hoolaman

Considering that the original 2005 post was in response to the game's setting and the (slight) possibility that PBEM might not be included, I think the original was far from clever or prescient. There are a lot of problems with the game by all accounts, but none of us suspected that two years ago. The modern setting has brought in many new players, and many of the old WWII crowd are enjoying the game. PBEM is in, so what's the reason for the spam to show the original spam was not spam?

Great news Madmatt, I found the demo to be disappointing only because the missions did not showcase what I wanted to see. I think one infantry based MOUT tutorial and one larger combined arms type mission both in daylight would be good.

Whether you are talking about deserts or lush green fields, I have yet to see a CMSF screenshot that looks much like any photo I have seen of Syria.

It's funny that you say you disagree with me, and then prove my point with everything else you say. </font>

I disagree with MD's essay on the design of the game. So you own a lot of boardgames? I know there is a rich history of military boardgaming, but to be honest I don't think a game of CMSF's complexity is really comparable to those dice and counters. It's like a comparing a pencil and paper to an electronic calculator. Sure you can eventually do all the same things with one that you can with the other, but to say that you should only do simple things with the calculator because that was you used to do with the pencil is not right. There is nothing inherently wrong with trying to simulate 1:1 everything, and a lot of the stuff MD complains about are actually quite trivial bugs, not problems with the concept itself, although they are there and do hinder the enjoyment of the 1:1 concept. I tend to agree with kipanderson on this one. I think there are a few shortcomings in the game as it stands. TACAI. the TacAI is not working as it should. I know this will be tweaked and tweaked over time, so maybe in a year's time the TacAI will be great. With this fixed, when soldiers behave like they "should", suddenly 1:1 is not so bad. LOS/LOF issues. The issues put forward in the OP are not a function of the 1:1 design. If your area fire hosed down the building or area instead of firing at a point there would be not be a problem. If your grenades were programmed so they went in the window or over the wall there would be no problem. All of this is a problem with the TacAI or the implementation of certain features. Missing SOPs and UI. One complaint that is valid, and would negate a lot of the tacAI issues is the lack of certain controls and UI functions. If you want to area fire a building or area, why not drag out a circle like the arty routine? Why not have the ability to select a point or or a structure to pour fire on. Why not have SOPs for your waypoints and globally to guide the TacAI as to what stance is most appropriate. Why not have the circles to show where your guys will end up or even represent the path the TacAI is going to send them on so you can correct it before they run out in front of a MG. What about the convoy command? There are many more commands and interface refinements that would make the game easier to play and produce much more realistic and believable outcomes, and in addition if something dumb happened you would only have yourself to blame! Terrain Fidelity. To my mind this is the worst design issue as far as the abstraction/CMBB-is-better argument. Not only was the infantry highly abstracted in CM1 but the terrain also was highly abstracted. In CMSF I don't see that this terrain abstraction has changed. There is still not a perfect match between the ground itself and what a bullet does when it hits. The buildings are still angled at 90 or 45 degrees. The buildings are abstracted although less so. The roads must be angles just like CM1. The terrain is not high fidelity, and not exactly WYSIWYG. CM1 dealt with this by making sure the player knew what each piece of terrain gave you via cover % and LOS degradation, along with tiles of a certain terrain type. But CMSF makes you guess, and all those undulations and rocks and logs and ridges you imagined in CM1 are not represented in nearly enough detail compared to the high fidelity troop models. Part of this terrain issue is again LOS/LOF problems which could be fixed, but part of it is inherent to the new game engine. CONCLUSION The 1:1 representation is good, although it will take some work to behave as people expect it to. Just because there has never been a 1:1 boardgame is irrelevant, and besides, squads and teams are still the smallest control elements in the game. The level of abstraction is not quite as homogenous as in CM1, but I believe that is mainly due to terrain, not the 1:1 concept. Other bugs and ommisions such as UI, LOS, WEGO problems may make abstraction issues seem worse, but are not relevant to whether the consept is sound at its core.

WARNING: thread over 1 year old! Not that dredging up some of these dicussions is a bad thing now the game is out, but there should be dislaimers attached!

I think strategy and tactics could be combined with the scenario forum. Just make sure you use SPOILER alerts! The scenario talk forum in CMX1 got a bit slow, so I vote for a combined scenario posting and game strategy forum.

You don't just "put in" stuff from CMx1. Usually a new engine means that all code has to be reinvented. </font>

If it's any help, my very old under spec system runs the game ok, but has no infantry until alt-W is toggled. They are not just undisplayed they are actually not there in game terms at all. I don't get shadows either way, but I shouldn't expect to! A few other people have had this problem with below spec systems. AMD 1ghz 256M Geforce4 MX440 w/128M. SB live! value sound.

I am playing the demo on a 1000mhz AMD duron, 256m ram and Geforce MX440 128MB video card and it works pretty well too.

Bring back the car analogies!

