thewood

elucidate! Holy Crap! I come to these forums so I don't have to think. Now look what you've done.

Actually I think its a pretty easy to make the mistake that Huntaar works for BFC. He comes across that way and the way he talks about 1.05 intimately makes it seem that way. That is one reason companies usually rein in beta testers a little. In commercial SW, companies are very careful about letting beta testers talk with customers because they don't officially represent the company, but the company is responsible for them as if they were reps. My old company got sued over committments a tester made to another customer at a user group.

I said I wasn't going to post again until 1.05 came out. I couldn't resist this one: I still can't believe that some people can't just admit there is something wrong with this game right now. I still think it has a lot of potential, but to sit around and talk about how great 1.05 is smacks of just plain rudeness as the rest of us sit on a game we really can't play the way it was meant to be played. btw, A lot of the beta testers said the same thing about 1.04. As far as scenarios go, 4 months after release and less than 50 scenarios and 98% of them around 200 downloads does not say a lot in relation to CMBO. I actually went back and checked the dates on my CMBO archive and within 4 months of release I had over 200 scenarios. Don't know what that means, but it does add to forum traffic and buzz on the web to give a clear picture. As far as the tech forum goes, take a look at how many legit questions went completely unanswered. That is your answer to the quiet on that forum. I think the quiet on the tactics and tech forum say a lot about the state of CMSF. I have no problem with a disagreement about whether someone likes the game or its playable, thats personal preference. I won't and shouldn't argue that. But to make any claim that there has not been something wrong with CMSF since release is both revisionist and fanboism. BFC has both admitted it directly through Steve, and indirectly through silence. As I have said before, they are not quiet because everything is working great. Web traffic in the scenario forums is less that 5 posts a day. I saw it go 4 days without a post last week. Show me another non-BFC forum where CMSF is being discussed beyond a post a week. I can't blame anyone from coming and thinking there is something wrong. Forum traffic alone screams out that something is amiss to anyone familiar with BFC forums. For your consideration: Why is the Peng thread the most popular thread? Why is the second most popular this one? If there is such a great community like CM1, why are those forums still as active as this one? If its just people playing, why only 200 downloads for less than 50 scenarios? Why all the poor reviews? Why can't I ever find an MP game? Why does BFC not answer valid questions on game play from loyal customers? Why is the sky blue? I want CMSF to work. I think the 1:1 and graphics are the needed step forward. The key is I want them to actually work. Today, in 1.04, I can't get by a lot of the bugs and I can't get reasonable explanations on how the game is supposed to work. If 1.05 and BFC's reemergence fixes that, I am all for CMSF. But we are 4 months in and only a little closer to where most people expected CMSF to be on July 27. The last thing I want to point out is that it is also the same 5 or 6 people in general coming in and trying to say there is nothing wrong with CMSF or getting offended when its criticized. And most of them seem to be beta-testers. My rants go on because in the last four months I have found doing this or criticizing the Stryker concept one of the few ways to get a response from BFC. Actually asking a real game question does not seem to do it.

I was looking around for those threads a few days ago and couldn't find them. I'll go back and look. What's funny is that a lot of those early discussions are in a similar vein to CMSF discussions, but CM1 was a demo/beta. CMSF is paid for.

Elmar, I disagree and take a look at the over all web and compare to other "good" wargames. There is always moaning about one thing or another, but weighing what is being said against the positive posts is a way to give a game a fair assessment. CMSF got pretty much drubbed from the get go in many of the CM forums. Now as a testament to whether that was just whining, guess what? No one is even talking about it outside these boards. Even you have to admit CMSF at best is fairly buggy. Even if we agree that the underlying engine is good, you can't get past the fact that four months after release you are still saying wait for the next patch. Bitching and moaning by itself is no barometer, but the context of the bitching and moaning is. BFC admits CMSF was released way early and needs work. They deliver a few patches within a month or so that fixed some issues and alleviated a few others. Complaining about bugs continues and they bunker down to get it right for six weeks and counting. Do you really think BFC went quiet because there weren't some serious issues, whether its the market's perception or actual game issues. Continuing to say people are complaining for the sake of complaining is as bad as people complaining, at a minimum. Even BFC is big enough to admit they made some mistakes on CMSF. I'd like to see some of the real honest assessments from people like you, not just wait for 1.05. I asked valid game-related question after question about how things were supposed to work and never got responses on these very forums. I am guessing I have almost twenty questions floating around the various CMSF forums that never got answers. But someone mentions that they think they found a bug or complain about how something works, and guess what? You get the same five or six people jumping on you for complaining. That is the absolute most frustrating part of CMSF.

