Midnight Warrior

Yes. Great game (albeit not perfect...yet)! Nothing else like it.

I certainly would buy an IDF module.

I agree about the RT. In regard to not being able to replay, I was wondering if it might not be too hard to add a "what was that?" capability to the RT play where say you hear a whopping explosion you could pause the game and go back in time say 5 or 10 seconds and replay it to see what you missed (I am not talking about a full mission replay but only a scrolling 10 or so seconds replay). I imagine it would require a lot of coding (and maybe be a bit of a memory hog) in that it is sort of like an undo function which I have heard usually requires a total redisgn of a software function to add. But it doesn't hurt to ask.

I agree! Even with all its problems (which I imagine most will be fixed soon) I find CMSF to be great fun. It is taking me a while to learn how to use it. At first I thought this is a new engine and modern combat so forget what you have learned in CM1 and welcome to the 21st century! However, after getting slaughtered a few times I have come to see that many of the standard tactics that worked great in WWII/CM1 still seem to work in CMSF but with a few new added wrinkles. It is finding these new wrinkles that I find interesting on how tactical level combat has changed (and hasn't changed) since WWII/CM1. I also like RT (though I didn't think I would based on other RT games I have played). To me it brings a new dimension into play and a new level of realism (coupled with non Borg spotting)in that micro mangaing is not really feasible and yet there is not really a click fest either. I also can play a game in near real time (plus a few minutes for pauses) where in WEGO it would take hours of play to play a 30 min scenario. My biggest concern was that the game wouldn't run on my machine but it seems to run OK (though a bit on the sluggish side..however I have learned to work around these shortcomings). My hope is that the direction BF goes is not for more CPU hungry eye candy (what they have is good enough for me..though I love 1:1 and the animations) but more units, better play, better UI, more theaters, etc. However, that is my take and I can imagine that this might not be everyone's cup of tea. [ August 05, 2007, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: Midnight Warrior ]

Thanks, for the suggestion. However, my vsync is already turned off. I have no problem when I am in the scenario menu, the mouse responds very quickly. When I select a scenario and go to the briefing page it slows down noticeably. When I go to the battle itself the mouse becomes really sluggish (even when in pause). However, as I said beore, I am glad that CMSF runs at all on my machine! I can live with a sluggish mouse (though it is a bit of a nuissance). [ August 03, 2007, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: Midnight Warrior ]

I have set prioity to normal and reduced my screen resolution but I still have the sluggish mouse. Once again I can understand this when in run mode but in pause it seems that the CPU should not be loaded down and the mouse more responsive (I have gotten spoiled with lightening fast mouse action in most other apps).

OK, here is a idea how to fix the sluggish mouse problem. I am assuming the sluggish mouse is because of all the calculations that are being performed reduces the revist time fopr the mouse. However, one would think when the game is in pause this should not be the case but my mosue is sluggish in pause as well. However, my proposed "fix" is to use the mousewheel button so that when the mouse wheel button is depressed the the game freezes and the mouse get full priority (which should make it more responsive). That way one can push the mouse wheel button quickly move the mouse and then ley go of the mousewheel and be back in real time ready to make the mouse selection.

It helped a bit...but every little bit helps! Thanks!

How does one place units in the set up phase? I have looked in the manual but can't find how to do this. Also, is there a tutorial scenario. I can't seem to find it if there is? thanks

BTW, I have found a work around. I hit the exc button to stop the clock then move my mouse to the right place on the screen and then hit esc again and then pronto make my selection. That way at least I am not getting my guys killed while I am fumbling around with the mouse. Maybe that is not ideal but it is a lot cheaper than buying a faster computer!

First thing: Great game!!! Now to business: My mouse is really sluggish in that there is a perceptable lag from when I move my mouse and the little green triangle cursor moves. I tried changing the 3d model options to fastest but that didn't seem to help. Is there any way to improve that? However, I am just glad it runs on my PC at all(unlike TOW)!

SIO, Thanks for the info! That confirms my suspicions. Looks like I will be buying a new graphics card in the near future.

Almost ditto for me. The last thing I did inverted the desktop image on my screen (but still no ToW). :confused: This is my computer. I think my graphics card is an Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 950. Question 1. Should this work with ToW? Question 2. Should this work with CMSF? Question 3. If i need to buy a new grpahics card to work with both of the above what graphic cards would you recommend?

