medlinke

The demo was 1.07. The problem, I think, with the forces in town, at least, was that they were irregulars so in reading the manual I guess they are invisible until they fire. I had captured and killed every living thing within a 200 meter range of that objective. I was running squads into surrounding buildings to be certain and put a squad on every level of both buildings and in the courtyard. It was really strange. The game never said I captured it, but when the scenario ended I was given full credit.

I downloaded and worked through the demo. The only things I found frustrating were: 1. The AI pathing for vehicles in rough terrain. They bobble back and forth kinda strange, but I can just call it a 3 point turn and be happy. Just looks strange. 2. In CM 1x I could select a unit and press enter to see the kills. I don't see that. I must be overlooking something. 3. Enemy infantry in buildings / open terrain can be REALLY hard to spot sometimes. I cannot tell you how many times I though I'd cleared an area only to have an enemy HQ pop up or a forward observer. Likewise, in the city assault mission that heavy weapons squad in the northeast corner of the map would NOT die. They took out 2 strykers before the other 6 got them...yes 6 and it took 7 minutes. 4. When I captured the diamond objective, it didn't recognize the capture like the other two. Was it because I used the mortars to destroy the buildings on that objective? Overall it was a great experience. Any tips so I can squeeze the most out of the demo experience?

I was more referring to CMSF rather than the module part unless they are mated together in this format for some reason.

While I haven't played CMSF there are some nice things going on with ToW infantry that I'd like to see in any game really. 1. Ability to control an individual solider's action from the standpoint of scouting or feinting. 2. The ease of formation control. 3. The way the unit graphics scale out when there are many on the screen while still indicating what equipment that trooper or squad is composed of at that moment. Now...that being said, that level of control isn't exactly what CM has been about in the past and I largely suspect that's the case with CMSF, but there are a few valuable concepts in ToW!

So I think everyone pretty much convinced me that the core game is fun and put to bed some of my larger concerns. I'll certainly bump into the demo though. I noticed the pre-order deal though for CMSF + Marines. If I buy that will I be able to download CMSF prior to the release of Marines?

I appreciate what seem like candid responses. Anything that I haven't thought to ask that I should know about?

hehe... A beta tester finding problems? Nooooooo You're right I should go about this differently... 1. Is the game lopsided in favor of the Americans or can the Syrians put up a real challenge? 2. Does the WEGO still work well or do most people play it Real Time? Why do you play it the way you do? 3. What videos would you recommend I watch to get a better feel for the game on Youtube if there are any? I see the AAR videos, but I'm not quite sure what I'm watching to be honest. 4. What was the biggest problem at launch and how has it been addressed (or not) in your opinion? 5. How well does the game support/simulate MOUT gaming? Is it still focused like CM 1x on open terrain or does the system appropriate adjust? Thanks again.

I am looking for an honest review of CM:SF. I'm curious about what the patches have added in terms of addressing the earlier problems with the game. I don't often get a chance to play multiplayer so how is the single player experience? I'm interested in hearing how the game is now. What are the universally accepted shortcomings of the product, and what things make it an outstanding buy. Sell me. (It shouldn't be too hard at this point!) And does the 1.07 pretty much paint the 1.08 picture or was 1.08 a significant enough upgrade that it feels/plays better than 1.07?

I too am curious about this folder download option for cmmods.

That's what I feared... Thanks

CMMODS is an awesome resource. That thing deserves the lifetime achievement award particularly considering the trauma and love behind it. An amazing story quite simply. I am looking to get back into CM with CMAK, but I don't want to wade through 15+ pages of mods to find stuff. What are, in your opinion the essential: Desert Terrain Mod(s) European Terrain Mod(s) Uniform Mod(s) Vehicle/Tank Mod(s) Sound Mod(s) UI Mod(s) I'm looking for "packs" if possible. Is there a good mod manager for CMAK? Is there a mega download file for CMAK that'd contain someone's favorites, etc already compiled someplace? Thanks in advance!

