FinnN

Once modules start appearing will you be able to use all the content interchangably? For example, let's say Normandy, Russian front and Pacific islands make it out as modules - if you own all three will you be able to grab Soviet units and Japanese units to play against each other? Or will they be non-interchangeable like in the CMx1 games? I'm not expecting modules for modern CMx2 and WW2 CMx2 (which is what I'm personally interested in) to be mix-and-matchable - so no javelins for clearing the valley of king tigers for example. Have fun Finn

I'm fairly sure the plugin will work in PSP (PSP supports Photoshop plugins). If not I'm sure a quick google for Paintshop Pro and DDS will throw up some instructions (just did a quick search and relevant results were coming up). Have fun Finn

Maybe, but that was seven years ago with not so great marketing and internet buy only. </font>

Great to hear that there'll be more modding support. Is there any chance at all that there'll ever be a tool for editing 3D objects (eg 3DS Max plugin)? Have fun Finn

I agree it looks really good! About my mod, annoyingly its almost done but I have limited time at the moment to finish it off. Basically right at the beginning I made an assumption that the hook names were the same for all models, which was wrong and I didn't notice it until after I'd filled in the database. The net result is that people run around with their backpacks and other equipment at their feet. The solution is to change the references to models with the correct hooks. Pretty easy but a tedious job due to the number of units in my database. Apart from that it's just a case of saving the graphics in the right format. I've already made a list of which models to use for which equipment set, but can't find my notes after moving house so I may have to start that part again. After the 29th I'll have a lot more time and will do my best to complete it by the end of the weekend after. I've said this before, but the camo graphics are really peripheral to the mod - in the standard game there are something like a dozen or less available German teams. You're going to end up with well over 100, each of which is available as either a whole team or split into components. All the data for these is in a database so it'll also be easy to expand it with more detail and more variations (eg tweaking skill levels and so on). It also makes it easy to update if the structure of the files changes much with the patch and/or add-on. With the lack of mission building activity I was wondering how much use all of those would be - but with the announced mission wizard I think having every single German infantry unit (apart from assault squads) from the CMx1 games plus a few extra will come in handy after all! Have fun Finn

I've not played CM:SF much (don't have time to do much game-wise at the moment) but I don't think that it deserves to be called crap. There certainly appear to be problems but I'm sure these will be addressed to the extent that they'll be reduced to niggles rather than glaring errors (seems to have been quite a bit of progress along those lines already). Certainly they've slashed the number of units on the maps and the size of the maps, but was that what made CM games special? Personally I don't think so. I think what made it special was the way that it bridged the gap between an impossibly detailed miniatures war game and a computer game. They built a link between stopping and thinking about each move (traditional wargame) and instant gratification (computer game). The result was something that played out exactly like a miniatures wargame with all the tedious paperwork and looking up in tables removed thanks to the WeGo setup. Now, talking about CMx1 games, while WeGo is perfect against a human opponent I think it's much less fun against an AI and comes across as a bit artificial in a tactical level computer game as you're forced to wait 60s before reacting to anything. So is the same order system as CMx1 but pausable at any time sufficient? Personally I don't think so. The problem is that commands that connect the real-time environment to that 'stop and think' aspect about wargames is missing. I'd like to see an order that you could queue up that stops (pauses) the game when it's reached. This would allow you to effectively have freeform we-go against the AI without zooming all over the place to check what's happening. Conditional orders are also missing. For example you could have a move order to a building, get the squad to evaluate any visible threats (possibly give them a temporary spotting boost) and then only get them to proceed to the next move command if they don't spot anything. You could also link conditions to the actions of other units via the C&C links. I don't think it would be too hard to add (especially just the simple order to pause the game) as you're not really asking the AI to do anything or adding lots of checks for the engine to do constantly but it would go a long way to making it possible to play CM:SF like a wargame without making things more complex for people that want a shallower (but equally valid) RTS experience. Have fun Finn

Everyone has an image of a perfect game, and TOW problem imho was that many people expected it to be perfect WW2 tactics game. Thus, because TOW is not perfect (there is no perfect game), after release almost everybody did not found something they wanted badly (enterable buildings, quick battles, etc.). We are trying to make it as more enjoyable as possible, while keeping it's unique features intact. </font>

I agree completely, you often end up doing the equivalent to facing a regiment of opposition with a company (if you're lucky) of equipment. So, a realistic outcome would be an overrun - which is exactly what happens in most scenarios unless you have both a fair bit of luck and also do just about everything perfectly. Hopefully the new 'quick' scenario designer will make it much easier to put together some interesting things, and it certainly sounds like they've been listening to the complaints about scenario design so the new Normandy campaign sounds extremely promising. Have fun Finn

Maybe a rating for campaigns could be added to warn people? Glad to hear that hold position is being considered, if it's only at the end of normal move orders or when units appear as reinforcements it'd be enough. Personally, I think I'm probably alone here, I think the player has way, way, way too much control over air support as it is and when they appear they don't seem to behave like real planes (flight-wise) anyway. I'd like ground-attack support to be made into an option to be bought at the beginning then they arrive at some random point during the mission and choose their own targets at will. Same goes for the fighters (except maybe they stay around for longer). Good to hear the wait isn't going to be too long! (I saw end of the year for the add-on, and other stuff sooner - yipee!) Have fun Finn

