kipanderson

Hi, I think the fact that Steve has now been so upfront with the fact that BFC know they sent CMSF out the door unfinished due a contractual problem should make all but the most anti-CMSF relax. It is certainly a relief to me. It means it is likely there is no fundamental problem with the RT system that stopped them being able to produce a polished product with CMX2. Give it a few months and all should be well. It is a difficult one, but it may have been better if Steve had been more upfront from the start with the fact that it is unfinished even in 1.01. Anyway I am enjoying playing some WWII style infantry games with CMSF, works very well. I look forward to a long line of CMX2 games, but will sit out Space Lobsters as I lack imagination and am only a hardcore wargame fan . Steve, There is one missing feature I do agree with your critics will cause problems. No Pause in human v human. Or so I am told. If we could have the option of using Pause in human v human, if playing someone we trust not to abuse it for example, it would help a lot. RT with no pauses is pushing the envelope. To be sure not to spoil the game one would have play very small scenarios. As someone who likes big/huge scenarios this would be a shame . All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Brent, hi, Good post… always helpful to know these things. I may edit out some walls due to the problems. Happily Steve has been quite open about the fact that CMSF was sent out the door prematurely. It was due to some contract they had to honour. This fact reassured me a lot. Their standards have not slipped… they know CMSF as it is today should really be a beta. Stunning game, when debugged will be all I hoped for. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Well..I like both micromanagement and 1:1 representation. I enjoy seeing the battlefield from the point of view of the squad leader but because I am greedy I want to see the entire battlefield from the point of view of many squad leaders all at once . Micromanagement and seeing the battlefield from the perspective of the squad leader/ AFV commander is what CM is all about… it is the magic of it. For chaos live team play/CoOp play is the answer. But I like the detail. With pause-able RT I can also easily cope with RT. I very rarely pause, in most games I never pause. What is needed is a full debugging. But now I know the explanation as to why CMSF was sent out door early I am more relaxed about that too. Many here pontificate about things they know nothing about. What can and what cannot be coded in RT and 1:1 representation in CMSF only Charles and maybe Steve know. Not JasonC nor Michael. The modelling of cover is one example of this. Whether RT and 1:1 representation are a fundamental problem for casualty modelling neither JasonC nor Michael know. They can only guess. But no harm in that. Each to their own. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Steve, I had not read the reasons before as to the premature release/bugs. I certainly do understand that predicting exactly when you would finish a year in advance is risky. Knowing the reason why it was released with so many bugs is a relief . When CMX2 has been fully debugged and then there is the near prospect of Panzer IVs/Vs/VIs crashing about all will cheer up . All good fun, All the best, Kip.

I posted this on another thread... but as this where the action is I amy as well post here too . Hi, Well I am as serious a wargamer as any, I go back to the SPI games of the late ‘70s, also as serious a military history fan as any. Have spent lots of time going through the archives of museums and have some Eastern Front manuals of which my copy is the only one I know of…anywhere… I play no PC “games”, only wargames if they are so good they are really a form of military history. The only ones I currently play are the CM series. Nothing else has ever made the cut for more than one of two test games. Anyway… my take is that people are digging too deep. Way too deep . If CMSF had launched as “bug-free” as we all expected it would be and with a friendlier UI all but the usual suspects/tiny minority would rave about it. It also would have got the usual rave reviews. I am no programmer but if BFC had spent another month on “general bugs” such as the ATGM bug it launched with, another month on “crash issues” and lastly a month on “unit behaviour” such as pathfinding/TacAI 90% of CM fans, plus many new fans, would love it. That is “love the engine” but many would still prefer a WWII setting. Each to their own… I would prefer NATO Central Front . I have just played out a modded version of the Brandenbug scenario plus a training scenario I built… all in 1.02. The training scenario was in many ways a WWII scenario in that it was a Stryker company but with all AFVs bar four removed attacking a village held by a single Syrian mechanised platoon, but without their AFVs. Everything that happened was very CMX1 in style… just better and more detailed . I was also using a full set of Direct Command Hotkeys for all bar one command, Cancel Target which cannot yet be Hotkeyed. It makes such a big difference that the UI issues are 100% solved… I have a list of the Hotkeys next me and am very quickly learning them all… it’s as quick to use as CMX1. (But dropdown menus when you left-click a unit would be my personal favourite UI method.) There is no fundamental problem with the scale and scope of CMX2. The problem is that CMSF was sent out the door unfinished… three months early. What is done is done…BFC have taken the hits in bad reviews as a result of sending it out unfinished. Give it three months and CMX2/CMSF will be everything CMX1 was in its day…only way better . CMX2 is everything and more than I hoped…it just needs to be finished . All very good fun, All the best, Kip. PS. The only possible qualification is whether or not the “unit behaviour” issues such as pathfinding and TacAI are down to the limitations of RT or not. And the only people who really know the answer to that are Steve and Charles.

