Sardaukar

Bit unfair. First of all, you don't pay posting to their forum. They do pay to provide that ability for customers to do so. On the other hand, silence is ominous and they should close this forum. Vaporware is vaporware.

One problem is that CM:SF is already in "bargain bin" in many places. That is going to really hurt future sales, no matter how well it'll be patched in future. And in current form, it does deserve it's status. I do hope patch 1.04 will remedy most of the things and 1.05 the rest. Problem is that it's too late. New customers who were interested about game most likely have moved away..since basicly, game goes not work as advertized right now. Secondly, at least I feel so, loyal customer base was not too impressed. One can deduct it from traffic on this forum compared to previous releases. I still own products like Over the Reich, Achtung Spitfire, CMBO, CMBB, CMAK and I love them. I don't play CMBO much because of very good refinements made in CMAK, but still now and then. Also OTR/AS have their own problems, but all of those games and many more always worked as advertized. Try as I like to like it (and I'm not averse to RT games like Shogun/Rome/Medieval Total War etc.), CMSF is not a good game. User interface is bad, game is pre-release-state still and many design decisions are like custom-made to alienate old customer base. I do wish BFC will survive this experience and continue to make games I'd enjoy.

That attitude only works if products are successful. Selling bad product to customer and then tell them to take a hike is not a good idea. But I guess some of us still "don't get it".

Number of craters ( and level of damage) in scenario is major slowdown. It has in past been contributed by programmers (may find the posts if they are still on forum) to be related to number of LOS-checks units have to make.

Double post, sorry!

I still remember experience from old CMBO game versus my friend. I had late Panther to get accidentally too close to his infantry (Brit Engineer squad, IIRC). I was thinking " O hell, my Cat is toast!" Then there was couple of small black spots in air..and suddenly both (since suddenly another assaulting Brit squad appeared) enemy squads lost interest (and men) to assault my Panther. I was impressed then and still remember it. Never paid any attention to N-waffe, but it saved my Panther crew to not to become a bacon in that What was impressive in TacAI that day that it did not bother to try to get MGs or main gun to bear..it was N-waffe grenades and reverse. There was and are some gripes about TacAI even after CMAK, but damn, they were good and groundbreaking that time.

My thoughts exactly, sgtgoody. What was very good TacAI in CM1 certainly is not enough for real-time game depicting individual soldiers. Since TacAI has not evolved to level needed, what's the point of patches even ? Fundamentally game would need scale better AI than abstracted squads in CM1-series. I'd have bought Combat Mission Campaigns any time over this. That would have added what is missing and missed by many, campaign play. Pity that seems to be vaporware. With this sort of performance, CMx2-games might become vaporware too...since after CMSF (I would describe it as Beta Demo at best), it just might be very hard to regain customer trust. Hell, I got lot more enjoyment and play value out of CMBO Gold Demo years ago than I get from CMSF.

Well...if they want to sell, they better not be silent. It seems the project got nowhere to me. CMC would be just what many CM players wished..campaign play for CM. If BFC thinks it's not worth it, it's their decision. But I'd rather have straight answer than just having "vaporware".

And to add..what happened to Combat Mission Campaigns ? Anyone out there ?!? I'd buy this if it'd be even average quality just to add to my CM experience.

Well...CMSF made me lose my faith on BFC..and I was their customer since Over the Reich-times when they were BigTimeSoftware. Now I think it'll take long time and very very good product to have me buy another game from them. That is also quite similar opinion to my wargaming buddies. Well..they can have their "new loyal customer base". They certainly lost lot of old-timers who always bought product from them because it was BTS/BFC and thus guaranteed to be good.

Well, some of us old farts don't have the game and/or are getting sick of getting told to go away. -dale </font>

The_Capt is zealot trying to intimidate others. If he really would be Captain in most militaries (army or navy..there is big differece... ), his manner would be different. Especially his tendency to attack someone's person instead of his/her facts is both very unintelligent and conduct unsuitable for an officer. But see..here I am, making a personal attack...so.... Regards, Mika "Sardaukar" Sihto

Well...I hope that is not what is happening to CMSF...sell a few copies and go out of business. I have difficulties to imagine the appeal of this game to either hard-core CM1 players or "new crowd". But that's just my impression. And I have been wrong many times in past... Used to be against 3D model during old forums when you were called BTS and CM was called Beyond Squad Leader. Wanted counters and whatnot... :cool: I promise to give CMSF a good consideration after few patches more. Currently it's just annoying me. My "suspension of disbelief" is bit strained watching 1:1 presentation doing what the units do now.