Good post. People can get used to anything. When new beta testers (who I guess are all CMX1 veterans adn BFC devotees) said the controls were not intuitive, it doesn't just mean they are too used to CMBB, it means the controls aren't intuitive. I think the UI/menu/hotkeys is fine in the game, but the camera and mouse controls don't make much sense.

Can I suggest having the WEGO replay start from the END of the video. That way all you do is skip if there is nothing you want to see. Saves watching and then fast forwarding through the video.

Weren't we supposed to see RT sky and stars? All I see in the demo is a CMAK sykbox... Is the full game different?

Having seen a few BFC relesases go off on the forums now, I almost dont see anyone "taking a hammering". The first few hours were full of "congratulations BFC!" (which I heartily agree with). After a bit of playing people start making bug reports and feature requests (although that sometimes comes in the form of incessant grumbling). Gamers consider it their right and their duty to complain about things they don't like and tell the devs about bugs they have found, but the positive points, while often reflecting the majority, get drowned out. I haven't heard of any major showstopping bugs, or any massive omissions. The game was obviously released with the assumption that development would continue while it was out in the big bad world, but those of us who have seen it before know that the patches will come. So all in all good work guys!

I brought this upseveral weeks (months?) ago and made the same comment. In many ways the LOD and terrain in CMBB looks a lot better than this game. In some places sharp jagged ridges are realistic. A distant ridge in CMBB looked as good as most modern games. Only when you zoom in could you see the CMBO vintage. Another issue is the way the bushes in the distance are at full colour saturation even after the grass textures are invisible. It needs a bit of haze? not exactly haze but have the textures less bright out in the distance. Even some of the closeup details in CMSF look worse. CMSF looks like pool table with texture attached, even with piles of crap here and there. How about a few rocks or tufts of grass? A few tweaks and this game will look magic, but ATM it doesn't look great at all. [ July 28, 2007, 10:12 PM: Message edited by: Hoolaman ]

Refreshed Monkey.

Holy **** that video is pretty amazing. I pray the violence may end and those guys can go home to their families.

I don't get the impression Hunting Tank Software is just a couple of amateurs. I think what happened is they lost a very important member of their team, and have had some other personnel problems, and the guy/s that were left are struggling to pick up the pieces. Interesting link AND HERE OR

I'm pretty sure he said the Paradox version is being duplicated and boxed, but that it is a earlier version that will require a day-zero patch or whatever they call it. I think it was also stated the BFC version will not ship until after the actual release date, and that may require a patch out of the box too. "Gone GOLD" is a bit of a grey area now the digital download is the main avenue for getting the game out by the stated release date. The real gold version may only be locked down 45 minutes before the first download happens.

I'll believe it when I see a newsletter email from BFC. I guess it will be at least a week and maybe two before CMSF really "Goes GOLD"

Michael, thanks for your response to this and my previous question. My apologies for not replying to my previous thread, which probably was best left to die. This is not really the same question though. Where I am coming from is that I am not going to be able to play the demo, as I will require an expensive new computer to do so, meaning this game will cost me hundreds of dollars. I know others are probably in a similar situation, so I just want to know what makes the game a revolution rather than an evolution. To be honest what I have seen graphically doesn't excite me. Since the release date was announced I have been thinking "oh is that it?". I think diverse terrain (even within the scope of Syria) is far more important than the pretty tanks, and I fear we are looking at a game that tactically plays out like CMAK without the Europe bits. However, I am genuinely interested in the setting, and genuinely interested in what makes this game better. For example, what are the benefits of real-time play? Does it make the game faster, easier, more fun? How does the command system work? I read that voice, radio and visual comms are included. How does these factors reduce your ability to control your troops? What levels of command are in the game? How does the morale system work? Do your dudes panic differently? Do some straggle and get left behind, or is the 1:1 squad just a visual representation of the block from CM1? How does relative spotting actually restrict what you can do? How is a target's location passed up and down the chain of command? Is this even featured? What of the Borg? What of the omniscient player? I know I could wait and get the demo when I buy a new computer some time in 2008, or wait until the great unwashed have the game and start bitching about issues big and small, but I figured I would ask what the beta testers thought about it. I promise I will not make any more negative posts until August.

That's not a silly series of questions really. Here's my totally speculated opinion, which is worth what you pay for it. Judging by the still-beta state of the game and the recent ToW release, the game is still being worked on, and will be worked on until close to the release date. I think hard copies will not ship until after the release date, therefore GOLD status will not be much before the release date.

Fill the game with blood guts and gore if you like, it cant be more disturbing than the phrase "GUSHING, BLOODY, BUTT PUSTULES"

For those who have played I would like to know how different the gameplay really is in the game. I was pretty much sick of the CMBO engine before I even bought CMBB, CMAK I bought from the bargain bin for 10 bucks and only played a few games on it. In short my CMX1 playing days are sadly long over. I am hoping CMSF is going to seem like a very different game, with a different "feel". Is it the same vibe as CMBO with nicer graphics? What are the differences that make it seem like a new game?