Hi, Well I am as serious a wargamer as any, I go back to the SPI games of the late ‘70s, also as serious a military history fan as any. Have spent lots of time going through the archives of museums and have some Eastern Front manuals of which my copy is the only one I know of…anywhere… I play no PC “games”, only wargames if they are so good they are really a form of military history. The only ones I currently play are the CM series. Nothing else has ever made the cut for more than one of two test games. Anyway… my take is that people are digging too deep. Way too deep . If CMSF had launched as “bug-free” as we all expected it would be and with a friendlier UI all but the usual suspects/tiny minority would rave about it. It also would have got the usual rave reviews. I am no programmer but if BFC had spent another month on “general bugs” such as the ATGM bug it launched with, another month on “crash issues” and lastly a month on “unit behaviour” such as pathfinding/TacAI 90% of CM fans, plus many new fans, would love it. That is “love the engine” but many would still prefer a WWII setting. Each to their own… I would prefer NATO Central Front . I have just played out a modded version of the Brandenbug scenario plus a training scenario I built… all in 1.02. The training scenario was in many ways a WWII scenario in that it was a Stryker company but with all AFVs bar four removed attacking a village held by a single Syrian mechanised platoon, but without their AFVs. Everything that happened was very CMX1 in style… just better and more detailed . I was also using a full set of Direct Command Hotkeys for all bar one command, Cancel Target which cannot yet be Hotkeyed. It makes such a big difference that the UI issues are 100% solved… I have a list of the Hotkeys next me and am very quickly learning them all… it’s as quick to use as CMX1. (But dropdown menus when you left-click a unit would be my personal favourite UI method.) There is no fundamental problem with the scale and scope of CMX2. The problem is that CMSF was sent out the door unfinished… three months early. What is done is done…BFC have taken the hits in bad reviews as a result of sending it out unfinished. Give it three months and CMX2/CMSF will be everything CMX1 was in its day…only way better . CMX2 is everything and more than I hoped…it just needs to be finished . All very good fun, All the best, Kip. PS. The only possible qualification is whether or not the “unit behaviour” issues such as pathfinding and TacAI are down to the limitations of RT or not. And the only people who really know the answer to that are Steve and Charles.

Hi, Thanks for getting back to me guys. Sorry if detail was missing. It is RT on a currently hiding unit that is just sitting there. Will try just hitting Hide again; have not tried that in 1.02. Thanks, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Once I have set my troops to Hide… I am having difficulty cancelling the order. I find I can give them an alternative order such as Target, and they do take to it, but not simply cancel the Hide order. If I wish my troops to stop Hiding, but just sit there and spot/fire as ordered by the TacAI how do I do it? Thanks for your help, All the best, Kip.

Martyr, thanks for the hint, am planning to use the Hotkeys for all commands. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Just played a modded version of the Brandenbug scenario as Syrians in 1.02. Did very little, mainly watched and Targeted now and then… but mainly watched. The game played out great. The ATGM bug I had spotted and reported has been nicely fixed. Great game in very way . Looking forward to many more CMX2 games, All the best, Kip.

Hi, My first post after the release of CMSF was “Hype Justified” …. So you can see where I stand . However… even I had a wobble on about the third day using CMSF . What many have said before is correct. Most dedicated CM fans remember CMBB in its final version as “CM”…. with all its maturity and polish. When I first downloaded CMSF I spent most of my time using the editor and could not have been happier. But after playing one long/big game was concerned by unit behaviour issues. TacAI/path-finding/LOS/LOF… my concern was that these bugs may not be solvable due to RT. RT itself may be the cause, the issue. I have now both been reassured by Steve that RT is not the cause of the problems and remembered just how many patches CMBO took to get right. After a brief wobble have now returned to my first conclusion regarding CMSF. CMSF is all I hoped for, better in fact and very much playable right now. Give it two or three patches and two or three months and I am sure the old polish will be back . The complaints will stop. Greatly looking forward to many more CMX2 wargames… All the best, Kip.

Steve, hi, “We've already added unique keys for each Command to the v1.02 patch” Great stuff…. Just what was needed . Once I get used to the new keys it will be way faster to get around. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, There is a known ATGM accuracy bug that is being worked on. This may be the problem as laser guided ATGMs should not miss that often. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Thanks fro you input… Now I have gone off and read the manual…always a good idea but something I tend to skip …. in CMSF you have to use Hunt combined with a Target Arc. If you do that the Hunting unit will ignore all spotted units outside the arc. i.e. not stop for a far off/distant spotted unit. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, The Passage at Wilcox scenario, US player from the very start. I find that when I use the Hunt command for Bradleys and M1s they sometimes/often cancel or drop the order almost immediately. They travel a very short distance, or do not move at all, then for no apparent reason, they are not engaging a target or nay such thing, they stop and the order is cancelled. Great game even if there are a few bugs, All the best, Kip.

