Jump to content
IDILIX

CMSF2 New Belligerent ?

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

My intention was not to re-litigate long ago decisions

My intention wasn't to re-litigate anything, but look at it from a historical perspective, as the years have go on and I think we all have moved on and made our own peace with all that. Well, at least have. I don't love modern, I won't hide that, but I can appreciate what you guys have achieved. Which is pretty unique. I was just looking at a counterfactual and musing that your offering would be objectively poorer as in less diverse if things had gone my way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MikeyD said:

Do you know what the most 'successful' CM product launch was (based on my observation)? CMFI. Because its existence was kept a strict secret up until its launch. It came as a delightful surprise to everyone. 

Yeah that's a good point. Steve should just not give us any updates on what is going on or what products are planned. 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

We very clearly stated that CMSF1 would not expand beyond it's original form (though we have "cheated" in a few places to include more).  Therefore, customer expectations for expanding CMSF1 are unrealistic and there's not much we can do about that. 

The wish listing aside, I think some of the frustration may stem from finding out some of the 4.0 engine isn't making it into SF2 (and it spilled out here) Independent buildings being a major one.  Any terrain features, buildings, etc. left out are more things that will hobble and limit designers. Other than that it's just a normal day of b****ing on the forums that could've been more tactful in its delivery.

10 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

( The single biggest reason CMSF2 is taking so long is we wanted to give you CMSF1 players everything at once.  We thought you'd go nuts if you only got one release at a time since most of you have at least 1 Module, if not 3.

It's very much appreciated. I personally would've hated it. Just look how long RT and BS have been without any new forces. That wasn't meant as a jab, just a statement. All us SF1 guy have already been down that road once, so it's nice to know we won't be walking it again. That's one of the reasons I don't look as forward to CM3 as I should, is knowing how long it took us to get here with all the games and modules at 4.0.

 

Mord.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, BletchleyGeek said:

I was just looking at a counterfactual and musing that your offering would be objectively poorer as in less diverse if things had gone my way

Yep. Because SF lead the way for CMA and BS, things that may never have been considered if they'd only stuck to WWII. And it opened a lot of peoples eyes to the fact more modern settings could be really interesting and fun. I was on the fence in 2005, by the end of 2008 I was completely hooked. I want as much diversity as I can get, within the scope of WWII and outside it.

 

Mord.

Edited by Mord

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mord said:

The wish listing aside, I think some of the frustration may stem from finding out some of the 4.0 engine isn't making it into SF2 (and it spilled out here) Independent buildings being a major one.  Any terrain features, buildings, etc. left out are more things that will hobble and limit designers. Other than that it's just a normal day of b****ing on the forums that could've been more tactful in its delivery.

Mord.

I know what you mean but for clarity - independent buildings aren't an engine issue.  they are content. Everything in the 4.0 engine exists in CMSF2.  However not every title has the same content.  Independent buildings have been around since CMBN and I think we all really love what they bring to the game, but they are not engine items per se and each title has had a debate about how much goes into them.  If it were left up to us that don't make our bread and butter on the game there would likely be a lot more (assuming we didn't bankrupt the company with all our wishes).  Whether they get added in later is a whole other question, but the contention that something was left out or lost from CMSF is not accurate nor is it true that things were deleted from the engine.  Bringing in the independent buildings would require adapting the UI for the editor, art work for the buildings etc.  Granted I do not know how much actual effort that is, but it is effort and the line had to be drawn somewhere.  Not necessarily where I might like it to have been drawn, but my yard is not as big as I'd like, my house is not as new as I'd like, my car is not as big as I'd like and my paycheck is nowhere near as much as I would like to get me a retirement date I'd be happy about (today). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, sburke said:

Customer (singular) has expectations is more like it.

Not so sure about that.

11 hours ago, sburke said:

And that little minions message was uncalled for.

That is true and I apologise for it.

I was in a foul mood earlier and ranting seemed the easier option, I should know better.....Sometimes we have bad days.

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Customers have unreasonable expectations

Is some form of enhanced command structure for the Uncons (or the ability to create same by attaching sub-units to Groups/Commands) actually that unreasonable?

