sfhand

Steve, thanks for being who you (BattleFront) are... Your commitment to your franchise is part of what I mean when I refer to being happy with CMSF as part of the CM franchise, i.e. I don't mentally seperate your company's standards and policies from the products you produce. I don't include myself in the group who are happily miserable about all things CMSF. My main belief about BF is that you aren't interested in making mediocre games, and as a result I have never come to these forums complaining about any of your games (if I ever do please refer me to this post...) because I feel it is in your nature to make games you would like to play, which means you go further than many would to improve your games. Additionally, I'll tell you straight up that I don't regret my pre-order of CMSF or my pre-order of the Marines module, nor will I regret my pre-order of the British module and the new WW2 family. Contrast that with my feelings and purchase choices about Crytek games and I think you'll see that because of your track record of making enjoyable games and your dedication to having them "be all they can be" (within reason) I support you. In my opinion you have earned my support in multiple ways which all boil down to the fact that I enjoy the games you make, a condition which is inseperable, IMHO, from your dedication to making good/great games.

I've been playing PBEM's with a friend. We only just been able to really enjoy the game after 1.11 as a CM franchise game. I'd still like to see a few improvements (movable waypoints and a los/lof tool for every unit spring immediately to mind) prior to saying I think it's the cats meow. But my general belief is that BF has done enough that I can salute their efforts and congratulate them on the work they've done making this game what it is today. I see no need to rehash the release condition of the game, BF has done their part to make that okay, but referring to "free patches" seems a bit hyperbolic to me. Sure, they could have taken the Crytek route and just released another title instead of fixing the first one, but I've got to tell you, I bought Crysis and will not buy Crysis Warhead or any other Crytek game because I don't think that business model should be rewarded. I guess what I'm saying is that if BF stopped development at 1.11 I'd be okay with it, prior to that, not so much... And since I'm buying the British module, 1.2 won't really be a free patch for me.

Hmmm... I read the 1.11 release notes and don't see this anywhere. I want to believe...

The way to manage a lot of units at the same time is to play turn based. I won't say turn based is superior to real time, but I will say it is the type of gameplay I prefer.

I'm out too, but I definitely salute your efforts and look forward to the download.

Hey Steve, thanks for the information. I have been wondering... (it's probably one of the most frequently asked questions that I've never seen) At the end of the Eastern Front Family development, will there be a way to simulate an ahistorical East vs West continuation of hostilities, as if no agreement was made to divide Germany?

Very much appreciated, Mark. Thanks!

http://www.tacticularcancer.com/content.php?id=50 His last line "While I’m still waiting for that elusive holy grail of a truly worthy AI opponent this will certainly keep me occupied for quite some time to come." is a pretty good argument for PBEM - unless I am your opponent, in which case you may wish to stick with the AI. Definitely not an "in depth" review, but it "feels" a more in depth than the PC Gamer review, YMMV.

My $.02... I've got 4 GB RAM, which is 4 times the recommended amount. Like many others with the issue I'm running a flavor of Vista 64. My drivers are updated. So far I notice the problem with a large map I'm trying to make. I respectfully suggest there is still a memory issue with the game.

I should have been more clear, i.e I feel he was undervaluing the module and I haven't even gotten to the T 90's.

My $.02... I interpret "Not an essential entry in the series" to be an opinion about CM:SF in relation to CMx1 rather than CM:SF Marines in relation to CM:SF. Many Reviewers have expressed opinions about the interests of gamers when reviewing sim-type games. Just about every review of Dangerous Waters, a game I bought from Battlefront, that I've read has contained some type of warning about it not appealing to gamers who are unwilling to invest the time necessary to enjoy it, or who may not enjoy the naval sim genre as a whole. In this tightening economy I think those types of warnings might be appreciated by gamers and not appreciated by game developers... I whole-heartedly agree the review was too brief. As one who has just started messing around with the Marines kit, I think he completely distorts the value added by the module. However, the fact that he bulletpoints elements of the improved gameplay since his last review and upped the score to an 8 is a good thing when you consider that there are those who look at conclusions prior to reading reviews... (well, there's at least one person who does that)

bump......