I downloaded and installed the demo (and ran the setup program) but when I try to launch it nothing happens. Is there something else I need to do? :confused: BTW, I have a Pentium D Processor 820. Should that work?

I thought of a scenario that might be able to be simulated with hidden objectives. In battle one can do what was is ordered to do and what is right. Often these are one in the same but not always. With hidden objectives this later case can be simulated where the expicit objectives become OBE by unexpected occurances. For example the explicit objctives could be to spot a unit. Meanwhile the searching unit runs into an hether to unknown attack force and the new (implicit) objectives are to hold the line. However, it might take a while for the commander to shift gears and having hidden objectives this shift in objectives would be that much more harder to spot in that there are no explicit hold a line of flags objectives the line type objectives to tip off the player that he is being set up by the scenario designer. I am sure that there are many other cool scenarios that thes ecan be employed so I think thiese hiiden objectives are a great step forward in he state of the art in wargamming..

Wow! This is really cool! This adds a whole new dimension to the fog of war in that now ultimate success is not simply defined by meeting explicitly stated objectives but one has to also consider possible implicit (hidden) objectives such as those any good commander might be expected to know without being told in his orders. Thus the player now has to second guess both what he must do must to achieve his mission and also has to worry about what he must not do. I am also wondering/hoping if perhaps some of the stock gamey behaviors (e.g. map edge hugging, suicide recon, etc) can be dealt a death blow by a clever employmemnt of hidden objectives.

That all sounds marvelous! I was wondering if it would make any sense to adapt these AI planning tools (groups, boxes, phase lines, etc) to be used by a human player to capture his own plan as a planning and plan execution aid? The thought is that the human player could build a plan before the start of a game in a similar way that the scenario designer constructs the AI plan when building a scenario. The human could then view his plan during game play in a manner simmilar to the way the scenario designer views his plans when building the scenario. Thus the idea is to leverage off the code developed for AI planning to build a human player planning aid.

Deleted [ January 05, 2007, 07:34 PM: Message edited by: Midnight Warrior ]

I guess that means no.

My vote would be: 1. USMC first (only if it brought some amphibious capabilities with it) 2. British a close second 3. German and French last.

I would second the nomination for adding Brits.

Goggle Earth is certainly a great resource. I am thinking that the map builder could be desirned to take advatage of Goggle Earth. This can be achieved by making it so that the CM map builder can import the KML file formats that are generated by creating in Google Earth by insertion of map pushpins. That way one could place pushpins into the Goggle Earth map (e.g. at road interecections or the corners of buildings, label them with text so that one can remeber what they are) and then import the pushpin locations (and text) into the CM map builder as reference points. Thus the map builder would need only to 1. be able to read the KML file format (which is just Keyhole's extension of XML) and 2. then convert the lat and longs to game map coordinates. It would also be cool tobe able to do the reverse and create a push pin in the CM map and then export it as a google Earth push pen. Also, (as a cool extra)Google Earth has free downloadable building builder software, now what would be really cool is if one could build building in Google Earth using it and then import them into CM. However,I think that would be a bit more ambitious from a software standpoint. However, the points in the building are really not that different than the run of the mill Google Earth pushpins in that they are just lat,longs, and elevations with some extra connectivity info attached to them. I am thinking that apart from the initial investment in software development time to interface with Goggle Earth, going that route may actually in the long run save game companies development time because they can leverage off of the work that Goggle Earth has sunk into their mapping product. edit: fixed a few typos.