Is there any ongoing support to ensure that these games can be brought up to full Vista compatibility? CMBO is a different engine so I don't expect to see it for that, but CMAK & CMBB still seem quite relevant.

I think the biggest hurdle people have to overcome is the speed of the game. The box and gameplay mechanic tout RTS. RTS speed is 100% unacceptable for this game. You have to take your time. There is no effective "rush" in this game whatsoever. The ability to use a single soldier lets you take that time to scout. Use your weapon ranges appropriately as well. That Shreck can't take you out if you're farther out pegging the trench with your tank's coax gun. It is really hard to modify the gameplay pace to set yourself up for success. Just keep in mind that you can accelerate the gamespeed while you're waiting for your troops to assemble in the right spots. Get your AT guns into position if you're expecting a counter-attack, etc. I honestly believe the 99% of the problems people are running into is just perception of what they should be doing. While the game mechanic is RTS don't push your units. Take your time, scout, use the terrain, take advantage of the wide open spaces to maneuver. Use combined arms wisely. It takes time, but I think you'll get the hang of it.

I have Windows XP 32 bit and I am getting the exact same error. Is it a problem with C2D Intel chipsets even in a 32 bit environment?

I think you have to accept that there is going to be a certain amount of piracy. Thinking you are going to eliminate it one way or another is just naive. That said... The system that Macromedia utilizes is very nice and unobstructive. Basically...you enter a CD-KEY. That key is verified against an internal hash that recognizes it. So you've probably spotted the infraction here. People can figure out that hash and make a keygen. This is where layer 2 comes into play. An online agent runs in the background when the game is active. Just a small little client that every 10 or 15 minutes sends a quick signal to a licensing server with just the CD-KEY. If the CD-KEY matches any other CD-KEYs in the database it kills the license and upon reboot asks for a new key. This nag, coupled with updates to the hash that make keygens obsolete basically just makes it difficult to break. CM is a niche game. I don't think people will want to spend the time to break this system. And I think that it'd be pretty easy to institute. If you're online it checks. It's such a small byte sized transaction that it's unlikely you'd ever notice the communication. Seems like a non-instrusive way to ensure people are paying before playing!

The biggest thing is that people should FREAK OUT when it is released because those of you that remember CMBO...geez...and then CMBB...woah...there were all kinds of headaches. New gaming engines do that. Heck even Gabe Newell and his team over at Valve had some MAJOR problems with source that are still existing. I expect the initial system specs will scale well from moderately high end stuff today to average stuff 4 or 5 years down the line. That seemed to be the way they scoped out CMx1. But seriously look at how different the game was between the initial screens in 1998 and what came out in Late 99...

No the point wasn't to say "look at me and what I did!" It does read that way though...Sorry! The point was to reinforce steve's assertation that some of the involved folks who loved CMBO dropped off in CMBB and more so in CMAK. Sorry about the confusion

Steve's indications have stated already that ACW would be a possibility. I think you're thinking about the engine from a WWII perspective and not from a generic game engine prospective. Half Life 2's Source is just an engine. There are RPGS coming out for it, just as easily as wargames and flight sims and solitaire games could be used with it. Though Steve has also noted the difficulty in abstraction which is what you may also be referring to. However...Steve said that it was not so much in the unit scale, but rather in the team size since "everything revolves around the team." So basically you'd just be making the teams bigger. Obviously you aren't see 12 models in each squad currently in CMx1. Basically, I'm just saying that ANYTHING is possible. Heck, they may wanna try a space sim with made up space frigates, etc. That way they could get away from all the research and carping about handgrenade armor penetration that tends to plague those releases.

