Philistine

Umm.... what date would that be? --Philistine

See This Thread, where BFC states (on 1/3) that the plan is to do a 1.06 demo, rather than 1.05. That being said--I agree they should have taken down the statement on the site about the 1.05 demo. I'm also waiting on the demo to see if I'll buy the game and am similarly disappointed by the delay--but on the other hand, at this point, the demo really should portray the game in the best light possible, and having an obvious bug like the low-wall one that crept into 1.05 probably isn't the best idea. My $.02. --Philistine

At the top of the page, on the right, click on the time value (e.g. make it more than "last 10 days"). That should do it. --Philistine

Is the plan still to have an updated demo? If so, is the plan to do it for 1.06, rather than 1.05? --Philistine

Bump

Is it still the plan to release a new, 1.05 Demo? If so, is the plan to release it at the same time as the 1.05 patch or some time after? --Philistine

For me, I'd probably break down games by subject matter: Best Naval Wargame: Harpoon. Best Air Wargame: Flight Commander 2 (also Over the Reich/Achtung Spitfire) Best Tactical Wargame: CM Series. Best Strategic Wargame: TOAW To me, one of the things that makes them the best is that even though the most recent of them is 7 years old (at least the first iteration), I'm still playing them, if only occasionally for some. (Well, except for Harpoon, but I expect to be buying the Matrix CE version shortly ). --Philistine

There was usenet in the mid to late '90's. A pretty decent place to get info up until the web-based forums really took off. Even now there is some discussion still going on. Not that I disagree with the bulk of your post. It is pretty amazing the real-time back and forth that goes on with developers--with BFC being historically among the best. Of course, the downside of being so visible and present is that when you suddenly "go dark" in an unprecedented way for unexplained reasons, it's bound to result in speculation. --Philistine

Unless he likes doing that stuff so much that he started a company. </font>

I'm pretty sure the announcement that a 1.04 demo is coming "later this week" is out of date--since it is on the page announcing the 1.04 patch. When it came out, BF did say a 1.04 demo was coming "in the next few days" Thread -- But that was October 1st.... Since then, Rune, at least, has said that it is unlikely there will be a 1.04 demo, that the demo will probably wait until 1.05. Thread. That was 10/9. --Philistine

I'd suggest waiting for the new demo, as well. The old demo is before any of the patches improving LOS, pathfinding etc., so it won't give a fair idea of how the game is playing now. They say they will release an updated demo after the 1.05 patch is released--which should be soon. (Of course, they also said they would do so after 1.03 and 1.04.... ). I'm also waiting on the newest patch (and demo) to see if I'll buy the game. --Philistine [ October 25, 2007, 05:22 AM: Message edited by: Philistine ]

From the thread Announcing the 1.04 Patch (Dated 10/1): --Philistine

Also--one big plus about a pdf manual over a paper manual is the ability to easily update it. Now--I'm not sure any company actually has done that--but it would be nice. --Philistine

Is there any reason Battlefront is against posting a printer-friendly manual? Normally, not posting a manual is (understandably) something of an anti-piracy measure--but not so much here where it is available in the demo. --Philistine

There's a fair number of books written in the genre of modern weapons thrown back into pre-industrial society. 1632 Janissaries Guns of the South Lost Regiment Series are a few good ones. For "modern" vs. WWII equipment, there is The Axis of Time series as well as The Worldwar Series (which is an alien invasion during WWII where the aliens essentially have contemporary late 20th century military technology). Gamewise, Steel Panthers 2 and 3 (and MBT, to an extent) IIRC let you set up battles between modern and WW2 equipment, as did Norm Koger's Tanks! (And the Operational Art of War, on a larger scale). --Philistine

I keep seeing variations of the argument that CM:BO got dissed by reviewers, too when it came out. I can't actually remember a bad review of it. From Gonegold.com (via internet archive) is this list of reviews: The lowest is 7.5/10, and that's pretty favorable in the text. --Philistine

Steve, One of the things on abstraction that has been boethering me a bit (that I think is Dale's point)is mismatch of abstraction between graphics and underlying combat mechanics. AIUI, CM1's level of graphics abstraction was higher then the combat system. It seems with CMSF, it goes the other way. What I'm taking from your comments here (and in other threads) is along the lines of: In CM1, what could be done with the terrain was much less--but it allowed for more of a WYSIWYG in relation to the combat engine--e.g. if you appeared to be covered by terrain or structures, you generally were. It seems this is less the case in CMSF--in that individuals (and possibly vehicles, too?) may appear to be either in or out of cover but in certain circumstances may actually not be for purposes of LOS/LOF. This is all my distallation of what I'm understanding from what's been said so far (and from playing CM1 and the demo of CMSF). Abstraction is necessary, both graphically and in the mechanics, and it's really more or less a question of preferences, but I think I generally prefer a higher level of abstraction in the graphics then in the mechanics (if they can't be equal), as it can become frustrating when things are happening that look like they shouldn't. Once some of the LOS/LOF issues get ironed out in a patch, it may turn out the mismatch isn't as great as it seems. My $.02, anyway. --Philistine

Not if you--I don't know--don't give orders while paused or use the pause button. Then it works exactly the way it did before--and is just as difficult. --Philistine

Not if you--I don't know--don't give orders while paused or use the pause button. Then it works exactly the way it did before--and is just as difficult. --Philistine

Not if you--I don't know--don't give orders while paused or use the pause button. Then it works exactly the way it did before--and is just as difficult. --Philistine

Lots of companies I can think of don't have a lot of concern over customer satisfaction. Often, they are either more or less monopolies (e.g. microsoft or cable TV) or are in a field where such practices are industry-wide, and operate on a "take-it-or-leave-it basis, e.g. banks and credit-card companies. --Philistine

AIUI, what he is talking about is the possibility that the IDF (or some other military/government entity) would pay Battlefront money to do a certain module for their use. This is not unheard of, a number of games have had such funding. As part of the agreement, Battlefront would like to be able to sell the game to its customers, but that is subject to the approval of the group paying them. (There may be classified information used in the game, or other reasons for not allowing the sale). My guess is that Battlefront isn't necessarily holding out for a military contract. If you get enough people together and offer enough money, I'm sure Battlefront would do an IDF module. --Philistine

From the JAG Law of War Workshop Deskbook (Ch. 7, Sec. 4©) explains: (My emphasis). --Philistine

How would players who like the current Elite-RT level be penalized by the addition of a pause option? --Philistine

Is the demo a good indication of how the full game will run on a given machine? e.g., has anyone having problems running the full game having the same problems with the demo? --Philistine