This has been a really interesting thread and it llos to me like there has been a lot of good discussion. Just a couple of more comments (and there is nothing really new here but rather my attempt to summarize in my own words what I it seems to me what many are saying here). I have been a wargammer for some forty odd years. And on reflecting back there are several things that keep me hooked on wargamming...and BTW, showing how brilliant of commander I am ain't one of them! These are: 1. A way to study history interactively (and not just read about it) 2. A virtual time machine to experience history albeit virtually..which ain't a bad whay to do that 3. A way to see how the mechanics of weapons systems capabilities pan out in simulated combat 4. a way to explore what if's in tactics and equipment and learn the why's thing work out the way they do, 5. to experinece the drama and excitemnet of a well crafted hard fought battle as it unfolds, and 6 (which wargame technology is perhaps just now beginning to model but perhaps not very well) to see how the human factor plays in combat. Now a generic, representative, non historical setting perhaps will not scratch the itch for items 1 and 2 above since events all lie yet in the future (and that hopefully never happen for that matter)... but it certainly can for items 3-5. Thus I would think these perhaps should be the areas to focus on and not in trying to pretend that the story line is historical when it in fact it is not. But the weapon systems can be modeled with a reasonble degree of fidelity. And there are all these new technologies (from ATGM to UAV's) that the wargammer has never really had (IMHO) a decent tactical simulation to date to experiement with. So I see that should be CMSF's forte introducing new weapon systems modeled with the right mix of accuracy and being a good game into the tactical wargammimng arena and not so much recreating history (since there is not history to recreate here anyway). Now that does not mean that there should be no limits and that every futuristic weapon system in an industry/government PowerPoint briefing should be included, and thus I think a looks alot like Syria with some reasonable extras makes a lot of sense. And just a generic red and blue force will not satisfy 1 and 2 above so a generic yet indentifiable red and a realistic US blue makes sense to me. That the red be set in the Middle East makes sense also since many of the countries there tend to have left over Soviet/Cold War equiplement and doctrines and thus there is a lot of homogeniaty in regards to the military equipment and training in that area while there is variety in the geopolitical situations (much of which is outside the scope of a tactical simulation anyway). And there is also a sense that there is a high probability that the US forces may be engaged in future conflicts there and thus may resonate with the buying public. But now that many of these countries now have to pay hard cash for their goodies that they used to get more for for free (or atleast at a big discount)they don't have nearly so much of Russia new toys so they have to pick and choose what they buy very carefully. And this can be abstracted in a tactical game by rarity factors or used by scenario designers to weave what ever storyline that strikes their fancy. Thus being able to augment a Syrian like TO&E with a few extras makes sense to me in that it does violate 1 and 2 above that bad but enhances 3 and 4 and even 5. Therefore, I think that a generic Middle East that looks a lot like Syria but has the flexibility to go beyond Syria is probably not a bad way to go at all. In fact, I think I like this better than the original concept of a Syria with a major story line. Now if now a "Syria with it's major story line" was in fact actual history (or one could clearly see into the future with a cyrstal ball so that it was "future history") then I think 1 and 2 above would predominate over 3 and 4 and lead to a different answer. edit: cleaned up some wording [ September 16, 2006, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: Midnight Warrior ]

You ask for our vote plus (even more importantly) the reason for it. My vote would be for a composite Middle East (that looks a lot like Syria). I think having a greater variety of equipment is more important than a story back drop or more exact TO&E's. A composite Middle East would provide the scenario designers and modders with the capability of making a wide variety of scenarios (Syria, Iran, Iraq, or even non ME). At the same time it could be narrow enough in scope to not unduly up the work required to build it. Also, a composite ME would be a bit less political in that one isn't singling out any one country and would thus not have the David and Goliath feel such as the case of where poor Syria is being ganged up on not only by the US but Europe too! I would also extend the period to cover 2008 so that those system that might not quite make 2007 can be included but would go any further in the future because the crystal ball gets murkier the further one looks into the future. Also, to try to predict the future with a too detailed story line is too hard to do with any confidence of being right and will in all likihood merely make the game seem dated before its time when current events take off in an unforseen direction as they are so apt to do. What I think would be neat is to have the ability to "buy" Russian equipment based on rarity factor that reflects the price tag that the Russkies are going to sell their goodies for. That way one can build their own "force structure" to take on Uncle Sam, but one can't go hog wild and buy everything every new exoctic weapon but can maybe buy one from a shopping list. Is it better to buy BMP-3's, T-90's or Koronet's for an urban fight, for open country, for an attack, or a defense, etc? This list can also be expanded in other versions to include US options as well as additional Russian and Chinese. I am also thinking that if urban operations is the focus there is not that much difference in one urban setting in that region over another. So maybe we have generic ME urban, generic ME desert, genric, ME rural, and generic ME rough terrian. That's my two cents. edit: fixed some spelling and typos.

There might be a work around for the house issue. If the scenario designers were to put stone walls closely spaced around some of the key houses then the house would provide the LOS blockage and the stone walls could serve as surrogate walls for the troops near the houses. That would give some protection for the troops near the houses from samll arms. This might not be a perfect solution but it might be good enough until the next version comes out which will I would image go along way to remedying this current limitation.