realistic while being very easy to use. Plus, when under fire it tries to seek cover, or spreads out when under mortar/arty fire. MOUT and weak infantry modelling dont bond well together. There are no formations, no intelligent use of cover, unresponsive AI, obscure Los/Lof etc. Its a disaster when you try to simulate MOUT, where in reality every man will seek cover behind the tiniest natural or artificial terrain feature, while in the game soldiers are helpless and very willing to be wasted in the middle of a syrian street. In an RTS you can afford to lose zillions of squads with no real worries. In CMSF 3-4 squads are all you have. Lose some due to misunderstanding of the complex interface and game mechanics and your patience runs out very quickly.

Steve must have a large family then Sorry dude but your post is pathetic too. I don't like many things in the game but this is no excuse to post rude comments like the above. Games are more like music /movies etc. You cant insult a musician telling him that his music is only listened by his cat and its not a penny's worth. Especially when you have already listened to his samples before buying. Next time watch who is pissing in your corn flakes

Good luck with your witch hunting then. I haven't heard anything positive from Iraq or Afghanistan all those years. Saudi Arabia which supposedly is an ally seems to host more terrorist cells than countries US have invaded. Iran seems untouchable too. I dont know why people keep persuading themselves that the cumbersome military will make any difference in fighting something so asymmetrical, flexible and faceless as terrorism. Killing one more bearded caveman with an Ak-47 doesnt sound like a solution to the problem.

You make it sound like the boeings had the afghani flag stamped on them. You even invaded Iraq and later admitted that there was no solid link between 9/11 and Saddam. How can you compare this blurry case of terrorism with the extreme paradigm of WW2? I would consider it a madness if my country would start a war with lets say Turkey because of a terrorist act planned by an Albanian guy living in Ankara and executed by a Mongolian taxi driver from Instanbul. Your enemy is so widespread and invisible that waging war on particular countries is just a waste of lives and resources.

Its not about morality it is about strategy. You need to win the locals and public opinion back home. It wont help you if TV broadcasts piles of children bodies killed by coalition bombs, don't you think? I higly doubt that in Bush's agenda these people are considered better than garbage. In Vietnam you didnt have those morality issues I think. I guess you learnt your lesson this time. That of course doesnt make any difference because technicaly you are once again the invader. And the invader is always wrong in my book no matter how gentle or smart his bullets are.

Will we get to play them in 1.05 too?

I say good luck to the cavemen too. I dont know, since that Rambo movie I have a soft spot for them

That's all good but serious software companies have other priorities these days. Like bribing Gamespot for instance

Cowards? Nah..They are just being "gamey".

I dont think anybody insulted your grandmother's brother here, you really missed the point.

Sorry to sound a bit egocentric but I'm frustrated that CMSF's multiplayer is virtually non existent, while playing single player is from the start a scripted, uninteresting, unchallenging way of playing. Since 1.04 multiplayer is totally broken. Nobody even paid attention that the patch ruined even the basic TCP ip function of the game. Not that it was solid before..huge lags, floating infantry, 3 min delays of orders etc etc. CM solo is just 1% of the fun you could have versus a human. CMSF could bypass all the AI weaknesses (most of them are humanly impossible to improve) with a proper multiplayer function, opponents finidning lobby etc. It is RealTime now, so a 2player game could not be that time consuming.

Who cares about the AI anymore. Proper wargames are designed for human vs human and this is where I'm expecting to see improvement. Putting effort on resurrecting a brain dead, scripted TacAi, which has absolutely zero situational awareness and no responsiveness to simulate a fluid modern battlefield is a total waste of time and resources. I dont really blame them for this though, it is nearly impossible to put an auto pilot to such a tactically complex 3d wargame. Make CMSF a solid multiplayer platform with no bugs and lag problems, with time out points for TCP/IP RT and you'll have a winner.

Hmm, I'm giving the game a last chance with 1.05. If multiplayer is still problematic I will shelve it for good I'm afraid

Fair points but 5/10 with latest patch? If they mean 1.04 they are way off. Even gamespot gave it a 4.5 when practically CMSF was an unplayable beta. Its a 7/10 for me. Despite some impressive simulation moments, game still seems rather short lived and limited and the TCP multiplayer part that I had hoped it will keep it alive is totally screwed right now.

Well the most serious and most awaited 1.05 fix for me is that for the completely broken multiplayer. It is my major letdown from the start but sadly very few people played and therefore complained about it.It was never really playable but now its not even an option with connection problems, and crashes. It was about time they looked into it. Hopefully the horrible lags and bugs will go away with 1.05. How can a 2007 game can survive without a proper multiplayer function. Dont you people get tired of the scripted single player missions?

Good to see you are working on it. I can confirm those bugs too and I havent even tested 1.04 TCP yet. The unresponsive units, floating passengers and horrible lag were there from the start.

Add me to the list please. I refuse to play CMSF again if it is not for a properly working TCP game. 98% of my CMx1 time was TCP/IP. I expected the same for CMSF not the opposite.

Honestly, for a minute I thought it was in game graphics. I must admit that given their limited capabilities they have done a remarkable job in the visual department. Along with the sounds they are CMSF's strong points. I didnt expect to say that for a CM title.

I think CMSF as it is in 1.04 is a good game. But not properly working, buggy and laggy multiplayer is completely ruining it for me. I didnt buy it to play against scripted AI, I want to play the real thing, human vs human, like I did so many times with CMx1.

There is lag, especially when the map is bigger than "tiny". Could be my connection but I suspect its the very complex calculations of the engine that result in huge data transfer and consequently lag. No RTS or flight sim is near that complex, with LOS/LOF , penetrations, realistic ranges etc. Hope they can do something to improve things.

Has any of you played head to head in TCP/ip? It is barely playable beyond a platoon and a couple of IFVs. While the multi idea sounds great on paper I'm afraid that it will behave more like "CM space Lobsters of Doom" due to the horrid lag.

Any update on this? I'm mainly interested in the red side hardware or some new features/improvements since honestly LAVs and...LAVs dont seem as enough reason to grab it.

Anyway, multiplayer was almost a joke before. This might be the chance to look into it now.

For me a huge improvement is the removal of the regrouping each time you hit cancel for a squad movement order. Now you can immediately stop your men when stepping into an ambush, or adjust their position more accurately, for better LOF, cover etc. Huge step forward. No if they find a way for the squad to adjust formation depending on the terrain (corners/walls/hill crests etc etc) to overcome the half squad hiding/half squad firing issue the game will be a 8+ for me. 9+ if they improve the TCP/IP code and fix the QBs. 10+ when the WW2 title is out