I'm not asking for the CM:A organisations, although as I said elsewhere, those might be a better starting point for the more organised Uncon types should you choose to add them in the future.

What I'm asking for is some confirmation that we will have the ability to improvise our own command structures for these units, assuming you have not already done so. 

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Just like all the CM1 fans who found out that CMSF1 was going to be modern and not Normandy based were being unreasonable when they "expected" us to change course and chuck CMSF aside.  You know, because modern warfare is boring and a waste of everybody's time.  Are you saying we should have listened to them?

At the time I would probably have agreed with them.....Glad you didn't listen. 

But sometimes I get the feeling that you are under the impression that I'm asking for more than I am (see above).  I love to improvise and experiment with these games (crew swapping, in-building suicide bombers and so on).....My concern is that from this point of view the new game may be considerably less useable than the old one, rather than massively more so, which I'd have thought would be what we all want?

 

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Destraex1 said:

Be very interested to see the list of what is different from CMSF1. I love the fact that you guys keep updating the previous games to the latest engine. It makes me happy to know that when I load an older combat mission cmx2 game I am playing the latest and greatest feature set. I cannot over state this.

1

Completely agree. I love that all of the games run on the same updated engine. The benefits of this are massive, and surely outweigh the cost of upgrades at the least. 

1 hour ago, Mord said:

That's one of the reasons I don't look as forward to CM3 as I should, is knowing how long it took us to get here with all the games and modules at 4.0.

I know it gets mentioned occasionally, and to my knowledge we do not have an official statement from BFC at this point, but I think the reality is this; It has taken a decade to get from Shock Force 1 to here. If they started working on CMx3 now, it would take another 10 years for them to "catch up" to where they are now. That, or they would focus on entirely new time periods/fronts. Either of those two options are not very appealing to me. I suspect BFC may have similar concerns as well. Point is, I think we are going to be seeing upgrades to CMx2 for the far foreseeable future, and I wouldn't consider CMx3 to be on the table at this point. 

1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

My concern is that from this point of view the new game may be considerably less useable than the old one, rather than massively more so, which I'd have thought would be what we all want?

I think the best way to answer your concern is this: anything you can currently do in CMBS, or the WWII titles in the editor, you will be able to do in CMSF2. If there is something you cannot do in the v4 engine game editors, then you will likely either have to improvise a new way to get the same effect, or you may be out of luck. Aside from trying to replicate what you can do in CMSF into CM v4 editors, the only real thing you can do is wait for SF2 to come out. 

All that said, I am under the impression that we will be getting more features, not less with SF2. If, worst case scenario you do lose the ability to recreate some of the improvised things you've come up with in the old editor, I would still argue that the new editor is a much better product overall. The improvement in performance alone is worth the upgrade in my opinion.

For clarification: in the SF1 editor it begins to lag pretty badly once the map size gets larger than ~1.5x1.5km, making it a real pain to work with. This doesn't mean you cannot make maps larger than ~1.5x1.5km, it just means it becomes a bit clunky and tedious. This problem is not in the modern engine. There are plenty of other improvements to the editor as well, but this strikes me as a major one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple of points...

As stated already, CMSF2 has 100% of the features of Game Engine 4.  It's not shorted on anything.  However, there are some content issues which are separate from the Engine.  For example, CMSF2 doesn't have winter weather conditions.  That's not because CMSF2 is lacking Engine 4 features, but because it isn't a part of Shock Force 1's original content.  An Independent Building found in Normandy likely isn't available in Black Sea, not because there's a difference in the Engine code but because there's a difference in the content.

