Manx

Via a DVD strapped to a messenger pidgeon ??

You're joking right? </font>

It was never rubbish, just needed fleshing out a little. That's coming with the new 1gb+ patch due imminently, which amongst a lot of other things, contains LOS recalculations and a tool to check this. Enterable buildings and other much requested features are due to been released in a planned addon.

CMBB. Shame about what's followed. The sooner BFC get back to what they are best at, the better.

I think i already started a thread like this 2 months ago called "Is CMSF fundamentally flawed ??. Nothing new to see here. [ November 29, 2007, 11:16 PM: Message edited by: Manx ]

I will wait and see what 1.05 brings in improvements and fixes. If it's still broken after that i'll give up with it.

1C have a fantastic track record of supporting their games long term and i'm optimistic that they will see TOW worthy of ploughing time and effort into. The original "IL2 Sturmovik" was a breath of fresh air when it came out and is has been steadily improved and expanded upon with the subsequent releases of "Forgotten Battles", "Pacific Fighters" and lately, the "IL2 1946" DVD (i bought them all). Your talking what must be 7 years of constant development in that series and it will soon be suceeded by "Storm of War: Battle of Britain". If they can do what they did for WWII air warfare and carry that into WWII ground combat we will all be in for a treat. Here's hoping! [ October 25, 2007, 08:12 PM: Message edited by: Manx ]

I personally hope that the ToW developers will aim more towards realism than having to "steal" gimmicks and concepts from other WWII RTS's. Sure, games like SHOWW2 and CoH are fun to play, but i think ToW can easily capture a market that those sort of games don't cater for, especially if they can attract the Close Combat, SPWAW and CM crowd, who predominately play those games because they strive for some sort of realism, however abstracted at times, that may be.

I've already played this game...it's called CoH.

Press and hold the wheel down, move the mouse, camera rotates.

CMBB - it will never leave my hard drive.

1. - More variety in terrain. Woods, marsh, hedgerows etc. The ability to place foxholes and trenches in woods and along treelines. The terrain feels too "open" at the moment. 2. - Full blown map editor. Bigger maps. 3. - Dynamic campaign system. Campaigns that cover specific actions instead of jumping from one time period to another. [ October 19, 2007, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: Manx ]

There's been a BIG improvement. Once you've tried 1.04, why not post back and let us know whether you think it is better or not.

NO! I prefer 1.01. I seem to remember that i went out more then.

It should be noted that Steve has already said that they plan to do major work on pathfinding and LOS/LOF issues in 1.05.

I'm seeing exactly the same issue, in the same scenario, from probably from the exact same position as you were in.

Yes, i have changed my mind ( somewhat ). I started the "Fundamentally Flawed" thread simply to find out if everything i was seeing wrong in 1.03, WAS all down to the 8x8 system and it's grid locking action spots, or something else. I thought we had a good debate in that thread and i think most people would have learnt something new and instructive from it. I don't retract anything i personally said in that thread, because at that time i believed the game was suffering from some serious issues and i was getting concerned that even after three patches the game was still virtually unplayable as it was in 1.03. Anyway, 1.04 is a big improvement, and i can see CM:SF becoming even better over the next patch or two. BFC have stated clearly that the 1:1 system isn't perfect, and never will be with the restrictions imposed by current hardware, but i am very pleased that Charles, Steve and the rest of the guys are at least attempting to push the boundaries with the 1:1 system they have in place with CM:SF. Roll on CMx2:WWII ! [ October 03, 2007, 02:43 AM: Message edited by: Manx ]

Like most it seems, i am seeing a massive increase in FPS with a Nvidia 7900GS (256 MB), using the latest beta drivers. Game runs at highest possible settings in 1600x1200 and it is as smooth as silk with virtually no lag. Pre-1.04 i was running with the same settings, but with choppy camera panning and horrible mouse lag. Units seem much more responsive now after giving them orders, and actually seem to take up better positions and engage the enemy. There still appears to be issues with pathfinding and LOS/LOF (which BFC have said they will address in 1.05), but overall, i am very pleased and impressed with what BFC have done in 1.04. Nice work!

I'm going to be looking here first : http://www.paradoxplaza.com/downloads/cmsf/

This is all good news Steve. Thanks.

I dare you!

Steve, if you don't mind, i'm nicking part of the reply you sent back to me as my sig. Nice one. It's a classic!

As much as i respect BFC in the way that have tried to push things forwards with wargames (which you have to say they have), this time, have they gone a step too far too soon with CM:SF?

As the starter of this thread, i have to say that i am somewhat encouraged by what Charles and Steve have had to say. Whether the contraints of the 8x8 system and it's "action spots" and the way in which it seems to restrict the maneuverability of squads (especially when under fire) can be improved or not i don't know. I would say that only Charles would know that. For now, i'm happy enough to know that it is at least something they will take a look at. I think they should. After reading through all the discussion here, and learning a few new things along the way, i still stick by my original premise that as of 1.03, CM:SF IS flawed, in that when it gets down to the most critical phase of the battle, i.e - combat resolution, the 1:1 engine routines for squad behaviour breaks down, and it is painfully obvious to see.

Sneaksie, Any plans to improve the appearance of movement and waypoint markers? I think the way CMBx1 represented these looked good with solid lines drawn to show paths.