76, may I call you 76, that is the problem I still have. I don't know where the squad starts and ends, and where the individual starts and ends. This especially stands out when a squad is spread out along several action spots. I have seen several contradictory comments on what that means and its impact on the game.

This right here is my issue. We have mostly conjecture on how things work. Every time Steve has come in to answer a small specific point of contention it creates more confusion because its out of context. I need, maybe I'm slower than most on these boards, a concise, thourough walk through of exactly how the grid impacts all aspects of the game. Otherwise I am stumbling around and getting frustrated. Bugs just magnify this because I am still not sure what's a bug and what is a design issue. I have seen some beta testers say not to worry about the grid and just play like you would CM1, yet I keep running into things that not only don't look right, but have a negative impact on gameplay.

Yeah, same here. I still go through cycles with CMSF. Giving up and then being drawn back. I have started several threads in other forums that have CM sections, but get almost nothing in response.

Since this thread came up, I have built a couple of test scenarios to test detection of IEDs and mines. I have not yet seen anyone detect or mark a mine without the mine having gone off first. This is in 20 or so tests in WEGO hotseat. Not a huge n statistically, but enough for me to ask again who can find mines?

1.04 is playable and there are moments of great enjoyment playing CMSF at times. But, I think one of the biggest testaments to issues still in 1.04 is how long BFC is taking to work on 1.05 and its absolute silence about it. That alone points to either some major work going on or complete abandonment (which I strongly doubt). I think CMSF is at a cross roads right now. As Adam commented a few posts ago, it seems like the only people responding are beta testers and the few dedicated scenario builders. A lot of old timers are gone or have gone back to CM1, and few new are players posting. Just some hangers on like Adam, the Cpl, and I still hoping something like 1.05 can bring back the magic. The only thing I disagree on is that good scenarios can still be made if the current limitations and bugs are accounted for. As much as this is supposed to be about infantry and MOUT, it does a decent job of combat in more open terrain where the grid and LOS issues are less severe. A lot of the urban scenarios look really good, but tend to show the limitations of the engine as it is today.

I thought that was an answer. Why did it not qualify. I was was actually asking another question. If you take that as a personal attack of some kind or personal insult, I am not sure what to make of that. btw, my response was really at the tome of the entire thread that someone can't ask for a perspective a little different from the norm.

How about another perspective to open minds a little. Or are Euro and Ami perspectives the only ones that count.

Actually tracers did, arty did not. I have seen on several occasions a tank round in flight at turn end.

Didn't tracers also end turns in mid air in CM1?

It would probably take the addictive suspense out of it.

first with the official "Hi, Mom" post.

Combat Mission: Star Trek

Adam, here is a thread from back a few months ago where Steve actually reponded to a question from you: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=002594 Don't think it helps much, but probably better than what you are going to get now.

I don't remember seeing that. All I saw Steve say was that CMSF outsold CMBO over the equal number of early weeks. That should come as no surprise given the publicity over CMSF for years and the semi-captured market of CM1 fans. Also, don't forget Paradox as a major retail distributor for CMSF from the get go. I would be more interested in comparing these four months and then looking back after a year.

AT guns did not deploy. I am just looking for the Stryker to find cover or do something intelligent until the execution phase ends. While it wasn't perfect in CM1, the instances it worked were far more than when it didn't. I was always much more likely to have a T70 encountering a Panver 4 than a JS2 encountering a Tiger. Remember its only a 60 sec. time slot. I just want the AFV to do something to live in a realistic manner until I can get to it. [ November 16, 2007, 04:40 AM: Message edited by: thewood ]

I find it funny that a behavior we took for granted in CM1 was left out of CM2, namely the retreat capability of AFVs in trouble. I had assumed that since so much time had been spent discussing it in CM1, it would carry over to CMSF. That is one of those things that gives me the impression that WEGO not a primary consideration in CMSF.

I want to make sure people in this forum see Adam1's AAR in the tactics forum. I know there are some people who only look at this forum, so: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=71;t=000151 I think this shows CMSF pretty much warts and all. To me it shows both the potential brilliance in the new engine, as well as the frustration with some things not working right. Other AARs seem to really gloss over the issues and don't really show some of the significant changes over CM1 in the same AAR. This one strikes a good balance.

They must have abandoned every other forum around as well.

Well, I checked just now and cannot find what you're thinking of. </font>

I think Steve did that a couple of weeks ago. A good search should reveal the answer.