thewood

Do you work for BFC?

Not on the first date

I am a little surprised at the comment that its takes 5 times as long for inputing models. I thought the main point of the new engine was to significantly reduce the time to put new models in, hence more frequent modules with new models.

Most of the scripted AIs I have seen (TOW comes to mind) are extremely dependent on the scripting. CMSF I think has a good balance of scripting and organic AI. In TOW, it seems if you don't explicitly say to do soemthing, the AI won't do it. CMSF now seems to have a decent TacAI. The only thing lacking right now is more tools in the AI plan beyond times scripts.

But isn't that the concept behind combined arms in MOUT. When you can't get to a building and clear it, you blast it. I thought that was one of the objectives of the MGS Stryker.

Steve, your first car analogy in quite a while. Its a tough habit to break.

I think the type of data changes. If its a simulation, the question becomes what would a real-world commander have access to. If its a game, you give players options on information, because no two players want the exact same info. I still look at IL-2 as a good example. You can play it almost like an arcade game or make highly "realistic" with no outside views and manual cowl controls. I look at CM1 as more of a game, but could optionally be played like a simulation, but not with the fidelity of CMSF. The issue with CMSF is that its not easy to play it like a game, picking and choosing the info you want. You get what BFC gives you.

I think sometimes the debate can simplified (maybe oversimplified?) to whether its a game or a simulation. There are times in every game where it is more like work than fun. Sometimes in CM1 I would find myself crossing that line. I cross it much more often in CMSF. I personally found CM1 more fun than work. I have the opposite feeling for CMSF. I keep playing hoping I find that tipping point where its more fun. Related what to what Dorosh is saying, if its a game, why not have a LOS tool. If its an iron man simulation why let someone have a view other than from the inside a command track. IL-2 gives players the option of whether its a simulation or a game. I haven't figured out what CMSF is yet, but whatever it is options between being a simulation and a game are somewhat limited. So after a long ramble, the question on information really can only be answered when we can answer what CMSF is at its core; simulation or game.

I'm not sure I am saying what I am thinking the right way, but here goes: If you leave out the "odd" stuff and put in the no frills options, you get a boring game. CMSF has a lot of good stuff, but I feel I have played it out up to a point. It is starting to become a puzzle, and a repetitive one at that. A good example is Matrix's Panzer Command: Winter Storm. To me it is an East front version of CMSF. Compared to CMBB, its a bare bones game that plays itself out pretty quickly, not for lack of units, but there are almost no frills. Infantry is an afterthought and its all about putting metal on metal. I played it for a week and went back to CMBB. They tried to use the module method, but it has been well over a year and they are just now getting ready to launch a new "module". In CMSF, I find myself playing more red on red than anything because there seems to be some good tactical challenges that don't seem contrived. I was really hoping that after 6 or 7 months the next module would be out to add a little spice. Right now, most of the spice is getting a new patch and playing with stuff that is fixed. In my own layman's terms, I am agreeing with Dorosh, just not being so Canadian about it.

But it was in ASL, so it must real!

Syria's not all desert either. A significant portion is quite fertile.

I know, but I just haven't tried that in 1.07. I thought people reading it could put 2 and 2 together.

Mark, you are correct. The generic squads, even with AT weapons in CM1 didn't have a CA armor. I was thinking of the tank hunter teams. I just went back and re ran my test in CMSF and I still didn't get a squad to unhide in CA for an armor attack. I do know as late as 1.05 there were real issues with trying to ambush. I am going to rebuild the test scenario and see if it changes anything. I built it in 1.04. I don't trust a lot of the earlier scenarios because I see some quirky things happen in some built before 1.05. Ususally when I rebuild them, they are OK.

This is what I was talking about. I have a Syrian squad and am trying to set up an ambush on a stryker through a keyhole. US infantry squad walks by and the Syrian squad opens fire. I can't seperate out the AT assets. If I hide the squad, they never seem to fire. Without hide, they open up on anything that comes into LOS. In CM1, I would give them an armor CA and be done with it. I have not tried it with an ATGM team since 1.05. PS. the Syrian squad was veteran and I am playing WEGO. I haven't tried this in 1.07.

Since CMBO, I have seen various takes on suggestiong better scenario sorting.

Funny because I haven't seen a single unit fire with a hide command in an arc.

Hide and arc do not work for ambush in WEGO. Troops told to hide, hide, regardless of arc. At least that is my take on it.

Regarding the definition of 'us', my guess would be that 5 to 10 percent of all games are played WeGo, the rest in RT. We shall never find out for sure, but I guess I am not that far off. Perhaps even too optimistic with regard to WeGo. I want to add that I played perhaps 2/3 of the stock CM:BB scenarios and perhaps 20 percent of the stock CM:AK scenarios. Not because I did not like either game, but because I found my time (measuring in hours for a single scenario) spent better on other activities (sleep being one example). CM:SF, on the other hand I play almost daily, because a tiny 30 minutes Uncon versus Uncon quick battle fits into the tightest schedule and is loads of fun. Best regards, Thomm </font>

z, I assume you are talking RT not WEGO.

thanks

I guess I was thinking more from a historical scenario perspective. Are there particular scenarios that rely a lot on the appearence of the T-28, if so what substitute comes close to making up for it.

Somewhere back in the old CMSF days, someone posted a few screenshots of weird elevation from tanks and tank guns not pointing at what there supposed to be shooting at. I don't remember if it was a bug or a feature.

Serves the same purpose as the engineering Stryker.

I actually think it would be better just to charge more. But that is probably not going to happen.

How big an historical factor is the lack of the T-28 in CMBB?