Hertston

So don't pause more than once every 60 seconds to give orders, if that's your thing. What's the difference? Other than the hyper-realistic replay facility enjoyed by RL commanders everywhere, that is? The other difference, of course, it that if your troops start doing something really dumb because of inadequate tac AI and abstract modelling (as opposed to some deep psychological simulation of the erratic behaviour of men under combat conditions.. cough ) you have at least a sporting chance of stopping them in time to prevent catastrophe.

RT. I've only played against the AI so far, but in that context WEGO in CMSF is completely pointless as it offers nothing that pausible RT doesn't, only with better control.

I'm still getting troops spotted and shot at when they should be totally concealed by reverse slopes on which I have carefully placed them. Are we going to be forever stuck with that as a consequence of this 8m grid thingie?

I think the Brits are supposed to be the second add-on module after the USMC, assuming it gets as far as a second module.

Nice job. In particular the massive FPS drop to 'unplayable' levels I was getting in some places seems to have gone. Now FPS seems to vary only with how much is actually happening and how much is being rendered on screen, as you would expect.

Try the demo... there seem to be no guarantees with this game.

Nope, that's the next game, not a module for this one.

It shouldn't.. BtB and 'CM2' (as it was called in the Euro release) never had any compatibility problems. I assume it's just the copy protection/licensing that is different (?) and that shouldn't effect anything else.

Excellent idea. Download only at first at a single price, with a future option to pay the $10 extra for the box copy open to all download purchasers.

Some care is needed here. I don't think BFC (i.e Steve, to all intents and purposes here) is deriding people with 'issues' that that relate to disfunctionality of the game as is, as opposed to wishing the game did something else. Such points have generally been responded to, at least on their first appearance and will (hopefully) be remedied sooner rather than later. The derision is reserved for the latter group, those who "don't get it" in other words. How smart that is when by the time the game is fixed such people may well be all those who are left, the RTS crowd having long since moved on to other things, is debatable. What I worry is being missed by BFC is the fact that the vast majority of current unhappiness is in fact exhibited by the former group, those who DO "get it".. even if, in general, they are getting on playing the game and are rather less vocal. The principal barrier to the success of CMSF is NOT what a few CM die-hards (no offence, guys) may think, but the fact that CMSF as it was intended to be is, if not 'broken', still in dire need of repair. IMHO derision might be rather less inappropriate (it's never appropriate) once that has happened.. otherwise it's likely to come back to haunt.

There have been no "NEW" perspectives because, whatever your take on the original release, nothing has occured in those 4 weeks that would justify one.

Co-op WEGO would be completely pointless IMHO. I just can't see anybody bothering. RT co-op, on the other hand, would have sold CMSF to an awful lot of doubters had it been included. There will/would be plenty of players IF a server browser and matching service is built in. Without that, it wouldn't be worth the time spend coding it in view of the single-figure numbers likely to be playing it.

RT. It's the way CM is going, so may as well get used to it.

Try the demo and see what you think. I would point out that (IMHO) the game isn't any more complex than CMBB, it's just different... and those coming to it from real-time games (which I assume doesn't include you?) will probably find it rather easier to get to grips with than CMBB.

I appreciate there's some work that could be done regarding graphics, equipment modelling and maybe scenario design for the USMC module in the meantime, but as far as the rest goes I hope BF haven't even fixed a start date yet, let alone a release date. There's an awful lot of work on the initial release to be done first.

Would be nice, but I just can't see it happening. The team has moved on and I'm guessing there is no real motivation to go back .. and would there really be a demand for it? If only they would get CMC out the door; I doubt we'll ever see it now, but that would be a certain buy for me.

In the situation Sitting Duck described (there are similar ones in other scenarios) I don't think it's a rendering issue. There simply isn't anything - bar a couple of piles to smoke - to render and the FPS still slows to a crawl. Pan round to look at your tanks in glorious, close up detail and the frame rate is fine. I'm guessing, as with me, the problem is with lack of processor power rather a graphics card issue. The game is busy calculating something - presumably what you can and can't see? Might be room for some code optimisation in there, if it's thought worth the trouble of catering to those with less than state-of-the-art hardware. Yeah, I know people with such a rig are alos having troubles - but I suspect not this one?

If I understand you correctly, no.. it's economics not politics. As BF have already said (somewhere) if there's nothing US included it doesn't sell as well as if there were hence, presumably, USMC first.

I think anyone who scores CMSF at 87% in its current state has either been smoking something illegal or has taken a bribe - particularly in view of the "failed basic" he partially identified. BUT, I think those who scored it at less than 50% must have been on the waccy baccy too, or had an axe to grind. CMSF ranks comfortably somewhere in between those extremes IMHO. The game won't get better (or worse) just because somebody else happens to write that it is. Never take any review too seriously, other than your own.. and don't expect others to take THAT seriously.. including my first sentence !! In what way(s)?

You've missed the whole point of the article. He knows that perfectly well.

Depends on who is doing the reviewing. There's a few who really know their stuff; Trotter springs to mind. Not a big fan of demos for wargames, except to find out (as I did with CMSF) how the game runs on your hardware. There's far too much under the hood of a good one to pick up on without extensive play and a good read of the manual (which I simply can't be arsed to do with a demo .pdf). How do you do a sensible demo for something like War in the Pacific? The best route IMHO is check the game forums after a week or so; filter out the haters and fanboys and you get a pretty good picture.

Bull. If BF didn't think they could deliver they should have signed a different contract, or negotiated a new one. Yes, I appreciate there are financial realities behind this.. but that's just as true for Paradox. Back to the question, I have enjoyed it for a couple weeks but its 'issues' become more irritating the more you get used to the game - and realise its the game at fault and not you. Waiting on 1.03.

For the wargamer demographic, yes. For the illegal downloading crowd, I doubt more than a couple of per-cent kept any of them installed for more than ten minutes... and most of those would never have bought it if the piracy option hadn't existed. Except with some of the really huge mainstream franchises sequels always sell less. That's particularly true when the engine and surface appearance are much the same as the original game. Those that bought the first one and decided they didn't like it, together with those who quite liked it but had no real desire for more of the same, usually outnumber the new guys by a long way.

It's terrain, rather than walls, that's really becoming the major issue for me. The 'plan' here ('Meeting at High Altitude') was to move the squad up to just short of the top of the ridge, the Syrians being on the other side, obviously. That's where, visually, they went - but ended up in a firefight through the hill with the results you can see.

AGEOD's American Civil War is the wargame release of the year so far, IMHO. I'm hoping Battles from the Bulge will make it this year to steal the crown. As for CMSF.. it would rather depend on who is doing the actual voting, I suppose..