Capt. Toleran
-
Posts
444 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Capt. Toleran
-
-
Hi,
Haven't posted on this forum in a while (and I rarely do). Was just curious how many of you guys plan to get CMSF when it comes out?
Also, of those of you that answered affirmative to the above, anyone else really irked that the CMSF forum is dead (aside from the usual Peng stuff) due to no news about product release, or even screen shots? Why don't any of you post there?
On one hand, wonderful information is available here at this thread, and I feel bad now for posting with questions that were already addressed there: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=000124
If the developers had honored any of the proposed timelines laid out there, I don't think that forum would be dead, and might be as alive as this one. I know they are in a damned-if-you-do situation in even putting those timelines there, but with no bones, little feedback, and little coummunity involvement, there's not much to talk about on the forum.
This is in contrast to CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK, which all had bones, debates over rules and movement, unit request, etc. Heck, look at this forum today! Multiple threads just today on a game that is what, 5 years old now? I would think CMx2, which everyone has been talking about since CMBB came out, would attract some kind of response, but either the lack of interest from the WWII crowd or the lack of bones has just caused the CMSF forum to dry up on the vine.
Ok, just wanted to gripe (and ask those questions above). I have the feeling I am starting to make a pain out of myself here on the Battlefront forums on this topic, but I am frustrated about little to no news about the product release (seems like the same thing is happening with CMC, which also sucks).
2007 seems like a really long time to wait for something that has been in the works for so long already, and I feel similarly about CMC.
These two games are the only ones I have penciled in for my gaming budget, but it looks like we all will be waiting a long, long time.
[ June 01, 2006, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: Capt. Toleran ]
-
Question on the relicense bit -- If my PC hard drive crashes or PC dies (which happens to me about every year and a half), this kinda cancels out any chance to unlicense. I assume there will be some way to rectify this through Battlefront support?
-
Honestly, I don't see why a team has to be hired for a developer diary. We're talking 1-3 paragraphs a day (or even a week). Those of us who went to college, while working, remember averaging 1-3 pages a day (3-9 paragraphs) on top of readings, our normal work, and family life (and sometimes these assignments were in fact diaries). Even if it was filled with mundane minutia or funny stuff about the dev team, surely a small update would not be hard to write. A paragraph averages four sentences.
Just a proactive defense here, before I get labeled as one of those forum trolls (not that anyone has accused me of this) due to my recent negative posts on this board -- If you do a search, you'll see that my participation in this forum is largely passive, and except for some grousing about MGs being broken in CMBO (they were, and everyone knows it), I have been either supportive or silent. I post only because I remember what Battlefront used to do in terms of customer relationship and marketing, and it saddens me that out of all of the games I am intersted that are coming out in the near future (laughable at this point for this one), this is the one I care about the most, yet have heard and seen the least of. Anyone in Sales can tell you the customer relationship is key, and anyone in Marketing can tell you that no marketing is no way to go (I'm involved in both for my company, a large media firm). Some of us long-term CM supporters (how many people love a PC game and still play it for 7 years?) are not feeling much love right now from Battlefront.
Alright, I'll shut up already and leave things alone, I've probably said more than my share.
[ May 13, 2006, 09:43 AM: Message edited by: Capt. Toleran ]
-
I guess the reason why some of us express our displeasure on threads like these is that we remember when Battlefront used to share information with its customer base. Considering the latest posts from Battlefront on game features are from last year (and no vehicle list that I know of, though I am only a part-time lurker), many of us who were here during the CMBO development period and subsequent games are understandably puzzled and miffed by Battlefront's silence on the topic, and the lack of feedback on their own promotional forums. Even a message like "check back here in 2 months" would be more satisfying than what we have now.
Oh, and to whoever said "Battlefront knows best how to market their products" -- many a company has fallen prey to their own hubris after creating some winning products (think New Coke, Daiktana, Doom 3, etc.). The success of CMBO wasn't just that it was a great (and to its credit, long-enduring) wargame -- The community that was built around it and had a hand in shaping the game was the real marketing success story there. People like me were brought in by word of mouth, and became evangelists for the product (I personally bought 3 copies of CMBO for myself and family). I see no such community here, only disparate posts that even someone like me actually interested in the non-WWII nature of this upcoming game finds boring. One good bone would reverse this, and likely kick off some enthusiasm here (see the post where they discussed control features to see an example of this).
