thewood

Actually I generally take a well written review seriously if the author seems to have a clue and can communicate. Same as opinions on this board, just another opinion. I am sorry to see that you can't get past something as superficial as a name to see if the review is relevent. My opinion is that it is a pretty closed-minded way to approach information in any medium.

I used HD all the time in CM. It worked a lot, if you knew where the enemy was going to be. But I sucked at CM so thats what its worth.

Actually a pretty fair review. While somewhat negative, can't argue with the points made.

Missed that too! That is great. Every Scenario should have that.

I had mentioned in another thread how it eventuall becomes like work.

That is a great point. I hope someone at BFC looks at POA2 for assymmetrical warfare. They do it very well and the military uses it for planning in new weapons.

This is most notable with Strykers at Fast or Quick because its truning radius seems to be huge. I constantly have M1s at high speed miss waypoints and circle around to get them and end facing backwards.

I said this earlier, but to repeat, pathfinding seems worse becuase we don't know what the AI is doing. In CM we got, after a bit, the planned path of the AI for your unit. You could then adjust it to keep it out of trouble. In CMSF, no adjustment allowed nor do you get the true path shown. I also think the level of abstraction in CM hid infantry pathing from us. Now we see why abstraction may not have been a bad thing. Also, even in early CM, I never saw tanks dancing around like in CM. Yeah we got roads bunched up, but if left to its own, the AI eventually sorted it out. Maybe not the optimum path, but every one got there eventually. Now in RT in CMSF there is just no time for micromanagement, and in WEGO, the tools are gone.

I know I am harping, but POA2 has been doing this. Do a search on this forum and see that I have been talking about. I have so many friendly fire incidents becuase I haven't paid attention to flanks and SITREPS in POA2. It completely models CoC and delays for recieving intel and giving orders.

Pink Floyd's TACAI sucked but the pathfinding was stellar.

The question about what is being abstracted to me is the $64,000 question. I am having a hard time seeing where the line is drawn.

WEGO is there, fitted into an RT box. The game seems to be built to be played RT with WEGO as a secondary path. I am not saying that BFC did WEGO as an afterthought, but I do think the focus was on RT. Just look at the posts from BFC and the testers. Its all about RT and how great it is and they never went back to WEGO. Just look at how poor the TACAI is in being able to react to threatening situations. It alsmost seems like BFC is expecting players to manage that, but in WEGO, we are at the TACAI's mercy. That is what made CM successful and why its laser etched on my HD.

But the point everyone seems to be missing is this ia why CM was originally had some pretty big abstractions. No one of significance really cared because the abstractions fit the scale. Now with 1:1 scaling for ALL units, I think the system may just be too complicated to manage. Most tactical FPS games have some pretty severe limitations on them because of issues like this. I think BFC really openned up a can of worms with the scale. But I will say that the move from 2D IgoUgo was probably just as big a leap and they managed to pull it off. I am praying to Gods of Wargaming.

Actually, thats a good point. I thought I had read that civilians were to be included. Without them its just like WW2, recon by fire (really big fire)

In Wadi Scouts, I added a couple of BMP-1s and killed plenty of Strykers with AT5(?) after manual targeting. In a couple QBs, I have had M2s kill T72s with TOW with me ordering it.

I gotta admit this one puzzled me too. The main proble with doing it manually is that I don't think the terrain is accuratly displayed enough. With out a real accurate LOS tool it is very difficult.

I thought it wasn't going to be added. It was a feature.

I think that's the answer to a lot of questions on the WEGO side.

I don't know if its related, but intel seems different between WEGO and RT modes. Playing Wadi Scouts in RT and only see a couple of bunkers at the start. In WEGO, all 4 show up. I have seen minor differences in other scenarios. I know there is some random ness to spotting, but it seems consistent that in RT you get less inital intel than in WEGO.

One of the biggest differences in pathfinding is that in CM, you were shown the path that the AI had adjusted. Looking back, that was kind of a safety net for the TACAI. Now, we put a waypoint in and the AI is off to the races. No last check to make adjustments.

Well back in the good old USA. It seems you guys were concerned enough about my leaving to actually clean the place up. Good job. You'll get your allowance this week. Now I'll jus SOD OFF for a bit.

Whether you like it or not, I'm expressing my opionion ( or am I taking a crap, I get confused sometimes): I have played a marathon session and here is the emotional roller coaster: 1st scenario - wow that was awesome, this game rocks, this what I have been waiting for 2nd scenario - WTF, why did that M1 fly past its end waypoint the circle around to get back to it, exposing it big fat ass to a T72. This game sucks, I want to sell it, what was BFC thinking. 3rd scenario - wow that was awesome, this game rocks, this what I have been waiting for 4th scenrio - WTF, why can't stupid Stryker drive down a road straight. Why is it sitting there trading .50 rounds with a T72's 125mm. Why are my stupid guys walking down the middle of the street getting pummelled without seeking cover, why won't those, underpaid, untrained, crappy Syrian regulars retreat or surrender. This game sucks, I want to sell it, what was BFC thinking. 5th Scenario - wow that was awesome, this game rocks, this what I have been waiting for and so on... Ilove/hate this game. I have gone from optimistically anxious, to skeptical, to giddy, to disappointed, to awestruck, to not knowing what to think, to somewhat concerned...in the space of 5 days. One of the things I am most concerned about is that if I go back and look at my complaints about TOW, they are similar to the ones I have for CMSF. It makes me feel guilty about still really liking CMSF. [ July 31, 2007, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: thewood ]

DOn't forget its 40 year old obeses IT professionals. Throw balding in for the real kicker/

One of the issues I have (not a big one) is I have no idea what is modeled. Can I use Jane's as reference or is combat Rock/Paper/Scissors or is it something in between. I have assumed that the armor combat fidelity is at least at the level of earlier CM, but I just don't know and there has been little discussion about it.

Look at CM, 7 years of development and I think its far superior to Firfight (I have only played the free download).