Sirocco

Dorosh should start selling t-shirts.

Does PP sound familiar to the rest of the "gang"?

As I recall an in-game screen was promised a while ago. It's one of those simple fixes that would be worth much more than the time expended on it. </font>

I'm pretty sure it was something Steve mentioned was on the list, but you'd have to search through an awful lot of posts to find it. </font>

I'm pretty sure it was something Steve mentioned was on the list, but you'd have to search through an awful lot of posts to find it.

As I recall an in-game screen was promised a while ago. It's one of those simple fixes that would be worth much more than the time expended on it.

Different from what? Anything you the user could possible want? They are user definable. The default doesn't matter. </font>

I must admit I haven't been motivated enough to put too much time into it. But I have seen enough issues with 1:1 to make me concerned for the future. The problems touched on here with regard to waypoints being erased also concern me. I pointed out some weeks ago that for the WW2 game that can be critical when moving armoured vehicles. I haven't touched the game since possibly 1.05. What I haven't liked since the start is the interface. The new routing system with units simply disappearing off the map disheartens me. In general I feel for all the big steps forward you took a few back, some I assume to be down to development time, but some that I regard as plain poor design decisions, in particular the interface. I know it appears to be back as a space bar pop up, but unless it can be redefined as a right click it sounds too much like more keyboard centrism. So, yes, the main problem for me is the subject matter, and has been since it was announced. But the efforts I have made to get into it have been thwarted by parts of the implementation. For example, and to return to the original point of this thread, I played a QB with a map from one of the user generated map packs. I had some vehicles and infantry. Directly in front of me were two compounds each with a few buildings. The enemy was across the map facing me in more buildings across open ground. I spent far more time maneuvering vehicles between the buildings, cancelling wacky movement orders and keeping exposure down than I did dealing with the enemy. The orders were pretty simple. It isn't as bad as it was - and I assume it's been improved since 1.05 - but when struggling to get the game to do what it should is harder than beating the enemy there's a real problem. I'm just hoping we can write CM:SF off later as being an extended beta for WW2.

I like the look of the game, I like the detail. But it just isn't fun. It's all a mix of very precise movement and very heavy firepower. It's more like sitting an exam than playing a game. I don't doubt others are having great fun with it, but roll on WW2, and roll on decent QB's.

Two obvious things; QB was gutted and right click menu was dropped. Who needs proper QB's when you have scenarios and a campaign? Who needs right click menu when you have keys. What is promising we're promised a better implementation of QB's and apparently the pop up menu is back in. I wouldn't know how that panned out as I haven't had time to look at the game recently.

It was a general comment. You seem to be becoming more and more focussed on what floats your boat with the games, and at times you don't listen to outside input; you downright dismiss it. That's an observation on businesses that grow quickly and then lose sight of what got them there. We had that discussion before on marketing, so I won't get into it again here. But I think your conclusions on those sales numbers and why they were significantly lower are flawed. As I said before, I have no problem with the module format, and it's one I'd go with, too. But you were busy chopping out stuff in CMSF because it didn't float your boat that I hope you'll implement again in the WW2 game.

I can certainly understand the more limited scope. But whenever I read your comments I hear all about how you want to make the games easier on you. I hear less and less about what customers want. If you keep concentrating on what works best for you then you might find your games work less and less for your customers. Personally after CMSF I'll wait for a demo for the WW2 game and feedback on QB's.

The danger with that mindset is you take customers for granted. No one has a right to sales. If you keep on underwhelming people with product you'll find you have even more time on your hands than you were hoping for.

For PBEM lock the players out of issuing orders apart from those defined timed pauses.

If you have RT with pause and rewind you could actually have the option to auto pause, and even set when pauses occur and for IP play how long those pauses would last.

If BFC can put in a sixty second rewind and tighten up loose ends like editable waypoints I personally can't see why RT and WEGO can't be rolled into one.

That was also the conclusion on BBC Timewatch. </font>

I posted a video of that battery in another thread. Whether it had the range to hit Omaha is disputed, I believe.

No matter how much you bait me with your trolling, I'm not getting into this. I have far more useful things to do with my time. And with that, consider the field yours, for what it's worth.

Honestly, you're here to defend CMSF, even BFC by implication. And loyalty is no bad thing. But going over this with you would be a pointless exercise. Black is white, white is black, I get it. A section with SMLE's puts out as much firepower as one with SA80's, PIAT is comparable to a Javelin, I take your point.

Well, you know, I don't respond well to being talked down to, that's one thing. And I've learned from previous experience here that if your view on something doesn't correlate to that held by BFC in whole or part you just don't get it. So I save time and skip the responses.

Vehicles cutting waypoints short; if I have a vehicle in cover and I want to keyhole it I reverse to a point then hunt from there. That puts its nose pointed where I expect the greater threat. Now it doesn't make the reverse waypoint and as a result doesn't have the correct angle to the hunt point. Perhaps a minor point in CMSF but a major one in CMx2:WW2.

I'm not even going to bother spending time reading that. I will add, we should reclaim our collective tax expenditure since WW2, as obviously the SMLE and Bren, sans tripod, would have sufficed to this day.

BTW: I finally got the game to give me a different map once in a while in QB's by importing the user generated map packs. It was an improvement but two things; one, pathing is at times a-freaking-bysmal, especially when units cancel movement orders, for example a reverse, then hunt turns into a hunt, pointed in the wrong direction. And second, as mentioned above, games end out of the blue when you've delivered enough ordnance on the hapless Syrians. No real sense of victory, especially when I'm barely past the start line. If you're having fun with it, great, I'm sure there are many happy customers out there. I'm not knocking your experience. But again, roll on WW2, as long as BFC fix the engine.

Honestly, if you can compare combat between bolt action rifles and modern semi autos for example, well, what's the point in expounding? Modern weapons are much more lethal, but hey, let's ignore that, and the fact the match up in CMSF doesn't actually match up, and all pretend black is white.