Bottom line -- Companies change, people have short attention spans, products need marketing, and people don't like having their patience abused. It is quite clear that unlike CMBO, CMBB, or CMAK, Battlefront does not care about our input on this product, and this to me marks a clear deviation from the core beliefs that all of us respected Battlefront for. Fanboys, keep saying the Great Pumpkin is coming, because the rest of us got tired and went to bed a long time ago.
-
Ha! I guess I was able to drown them out (and I do remember the complaints) because:
A) There were actual bones to go back and look at
B)There was so much more going on on those boards. They were like a 24-hour party.
Ok, I broke my promise, but I will try to keep my lips zipped.
-
Well, the question is, was there ever a down period during the CMBO boards, or any of the sequels? I don't remember any. I do remember a lot of bones, screenshots, AARs, and lively debate. Numerous members have asked for screens, any screens, even crappy placeholder screens. We're into the period originally suggested by Battlefront for product release, and we don't even have a demo. Sounds kinda vapor-warey to me.
At this point, it's not just the CMSF game that people are interested in, it's the CMx2 engine that will determine whether they will be turning to Battlefront in the future for their tactical wargaming needs, whether it be WW2, Korea, Vietnam, etc.
And really, considering they had a fraction of the staff back then that they did now, it is amazing that not one developer, alpha/beta tester, or forum admin can be bothered to chime in on progress. Having worked in Marketing/Advertising for the entire decade, plus also having gotten my MBA, I can tell you this is not a great way way to build a groundswell for your next product -- But hey, it's their company (and our dollars at stake).
Alright, enough from me, I'm going back to rant mode. I just wanted to kick this thread up to the top a few times with the futile hope that someone would respond, or that there would at least be a clammoring of similar opinions. It seems that I was wrong.
-
I guess what is interesting is what can be gleaned indirectly from board activity and participation. Clearly, when compared to CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK, this upcoming title is not nearly as anticipated or sought after, at least in terms of board activity. This makes one think then that a large % of the target audience will be, as others have speculated, organizations that would ultilize CMSF for training.
That being said, I wonder if they (Dept. of Defense, possibly) have been given any more info than we have on when the game will launch. Usually companies are used to some kind of timeline of delivery from their vendors -- I can't see Battlefront giving the DoD the "It's ready when it's ready" response they give us.
I really hope that this product was meant more for institutions, because as this point, this game is fast-tracked for commercial failure if this is the way Battlefront is going to cultivate their relationship with their fan base. Others called it years earlier when Battlefront started doing the things they said they wouldn't (distribution through a 3rd party, for instance), and it is apparent now that they have strayed far from their grass-roots marketing techniques, and now treat us as little more than a nuisance to sell products to.
I don't post on the boards often guys, so when I do, rest assured it is because I am completely disgusted with what has happened here. CM games used to generate so much interest and debate -- This forum truly is barren now. When the game comes out, I will of course order it -- I just hope it sells enough copies to justify sequels.
-
Key quote from the article on Gamecloud:
Given that we are now getting well into Spring, with not a word or screenshot from Battlefront on the progress from this game, I don't think it is too much to ask on the promotional forum for the game for some bones at this point. Unlike others, I am pretty happy about the modern setting of the game (I mean, cmon guys, 500 games in the past 6 years about WWII isn't enough for you?), but my patience is wearing thin as month after month, this forum has no new news. Really this thread is an apt description of what is going on, and it saddens me to think that the original Combat Mission forums was so active and alive, while this one is clearly almost a flatline. Considering that user feedback and organic word-of-mouth marketing has been an integral part of Battlefront's success, it is arrogant at this point not to share product details or a progress report with the few people here that actually bother to check on the game."Steve Grammont -.....'We expect CM:SF, the first of many games from the CMx2 engine, to be released in Spring 2006'"Some of us budget our gaming dollars in advance -- It would be nice to know approx. when I would need to set aside my money and time to play this game. I know others who buy products or services from vendors are usually given this courtesy, if even just a progress report.
