[Immersion and gaming]

The bottom line is the bitching will continue until 1:1 is done properly. As long as players like the OP are getting turned off by what they see on the screen, you have a problem.

If you cannot get 1:1 to make sense on the screen, the series will die, and maybe so will BF.C.

I support your decision to innovate. Nobody despises John Tiller's decision to squeeze 50 games out of the same tired and ugly game engine than I do.

However, you've also bitten off quite a lot in the attempt to put 1:1 combat on display. I wish you luck, but CMSF has handled the jump rather badly so far.

[First impressions of 1.06]

I don't think so. For one thing, the enemy strat AI was doing it's usual dumb stuff, and they were in a very secure position under very little or no pressure. They didn't get wiped out.

[First impressions of 1.06]

I started up the small stock scenario where each side has a platoon and an AFV to try 1.06. Everything seemed to be going fine, until a squad disappeared. I had moved a squad into the ground floor of the town center building in the middle of the map. I ignored them for a few minutes, then when I looked again, it was gone. No bodies, no men, no nothing. That make me kind of unexcited about 1.06

[Some thoughts on different types of gameplay]

Steve I tend to agree with you, but this Red v. Blue dynamic just isn't clicking with the community. To a man, all of my PBEM opponents quit DURING a Red v. Blue scenario, or after playing one game they don't want to play another. I haven't found anybody that seems interested in playing these games, or will finish more than one.

Right or wrong, the majority of the gaming community wants to play "Axis & Allies Miniatures" type games, where I buy my tanks, you buy an equal number of tanks, and they fight it out.

[I invented a powerful way to protect tanks strongly cheaply an lowtech; implications?]

I advise him to finish High School and get back to us.

[I invented a powerful way to protect tanks strongly cheaply an lowtech; implications?]

What direction? As far as I am concerned, you have not even asked a coherent question yet.

'I have an invention to make all ATGMs obsolete. Implications?' is not a question any of us are willing to approach seriously based on your lack of credentials or communication skills.

Stop this mental mastubation that you have some great moral dilemma. If you are such a patriot, call Raytheon or General Dynamics and see if you can talk to someone there. If your brilliant idea makes sense to them, they will implement it. If it doesn't, they will hang up on you.

WTF do you want from us? This is a game forum, and I strongly suspect you are a moron.

[I invented a powerful way to protect tanks strongly cheaply an lowtech; implications?]

I'm not sure. What do you need, besides attention?

[I invented a powerful way to protect tanks strongly cheaply an lowtech; implications?]

If I was you, I would go rent that movie where Keanu Reeves invents that engine that runs on water, and the government and oil companies try to kill him. That should help you plan for what comes next.

[I invented a powerful way to protect tanks strongly cheaply an lowtech; implications?]

Originally posted by cool breeze:

I'm not saying any of this will happen, but I can only save so many lives with the millions I may get for this, so I need some kind of idea what the consequences may be.

My, you are so important. It must be so interesting being you right now.

[I invented a powerful way to protect tanks strongly cheaply an lowtech; implications?]

It may permanently shift the power from people to governments and from poor countries to militant rich countries by permanently nerfing ATGMs. [/QB]

Is 'nerfing' a technical term? I only studied engineering in college for two years, but I never heard it mentioned in my Theoretical and Applied Mechanics course. It doesn't strike me as a word that a creditable person with a relevant technical education would use.

I am sure you are a genius though.

[ December 29, 2007, 07:32 AM: Message edited by: Runyan99 ]

[DO NOT READ TILL XMAS! Marine Module Cover revealed!]

Marines are weird.

[Am I the only guy here who is sick of WW2?]

Speaking of the ACW, I wonder if BFC should have chosen an ACW setting for CMx2 instead of modern. Wouldn't linear tactics have been much easier to simulate 1-1 than modern combat? I mean, each individual soldier in linear tactics is only loading, firing, marching, or standing, and isn't expected to do anything particularly brilliant as an individual. Unlike modern combat.

Of couse the downside is that you would have to put 60,000 guys on the map at once, and maybe that isn't do-able with modern hardware. I don't know.

And of course an ACW game would need horses, and we all know that BFC does not know how to do horses, and no horse has yet appeared in a Combat Mission game.

[Is CMSF Fundamentally flawed beyond patching???]