I've just been reading through the SUPER informative "Steve's recent CMx2 Bones" thread. (thanks for compiling that information) I'd venture to guess 99% of you don't remember me. I don't have a huge post count, but back in the days of CMBO & even prior to release I was highly involved in CM. I had been following it, like many, since it was Computer ASL. Flash forward to CMBO. Bought it. Loved it. Started a league for it. Flash forward to CMBB. Bought thought it was great. Hosted the demo as a mirror. Flash forward to CMAK...didn't buy it. Steve's thoughts and comments about the upcoming engine and business model changes are EXACTLY what I've been waiting to hear. I've been away, NOT because I lost interest in the games. I've been lurking a few times a month at the hot threads. I've been away because I'm MOSTLY interesting in 'what's next.' I realize a lot of you are really expecting something along the breadth of what was released with CMx1. That definitely would be cool. But at the same time...I have played probably 3,000 games of CMBO since it came out and I see strange new interesting stuff all the time. I STILL haven't used all the unit combos that could be out there in that game. The fact is, we deal MOSTLY with depth of play issues on this board. I think people easily find reasons to carp about X unit from X province not TRULY having the MG42 at it's inception, but having it in the game...but you know what...it's a tiny tiny percentage of people who actually care about that kind of hardcore insanity. I personally find those little tidbits fun trivia. But I also don't expect that kind of stuff in the game. Think about this scenario for a moment... I had a Sherman headed through a small village June 44. It's supported by a few infantry but nothing to really ferret out the AT stuff I KNEW had to be hiding. All of the sudden AT fire erupts from the end of the street. The shell hits my tank bounces off and ends up setting a building on fire. WHAT OTHER SYSTEM CAN HANDLE THAT??? To me, those moments are incredible. The moments when you see something unexpected and think...holy jeebus...what just happened there. You watch the replay over and over just to make sure you see it. Steve isn't promising less. He is promising you MORE moments that will blow your mind. He is promising a release schedule that keeps you salivating, but doesn't force you to swim in a pool of your own proverbial drool. Look at it this way...you get to see the unexpected MORE often, in NEW ways, in a WIDER VARIETY of settings. Personally...I cannot wait for an American Civil War game to come out from this engine. Just the thought of a phenominal 3D engine and the Union charging down little round top in the woods in July makes me all excited for its release sometime in the future. (That's not to say that Space Lobsters of Doom doesn't make me happy as well...) Bottom Line: Just chill. Has Steve NOT known his consumers in the past? Have the beta testers NOT been awesome guys (remember the beta guys inviting people over to their houses for previews last time around???) I am SUPREMELY confident the franchise is in the right hands. And if not the right hands...at least with someone crazy enough to make it kick a ton of ass. BRING ON THE SCREENSHOTS or TECH DEMOS!

AI programming is an interesting topic. Indeed a lot of books both programmer oriented and general science oriented keep cropping up. The way that the AI handles the battlefield now is pretty cool. The old global and local AI relationship is pretty sweet and produces as you say an AI that doesn't respond the same way twice to the same situation necessarily. THAT SAID... I STILL believe categorization of Human behavioral tendencies would be useful. I posted on this a while back and someone brought out the flame tank. Basically build a framework for evaluating human play tendencies. Things that work behind the scenes are are just recorded. That way over the course of testing and then in playing a profile of a generic human is built so that the AI isn't entirely reactive and can be proactive in terms of setting up ambushes and things that it current has a hard time doing. To that end I believe enabling a basic level of AI scripting "guidelines" for the scenario designer would be good. Things like assigning relative "weight" to areas. For instance, in defending a scenario designer may weight a particular bottleneck or tactical location more highly than another and the AI would then consider options involving that piece of terrain more highly. That way you aren't scripting the AI's behavior, but rather shaping how it reacts by giving it some sort of overall guideline in saying...This location is really important. Those are just a couple thoughts. Certainly nothing an IF...THEN statement would handle...more like a CASE statement..or better yet an entire class that would define and weigh ALL options rather than a set number of parameters...

Perfect. Thanks for the info guys!

sweet...Scrolling would have been a big help I think. hehe So....I guess my next question is...if there is a 1.04 patch will a patch be released to Direct2Drive or will I have to redownload the WHOLE thing again and re-install?