I agree 100% with Rammer - the vast majority of people won't buy a game that's 100% multiplayer. Even MMOGs have a significant AI component. The handful of exceptions to that are some action games or fast paced simple strategy games - and how many of those has sold even 1% of what, say, CMBO sold? Maybe you could save 20% or 30% of the development costs but you'd lose 99% of the buyers. That means a significantly smaller profit. Your argument seems a bit circular, if it was successful (it sold well) then it'd be successful. Or am I missing the argument here? Have fun Finn

Indeed, I use 'hold position' almost 100% of the time after setup and when making moves. Couldn't it be made a default order for the player's units when a previous order expires? Certainly after setup at least? Have fun Finn

It's the infantry marching to the sounds of the guns. Basically when a man becomes aware of the enemy but can't shoot at it he goes forward to a position where he can shoot. I think there's a cut off point to this as eventually they wander back a bit, then seem to become aware again and wander forward a bit. As the becoming aware bit is dependent on skills officers and veterans are most at risk from this - which destroys unit cohesion as the rest stay in place. It's usually incredibly dangerous for the people doing it too. If they were just moving around within a small area to adjust their positions it'd be fine, but they can end up moving large distances out of carefully chosen positions into open fields, over hills, etc. Luckily from what Sneaksie is saying this is getting addressed. Have fun Finn

Well, if it's all or nothing then I think on balance I'd go for it to stop (or better yet retreat). After all it can then be ordered forward again anyway. Only in the case of AT guns would that leave the tank in critical danger. The current behaviour puts the tank at greater risk in all circumstances as by rushing into the enemy lines it closes with enemies that can only destroy it at close range unnecessarily. Surely though, all that'd be required is an extra check on the target to see if it can still damage it at the point that the gun is destroyed - if not then cancel the target. Great to be getting all this information btw, looks like someone decided to change policy somewhere! Have fun Finn

If tanks don't wander off, infantry certainly do (especially ones with higher ratings). I can see why they might want to adjust position slightly if they're just outside range or something, but as it is some of them will roam off on their own. At the least I think they should have a much higher tendency to stick together as a group unless ordered otherwise. For me this is by far the biggest micromanagement issue in the game. One bug I do definitely see with tanks though is when the main gun gets knocked out the tank will race towards the enemy to engage with machine guns - even if the enemy is a tank. At first I thought I might be issuing orders after the gun is knocked out in the thick of things, but as far as I can tell they do it by themselves. I've even had a couple of instances where both my tank and the AI tank are basically bumping into each other piling in MG fire until knocked out by another unit. Quite funny to see, but annoying. It'd be nice to see trenches etc potentially hidden at the start of the game, then permanently visible once spotted with the option for the scenario designer to make them visible initially. Also for scenario designers I'd like to see a script call that throws up a dialog box for asking a question with multiple answers and returning the result to the mission script. I think that would be perfect for scripting in things like draws and so on. Also to do with scripting,a function to write out arbitrary values to the end save game file would be great for anyone interested in making some sort of external campaign engine. I think both of these wouldn't be too hard to implement. Finally, will we be seeing things like rifle grenades and on-map (light) mortars? Have fun Finn

All sounds great - am really looking forward to the new campaign, I hope that more emphasis is placed on intelligent use of the terrain and so on rather than just raw numbers. Smoke is something I'm really looking forward to - and with buildings in I'd love to see flamethrowers and demolition charges too. Even if it's only good for basic missions I think an easy entry mission builder will be a big bonus too. Anyways, thanks for the (huge!) update - erm, much appreciated!!! (seeing as that seems to be the thing to say today!) Have fun Finn

If they have a design which would allow the campaign engine to be used with different tactical engines (say CM:SF at least in addition to the CM1 games, plus other games via some sort of plugin system) then maybe CMC might still be viable. In my opinion if they don't have that then they've missed the boat, certainly commercially. Have fun Finn

After a while you'll find the AI isn't cheating. Essentially as it stands ToW tries to mix hordes of cool stuff throwing themselves at you with fairly realistic lethality. The net result of that (as it would be in reality) is a massacre unless you both get a lot of luck and do everything right. The effect is made worse by the 360 degree view of vehicles, absent smoke and the shared spotting. Occasionally you can concentrate your forces in much the same way that the AI does and you can massacre them, but it's rare. The problem isn't so much in the engine, more in the scenario design where even if you're scoring 5:1 kill ratios against superior opponents you can still end up losing. To me that's not a challenge it's an unrealistic exercise in gaming. I'm sure situations like those existed, but it doesn't make for a good game (or overall realism) where you're almost always faced with that position and faced with it right from the beginning (not helped by the tutorial missions encouraging what are suicidal tactics in game). Anyways, it seems the add-on will be fixing some of the mechanics (smoke, spotting, etc) and although it's slow I think we'll also be seeing more mods and scenarios with a better philosophy. Personally I'm 'working' (actually haven't had a chance to touch it in the last month) a big mod for the German infantry - I'm going to try to get as much done on it this weekend as it's almost finished so the wait won't be much longer. I know other people are also working on stuff too. Persevere with the game though, once it clicks what you need to do to survive (effective use of cover, concentration of firepower) the game is well worth playing. Have fun Finn