We've had to expend a ton of energy and time reconciling the old CMSF1 content with current Game Engine features.  Some of those new things work without effort by the user, some of it requires manual reworking of scenarios/campaigns.  In some cases things we wanted to have in CMSF1, but the code at the time couldn't support, have been added.  Mortars and mortar vehicles are the big ones IMHO.  So when I said we weren't going to enhance CMSF1 content we obviously cheated a bit and gave you more than we promised.  We're very naughty sometimes ;)

The one place I can think of where we stuck to the "no new content" line was Independent Buildings.  We felt that was just one too many things to do.  And given how far over our estimated development time we are, I can say that was wise.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BletchleyGeek said:

My intention wasn't to re-litigate anything, but look at it from a historical perspective, as the years have go on and I think we all have moved on and made our own peace with all that. Well, at least have. I don't love modern, I won't hide that, but I can appreciate what you guys have achieved. Which is pretty unique. I was just looking at a counterfactual and musing that your offering would be objectively poorer as in less diverse if things had gone my way

The reasons we went with modern first were well thought out and done knowing we'd have the reaction we had, both good and bad.  At the time we calculated that the positives outweighed the negatives and in my view, if anything, we underestimated the positives of going modern first and overestimated the negatives.  If we had it to do all over again we'd still have done a modern game before a WW2 game.

3 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

That is true and I apologise for it.

I was in a foul mood earlier and ranting seemed the easier option, I should know better.....Sometimes we have bad days.

Thanks for that.  It matters.

Quote

Is some form of enhanced command structure for the Uncons (or the ability to create same by attaching sub-units to Groups/Commands) actually that unreasonable?

No, it is not unreasonable in a vacuum.  The expectation that it should happen because in theory it could, however, is unreasonable.  The worst problem game developers have is wanting to say "yes" to every idea that is either cool or at least not a big deal to add.  If we said yes to every half way decent idea we'd still be making CMBO.  Or more accurately, we'd have gone into the burger flipping business.  Heck, by now maybe one of us might be sporting an assistant manager nametag at our local grease slinging establishment ;)

Quote

I'm not asking for the CM:A organisations, although as I said elsewhere, those might be a better starting point for the more organised Uncon types should you choose to add them in the future.

What I'm asking for is some confirmation that we will have the ability to improvise our own command structures for these units, assuming you have not already done so. 

There is no support in Game Engine 4 for improvising command structures, so Uncons are pretty much the way they were in CMSF1.  However, we have Specialist Teams which can be added.  Plus, higher level Uncon command structures aren't really applicable to Shock Force's setting or scale.

Quote

At the time I would probably have agreed with them.....Glad you didn't listen. 

I can assure you that you're not alone!  I don't think I've put it quite like this before, so consider this a bone... in terms of direct units sold, CMSF is a close second to CMBN, which is our biggest seller historically.  Not too shabby ;)

Quote

But sometimes I get the feeling that you are under the impression that I'm asking for more than I am (see above).  I love to improvise and experiment with these games (crew swapping, in-building suicide bombers and so on).....My concern is that from this point of view the new game may be considerably less useable than the old one, rather than massively more so, which I'd have thought would be what we all want?

I can't think of how there would be less functionality with CMSF2 Uncons as there is with CMSF1.  Far more, I should think, if one considers the importance of Specialist Teams.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I can't think of how there would be less functionality with CMSF2 Uncons as there is with CMSF1.  Far more, I should think, if one considers the importance of Specialist Teams.

Steve

There are some changes in behavior when you do dismounted vehicles and that sort of thing between CMSF and CMBS as an example.  It is spelled out in a thread somewhere.  It is a very specific use case, but it is different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

However, we have Specialist Teams which can be added.

This I can work with!  :)

1 hour ago, sburke said:

There are some changes in behavior when you do dismounted vehicles and that sort of thing between CMSF and CMBS as an example.  It is spelled out in a thread somewhere.  It is a very specific use case, but it is different.

This is a very big part of what I was referring to.

I've been up all night building Trumpton (you would not believe the number of flavour objects), so I can't remember where the thread was off hand.....My issue was about dismounted vehicles automatically turning into ammo dumps (so crew-swapping is no longer possible) and my hope that (at some point in the future) it might be possible to select either state (and thus do crew-swaps).