(NOTE: I have searched the forums for this answer already so don't tell me to search.) I am considering getting CMAK via Direct2Drive, but Martin mentioned in another thread that any patches would have to be downloaded from Direct2Drive due to copy protection issues. When I look at the Direct2Drive website there are no available patches for CMAK. So my question is...If I download CMAK from Direct2Drive what version am I getting? If it's version 1.03 then that's great. If it's not that version how to I upgrade it to version 1.03 or when is the ETA for Battlefront.com to deliver a compatible patch to Direct2Drive for posting for CMAK. Just want some clarification on this from someone in the know. I'm trying to get some folks in my area involved in this game and Direct2Drive is a GREAT way to do this since it doesn't require mail order shipping and keeps the game under 40 bucks. My only concern is adequate support because my experiences with Battlefront have all be stellar and I was one of those folks affected by the initial pressing of the CMBB CDs. Take care and I hope someone can answer this one for me !

I also noticed no Heavy Cruisers for the US (ie CA-71 Quincy) Maybe I'm not understanding the scope of this game though...and of course I'm a little partial because my grandfather served on the Quincy (not the ill fated CA-41 that sunk at Guadalcanal, but rather the CA-71 that served in both D-Day and the surrendor of Japan!)

WOW! Someone woke up on the jerk side of the bed... Hmmmm...Apparently you've never watched a game of football in your entire life... I've played football and let me tell you, even when the ground is slightly damp, in about 30 minutes of running and sloshing around on it, it's a mud pit. So your comment, is not only unwelcome, but inaccurate as well. Erm...I'm playing the games, but there is no physical depression in the ground, just a decal on th ground. Seeing a black splotch, is not nearly as cool as seeing the ground actually taking a beating. Hmmmm...maybe you need a source photo because you're obviously too busy being a smart mouth to me to look anything up for yourself... http://www.omahatour.bravepages.com/POINT.jpg Look at that and tell me that they weren't a factor. I've been there and stood inside them and they were a freakin factor man, some of them are like 8 feet deep! Check out source material before you spout off. Actually no...but it would be cool to be able to play an AI built on your tendencies so you can face off against an ever developing AI. I thought most people would make that leap from tracking your tendencies to some kind of implementation...but I stand corrected.... It's a video game. Why re-write the graphics engine and NOT include the small touches that have come to be expectations for gamers? It could very well increase the popularity of the game and bring in more players with something to contribute and help bts succeed. But apprently in your assessment, they should design for computers that aren't even made any more...Enjoy your PIII... No...I like how this plays out. Why should reality be a limitation? Once again, It's a video game.... so get off your high horse. REALLY???? Wow! Please then script me the following scenario. I would like see engineers blow a bridge when axis reinforcements arrive, but they only arrive if their overall force strength is reduced to 33% and the allies force strength is over 66%. Again in your fantasy world where BTS only caters to existing customers and doesn't want to see their game market expand that would be great. But I know that it would be really sweet and set this game apart from other games. There are like 4 or 5 sites out there that track battles, how easy would it be to have an automatically generated report pop up. Parsing XML is WAY easier than relying on folks not to have typos, and allows better more complete stat tracking. In terms of persistent campaigns this would be awesome because it would mean a better coordination of many more users. ------------------ Seriously man. I have no clue why you choose to rain your sour opinions and pissy comments on my feedback. I've been a major advocate for this game with friends, local gaming stores, and in newsgroups in the past. I really don't think I deserve your crap.... This was a topic intended to generate ideas. Not generate ideas that YOU approve of or think need to be in the game. You come off like a fanboy who is defending something from some vicious attack which I don't see the tenor of my initial post doing... Additionally...your snide remarks are really off-base and in a few cases completely wrong. You're exactly the kind of person that drives away new players and tries to throw your weight around because you feel some sort of entitlement. Let me tell you...nobody cares who you think you are, or what sort of entitlement you think you have. But, don't accost me and the ideas I put on this board because you refuse the hear proposals for ideas. Grow Up.