That's why they have different SOPs to choose. If you want your unit react certain way, you give different SOP in TacOps. Whole point would be moot if there was just one SOP...it'd be same as CMSF

I wonder why no-one have mentioned the excellent SteelBeasts...it's more of a simulator, tho.

It's quite interesting that only one person on this thread resorting to personal insults is you... In CM1 abstractions are acceptable, because squads were abstracted. In CMSF, they are not abstracted. Thus, increasing the detail without increasing the ability of TacAI is bad design decision. If you are right and it's not a bug...then it's design decision... One constructive post in this topic was from redwolf..and it's some food for thought. If TacOps can use "SOP-orders when contact is made", why not CMSF ?

Agreed. I think also that when modelling individual soldiers, they somehow forgot to dedicate appropriate CPU cycles to do it... TacAI needs to be multitude more powerful in this case. Since it's not..results can be seen by everyone.

BFC was forced to release CMSF prematurely, and already told us so, so your judgement is correct. It is not up to me to judge whether this is a clever act on behalf of the publisher, or BFC, but it is their risk and their decision. Surely, clever minds have weighted the advantages and disadvantages?!? However, in the absence of any comparable product I suggest we sit out the patches and see what comes out in the end. Personally, I already had enough fun with the game as it is. You learn to adapt your orders to the pathfinding weaknesses pretty fast. Best regards, Thomm </font>

I gave quite extensive play to my buddy's CMSF last weekend..and I found the state of pathfinding and TacAI appalling. I do thank BigTimeSoftware/Battlefront for producing great games that I have enjoyed years and years. Value for my money has been very good. State of the CMSF seems to be pre-beta to me, compared to other BFC releases. If trying to model individual soldiers, TacAI needs to be multitude better, ditto with pathfinding. And I wonder how the hell they came to conclusion to use UI like this ? Totally remapped hotkeys (great idea...) and there is no real shorcut to get fast commands out until you memorize new hotkeys. Is that to increase the chaos of battle by forcing player to not be able to input orders ? Has the hubris from previous games gotten into BFC ? Because otherwise I cannot understand why things are like this, after years of very good quality.

I have had many BFC products, starting from Over the Reich. I am big fan of CMBO/BB/AK (even though rarely play first after CMAK). Had just a try with CMSF and can agree with sandy. Game looks like lot of lessons learned with interface has been thrown away. Why fix something that was not broken ? To me, after CM1-series, CMSF is big disappointment...real let-down compared to unpatched CMBO-release. Game is realy alienating to lot of people that formed existing CM1-customer base. Fine, if BFC thinks they can fill that with RT-players. But since interface is designed so unintuitively, RT play suffers too. After spending some time staring in amusement to Stryker trying to figure out which side of lamp post it should circle to present it's rear to enemy...me not amused. Pathfinding has not been this bad even when CM1-series was it's worst...and this is second patch. And I find it really strange how BFC-officials deride people that have, IMHO, good reasons to complain. That is not they way to keep your customers.

Exel has very valid points. And "official" response is far cry from when company was still BigTimeSoftware..and was developing "Beyond Squad Leader", that later evolved to CM:BO. Telling customers that they cannot operate interface correctly is bad business. I'm passing this game firstly because of reasons stated by Exel. Secondly, it's not good game like predecessors. Regards, Mika

There is prolly a problem if one installs Battlefront (US) patch on European (CDV) game version. I seem torecall I made that mistake with CMBB and had trouble, since CDV used some sort of copy-protection scheme. Cheers, M.S.

I think it's helpful for both sides. Maybe it could be introduced as additional rule only in effect in open desert. But human can always attack better than AI, so AI would benefit more. Cheers, M.S.

Rob, Since infantry attacks over open terrain in daylight are very easy to repulse in desert...and those were very rare in history just for thatreason...so I have a suggestion: AI should get most of it's infantry-only attacks at night if the terrain is treeless and relatively flat. Cheers, M.S.

There is quite good discussion about Tiger mantlet here: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=009899 Quote from rexford: "While the Tiger is a 1942 tank, the mantlet armor would not be matched or exceeded by very many turreted tanks during the war. The Tiger mantlet ranges in effective thickness from 135mm to 197mm (while the minimum thickness is 97mm on the upper and lower edges, that armor is backed up by a spaced 100mm armor area), and is only exceeded by: King Tiger Jumbo Sherman Super Pershing" As it's said, most tanks had quite a large hole in turret front, covered by mantlet. Tiger had it backed up with armour. Cheers, M.S.