In CM:SF you could do this without mods:

LlwprX5.jpg

As I understand it, this will not be possible in CM:SF2 (my attempts to achieve similar things in all the other Engine 4 games have always resulted in supply dumps).  :(

However regardless of that, @Battlefront.com's reply has covered the current issue for me, for which he has my thanks.  B)

PS - Notice the C2 issues with the small band above.....That is all I wanted to be able to fix.  ;)

PPS - But being able to do the whole thing would be nice!  :P

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

...  If we had it to do all over again we'd still have done a modern game before a WW2 game

Thanks for sharing your assessment, 10+ years on, Steve. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

I can assure you that you're not alone!  I don't think I've put it quite like this before, so consider this a bone... in terms of direct units sold, CMSF is a close second to CMBN, which is our biggest seller historically.  Not too shabby ;)

Interesting insight! Here's someone that got into CM through CM:SF. The deep detailed and realistic modeled modern setting and the realtime option got my specific attention and interest at the time. CMx1's 'slow' turn based WW2 system with 'clunky graphics' never really appealed to me - I was 17 when CMBO released, think I tried a demo once.
Although CMSF started buggy I liked it from the get go. It only got better, with modules and user created content. From there all other CMx2 releases have been a must buy.

I too was and am really 'excited' (in sofar as one can/should be for the release of a computer game) that CMSF is getting updated. I'd love to revisit the old content and sandbox setting in the up-to-date engine. The $35,- big upgrade is a great price imo. I hope the new release attracts a lot of new customers into CMSF2 and from there CMx2 too!

PS. Of course I would also be interested in more content / features for uncons in CMSF2. I hope in the future there will be enough perceived business value for you in it to release a pack or something the like. TO&E and visual (mod) pack(s) featuring some scenario's / campaigns? Of course in the fictional CMSF world, a few years after the invasion and the subsequent occupation, it's not unlikely that the ex-soldiers of the regime get organised into a new belligerent: syssi's. I original read this thread as a wish for such DLC content. I'd think it be interesting from a commercial point of view, but I'm not in the know really. I can just share my 'desires'. 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lethaface said:

Although CMSF started buggy I liked it from the get go. It only got better, with modules and user created content. From there all other CMx2 releases have been a must buy.

+1 

Also was very disappointed/shocked at CMSF early version(s).  But, became increasingly impressed that BF stuck with it and kept working to improve CMSF till it became an xnt game - perhaps my favorite.   It's the main reason am not impatient for new timely releases as one can be confident that BF will do a great job and get it "right" rather than be a slave to release schedules and the horrible compromises that creates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Erwin said:

+1 

Also was very disappointed/shocked at CMSF early version(s).  But, became increasingly impressed that BF stuck with it and kept working to improve CMSF till it became an xnt game - perhaps my favorite.   It's the main reason am not impatient for new timely releases as one can be confident that BF will do a great job and get it "right" rather than be a slave to release schedules and the horrible compromises that creates.

This combined with the fact that I respect the challenge of taking on a full blown wargame simulator with 'one and a half man plus a horsehead' (dutch proverb) as a small business, makes me sort of auto buy BF.C titles. Apart from the buggy CMSF release and the relatively long wait for the upcoming patch&content, I think BF.C has always performed great on the 'customer delivery' scale. I haven't needed support a lot, but if I needed it they wuz there.
This is now sounding like a fanboi praise, which isn't. I guess it at least fits in with the thread's progress so far, topics be darned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tangential rant...

Games are designed to be enjoyed, therefore it is expected that people will express enjoyment of games.  Expressing enjoyment doesn't make someone a "fanboi".  That term really should be reserved for someone who refutes well grounded criticism with abuse, "alternative facts", ignorance, etc.  Basically, blind and irrational devotion is deserving of the term "fanboi".  Someone who says he likes a game, warts and all, is not a "fanboi".  Especially someone who can rationally and reasonably outline what they see are problems/failings.

I don't like true fanbois any more than the next person.  I might like them less, in fact, because uncritical or counter factual feedback is useless to us.  We need people who care about our games enough to both play them and offer constructive feedback.

What I find worse than fanbois, though, are the people that who obviously enjoy a game, but find it impossible to say a good thing about it.  "These games suck.  How do I know?  I've bought every single one of these games over the last 10 years and put in at least 1000 hours each, have posted thousands of times about them, and even written articles telling people how terrible they are."  What does that tell me?  The game has less defects than the critic.  And games are bugs are a lot easier to fix than mental illness.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Tangential rant...

