Sirocco

Random maps for QB solo play in CMx1 were useable, as long as you attacked. You just didn't get a decent game out of defence, unless you enjoyed mowing down mortar crews leading human waves. If a random AI plan was created along with random maps either BFC would have to spend an age coding it, at the expense of other features, or you'd end up with the situation above.

I agree; I think we'll look back at this as a "lessons learned" exercise.

The use of the word "whining" doesn't help. It does nothing but poison discussions. People have genuine complaints, questions, etc. But I suppose that's an Internet phenomenon not restricted to this board.

Your customer base isn't just those who have bought the game, it's your propectives, too, especially people who have bought previous products and can be expected to pick up further titles.

Unless I can pick a single 57mm ATG, a couple of bazooka guys, and a rifle platoon, and have them defend a crossroads against a German armored panzergrenadier company + support, it ain't really improved. Let alone having to dig through someone else's maps.</font>

QB's will be improved for CMx2:WW2. That was mentioned two or three times. I would expect that to mean wider selection options, though not random maps.

You mean in this thread? Because what I saw was Mark referring to a scenario having 2000 downloads - most impressive, I agree - and others pointing out that one swallow does not make a spring, as it were.

And for all that I'd still play CMBO. Bugs, oddities and downright weirdness included. Even if CMSF were patched to perfection.

I would agree that it's a turkey, at least from my perspective, but I disagree that it's the bugs and missing elements that make it so. Without question it shipped in a much more incomplete state than CMBO, but patched the game has been much more comparable to that state for a while. I just think there's a rose coloured view of CMBO at times here.

I would have to disagree, strongly. CMBO played just fine right out of the box, and just kept on getting better. There were no game breakers. CMSF OTOH... paints all its flaws out to us, everytime we play it in all its 1:1 glory. Really, I think its kinda sad that not only the CM series, but the image I had of this company, has been crushed. </font>

CMx1 had a lot of peculiarities; a lot of that was mitigated with the level of abstraction, but that could still be problematic. In my experience the game flaws in CMSF were a pain, and certainly aggrevated by the premature release, but on the CMBO patch scale not of a hugely greater order of magnitude.

I don't think anyone was ripped off. Without question many people are disappointed with the game to varying degrees. Putting aside issues like the interface or QB's CMSF is comparable to CMx1 in terms of imperfections. IMHO, more time spent, more polish, and the grumbling would be more along the lines of modern isn't my cup of tea.

The Internet is a double edged sword, though; more interaction but on the other hand games that are released prematurely and repeatedly patched.

I haven't looked at this forum for weeks, and I must say it's a surprise to see so few CMSF threads on the first page. It's pointless going over the past because that has been and gone. I looked at the Hammertime scenario and the thoughts I had were that the game really needed to ship with more scenarios of that kind. Although I haven't had the motivation to touch the game since downloading it it does look awesome work. I hope 1.05 is all that everyone here waiting for it is hoping for.

It's this kind of comment that's really starting to tick me off. The wild assumptions, and the wild conclusions that flow from it. Way to categorise people that don't agree with the company line. I would call that being counter productive.

I assume your friend was referring to off map mortars, available as support weapons.

You see, the thing is, people here sometimes have opinions, and as this is a forum it's natural to express them. Otherwise what's the point of the board? You seem to be confusing this place with a fan club. The vast bulk of people here were well aware CMSF wasn't going to be CMAK. What wasn't expected was an extremely buggy and incomplete release - to a contract BFC signed, I might add - with semantics and smoke being used to create a hostile atmosphere. If you want to know what might frighten off customers it's this strident, arrogant tone, not being open and honest about game flaws.

Another vote for fundemental not meaning irredeemable. There's hostility here on both sides which isn't helpful in moving forward.

I've seen Steve mention that QB's will improve in CMx2WW2, but I can't recall him mentioning specifics. I'm hopeful some form of CMx1 style force selection will return. It would add greatly to the title, especially for those of us that prefer QB's over scenarios.

I just thought I'd repost the original premise of this thread, as it's become obscured by the amount of smoke being thrown around.

Blue squad has LOS [action spot], but only half the squad members have clear LOF. Red squad has LOS and all squad members have LOF to blue squad members. Until the remaining blue squad members re-position to gain LOF - assuming, for simplicity, there are no complicating factors - then CMx2 is flawed. If that's an impossible standard to attain then what are we doing with 1:1 instead of the previous abstractions? In the above example the red squad has a 2:1 advantage purely based on a game flaw. I understand this is extraordinarily difficult to program, and I admire the attempts so far made, but let's call a spade a spade for where we are with 1.03. I trust 1.04 will take another step forward with it.

CMx1 was full of abstractions. And remember with CMx1 LOS wasn't relative. That was a huge abstraction.

I don't think it's a real life restriction in that sense, it becomes an issue when squads don't behave as one would expect them to in combat, ie not taking a clearly more beneficial position. But I accept this is something you're working to improve on in patches, and that's to be commended.

I do think there is a disconnect if the individual is effectively thinking I can see the target [action spot LOS] but I can't hit it [LOF], if the individual doesn't re-position. But if that can and will be improved upon with 1.04 or future patches that's a positive step forward for CMx2.

I think it's a real stretch to call CMx1 1:1. I don't think it would fit a general definition. The original premise of the thread was that 1:1 in CMx2 was flawed. If there is a disconnect between LOS and LOF then I think that conclusion is unavoidable. The only question is how often it intrudes into gameplay. And we can only hope that 1.04 minimises that.