-
I think you mean "The Longest Day"
-
Not sure what the manual says, but I do remember the strategy guide mentioning that units that are more tired are more prone to panic. Thus, fitness indirectly affects the chance that a squad will rout, as it is more likely to get or stay tired during normal battle maneuvers.
-
1)
Human is the way to go, unless you're really rigid on your time schedule. With TCP/IP (and heading over to CMHQ chat), you can get a good couple of hours of constant, human-vs.-human play, and with PBEM, you can get the longer-term, epic kind of gaming in. IMHO, the AI really isn't worth wasting your time on, exept to pick up some initial skills. Extensive playing against the AI will leave you hurting when you go up against a person, as the AI has no imagination, reacts in a predictable manner, and sometimes does things that just make no sense. My favorite analogy for this is the first-person shooter -- it all seems ok while you play the single player version (against the AI), but as soon as you jump on a multiplayer server, you get your ass handed to you. You then pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and then learn the real game. Playing the AI is gamey -- you know what it's going to do. Playing a person always has that random factor that makes the game interesting.
2)Already answered
3)Personally, after you get some feel for what it's like, I would jump right into TCP/IP play, so that you can get a feel for how the game is really played. The AI just gets too easy to beat (though scenarios against the AI are fun and challenging for those that enjoy puzzles), and winning over a human is what really makes online war gaming fun. I wouldn't worry about taunting -- this isn't a counterstrike crowd. Every player I've gone up against in the past 3 years has been polite and gracious in both victory and defeat.
4) Yes, this game got me back into war gaming after a long hiatus of playing first person shooters. Now all I play is CMBB, Shogun Total War (great game), and my PS2.
When you want a PBEM game, feel free to write me -- tolerancm@yahoo.com
-
Dingo --
Not to nitpick, but the exact response is:
"Charlie don't surf!"
It has more of a regional, American, balls-to-the-wall slang kind of ring to it
-
Urefinger, I'll take you on -- what did you have in mind?
Contact me at tolerancm@yahoo.com and we'll parley
-
(Bump)
Excellent AAR -- please continue to post these when you can, as it was very enjoyable and you did a really good job of clearly explaining what was going on and what your thought processes were.
-
I think one reason why at least some of us don't turn to Tac Ops to satisfy our desire for a "modern" CM is that Tac Ops is pretty much a map game. Nice as it is for map excercises and somewhat high-level command simulation, it doesn't give us the visceral feel that CM does.
I like being able to zoom in and actually see my tanks and soldiers firing, hear the tracers whipping over my head depending where my POV is on the map, and admire the nice scenery. Tac Ops will never do that for me, nor was it meant to. It would be really nice if eventually (clearly not in the the next few sequels, as Steve has already stated) the game could be expanded or modded to encompass other historical periods.
For me, CM wasn't just a tac simulation, but an impetus for learning more about a historical period as well. I know far more about WWII and those participating in it than I did 3 years ago. Were CM ever to be expanded to other wars/eras, it would be a great joy to be able to combine the fun gameplaying with the historical learning process that made CM so rewarding.
-
Mine doesn't crash -- It gives me the "You or your opponent needs to upgrade" message.
-
Yes, one game was legacy PBEM. Other games were either:
1.0 games not converted
or
1.1 games started from scratch
Nothing works, and I downloaded the correct patch. Also, the installation occurred correctly.
-
Hi -- Would anyone from BTC mind answering my question? I assumed this is the tech support forum, but if it isn't, I can always post it to the CMBB forum and waste everyone's time. The product is worthless to me as is right now with this problem.
-
My specs --
Win 98
1.3 GHZ AMD
Problem -- I've installed the patch (several times). Everything works ok, when I turn it on, the version is 1.01 on the startup screen. However, once I try to open a PBEM game saved in either version, it gives me the standard "Not the right version" message. This is deeply disappointing to me, as I only play PBEM games. Without PBEM, CMBB is worthless to me. It's ironic that the patch should actually strip my gameplaying away from me (and that there's still no Grille models! :mad: )
Has anyone else had this problem, and can you provide a solution?