Thanks Sixxkiller, but... um... no thanks. At first blush it may sound like quite the deal but it poses certain logistical problems for me. You see, since I've just been sitting on CMSF until the release of v1.11, I still have to finish the original campaign. Then there is the highly regarded Search for a Ghost campaign. Then there is the Marines module. Then there is the highly regarded USMC Forging Steel campaign. Not to mention the ongoing PBEM games (which put all the others on the back burner because as great as single player has become it still comes in second to PBEM IMHO) I'm absolutely certain that I will buy the Brit module upon its release and prior to finishing these campaigns. In many ways I look at it as a way of keeping the game "fresh" until CM:N? is realeased. The main reason for someone in my situation to wish for the earliest possible release of the Brit module is the core gameplay improvements that will come with it (adjustable waypoints please...). My gratitude is not for the release of the module, it's for the release of information. It makes me happy to know that the traditional bottlenecks they faced in CM production are going bye bye. It makes me happy to be able to speculate on release dates - silly me, I still think a summer release of CM:N? is possible (I can now also speculate about the first CM:N? module as well - thanks Steve!), and that puts a smile on my face. So anytime there is a release of information that allows me to re-evaluate the tea leaves I happily do so. The release of this type of information is just another little thing that sets BF apart from the vast majority of the game developing world.

+1 ^^^ Thanks!

So it appears your goal of releasing a new module every 4 months is a little off which immediately brings to mind 2 questions, neither of which you're likely to answer... How far off do you figure your goal of releasing a new module every 4 months is? How far off does this make your goal of releasing a new title every 12 months? I've been counting the Marines release as t minus 4 months for CM: N which would have put its release somewhere in the neighborhood of June/July. Since you said, in another thread, that models for both the Brits and CM:N were imported last week I'm not sure I should completely discount my methodology. However, unless/until you release updated release goals my speculating days appear to be numbered.

Well, we're talking about a pretty small window of opportunity here, IMHO. If the tank is ambushed early enough in the turn the other tanks will enter the killzone prior to the player exercising godlike control. Frankly, I just don't see the issue happening all that much, then again, since I use armor in an overwatch capacity the chances of the killed tank being the only eyes on the ATG are pretty slim. I would hate to see cpu cycles used on this when they could be put to better use on AI routines or just running the game better. On a tangetial note, in CMSF playing iron level I have noticed that even with all units in full C2 not every target is displayed for each unit, i.e. there seems to be a communication breakdown and some units don't get the ?'s. If anyone can point me to an explanation I'd appreciate it.

Let me try this again. I'm suggesting that if the tank doesn't die at the end of the turn but rather one second into the next turn, the player could still issue the god's eye area fire orders during the break between turns.

This doesn't really address the issue either. If the Sherman doesn't die until second 1 of the next turn the godlike player would still be able to area target with Shermans 2 & 3, and RT players would still be able to pause and issue the area targeting orders as soon as the attacking unit is spotted. As far as the infantry being pinned, isn't it possible that pinned soldiers know both what is pinning them and from where? If a tank drives infantry to cover and pins them isn't it reasonable to assume they will radio for backup and pass on as much information on the tank as they can?

Thanks Moon

Steve, In my last post I tried to point out that the Off Topic forum actually had a header saying not to post commercial links. Here is the wording: General Discussion Forum Off-topic posts go here! (NO POLITICS, NO COMMERCIAL LINKS, NO SPAM) My reason for posting the "blatant advertisement" wasn't to advertise, what was then and most likely still is, a non-existant product in your forum. My mea culpa to Moon: "Hey Moon, Sorry for my ineptness, I'll be more careful in the future..." was written when I thought the sum total of his actions was moving my post to the off topic forum and removing the link. It was some days later that I discovered an infraction had been issued. and here's my blatant advertisement minus the link: "Kharkov1942 Until it's released it is an unknown, but Steel Fury is getting some pretty good reviews... Personally, as a wego player, I doubt it will compete for my gaming dollar, but all the real timers may be persuaded to check it out." My saying it's an unknown and that I'm probably not going to buy it doesn't seem like much of a selling point to me... I feel it's worth mentioning that what prompted me to post such "blatant advertisement" in your forum is that in my twisted reality, after reading your posts about how non-viable wargame production is and how you welcome all the competition you can get, I thought it would be an acceptable topic of discussion here. Obviously I was wrong about that... As I read your proposed fix, I think there is still plenty of ambiguity re: what constitutes direct context with BattleFront products. Here's what I suggest: "5. Blatant advertisements - including commercial links - for non-Battlefront products, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are also prohibited from these Forums. See, this way people can continue to post their game threads in your Off Topic forum (even though I suspect that according to you they are advertising... and without incurring infractions I'd wager) and when you then issue infractions for commercial links, people like me won't complain because they were directed to read the FAQ when they signed up. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this.

