Hertston

More TIME, not timeouts. Sorry to keep pushing the point, but I think some of you guys may have the sports imagery too deep in your psyche! A fixed number of fixed length time-outs is not the best way to do it.

It's not a case of 'facing' anything. Most people posting here now have the game on their hard-drive, and are playing and enjoying it even in (as I doubt anyone now seriously denies) what amounts essentially to beta form. Whatever some of the critics might say (which is irrelevant once you own the game) I'm enjoying it warts and all. I simply wouldn't play it if I didn't.. I have plenty of good games installed as alernative ways to spend my time.

Same thing with a very similar system, although it happens on all large maps. There's a lot of calculation going on here and I have no idea why, all that is visible are enemy 'tags'. Although there are enemy units 'on screen' in that sense, none are being graphically rendered, yet the FPS hit is huge.

It needs a total pause time (length by agreement) allocated to each player to use as they see fit, not a certain number of fixed-length pauses. More (rapid play!) chess clock than sports time-out.

You reach a point at which the game could no longer be 'Combat Mission'. I also doubt that BF have the resources to deliver such a game; it would have to be a project for a larger (and I suspect rather better funded) team. To make money such a game would have to be a mainstream 'hit', and the cost of developing (or probably even licensing?) the sort of graphics engine needed for that these days might well be prohibitive.

Yes. But, there's plenty to be done.

I don't think anybody has seriously claimed that it is. But 'click-fest' is inherent, to a degree, to the nature of the game.. not so much the frantic clicking of Starcraft maybe, but the need to whiz about with perfect precision using the camera controls and fast access to commands. The only exception I can think of is Close Combat which illustrates the point quite well - being in 2D navigation about the playmap is just so much quicker and simpler. Obviously with the ability to pause that isn't a problem in SP, but in MP it must be unless some similar feature is introduced. It would be perfectly do-able, you could maybe ration each player a certain amount of pause-time over the course of the game to be used as they see fit - the length of time being agreed beforehand by the players. One advantage about the WEGO/RT combo is that there is significant potential for exploring the ground between the two; somebody has already suggested WEGO with shorter turn lengths, for example, which I think would work great in TCP/IP WEGO. If, of course, there WAS TCP/IP WEGO..

No, I don't think it does, at least beyond the short-term. It's certainly not inherent to an RT approach, if it's implemented properly. I suspect the core fanbase will remain much as it has been, and that most additions will gravitate towards the 'realism' if not 'grog' point of view. To be honest I just don't think anybody without those inclinations will be playing for very long; there are better games out there for them. It's just a case of waiting for things to settle down. That said, it is important to recognise that some new to CM with this game do and will have important insights as to how the game can be improved.

Maybe that is the question, but I don't see how it can be answered. Reviewers can only review what they given to review (or pick up off the shelf), and in this case that was 1.0. patching is indeed expected (that doesn't mean it always happens), but it's hardly fair to suggest reviewers revisit their reviews every time a patch is released, or even revisit it at all. There are always new games. I think all we can do as consumers is bare likely future improvement and support in mind as part of the purchase decision. I don't agree that's the case. BF were obviously at least considering cross-over into the mainstream market, but I don't think that was the principal objective. The problem was that delivering (what I "get" to be) the game as envisioned was simply too onerous a task. Had BF done so, I think even the 'grog' diehards would have come on board very quickly. Most of the problems with CMSF are common to virtually every RT game I've ever played, to some degree or another, and design teams blessed with far more personnel and larger budgets have failed to solve them. With a grog-RT crossover over, the same faults are just rather move obvious. You lose the 'grog' discussion not so much because the grogs have gone as that at this stage of the game's development the grog issues are relatively trivial compared with basic gameplay issues. If/when those are sorted, the grog stuff will return.

