Sirocco

Gahh! I knew someone would misconstrue it. That's why I bolded the caveat, but to no avail. My point was that it would be churlish to claim that the game was flawed because one was more interested in a different era. Sirroco: What's important about chalk and cheese, and what do they have to do with a wargame? Seriously, I can see no point in your post - could you explain what you mean? </font>

The problem with scenarios, which was the same with CMx1, is that you're in essence fighting someone else's battle. And it isn't just force selection, it's placement, reinforcement location, etc. Scenarios are a much more "on rails" experience than QB's. One suits one group of people, one another.

Because the important stuff is chalk and cheese.

For me QB's are still busted; I still get the same map time and again. Not to mention the oft repeated lack of real force selection. Overall I'm with GSX on this, gameplay is just repetitive and dull. Roll on WW2.

I found pathing a huge improvement over earlier versions when vehicles would take the scenic instead of the direct route. If you test it hard enough you will find issues, that's the nature of AI, but on everyday use I'd expect it to be pretty solid from what I've seen so far.

As I understand it, the Egyptians in 1973 had the upper hand in the initial stages, working to a pre-determined plan and more on a defensive posture, but when moving forward, tossing out the old plan and improvising a new one, they pretty much fell apart. That sounds like a rigid Soviet style force.

The US beat the US outright in Vietnam.

It doesn't get more intimate than a game of peek-a-boo between a Panther and an M4 looking for a lucky shot.

I was surprised there's feedback on the weapon, but not on the more obscure icons. The weapons are much easier to recognise. Will there be full feedback in 1.06?

My thoughts exactly.

You can change where CMx1 installs, though, and unless I'm mistaken saves go into a directory under that install?

Rewind would be a huge step forward. I think Steve mentioned he likes the idea, but whether or not that can be done for CMx2:WW2 I don't think was decided.

Your Mileage May Vary.

I think 1:1 and RT were pretty much things that had to be done. WEGO - and I must confess to not having used it, RT with pause is my preferred option - if it falls short does so because of time constraints, IMHO.

I think noting that signing up with a publisher with a pretty hard deadline would in all likelihood produce an unfinished product is a sign of understanding the games industry. YMMV.

Again, that's the whole point. BFC entered into a contract in which they predicted how long development would take, having spent years pointing out how flawed that was, and in the process abandoned the it will be done when it's done ethos. You can argue until the cows come home that publishers should work to a better model, but that wasn't the contract they signed.

It's a bit apples and oranges because CMx1 is more abstracted than CMx2. And when it's not apples and oranges it swings and roundabouts. I would go for CMBB, or CMAK, or a bundle. That's partly WW2 bias and partly because CMx1 titles have more depth and replayability.

Have you tried the CMBB demo? I would start with CMBB, if for no other reason than it's cheaper, and CMSF still isn't the finished article. But that would depend on which demo you enjoyed most.

The point isn't in meeting the deadline, it's putting yourself in a position where you have a deadline to begin with.

Mark, aside from all the caveats, you're responsible for the things that are under your control. As far as your last point is concerned, if I'm understanding you correctly, that's something I thought about earlier. But we're probably talking about scale not a completely different relationship, IMHO.

If it can be done, do it. I'd wait for 1.05 and see what transpires with that first. That should be the definitive statement on BFC's position on changes to the core CMSF game.

How so, when the developers knew the terms of the contract when they signed it? </font>

How so, when the developers knew the terms of the contract when they signed it?

I don't think the discontent is simply that BFC are changing direction, or scope. A significant part of it is that the Paradox contract went against their original mission statement, and lead to a situation they pretty much outlined therein themselves, as I recall it. Follow that up with the whole "you just don't get it" attitude and we're where we're at now. But that is all in the past. Time to put it behind us and move on. At least that might be possible if we can take down the barricades.

I'm as big a fan of QB's in CMx1 as anyone here, but I can see how dropping random maps makes sense, from a technical standpoint. Again I'd qualify it with the caveat that the game should have shipped with a lot of pre-generated maps.