thewood

Well not being able do that detailed modding never hurt the original CM. Probably won't hurt CMSF. Sure dosen't seem to be helping TOW. A good game is a good game, modding or not. At some point you have to just play it.

Michael, That is the best summary of the balance between realism and playing I seen on these forums. The one thing you left out is he would have some stupic colonel screaming at him by phone to get his ass moving.

And the problem is QB was always the longevity behind CM. Yeah it had a good scenario editor and I loved playing good user made historical scenarios (it is actully my preference). But those take time and effort to create. I used QB as the filler in between and to experiment. I really think that the majority of people playing CM did the same thing. Now with SF's editor being more powerful, we will get even better user scenarios. But the new power will narrow the number of people who can make a really good user scenario down even more. But the problem is, there is no good QB filler. Yes you might get a good generated QB now and then, but with the issues already noted and no random maps, I am seeing less that 25% (guess) of the generated QBs being playable or even interesting to play.

You know what your niche of the industry is like, just like I know what my niche is like, and neither is BFC. BFC ain't the company(s) you or I work for, so it ain't the same. So, on this topic, you really don't know what you're talking about. </font>

See this thread for a more detailed discussion: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=002002

That'll teach him...cept he won't be doing an lessons learned

This was the exact arguement I used to use for not having a 1:1 representation for squads. CC, GIC, and TOW all did it and had the same problems. The AI didn't know how to get an entire squad in cover. There was always a lot of fitzing around to get everyone in cover, if you ever could. CM didn't have that issue. I am hoping that that is not the case with SF. The fitzing around thing may be tolerable in WEGO, if you know how the abstractions work, but in RT, it can be frustrating to have to spend minutes moving squads around, reissuing orders, and trying to make it work. Meanwhile all hell is breaking loose because the T72 you spent 5 minyutes getting into hull down was is getting toasted because of the same issue.

I tried loading during a RT game and have to say it cost me the scenario. I spent 5 minutes fiddling around with it. It seems very sensitive and has a certain sequence to it that you have to be careful with.

Also be careful of what level you are playing. I have some pretty big FOW differences in each level.

I'll just turn off units, buildings, trees, smoke, dust, sound, and elevations. It should run sweet then. btw, can you get FPS that negative numbers, or maybe even unreal.

Actually, if it takes significantly less than 60 sec., I would think yes. Am I missing something? But, of all the things I would like to see, this one is way, way down on the list.

Its an old programming language from the 80's that MS has turned into an OS

CM showed you the final path that the AI was planning after you gave it a waypint. I didn't even notice it was missing until you pointed it out. Another time saving feature.

I have always said the death of PC gaming is the over complexity of todays systems and OS's. That's why consoles are beating PCs to death.

What would be better is the AI churning in the background while you are watching the turn resolve and than the VCR controls become active when its resolved. That way for smaller scenarios, you may have only watch 10 seconds and then you can skip.

I wouldn't say it was broken, but I do think some sacrifices were made in WEGO to make the scenario editor more powerful and scripted like in RT games. I think a lot of smaller issues that people are having are related to the AI not having the individual intelligence as in CM. It is much more dependent on scenario design and the player sitting right on top of them. Unfortunately I think the interface is a little clunky for RT. Too many keystrokes and clicks.

Thanks missed it.

Your link goes to BFC's main page. I couldn't find anything in downloads.

I am worried that some important questions are getting lost in the forum churn: Are reactions to suppression the same as in CM? i.e., eventually running away. Do units surrender? Is full FOW implemented in veteran? Do vehicles recognize threats and seek cover? Does the AI do any kind of threat assessment when a unit is ID? How do you load APCs? How do you know an APCs capacity and what happens if you try to overload them? Is there a way to put foxholes in or any kind of hidden improved position? I know there are probably more, but these are some of mine and some I have seen floating around with no answers. I am hoping consolidating them allows you to more easily answer them. If the answer is RTM, I'll take that, but I have benn through the manual a few times looking for the amswers.

Was this in the manual someplace...seems a pretty critical piece of info.

Is that a fact or are you just assuming. Hoping BFC gets around to this thread and answers.

Its also dependent on the Iraqi soccer (football) team winning a game.

I still have yet to anyone retreat or surrender. Looking at the Syrians morale and experiance levels, I would think you would get sureenders and roouts all over the place.

I may be completly daft, but how do I load a unit into an APC or IFV. Also, how I determine a vehicles troop capacity?

Annoying being the key. I haven't really tackled RT yet, but trying to do all this clicking during a firefight seems quite annoying.