The place I notice this most is with trenches.. you have to be almost right on top of them to see them, and I agree for those with high-end systems (sadly, not including me at present), your suggestion would be a good addition. The distance rendering does puzzle me. I get a huge FPS hit if I shift the view to include the horizon when there are enemy forces flags in view across the map (to the extent I avoid doing it whenever possible). Note I say flags (at distance - obviously you would expect an FPS hit if enemy tanks and troops were actually being rendered moving about).. that's all it seems to need. I just don't see what the code is doing, it's not rendering anything and it shouldn't be calculating anything that it wouldn't be calculating wherever the camera is pointing, yet my FPS falls by three-quarters. I assume it's busily working out that the enemy units are so far away they don't need rendering on screen? There has to be some room for optimisation here, I think.

I see Amazon have it as 'in-stock', so it's been released. Maybe it's just not being stocked in your local store? Amazon looks like a good bet, anyway, it's only £18.

For you. And indeed for me, allowing for a rig that is rapidly approaching permanent retirement. And for most others. But for more than a few there were, and are, huge problems with CMSF.. and it's hardly 'whining' to complain about them until they are fixed. Hmmm... I don't think so. As I recall the major competitor for people's computer-based tactical wargaming time was not turn-based, but the (real-time) Close Combat series, which had been around several years before CMBO was released. Both were attempted solutions to the same problem, and a decade on we have the same solutions to the same problem. I don't actually disagree that RT (at least in a pausible form) is the way to go, but it is in no way inherently superior to WEGO. Despite the repeated, ludicrous, attempted analogy with CMBO, CMSF is no 'paradigm shift' or anything like one. It's an attempt, and by no means the first one, at a 'realism' 3D RT tactical wargame, with a fairly pointless implementation of WEGO bolted on to keep the loyal punters quiet. I wouldn't disagree that CMSF is by far the best of such games even unfinished, and it's certainly the most realistic. However it suffers from almost exactly the same faults that every other RT tactical game suffers from to some degree or another, whatever degree of realism it claims. With a 'realism' game, though, such faults are rather more obvious. Even un-pausable RT is OK provided you don't have to spend the majority of your time playing nanny to stop your troops doing something really dumb; usually involving exposure to enemy fire (and dodgy in the extreme LOS). I'm impressed, but if BF fix the troubles that have afflicted so many games, I'll be REALLY impressed.

It would work very well if BF get around to introducing co-operative MP at some stage. Before then, I suspect masochists only need apply!

Depends what they charge for it, and what other additional content is offered. It would make it rather more enticing if it offered a new OPFOR and maybe a new theatre as well.

Probably the reason behind it, certainly. But I wasn't proposing Brits v. Germans with the US as a 'module'! BTW, I notice the use of 'Wehrmacht' by Sequoia, does that mean the Waffen SS will be a 'module' as well? As long as they don't mutute into the dreaded Wafflegrenadiers I suppose we should be grateful for small mercies. How much extra development time do some more voice samples, tank and infantry models, and extra scenarios take? Most of the delay will be fixing the first release, not working on the expansion. They are common. What is rather less common is so blatant an omission of what should have been included in the first place. Also, you generally only see expansions when the first game sells well. The more the first release has to offer, the better it will sell. [ August 05, 2007, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: Hertston ]

Let's hope not. That's verging too close to getting the customer to pay extra for what should be included in the first place, IMHO. Unlike this Syria caper, Commonwealth forces were hardly a bolt-on in the Normandy campaign and should be included in the first release.

Why not just buy direct from BF? You can download the game immediately, and when the physical shipment turns up you will get the 'proper' printed manual, not the cut-down fit-in-a-DVD-case version.

Just use the move command, and they will as long as the point selected is within the (shaded) deployment zone(s).

I think you have two different issues. With the QB's it seems there are some combos of options the game doesn't like - maybe there just isn't a suitable map of the right size. I've just tried attack/hills/large, Syrian Mech infantry v. US Stryker infantry, for example, and it does what you say. Try another combo. PBEM is OK, there is just a sort of initial turn when nothing much happens for some reason. The file is still generated in the outgoing e-mail folder. Just carry on swapping files and things will go as you expect.