Hi, RT is fine… as long as it is not a fundamental problem for unit behaviour. That is for TacAI/pathfinding/LOS/LOF and so on. If the problems we are seeing are just bugs that Charles will crack in time, no problem. I enjoy pause-able RT… works very well. But as you can see I have my concerns because I too always remembered the above post from Steve. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Yes… I was just about to report the same bug… I say “bug” because I am talking about units that are 100% healthy with full communications. They may hesitate a bit, but overall such units should do as they are told. Talking about Brandenbug scenario playing as US forces. Great scenario, great game, but did find the above bug. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, I would like to see the option of Republican Guard units armed with the very latest Russian kit. T90M2s, BMP3Ms, Kornet ATGMs, RPG29s. An assumption that I use when playing CMSF is that the build up to hostilities was 9 months plus and that the Russians decided to back the Syrians. Throw a small fraction of their $365 billion reserves at the problem…. In the most part this means more funds for training and shipping all the latest model rounds/missiles for existing systems. For example the modest AT4, when armed with the latest model missile, is a very potent weapon. I always use Excellent as the Weapons setting in the editor for the Syrians to model the above. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Michael, “So in all honesty, Kip, are you finding the longer scenario times enough?” I think I am ..yes… In fact I have spent most of my time playing with the editor; I do that with new games . But the longer scenarios are certainly a big help. I play mainly in Veteran mode RT, so I can pause when I wish. Good fun. Steiner14, Yup, the death of Borg Spotting is very noticeable. When an ATGM launches and the M1s and Bradleys spot it in their thermal imagers only a small number will turn and fire at once. Not the entire pack as in CMX1. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Yes… the end of Borg Spotting is a huge step forward . After years of playing CMX1, mainly CMBB, Borg Spotting finally killed the game for me… in CMSF, when played in Veteran mode, the FOW is “perfectly” handled for one player per side/or V computer. I would not change anything, for single player games, one player per side games. Job well done just as advertised . In the long run live team play/CoOp play is the answer for more realistic chaos. With each player only able to spot what his own troops can spot, both other friendly and enemy units. If people want more realistic chaos, more players on each side is the way to go. All great stuff, All the best, Kip.

Hi, No…I do understand the difference between TacAI and Strategic AI. I think . TacAI is that which controls the individual units, when they stop if they spot an enemy, when they fire if they spot an enemy…and so on. The Strategic AI is now handled by Group Orders scripted by the scenario designer. In CMX1 the Strategic AI was terrible, the TacAI…when a Sherman stopped and turned the turret and such…was outstanding . It is the behaviour of the individual unit/squad/AFV that worries me. I am happy to have humans scripting the Strategic AI. If RT is no the problem then I am confident Charles will crack the TacAI problems. He did in CMX1 so why not in CMX2. The behaviour of the individual units, given their orders either from a human or the scripted Strategic AI, is what makes CM for me. The most immersive games ever developed . Looking forward to many more CMX2 games, All the best, Kip.

Hi, TacAI is the very heart of CM, it is what made CMX1 the great series it was. Is the current problem with TacAI down to the RT engine? If so is the solution smaller games/scenarios? Charles programmed outstanding TacAI/ stunning TacAI in CMX1 so there must be some other issue causing the problem. All the best, looking forward to many more CMX2 games, Kip.

Hi, So far I could not be happier with CMSF, but am worried that I will soon encounter some dodgy TacAI. TacAI is the big one, the factor that made CMX1 the classic that is was. If there are problems out there, I have spent most of my time in the editor so far, I hope they are not a fundamental consequence of the RT engine. I am well aware that in CMX1 the TacAI could cope with near anything, in huge games, because it could take its time to calculate the turn. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, TacAI is the very heart of CM… it was what made CMX1 the great wargame of all time…. in my view. Strategic AI may be better done by the scenario designer, which was not very hot in CMX1. So far I have spent most of my time using the editor, what I have played, the Brandenbug scenarios and variants there of, have been outstanding. But I am a little concerned that it is only a matter of time till I experience the dodgy TacAI… which will be a great shame if it happens. . I am sure they will fix it… All the best, Kip.

Hi, I too prefer the Veteran mode. It is very close to the toughest CMX1 mode but without the dreaded Borg/Absolute Spotting… Great stuff… All the best, Kip. PS. The long-term answer is live team play/CoOp play with each player only seeing what this own units can see.