Games are designed to be enjoyed, therefore it is expected that people will express enjoyment of games.  Expressing enjoyment doesn't make someone a "fanboi".  That term really should be reserved for someone who refutes well grounded criticism with abuse, "alternative facts", ignorance, etc.  Basically, blind and irrational devotion is deserving of the term "fanboi".  Someone who says he likes a game, warts and all, is not a "fanboi".  Especially someone who can rationally and reasonably outline what they see are problems/failings.

I don't like true fanbois any more than the next person.  I might like them less, in fact, because uncritical or counter factual feedback is useless to us.  We need people who care about our games enough to both play them and offer constructive feedback.

What I find worse than fanbois, though, are the people that who obviously enjoy a game, but find it impossible to say a good thing about it.  "These games suck.  How do I know?  I've bought every single one of these games over the last 10 years and put in at least 1000 hours each, have posted thousands of times about them, and even written articles telling people how terrible they are."  What does that tell me?  The game has less defects than the critic.  And games are bugs are a lot easier to fix than mental illness.

Steve

Fair points. My fanboi comment was a little tongue in cheek, had some beers too ;-). I think it has become a sort of tradition here that anyone not being critical is called a fanboi. At the same time, critics are sometimes met with a lot of defensive flak from other users. Both are imo pretty normal things to occur on discussion forums, given the human pscyhe.

Anyway, I've certainly had my share of enjoyment with CM. And I'm certain there'll be more with CM:SF2! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/7/2018 at 2:11 AM, Sgt.Squarehead said:
On 8/7/2018 at 12:01 AM, Battlefront.com said:

However, we have Specialist Teams which can be added.

This I can work with!  :)

I am so glad Steve let that out. Testers are not allowed to comment on stuff that has not been released so I have had to bite my tongue when telling people about this would have made them happy (OK less worried :-). So, yay now we can point this out...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lethaface said:

I think it has become a sort of tradition here that anyone not being critical is called a fanboi. At the same time, critics are sometimes met with a lot of defensive flak from other users.

Yeah, see that I don't agree with. I suppose it is a matter of definition. As someone who has been called a fanboi a bunch of times I find it really weird since I think my post record shows I *do* have a realistic idea of what the game does well and not so well and poorly. I suppose that's part of why being called that doesn't really bother me since it is so clearly unwarranted :D .

On the flip side: Very often I hear things like that "why are you being so mean they just want to make the game better". Yeah, not so sure about that sometimes :D . There are posts every now and then asking things like "when are all these bugs going to be fixed", "the game is broken I cannot play it" and then they list all their 10 issues and only one might be a bug and is worth looking at and the majority of the others are behaviours that are intended that have been explained repeatedly or limitations that also have been discussed frequently. Clearly I'm expressing frustration with long time forum members that don't seem to actually read the forum and not new posters - although attitude is important too. Surely it is not unreasonable to expect if people are being critical of game behaviours they should at least be open to being wrong or at least be open to the possibility that others disagree.

 

1 hour ago, Lethaface said:

Both are imo pretty normal things to occur on discussion forums, given the human pscyhe.

Well that is certainly true. One more reason to work hard at refraining form being snarky at people doing either of those above things. Sorry I fail from time to time :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I began in war gaming with Avalon Hill's Squad Leader, progressed to Advanced Squad Leader, and finally online with CMBB. I must admit that I have a major character flaw. I don't pay any attention to the warts in the game or what I think it should be able to do, but can't. I accept the game as is, because for all it's bugs, problems, and limitations, IMHO, it's the best game set in the industry. The only thing that really gets my hackles up and causes me to bare my teeth is when someone complains that the BF support service is bad. I've had a number of issues that support helped me resolve, and if they couldn't help me, the next e-mail was from Steve, who once worked late into Christmas Eve to help me resolve a licensing issue, and finished by thanking me for my support of BF.

I respect and appreciate the help and guidance of the many grognards in the Forums (even if I don't always agree with their answers), who for the most part have the patience of Saints. If you've ever answered the telephone and had someone immediately launch into a tirade because they were transferred from one number to another until they get back to where they started, and then was then disconnected, you know what I'm talking about. Unfortunately, the Forums are anonymous and too many feel that they can be insulting jerks because they are hidden. If you are one who doesn't treat others with courtesy and respect just because you don't agree with them, then YOU are the problem! (Occasional lapses due to illness, bad days, extreme frustration excepted.)