edit: At no time was I referring to GSX and your/his situation

Actually, just about any book on discipline of childern will tell you that rules need to be explicitly stated and enforced fairly. They suggest this because that is how children see adults being treated in the real world and children want to be treated with the same respect.(yeah, I know I'm feeding you quite the straight line here...) The reason the rules need to be explicit is so people can understand what is allowed and what isn't. You bring up the possibility of differing opinions about what constitutes "advertisement" but your FAQ refers to "blatant advertisement". I'm sure we can agree that there is a difference between "blatant advertisement" and "advertisement". Why bother including the word "blatant" if it is without meaning or context? Surely a poster's intent must come into consideration in cases of "blatant advertisement". Read SlapHappy's recent post again, he didn't say he thought he was advertising another game. If you want to grant me a one time immunity to Basic Rule #5 I'll be happy to post something that I'm sure we will both agree is "blatant advertisement". Given that I am not the one responsible for the lack of clarity in your Basic Rule #5, and given that this is your forum, I suggest you don't need me to reword it for you. But don't take my word for it, mosey on over to your Off Topic forum, which is where Moon moved my "blatant advertisement", and read the header there. As I asked Moon, why not include that header in the FAQ if you are going to issue infractions for posting commercial links? Since that suggestion didn't pass muster, why not post that header in every forum if you are insisting on doling out infractions for it? Or, how about when a person registers, in addition to advising them to read the FAQ advise them to read the header in the Off Topic forum? The point is, at some level you already know an ambiguity exists and instead of doing something to correct it (like adding that header to Basic Rule #5) you issue public rebukes. You have everything to gain from adding clarity to your rules. Were this another forum, run by different people, I'd be wondering what it is you don't want to lose... You know there are people in this world who get their jollys publicly rebuking others just as I know there are people in this world who get their jollys stirring up as much trouble as they can on forums. I accept that you aren't in the former, can you accept that I'm not in latter? You think I'm making a bigger deal out of this than necessary; I have no problem with you thinking that. You point out that I haven't received any infractions for criticizing you on this. I'll point out that I haven't received any infractions except this one, which I dispute on ethical grounds. Your actions define your forum, so go ahead and issue an infraction, or a ban, or stick needles in a voodoo doll of me, or do nothing; it's your forum and I won't lose any sleep regardless of your choice since it defines you and not me. But understand that your rebuke (public or otherwise) implies that you think I wasn't treating you respectfully while I have made every effort to treat you with respect. You didn't clearly state what you expected from me and yet you are holding me responsible for not living up to those expectations rather than taking responsibility for your lack of clarity. When we read SlapHappy's post we each draw different conclusions, apparently. I don't see him stepping up and saying he was "blatantly advertising" another game and he deserved to be publicly rebuked for it. I hear him saying he'd just as soon drop it (interestingly enough he still posted about it). That's where I was with it too: when I thought it was a private affair. But I happen to think if something is public then both sides should be public. It's your forum, maybe you think only your side should be public; there are plenty of forums out there that operate that way and clearly you hold all the cards here. But other forums aren't the bar by which yours is judged; your forum is it's own measure. I've already given you plenty of credit for what you're good at - not only in this thread but in others - but that doesn't mean that you should expect me to sit back and hold my tongue while you publicly rebuke me for breaking a rule that you think needs to be explicitly stated in the Off Topic Forum but not in the FAQ. Steve, the only time I've been to the Off Topic forum is when my "blatant advertisement" was moved there. The fact that others have broken the same rule in exactly the same way for exactly the same reasons would seem to indicate a problem on your end... unless we're just a bunch of jackasses trying to make trouble. Now about advertisement, Steve, I took the badges off my car - to the point that the one time I got a ticket in it the cop asked me what kind of car it is - because they weren't paying me to advertise for them. I totally get that you don't want to advertise for other companies here. But consider this, many times I've seen you refer, in glowing terms, to other games. An argument could be made that you, too, were advertising here. Now I'm not suggesting that you should be "infracted" but rather that you are setting an example, and while it's true that you don't post links, I referred to you in my "blatant advertisement" precisely because of things you have said about wargame development and because you have specifically mentioned other wargames in your comments. Note: I'm only advocating that your FAQ be explicit about posting links if you are going to issue infractions for posting links; I'm not suggesting that you made me do anything or that your posts are in conflict with your own rules, although you may make that case yourself when you define "advertisement"... And finally, just as other forums aren't the bar by which yours is measured, other posters aren't the bar by which I prefer to be measured. If you feel you can point to a post where I was trying to be disruptive or purposefully a bad citizen I'd be happy to discuss it and offer an amend as necessary - since you can impose "punishment" arbitrarily I won't offer to subject myself to it. Until then I prefer to be judged on my own merits... or lack thereof. Sincerely, George