-
To me, the game is better than ever. In CMBO it really pissed me off that MGs were so undermodeled (and thus tended to be a waste of points). Now MGs have some real value.
I still think Yelnia Stare was not a good scenario for the demo. It gave too many people the preconcieved notion that infantry was going to be too difficult to use. Now that I've been playing for over a month, maneuvering infantry in a safe way comes second-nature.
The whole underpinning of the CM concept is realism. That's why there is such meticulous detail paid to tank armor, slopes, penetration models, etc. -- for BTC to ignore similar factors with regards to infantry would be a travesty.
The game is great as is, and I know I am enjoying it a lot more now.
-
I can't really relate to the complaints, but this might be because I almost never play single-player games. I'm almost exclusively a PBEM player, though I have messed around with a couple of the scenarios that came with the game, and beat Cemetary Hill as the Germans on the second try.
I think scenarios like Yelnia Stare are atypical of what the CMBB gaming experience is about. Those scenarios maximize the defender's advantage, and place a severe handicap on the attacker. Early on I realized that the scenarios that came with the game, at least in the smaller size, were far too frustrating in their design, and since CM has always been about playing real people for me anyway, I have stuck with multiplayer games.
Having played around 15-20 PBEM games now, I find that infantry are not that brittle at all, once you figure out what you can and can't get away with. I don't find myself micromanaging any more than CMBO, and I almost never use the human wave command with the Russians.
If you use random or agreed-upon maps while playing an opponent, both sides should have ample opportunity to prove their mettle. Defensive games will almost never look like Yelnia Stare if they are planned fairly -- I for one would never agree to a situation like that one, as it's just not fun.
[ November 01, 2002, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: Capt. Toleran ]
-
To me, that proves their usefulness. Tanks were made to cross trenches, IIRC, in WWI, so it is no suprise that tanks can eventually get past them. However, slowing down a tank in the engaging arc of a well-sited and hidden anti-tank gun (or a hidden anti-tank team) makes that trench quite useful as an obstacle indeed, especially given the speed of some of the faster tanks on both sides.
The fact that lighter vehicles can't cross them makes them even more useful IMO.
-
Just curious -- weren't anti-tank trenches used as obstacles frequently in WW2? I don't have the game in front of me, but I don't see "infantry trench" written anywhere on the QB screen. A trench is a trench, people do dig big long holes for reasons other than occupying them, and I don't really appreciate the sarcasm relating to my comment.
I recall reading that civilians were extensively used in the defense of some Russian cities to help dig obstacles, so I really don't find this unrealistic at all to use trenches as obstacles. No one said it was a hasty defense -- prepared defenses require work.
-
I agree with WWB -- I actually prefer it the way it is now, with trenches easily spotted. A couple of unoccupied trenches sited in the right place act as both an obstacle and a distraction for your opponent.
"Is the trench occupied? Do I waste HE on it?" These kind of mind games help sap away enemy ammo, and provide an extra (needed) edge to the defender.
CMBB Fans who plan to play CMSF?
in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
Posted
For me, the subject matter doesn't bother me (and is even a plus), since I've gotten my fill of WWII pretty much at this point (though I have jumped back into CMBB again lately), considering all of the games that jumped on the WWII bandwagon after Battlefront paved/pioneered the way. There were some tough battles in this last war (Battle for Fallujah, for instance) and factoring in civilian casualties and other concerns will make it more challenging and realistic. It will also be nice to see what Battlefront does with modern tanks and associated weapon systems. I also would like to see other wars, such as Korea, Vietnam, etc. I'm not too into the Civil War, but if Battlefront made a CMCW game, I would buy it.
What does bother me is the lack of communication, and the fact that we are so off of the time frames mentioned in that FAQ. I mean, at this point, CMSF should have been out, and they should have been working on modules to supplement it. Really, I don't even know why they bothered to open the CMSF forum, because they don't want to actually use it as a community building tool by giving us updates on game progress, and it just gives us false hope that a game is around the corner. Managing expectations is a big part of client relationship.