sfhand

As one who has, and will continue, to advocate for movable waypoints I'm a little ambivolent about this post and some of the responses to it. At one point after the Marines module Steve addressed the issue and my hopes were raised (I would never say movable waypoints were promised) to the point that I think/have thought they are potentially in each subsequent patch. This hasn't stopped me from ordering and enjoying the Brits and Nato (not enjoying yet). But, I would enjoy the game a lot more were they in there because movement plotting without them frequently is drudgery. But like most features, if it's not an issue for you then it's not an issue for you. That's different than not being able to acknowledge that just because it's not an issue for you it may be a very important feature for someone else. For me the value of movable waypoints is that it streamlines the movement orders process. For me it is much quicker to give group movement orders and then fine tune them than to plot each one individually. Another great use is to plot to the top of a rise, issue a target order, and then drag the waypoint back until spotter is hull down. Much faster, and for me more enjoyable, than what the game currently allows me to do.

Who knows, maybe a 3rd party developer will want to make a French module for CMSF. I don't see any harm in this thread, but then I'm not one of the guys who runs this forum either...

I'll bite... what other 3rd party stuff?:cool:

I really hope that moveable waypoints are a simple thing that slips in prior to release...

Thanks for the info Steve, out of curiosity, how long does implimenting "one fairly simple thing" take? (barring the dreaded "unforseen consequences" of course) I'm not trying to nail you down, btw, I know there may be other development aspects that need to take priority over said "one fairly simple thing" and that you may not get around to it for some time as a result.

I'm thinking 2010... but won't mind 2011. Hopefully, now that the Mac version is off the to-do list, moveable waypoints might actually be included in the release.

stoex, FWIW, I didn't think malice was behind your post which is why I asked "why go there". As far as "Anybody is free to their opinions in principle, but the choice of where and how to represent them is the line where one's own opinions can become open attacks on other members of society. Which is not ok and never will be." goes, well, this line is crossed all the time in our society, and not just by Riff Raff. Politics is a dirty business... Hopefully we can agree on the need for moveable waypoints in CM:N!

This is, tangentally, one of the reasons I long for the return of moveable waypoints. It would be a lot easier for me to drag a waypoint and check los than to have to replot it.

stoex... why go there? There are a wide variety of political views on the board, none of which have anything to do with CM. Steve pretty much said that discussion was closed and now you're bringing it up again. Either this is a place to have political discussions or it's not, your saying you don't understand someone's political views is having a political discussion.

A couple of thoughts... If/when a command delay replacement feature is put in -what ever the heck that is- I hope it is an optional feature if it actually adds arbitrary command delays. If the AI were "more powerful" a WEGO player wouldn't have as many items to "concern" him/herself with. (e.g., MOUT in WEGO really needs a high level of player micromanagement) While I've seen a few others complain about RT I think the vast majority of us realize that having the game include both increases its customer base which, in theory at least, should result in more titles... and sooner!!! Since I basically only play pbem I laugh at the notion that WEGO "takes longer" to play. More time to complete a scenario against the AI? Sure, but my game time is broken down into 1-5 minute sessions (granted more on the setup turn but my understanding is RT has a setup turn as well). If I want to play for longer periods of time I can fire up a scenario and play against the AI and then save it if it starts taking too long. The bottom line is the game doesn't dictate how long I play it.

In a perfect world gameplay options are good! But with limited development resources, as a wego only player, I would rather see development time spent on other more-important-to-wego items like moveable waypoints. Besides, if turns were shortened to 30 seconds the "control freak" accusations might start having a basis in reality...:D:D

Count me as one who is pleased to see you here...

Steve, as always thanks for taking the time to read and consider whats being put forward on your board. It is appreciated! I'm pretty sure you understood this, but in case you didn't, I'm not talking about changes in the campaign system (although they would be welcome). I'm suggesting that old style operations(pvp, especially pbem), including persistent map damage, are already theoretically possible within the current scenario system (already played some multi-reinforcement pbems with MarkEzra). The only thing holding it back is mapsize, and for longer conflicts, game time. Obviously, I have no idea what would be involved in increasing map size... but something like the Team Desobry operation can be pretty easily done now using one scenario (up to 4 one hour long battles?).

I am in the minority... I prefer pbem to all other forms of CM. From that perspective my experience of old style operations is pretty negative. Since one can't play the current campaign system against another person it, too, doesn't really pass muster. However... As I wrote earlier in this thread, were we able to make larger maps I can see developing a scenario in such a way as it could be played like an old style operation in pbem. This could mean one side pushing it's way across a map only to be met by a larger force which then proceeds to push it back across the battlefield. Of course the players would need to follow the scenairo designers instructions, e.g. don't advance past phase line alpha until 1:05. So, by adding to map size and length of turn it becomes possible for pbem players to enjoy the game to a much greater degree than they could the old style operations. Not holding my breath on this...

This is great news! Congratulations and best wishes to Philip and BF. Out of curiosity, does the fact that Phillip created the CMx1 Vista patches mean his learning curve will be less than had he just walked in? Or, is CMx2 coded in a radically different way that means he'll be starting from scratch? How long will take for him to feel he's operating at peak efficiency?

Hypothetically yes, until the rounds in question are mine...

Steve, In an earlier statement, iirc, you predicted an Afghan/Nato/Normandy release order. You also made it quite clear that this was your best guess and not a hard fact. Is this still your best guess? As always, thanks for any information you are willing to share!

Silly me, all this time I've been thinking the beatings you've been giving me have more than made up for any rabbit-punch, cheap-shot, one-off, entirely-dependant-on-fluke-shot, lucky, minor, and ultimately meaningless victories I have managed to score against you... What sinister method of psy-ops will you employ when rubes like me have access to Nato (and Normandy too)???

MarkEzra... why you gotta be like that?

Steve, When you cite this one difference between "the current version of the engine and v1.21" do you mean to imply that CM: Nato will also have this feature? As always, thanks for the treat!

There is a mod-manager utility I've downloaded that I'm too intimidated to try to use because I run Vista 64. As a result I've no doubt missed out on a lot of very good work. Your comment about those who are involved in the mod scene as well as the game's development is something I was unaware of, thanks for pointing it out!

Steve, I only use one mod for CM:SF, which is pinetree's base mod (I think that is what it is called). I urge you to give pinetree a little love and see if there is any way to include this mod in the release of CM:N.

I'd happily pay for a pdf of the map but really have no use or desire for a mousepad or even a paper map...

JonS, per Steve: "As for WeGo, where Waypoint stuff is far more important than it is for RT, we're planning on making improvements there in the very near future." Not sure where "except" fits in here...

I got the notion from posts like this one: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1097920&postcount=122 2nd to last sentence. Since I don't play RT I can only imagine that were I to go that route part of the reason for doing so would eliminate using the pause feature (otherwise why bother?) so I don't imagine that I would be issuing lots of complex movement orders or taking much time analyzing the terrain for advantages once the fighting starts. This is occurring only in my imagination. But because this is how I imagine it, it is very easy for me to accept when a RT player, in this case Steve, says that moveable waypoints aren't that important for that style of gameplay. I don't think I've ever seen anyone say that having a good user interface wasn't important... I've been toying with the thought of getting AP since the price is so low.