hoolaman

Realistic or not, I don't think I could stomach arabs yelling "allahu akhbar" while killing westerners in a game. I've seen it repeated too many times as some young American kid gets blown to pieces in their humvee, it makes me want to commit acts of violence.

I'm not disagreeing with the substance of the argument, but I'm pretty sure this is the point civdiv was originally making. By design CMSF puts Strykers in an unlikely scenario against a reasonably capable, mostly conventional opponent. And I think the argument is that unless you need Syria invaded by next Tuesday, Strykers would not be in this role. While the design brief of the Stryker might not have specifically had Iraq/COIN in mind, today's Stryker heavy army might be more evidence of their success in that role than evidence of suitability in its other roles. As some here have stated the spearhead of a large scale invasion of a well defended sovereign nation seems to be one of the few things it was not designed for. The quick deployment to hotspots around the world angle was, as I understand it, for the type of conflicts the Pentagon expected to see more of in the 21st century. Examples cited earlier were The Balkans, Haiti, Somalia, UN style Humanitarian and Peacekeeping missions (back when backing the UN suited US interests).

I was wondering the same thing. I think these tools could be used to help pre-battle planning, but also C&C simulation and also help with co-play in the future if they are given to the human controlled side.

I know it is very early days and I expect it all to look much better, all the same I thought I might add my comments since my view seems to be in the minority. The reason I posted the photo was to provide something like a real-life version of the in-game terrain I was referring to. Doing otherwise would be comparing apples to pears. By comparison to the game screens, I think the photo is pretty messy and chaotic. I don't really need brilliant graphics like an FPS, but when I talk about suspension of disbelief, I am talking about a good cohesive overall impression. That is why I think in *some* ways the CMx1 terrain looks better. I dont think the CMSF shots I've seen have "it", whatever that may be. I look forward to seeing screens of sidewalks that look like sloping mounds of dirt, small ditches by the roads, really broken looking rocky hillsides, houses that are staggered distances from the street, non-identical trees, broken and bent mud-brick walls and gutters, dirt, rubbish etc. etc. etc. Oh, and I am actually looking forward to this game, I'm not just here to knock.

Although I realise its just early Alpha graphics, I must say I don't like it. If we compare other dusty Arab countries like Iraq, nothing is quite straight, clean or square. Even CMBO had equal or better suspension of disbelief I think. Compare this photo from the "photo of the day" thread. And everything in all the CMSF screenshots I've seen is dead flat or has those far too smooth hills like in all 3d games. CMx1's jagged elevations were cool in that respect because they often ended up looking like rough ridges and gullies instead of perfectly smoothed out mathematical functions. Where are the famous elevation changes the engine is capable of, like ditches and piles of rubble and berms?

Very happy to see some tangible progress on CMSF, looks good. I won't add to the nitpicks, but I hope this is the "a lot of progress near the end" stage of development that Steve has mentioned. I have one question, is the treatment of map edges any different in CMx2 engine? From the brief glimpse at the end it doesn't seem so, and that is disappointing. I was hoping for a map edge treatment like Theatre of war, where there is visible terrain outside the immediate play area instead of the green 2d Tron-scape of CMx1.

References?

As for the 152mm at 15m, I think we have extensive data on that as it sounds like any one of hundreds of Iraqi IED attacks. My guess is a mobility kill but very likely crew survival.

Well there are testing the increased engagement ranges which everybody on the forum complained about.

No, you don't. You know which one looks better. You know jack about the gameplay of CM:SF, same as the rest of us. If you must cheerlead, at least let the teams take the field before you shake your pompoms in our faces. In any event, even with placeholder graphics, the visuals are very good. The open ground still seems - very open, though I realize it is a desert (duh). The deformable buildings look really cool too. </font>

You are correct zmoney. I think that little outcrop just in front of the sherman is the culprit. Remember the terrain is abstracted, so in game terms, that slope may be obscuring the tiger's hull in relation to the sherman. Was the Sherman also hull down?

Great film. I hope BFC can incorporate this indisputable evidence into the game.

Nice job of getting the BFC team to come out of hiding though!

Yep I used that example because there will very likely be a lot more modules (4-5?) for the WWII game, and they will probably cater to a variety of tastes. So there is a possibility of having scenarios and maps compatible with 24+ different module combinations And we have yet to see whether BFC wraps up bug fixes with paid modules. While I can't see them doing that exclusively, for non-essential patches, its not beyond the realms of possibility.

Steve states above that a scenario with a Marine Sniper will be incompatible to someone without the USMC module. I take this to mean that a map made with the "scattered olive tree" tile that comes with the module will not be compatible. So someone with all the modules can make rich scenarios and maps that nobody can use, or else they just limit scenarios and opponents to the base game to ensure compatibility, making the purchase of the modules slightly pointless. This will get extra complicated by the fourth WWII module. Your friends might each decide to buy a different modiule. Although collectively you own all there is to own, the only games/maps/scenarios you can be sure of playing together will be whatever is bundled with the original game.

I disagree with what (I think) Steve is saying. An audio or text cue that some thing has been spotted or even more importantly that fire is being taken, similar to the "enemy armour ahead" sounds in CMx1, would be very useful. A tiny flash of text at bottom of screen would be very helpful in RT and helpful even in WEGO. Whether it is worth delays in us getting the game is questionable but doing it in a way the player can ignore if they choose would be quite handy. An even better idea is to make these messages to the player dependant upon certain C&C limitations: eg. a unit out of command cannot report a text alert to the player. An example is the myriad of alerts that come up in HOI. You can check the "don't show this type of alert" box at any time if you feel a category of messages is not important.

I'm not big on demos as I usually know whether I want a game or not. Some demos I have run across by chance and was instantly hooked. 1. UFO:Enemy unknown from the cover of PC Format magazine. 2. Medieval Total War 3. Commandos 4. Myth 5. Trackmania Recent demo which sucked Hearts of Iron II even though I kind of liked HOI

Here's a question: Can you force your opponent to play out a CMBB tactical battle?

If I'm not mistaken the webmaster is Madmatt, and the CMHQ is semi-official, but hasn't been updated for a long time. So complaining here may be productive.

The first add-on will be the rest of the game

The question has been asked at least five times (not that that makes it any less valid) and the answer seems to be NO.

Thank god we have people around here on alert for such (theoretically) shady characters.

You can kind of tell sometimes where the sound contact really is because its ? version will behave the same way as its real counterpart only offset by x m. So if you see it manouvre around or slow down for a terrain element you may be able to guess.

I totally agree with this. Syria with a minimal story and fictional subsection is a good option, but I would like to see these "subsection" units turn up in the campaign in very limited numbers as if a foreign backer such as Iran or Russia had shipped a bit of lend-lease over there. The story is not all that important, but I don't think anyone would be too upset about seeing some SURPRISE! units in the game in a vague scenario where Syria feels it can take on the US.

Steve, I can certainly see both sides of the argument, my own opinion is sort of divided between the options too. I think it is possible to invent a scenario in which the US is obliged to make an incursion into Syria in 2007. However to make up a remotely possible story, where the US scrapes together an invasion force, you may also have to alter things as fundamental as the quality, quantity and equipment of US forces, the quality and equipment of Syrian forces. It is kind of like Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle; you can't observe this scenario without changing the nature of it's pieces. If you want to have today's Syria and today's Iraq centric US forces fight each other, then go the fictional/composite middle-east country route. [ September 17, 2006, 09:11 PM: Message edited by: Hoolaman ]