Stardock is a much better model in that regard, in at least it's up front. Having finally taken the plunge I am both enjoying the game, and see that it has huge potential, but I am under no illusions as to not being a paying beta tester. With Stardock you can 'pre-order', pay, and give that cash injection but it's quite clear what you get to download is the beta, with a copy of the final game when shipped some time later. That policy would have worked very well with regard to CMSF, IMHO. BF get an interim cash-flow injection, the number of beta testers goes up considerably with no final loss of revenue, and everybody gets involved in that they feel they have a personal interest in the company, the community, and in getting the product right.

What does the pause feature have to do with "realism"? Quite the contrary IMHO. No single RL commander is presented with what the player needs to do in a CMSF game. Lack of it just pushes the emphasis onto fast fingerwork and familiarity with the camera controls rather tactical acumen. As previous posters have said; those who don't want to pause don't have to. Roll on the patch which fixes this.

Hmmm... nice description. Time to shut up.

It is totally relevant when it comes to the marketing and pricing policy, which is what we are talking about. In what way is it a rip-off? It was made perfectly clear what people were getting for their money, and they had a totally free choice as to whether to pay it or not. You mean no more than "it cost more than I was prepared to pay". You didn't, so how have you been ripped off? Can you point me to any purchasers of CoI who claim that they have been? It has nothing to do with being a 'fanboy', which incidently I'm not. Of course everything is comparable in those terms but, again, you have a free choice. I just don't see why you think the pricing is "unfair". If you think another game is more worthy of your $40 then buy that instead. Sure, if the price had been less more people would have bought it. But how many more? I said I was guessing the figures, but there is simply no evidence a lower price would have produced a greater profit. Matrix (and Battlefront, come to that) know the market better than we do - their living depends on it. Not true. As I said it's a niche product, and (in essence) a nine year old game. The market was limited to enthusiasts no matter what price they charged. By your reasoning every gamer in the world will have downloaded Steel Panthers: World at War (being free). Have they? Nope. The great majority just wouldn't want to play it. Nope. Yet again, you have a perfectly free choice whether to pay or not. I think, even as an existing CC3 owner, it was money well spent. I won't comment as to who is in fantasy la-la land...

"Buy it" or not, that's the way it is. It is not a 'trend' and it is not new; many indie game projects work in exactly that way. There is no element of 'venture capitalism' involved; the only rewards are seeing the game at the end. What you don't seem to understand is that we are talking about a niche market. Continuing development of CC is not far removed from an 'indie' project.. CSO Simtek are NOT Paradox or even 1C, they make their 'real' money from their military development and sales. C:CoI is an 'old' game, and nobody has pretended otherwise - 'otherwise' was not the objective. You will see much the same with some of the other Matrix products, with Harpoon 3 being the best example. You can't compare the two games in marketing terms. Define 'fair'? 'Fair' for who? CoI was never going to sell a tenth of the copies of EU3 however it was priced. The project has to be worthwhile for those doing it; if that means charging more than you are willing to pay, so be it. Sometimes you have to pay more (and $40 is hardly 'more') for something that has a limited market. It's exactly the same with books, for example.

I think the brutal truth is that Matrix priced it exactly the same way Battlefront priced ToW; the price which they estimate would make the most money. In their judgement, which I suspect was right, they could have cut the price by 25% but only gained 10% more sales. I'm guessing the figures, of course, but I doubt they are far off. As to graphics, they have actually been perked up a little but beyond that I'm not really sure what they could do. CC is rooted in 2D, and within that I'm not really sure what improvements you could have. A new graphics engine would have made the whole project totally unviable. I think you need to look at the aims of the project too, which were; 1. To make some money, not least to finance the development of CC6. 2. To provide an updated version (with more than a few tweaks under the hood) for fans of the series. 3. To make CC3 available to those who never played it first time around (of 2 to 5, CC3 is by far the most difficult to get hold of) To new players CoI is well worth the money, IMHO. For existing CC3 owners there is no compulsion to buy it. haven't we had this conversation before, somewhere?