Bottom line of this rant is my advice to realize that NOTHING IS EVER PERFECT, and to just enjoy playing the most amazing game set out there.

Edited by Vet 0369

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I've personally gradually stopped playing any other game since I first bought CMBS. 

Quote

             HEY, YOU!

          YEAH - YOU!!! 

Feeling DRAINED By Massive Giga-Downloads? FED UP With In-Game Purchase Pressure? Need to STRIP your SSD of BLOATED, graphics heavy but content-light modern War-bage? HAD ENOUGH of super-high-FPS with no meaning or rationale? 

Try the ALL NEW Combat Mission Low-Crap/High Content Diet!

Guaranteed to satisfy your hidden need for Battalion Scale Dining* and Off Map Mortaring! Comes with optional QB and a Structured Campaign Approach!** Try it for FREE with a FREE Demo or sign up at our approachable kiosks*** in a mall near you****!!! 

 

May cause sedentary issues, early on-set hair loss at AI mistakes, trials using monkeys abandoned after 5 deaths, constipation to be expected in-game, high rate of NGASAAE*****, incessant anxiety for next upgrade/patch/battle pack, variable deficit attention attrition. Possibly causes cancer and/or leukemia. Not sure yet. 

------

*No actual food stuffs consumed 

**Full game only. 

***Do not exist. 

****Do NOT approach or make eye contact with Battlefront.com staff. THIS IS A SAFETY WARNING. 

*****Not Giving A **** About Anything Else

 

Edited by kinophile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am simply salivating at the thought of the CMSF2 Demo, and quivering in anticipation of its release. I was just playing the second mission of the CMSF1 Marines beach head campaign last night on my PC side (I have a MacPro with Boot Camp), and every time I thought I'd just make my commands, save, and go to bed, I'd say to myself "just one more turn," and hit the GO button. Is there a "Seven-Step Program" for Combat Mission addiction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, IanL said:

Yeah, see that I don't agree with. I suppose it is a matter of definition. As someone who has been called a fanboi a bunch of times I find it really weird since I think my post record shows I *do* have a realistic idea of what the game does well and not so well and poorly. I suppose that's part of why being called that doesn't really bother me since it is so clearly unwarranted :D .

On the flip side: Very often I hear things like that "why are you being so mean they just want to make the game better". Yeah, not so sure about that sometimes :D . There are posts every now and then asking things like "when are all these bugs going to be fixed", "the game is broken I cannot play it" and then they list all their 10 issues and only one might be a bug and is worth looking at and the majority of the others are behaviours that are intended that have been explained repeatedly or limitations that also have been discussed frequently. Clearly I'm expressing frustration with long time forum members that don't seem to actually read the forum and not new posters - although attitude is important too. Surely it is not unreasonable to expect if people are being critical of game behaviours they should at least be open to being wrong or at least be open to the possibility that others disagree.

 

Well that is certainly true. One more reason to work hard at refraining form being snarky at people doing either of those above things. Sorry I fail from time to time :D

Just to be 100% clear, I don't think you are a 'fanboi' in any sense. I think the term fanboi has become a sort of an easy argument to substantiate sophisms on this forum; I don't take it's usage seriously. Perhaps you are a little attached to CM and because of this attachment, sometimes defend CMx2 like it's your game. Is that too direct? Sorry, I'm dutch 😜

Apart from the whole fanboi thing which I wish I didn't mention at all (let alone inadvertently imply others), I think you're a very appreciated member of this forum. Even by some of the characters you, imo correctly, summarize above. At least by me. Respected old guard with a lot of knowledge about the game, rational and pleasant in communication (most of the times 😉). 

Besides, we all fail at times. Failing is a healthy thing, as we learn from failing. At least, we can learn from it; not everyone does. Without failing it's hard to learn. I like to think that I have learned quite a lot in my life (but still don't know a lot), and boy did/do I make many mistakes!!! :) 😂😂

Edited by Lethaface

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×