thewood

Steve was pretty up front about the module nature of CM2. I see few people screaming about the same concept from ASL. btw, for the enjoyment I got from CM1, I would gladly have paid hundreds of dollars. And I am a pretty cheap bastage.

You find that a lot around here. Beta testers acting like they are part of the company until called on it and then retreating to the "just a customer like you" position.

I officially request that all requests be official, officially. Unless, of course, someone official declares the request unofficial. It shall then be considered an official unofficial request. Its official.

Double check ranges. My BMP1 fires at very close range, I think the max I have seen is 200m. This might be because the 73mm low pressure is very very inaccurate.

In 1.06, I built a test mission and had an objective around a building. The first few times I couldn't get it to work. Went back in and deleted the original objective, drew a new one and voila! It worked. Haven't seen the problem since. I still have intermittent issues with touch (may be I just don't understand it) and destroy/preserve.

This may be the key to the "sour" feeling have towards CMSF right now, including reviewers: "So, when someone in the beginning questions what they are seeing and then being told that it is much better than the non-physics CMx1 it is difficult to agree with. Especially when you get piled on by the true believers and even more especially when the entire mechanics end up changing to prevent this 'feature' at a later date." I can only think of Redwolf's big experiment with turning. Instead of people saying, "oh yeah, that is an issue", there was all kinds of ratioalization and outright anger at Redwolf conducting a pretty time consuming test. Guess what? It changed a couple of patches later. That fits the lurkers model.

And they usually take big stock hits for even small glitches, especially companies that depend on online cash streams.

Steve, one of the major things CM lost in the translation from CM1 is the variability in info on spotted units. CM1 and POA2 were the only tactical games I have seen to get it right. For all the steps forward in CM2, knowing exactly what the unit is that you spotted as soon as you have a definitive spot is almost as big a step back, as the relative spotting step forward.

I find this interesting: "I’m especially enjoying Real Time Elite mode, as I think it adds a realistic element of uncertainty. You must obey the infamous KISS rule when playing Real Time Elite. I think this a great overlooked realism improvement over CMx1. In CMx1, the dual effects of WEGO and Borg Spotting often rewarded unrealistically complex tactical plans that likely would have degraded into disorganized chaos on a real battlefield. Such parade ground maneuvering is extremely difficult to pull off in Real Time Elite, and I count this as an improvement." The added FOW with the non-borg spotting is quite good. It does force you to make plans simpler and more flexible. I find this same thing in POA2 and is the main reason I still play both these games.

Steve, I did that list around 1.05. I think it may have been just before or after 1.05. The list was developed as what I thought was a fair and balanced view of a user who played a lot of both CM1 and CM2. A lot of it was influenced by issues that were still pretty serious in 1.04 and didn't seem to get fixed in 1.05, mainly TacAI self preservation and QBs. I don't believe BFC was dishonest about CMSF, but it is what I call corporate honesty. That means you didn't lie, but the intent was to limit people being able to come back and point a finger at a quote that woould lay out culpability. BFC could have said, "hey, we screwed up. it isn't ready, but against our policy we are shipping it. Here is the plan to fix it, have faith". Instead, we got, "Here it is, we have a minor patch and a little further tweaking to do, but its the best game ever. and btw, CM1 was not very good when we released it either." That is obviously paraphrased. That is what rubbed, IMO, a lot of BFC fans the wrong way. Its water under the bridge at this point. The game is almost where I would have expected it. Now to the list. I stand by it, even after 1.06 (haven't upgraded to 1.07 yet). Lets look at your list: 1) Arty only really works effectively for human player and even then took several patches. 2)My list already said that was a positive 3)That is good accomplishment, but only if the entire system is working. I don't care if the physics system is right...is the T72 is shooting the wrong ammo. I would rather have a less accurate physics model, but have the actual systems doing the things they are supposed to. 4)My list stated that 1:1 was an advantage 5) Yes, but several still seem to not work, or don't work as the manual state. Plus, I already covered the editor on my list. 6)Terrain is more accurate, but still lacks some basics like water 7)OK, here it may be true, but haven't been able to tell what difference it makes, but still an advancement 8)OK, that is cool, but I am still not sure how that impacts what is happening. I have no reference as what this means for the equipment that is available 9)Prebattle Breifings are number 100 on my list of priorities, but are better than CM1 10)This is good. Still issues with it in replays. Now as to my list, I did cover most of the same stuff you seem to feel I neglected. For C2, what I was trying to get across, I still don't understand how you can say its a huge advancement when troops can react orders immediately. Yes the spotting thing is great, but it has some significant holes in the C2 model. Once again, look at how POA2 handled it 3 years ago. I get real spotting reports when I hover over an icon. What type of spotting, how long ago, and who is spotting. In CMSF, that would be great. As far as replays go, at 1.05, replays still had huge issues with not resetting status or terrain. Mostly resolved now, but very evident then. One thing that BFC and the beta testers should do is go back and look at the reaction to the first initial reviews of CMSF and your collective reactions to them. Then look at your reactions to some of the criticism from customers. There is a pattern there that hopefully educated us all. In the end, I like CMSF. I don't like coming to the board any more, but I have to keep up on the updates. Also, lack of design notes means its the only way to really figure out what is going on. On the other hand, I love CM1. I like going to those boards, even though I don't have to. That is an individual commentary in action.