Erm, you have errors in your post Seeing as BFC is getting all the love, I'll proofread the manuals for HW:LG and the ToW add-on! Have fun Finn

You know, thinking about it - all the strategy games I like playing have active people from the dev teams on their respective forums. Whilst it's true in general of gaming, I don't think it's true of 'niche' games at all. Personally I think the game is being patched in a direction that looks good, but one thing I think this thread proves is that for game issues (including but not limited to bugs) BFC really needs a more structured way of getting and providing feedback. Personally I like the system Paradox uses for their own games but there are alternatives and I wish BFC would consider them. Have fun Finn

Oh and before I forget - would love to see some German infantry models without jackboots... Have fun Finn

Looks great - hope those smoke dischargers will be working on it too! Have fun Finn

Yep, looks like plenty of interesting stuff on the horizon in the patch and add-on. I also think that a basic scenario generator would be a great addition, as would be an operational level game rather than a string of individual battles - haven't seen anything about that sort of thing from the devs yet though? Have fun Finn

Personally I think complaining about 1:1 is a bit of a red herring. I pretty much agree with Steve in what he says, and I certainly think that the principle problems come when what's shown graphically dramatically from what's happening in the abstracted model which the computer is running. Some of these I think are essentially bugs, or at least things that need to be 'unabstracted' or rebalanced. In ToW you have the bushes, and it seems in CM:SF you have the 3m high concrete walls. I'm sure in both games this sort of problem, together with elements that can be progressively improved (like pathing), will be patched away in time. Others though are valid abstractions and I think it's been touched on briefly why these are a problem when they shouldn't be - lack of documentation and ingame assistance (such as tooltips or a tutorial that's more than an afterthought). "...What we can do is educate you as to where those abstractions are and what to expect from them. This took about 12 months to do for CMBO...". Well, if you want a game to appeal to a wider audience (which I'm sure is partially behind the 1:1 and RT) then making the game accessible is going to be critical. Personally I feel that that should have been a much higher priority than it seems to have been. I have many friends that would probably enjoy CM:SF, but who will make a decision on whether to play a game fairly quickly - and CM:SF isn't making much attempt to educate from what I've seen. Some tool-tips, a well illustrated tutorial/walk-through or maybe some annotated gameplay videos included on the DVD version would all be a good start. I'm certainly willing to put time in to get into the game (or will do when I have the time) but I doubt that a more mainstream game player will. Don't confuse what I'm saying with that it should be dumbed down. I beta tested for a flight sim once, there were a few stages - initially it was hardcore simmers and later on general gamers too. Towards the end of testing one of the gamers put in a bug saying they couldn't bail out whilst in a high speed spinning dive. The reason was that the sim was preventing it due to g-forces. Now to my mind the solution is to put up a message saying 'can't bail out due to g-forces or something'. In fact that feature got cut on the grounds that it would be confusing. And that wasn't an isolated incident. At the time I was fuming thinking 'why invite these idiots in who have no idea what sort of game this is?'. In retrospect the company was right though - if you want a game to be appealing you need to be able to make it understandable to people who don't know the design of the game, or maybe even the detail of the scenario. Where I (still) think they were wrong is in dumbing it down rather than providing more feedback/documentation to the player. I get the impression that BFC used ex CM players and some military types to help beta test the game. I think that's fine, but I equally get the impression that they didn't take into account people who know nothing about CM and/or little about modern warfare. I think that's as much behind the string of bad/mediocre reviews that CM:SF is getting as any problems with the game engine/design itself (I quite like it). Have fun Finn

There are definitely anomalies in how the spotting works, but I can't say that I've particularly noticed any cheating (ie the AI is doing things that the player units don't). I've also never seen units getting hit through hills or walls. LOS has problems, but I've not seen the LOF bugs/cheats you talk about. The problems that I have come across are mostly due to the nonsensical way that bushes and trees block LOS - you generally need to be behind several to be blocked from the enemy view. Also it seems that LOS is shared. In one of the German missions you have some tanks which have clear LOS to American AT guns. At the beginning you don't spot them as there seems to be snow or fog. Put the hold fire command on them and sneak infantry forward and when you release the hold fire they open up - usually with uncanny accuracy, as though they were calculating from the infantry's location (infantry still not spotted by the Americans). I suspect that this may be what you're encountering rather than a direct cheat. Needs fixing, but once you get a feel for what's going on it's at least internally consistent and predictable so that you can plan based on that. Have fun Finn

Whoo-hoo! Where do I put my pre-order in! All looks good! Have fun Finn