MarkEzra

SGT_P Welcome to the forum. My deep, personal thanks for your service. A very thoughtful presentation of improving the tactical AI. I'm sure BFC will take notice.

Thanks BFC for the hard work...please let Charles take a nap and..oh..get him a whopper...make it his way...

In the setup mod only: 1. Click on Inf 2. click move button 3. point cursor over vehicle until one lites green icon w/small arrow...yellow won't do 4. click on that vehicle.

I'm on the CM:SF bus. It's fun, great to look at, and has excellent wargaming depth. BFC's history of quality assurance and flexibility makes CM:SF an odds on bet to be considered a classic of Wargaming innovation.

I am keen on impassable terrain...to me an important scen design tool. Not that excited about big, goofy boulders though. The 5m "cliff" should stop vehicles but allow troops. Anything steeper should stop all movement types. I wonder if this type of change would be possible

This is what I would like to see. Someone in another thread pointed out that by frontloading the results, this could increase the framerate, since it's pre-defining the outcome using the ballistics, etc in the engine. That's different since now, not only is it determining the outcome, but it's running graphics at the same time. All of this takes processor time, and slows things down. I'd prefer to have it determine the outcome first, video later. I guess you are right about the new engine activity. QUOTE]LOL Interesting take on preferring RT My orders tend to be just as bad, but at least I like the luxury of being able to analyze and see what happened in detail. Actually I've been only playing WEGO...my preferred method of Wargaming...Apparently I like to beat and berate myself.

That sure doesn't sound like a bug. I expect the way to tell would be to count casualties. However: If a unit cannot follow a command due to casualties or being pinned down, ect AND has good C2 It would stand to reason that higher command (player) would be notified of the inability to respond. [ August 05, 2007, 08:35 AM: Message edited by: MarkEzra ]

Originally posted by moneymaxx: QUOTE]So it seems that the only thing that is missing at this moment is a replay function for the last let's say 90 seconds in RT, since RT is essentially WEGO with variable time-limit. Just pause to give new orders. [/QB]

In WEGO: I am not able to duplicate your reported bug in a battle scen. When I click on enemy unit and then keyboard stroke -/+ I am sent back to my own forces. The way CM always has. Are you playing RT and can you duplicate?

When I destroy buildings I rip a very large box like hole prior to collapse

This sounds like a bad little bug. Can others duplicate?

Well ... {sniff} ... perhaps to a GREENHORN like you! I think the cutoff was around 275. Joe </font>

God save Elton John??

I like cherries...Give me more cherries to pick

Steel you are NOT reading me correctly. I play CM:SF. I play this game in WEGO only. It plays great and where there are issues BFC is fixing them. BFC as also decleared that it will ALWAYS support WEGO. I hope this is clear now

I suggest that when you have time dl the demo...you are likley to be glued to your PC for several days playing this game so let family and friends know your OK before you start....

WEGO is IN PBEM/Hot seat only. TCP/IP is for RT only. From one old timer to another buy the game and play WEGO like I am now. In case anyone cares to know: I always played CM as PBEM and never once played it TCP/IP...so I can't bitch much about TCP/IP which favors RT style play. Just seems a logical split to me

This affects RT as well as WeGo, which therefore is a different line of argument. It is also something that will be fixed for BOTH WeGo and RealTime. Already explained above. Again, the presence or absence of this feature does not make the game any more or less WeGo. The original CMBO did not have TCP/IP, so does that mean CMBO wasn't WeGo? Steve [/QB]</font>

And now I can begin to hear you more clearly. It a shame you had to fiddle with the game. Runs perfectly for me. On the numerous times I bought games that didn't work I was often told "tough luck" by those companies. I know from years of buying BFC products that they'll work like crazy to resolve the tech issue... Now please...un-tie Michael Dorosh and set him free... [ August 03, 2007, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: MarkEzra ]

Dale: Don't believe everything you've read. At it's core CM:SF is a REAL step forward in Wargame evolution. To be sure there are teething problems. But I expect BFC is up to the task. Have you forgotten the fire storm of complaint with CMBO?

welcome to the forum! Hope you'll buy the game direct from BFC...Support these guys. They're worth the bucks.

You can't skip time during the action phase. You couldn't in CMx1 you can't in CMx2. If choose not to see this then the problem is with you. So what you are saying is that you knew that nothing was going to happen and so you could skip the replay with the old system and make things go faster? Most of us couldn't read that much into the progress bar. Or do you only play scenarios that you create so that you know when everything is going to happen. [/QB]

I have no problem about a few start up scen/camp. The CM community produces them with great care and detail. That the editor is truly a remarkable advance will take time to show itself. A bit like the county fair...so much to see and do. Regarding the QB Platform: I do not see the need for game generated maps. I stopped using them in CMx1 over player/self created maps ages ago. But the delight of creating a force mix of my own and allowing the game to select a random force to surprise me will be missed. I do hope the BFC will review it's position. My understanding of the "problem with QB" was the computer generated map, not troop selection methodology.

MikeyD: I'm having a great gaming experience, too. Playing WEGO, by the way. Mr. Funkster has requested that we not involve him in debate. Let's let it go at that.