I don't think many people like being rebuked, publicly, politely, or however. But it borders on being truly offensive when one takes posting privileges here seriously (which is something I thought appropriate) when there is no way for one to know that an act is a violation prior to being rebuked for it. When one registers for an account here one is directed to the FAQ to read the posting rules. From reading SlapHappy's post it's clear he fell into the same trap I did. And yes, Steve, enforcing rules that are not posted in the document you ask people to read so they can understand what the rules are is a trap. I'm really at a loss as to how you can operate this way without major cognative dissonance setting in. I mean, you do view yourself as being both thoughtful and ethical don't you? Maybe I'm the one who's wrong on this, if so, please explain to me the ethics that underly your decision to issue infractions for violating rules you don't tell your posters about until they violate them. So basically, you guys are politely and publicly rebuking me, and others, for not being mind readers... Well, excuse me if I'm not impressed. What is sad is that you guys at BF have impressed me many times, not only with your products and support, but with the thoughtfulness you usually put into your operations. But hey, its your forum, you might as well politely and publicly rebuke me for not secretly wearing women's underwear while you're at it, or for not going to work in a bunny suit.

Since infractions are public and establish a track record... You gave me an infraction for posting a commercial link... I tried to discuss it with you privately... I tried to tell you that it seems unreasonable to me, and every person I asked (yes I talk to people in real life too) to issue "infractions" for "violations" of "rules" that aren't posted. The only posting rule I could find in the FAQ that comes close to prohibiting commercial links is the one prohibiting "blatant advertising". Considering the context of the post that contained the commercial link it seems patently ridiculous to call it "blatant advertising" since there was no effort to upsell the product. Had your FAQ - the document you advise newly registered people to read in order to understand your posting rules - clearly stated that commercial links are unwelcome I would have happily accepted your decision to issue the infraction. But no such prohibition exists in the FAQ, and since you took the time to warn about commercial links in the header of the forum you moved the post to, it's omission from the FAQ rests solely on BF. And since it's not in the FAQ, any commercial links posted in forums where this warning is not present are partially a result of your negligence. As it stands, you issued an infraction for violating a secret and unwritten(in the forums I visit) rule which not only seems ridiculous on its face, but grossly unethical as well since you are unwilling to take any responsibilty for poor board administration in this case. I had moved on from this until now... I didn't think it appropriate to discuss it publicly until after reading this post that says infractions are public and establish a track record. So be it. Since it's public your responsibility in this should be public as well. The bottom line for me; I've enjoyed your forum for many years without having to post a thing here and can easily revert to that model. I have nothing to do with running this forum, but it seems obvious to me that issuing infractions for secret rules is a good way to engender discord and contempt and little else.

I'm not sure where you get the idea I'm a new player just because my experience and observations are different than yours. In my experience there is no point in a my gaming experience is more valid than your gaming experience contest... Just because I've never used the "all hands area fire" method doesn't mean I'm a new player either. Clearly you must have because if you were on the receiving end you wouldn't know if it was area or direct fire. Which means, at some level, you are asking for BF to save you from yourself, something I understand quite well... I'm still pretty unclear about how a unit area firing with LOS/LOF to an area with a smoke signature present (not modeled in CMx1 to my knowledge but there in reality) can be considered unrealistic. The Band of Brothers (Many years ago I was a member of the gaming ladder/club and played a lot of games with a lot of different players in addition to my favorite opponents who weren't in the club - yeah, okay so I couldn't resist) incident I referenced earlier is a perfect example of realistic things that aren't modeled being abstracted by the godlike ability of the player.