I think what you are trying to say is that the infantry in CMSF is as dumb as a bag of hammers.

[it's been 7 months Hunter]

Actually, it has been 2 years now.

I am a little blown away by the fact that this forum has been open since October 2005, for a game that does not exist.

What a waste of electrons.

[Marine Module as Referendum]

It strikes me that BFC will soon have some hard data in their hands that, while not likely to be released for general consuption, might well be quite meaningful to the good folks at BFC.

I believe Steve indicated that CMSF sold pretty well. No suprise there, as probably most people who played any of the CMx1 games and liked them also bought a copy of CMSF on faith. But now comes the Marine Module. How many will sell?

It occurs to me that if BFC looks at the number of Marine Module expansions sold, and then divides that by the number of copies of CMSF sold, they will roughly have the percentage of people who bought CMSF and liked the game enough to spend more money on it.

I wonder what that percentage will be?

[Reverse Slope - No aim point]

Doesn't seem to be a barrel depression issue based on these two pics.

Here is where this becomes a problem, when two BMPs are hammering your MGS with HE.

In the first pic, I can give a legal target order on one of the BMPs

But if I try to target higher along the road, which would be less depression on the gun, and clearly visible, I get the No Aim Point message.

So for some reason I can shoot the BMPs but not the road along the hill behind them.

Not a feature I guess, but a bug. I cannot get this kind of no aim point message using infantry, by the way.

[Reverse Slope - No aim point]

Originally posted by Huntarr:

You may see the area (LOS) but not able to hit it from that position (LOF). The ridge and grass are obscuring your LOF not LOS.

Maybe I am mentally dense, but that seems nonsensical.

I can visually see the area, but I cannot shoot at it? Grass is preventing the firing of a 105mm round at an area I can see? That's because....

Again, this only makes sense to me if this is some kind of an issue with gun depression, that is, I can see the area but cannot get the gun barrel down far enough to get a shot. That may be what the issue is, but it is unclear to me.

[Reverse Slope - No aim point]

Originally posted by Huntarr:

The focus is more on just fixing what we know is a problem rather than try to explain that it's broken again & again.

Huntarr, the link you provided doesn't address the issue.

Does anyone on the forum know what an aim point is?

[Reverse Slope - No aim point]

Reverse Slope has the ability to target. Just harder to hit

Reverse Slope also has the inability to target due to "No Aim Point"

Your still in LOS so you do not receive a "No LOS" you just have a more difficult shot.

Is this the only explanation provided in that thread? I don't feel like combing though all 7 pages of that very dull thread.

I still don't understand what is going on here. Why does my MGS have no aim point to the slope of road in my screenshot? Does 'reverse slope' refer to the target, or the aiming unit? What is the distinction between no LOS and no aim point? I don't know what that means. Is this another bug?

[Reverse Slope - No aim point]

What the hell does this mean? Can the gun not depress or what? It looks like I have a fine LOS to me.

[I still don't like the command keys]

Originally posted by Other Means:

I don't know. I'll try yours for a while.

[I still don't like the command keys]

That's what I figured you all would say. I guess I will reconfigure them, but the fact that I need to makes me unhappy.

[I still don't like the command keys]

I have started a PBEM under 1.04 and am enjoying it so far, but still am frustrated with the command interface.

Case in point. Most of the time, the K key is Hunt. Except if you are on the wrong tab, then it becomes a Bail Out command. Oh that's real convenient!

So, I inadvertently told one of my MGS teams to bail out and walk on foot towards the enemy, instead of moving the vehicle forward.

Please, I need the keys to do always one thing, regardless of that interface thing on the lower right of the screen.

[Is CM:SF fundamentally flawed ??]

Sarge: Okay, is everybody here?

Squad: Yes Sarge!

Sarge: How far did we move?

Squad: 10 meters Sarge!

Sarge: Excellent. Now everybody mill about for a bit while I get a head count and consult the map for our next objective.

Squad: Don'cha think that we should do something about that machine gun blazing away at us?

Sarge: Sure, I guess we could do that. Okay when I count to 5 I want everyone to turn to face the enemy.

Pretty much sums up my experience with small unit tactics in CMSF to date.

[i think my enjoyment of CMSF is starting to drop]

So, did 'Waiting for Godot' break it's implicit promise, because you assume that something is going to happen in the play, and then nothing ever does?