This has been a pretty consistent bug in all versions for MP. I have seen it mentioned several times through the various patches. I have never seen it in the official bug thread...oh wait, never mind. clarification: I didn't see it in 1.06 and stopped playing MP in 1.05. I saw it myself before that and have seen it talked about in the other versions.

GUESS: –verb (used with object) 1. to arrive at or commit oneself to an opinion about (something) without having sufficient evidence to support the opinion fully: to guess a person's weight. 2. to estimate or conjecture about correctly: to guess what a word means. 3. to think, believe, or suppose: I guess I can get there in time. –verb (used without object) 4. to form an estimate or conjecture (often fol. by at or about): We guessed at the weight of the package. 5. to estimate or conjecture correctly. –noun 6. an opinion that one reaches or to which one commits oneself on the basis of probability alone or in the absence of any evidence whatever. 7. the act of forming such an opinion: to take a guess at someone's weight. —Idiom 8. by guess and by gosh, Northern U.S. using a combination of guesswork and reliance on luck; hit or miss. Also, by guess and by golly. </font>

What is this supposed to be an answer to? Or did you bump your keyboard?

The one thing I still see few people bringing up is that when spotted, the enemy unit becomes ID'ed in detail immediately. I still don't see how you can tell at 4-500m whether its a regular infantry unit, an HQ, an ATGM unit, etc. That's not in the open, but loaded in an APC. Same with tanks. From 1000m you right away know exactly what model T55 is out there.

It seems recently every time I have an idea - you have written it down first :mad: </font>

Looks like its on hold until 1.07.

I still wonder if there is some issue with early map builds. I seem to have more problems with maps that came with the game than ones I build myself.

This the thing that is at times incredibly frustrating about CMSF. It has the potential to be a great game, but something always seems to happen in almost every game that makes me step back and wonder if I am wasting my time. I watched these two guys slowly come around to trying a PBEM after much discussion over a few months. They may very well continue this AAR, but for the people watching this AAR, instead of swinging some good diehard CMers around, it is more likely one more reason for them to to complain and say "I told you so" Edit: I should point out that I have never had CMSF crash on my XP system. One thing I have wondered about is if anyone is testing CMSF in WEGO, or maybe its not being tested as rigourously as RT. I hear Steve and all the testers talking about RT usage and very little discussion about WEGO testing. It does seem like up to 1.05, WEGO was not really a focus for the fixes. 1.06 was the first release where it was a playable and enjoyable game in WEGO. [ February 14, 2008, 04:01 AM: Message edited by: thewood ]

from Pandur: steve, you as one of the creators of CMx1 give us such an example!? "Cover Armor" was pretty handy in CMx1 wasnt it It is near impossible to set up a good armor ambush in WEGO. the "cover armor" target arc was the best feature of CMBB and CMAK over the original CMBO.

http://worldatwar.eu/index.php?〈=3&refcode=473&location=wardiaries&diaryid=385 Couple of old school PBEMers taking CMSF for a spin. Not for the faint of heart or fanbois. These guys are probably going to be brutally honest.

I hope someone notes this discussion about getting the needed equipment easily. I have canned a large number of scenarios I have started to build because of the frustration in screwing around with trying to get the right units. I also had to do a lot of testing to see exactly what the night vision capabilites were for certain units. SOmething that could have been made a little more obvious or accessible.

Where is the picture of the Bren tripod?

Ha! I thought I was the only anal retentive idiot who did that.

But at less than 200m, would the GPMG put out a volume of fire that much greater than 8 or 10 assault rifles with grenade launchers. Thats over a minute or two. I am genuinely curious.

I think the complaint is that some recon units don't have a weapon and can't use target. But I had never thought of your suggestion before. Using waypoints is a good idea.