KNac

lol, if you look at it it looks liker ridicolous. Please remvoe all this regroupin in between waypoints, do it just at the final waypoint.

We talk about reviews, but these are much more fair than the average player haha. Ie. read the opinions from users here: http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/combatmissionshockforce IMO I don't think all this harassment is fair, first, is onyl a fecking game for the sake of it! and second, even with all the bugs etc. is not that a bad game. Too much zealots and haters running around, and again we should talk about espectations, this may be the font of all that hate.

you can't add units to the game. the only mkoddable things will be: textures (units, fetures or terrain) and sounds. as for fixing 1, is on the way, they have started on it since 1.01, the game was released prematurelly.

yeah that's true, firefights seem a bit too much lethal, and IMo units are too accurate too, accuacy in combat, specially for green or uncons shouldn't be as high as it's now. Does not seems very realistic.

I don't think weapon lethality is a real problem as long as you don't start in a hot situation. Infantry stupidity is what makes infantry die so fast, and as for AT & vehicles, IMO it's as it should, apart of odd pathfinding which may expose your vehicles too much. What I think is: - we need big maps, and forces shouldn't start in LOS of each other. - enough time for the players to not rush - enough cover and different elevations for the player being able to advance protected and not have direct LOS to the enemy all the time. in one word: more "europe-like maps" and less "plain desert maps" (a generalization, i know). that and hope 1.04 fixes all major LOS/LOF issues definitivelly

Hehehe I don't think weapons need to be tweaked down, the maps need to be larger and not plain (cover, different altitudes, etc.). Actually, with extended times and at the speed units can travel, specially mechanized forces, large maps are not a big deal while playing. Other question may be avergae computer able to run em, but as long as you keep forces small I don't think it would be a problem. [ September 20, 2007, 08:45 AM: Message edited by: KNac ]

At this point, after reading the thread, I think we need fresh aproach in new scenarios. It can be done and indeed I think it has been done by some users, new scenarios with a classic flavour. More maneourver space but keep forces small and varied terrain, it keeps the game interesting. Minimizing the game bugs & weapons lethality is key for a more funny game.

The decission to go with OpenGL instead of DirectX was cause Mac support, right? And I think there is not a Mac version incoming? Now, that's a paradox. A DirectX game qwould have made life easier for all, included BF.

well you don't need a point system to select force sizes. if you add an other parameter like i suggested, the game could select forces from it's inner pool. Ie. in 'meeting engangement' Tiny would be platoon sized forces, Small reinforced platoons, medium company sized, large reinforced companies & huge battalion sized. Now, note I'm not saying I don't want something like a point system sorta CMx1 like, but for inmediate future, it does not seem it's gonna be done, so a feature like that one would be nice until the QB force picking system is improved.

I don't own a last model computer, but have a good one anyway, an AMD 4800 (dualcore 64bit), I don't have problems with reinforced companies battles probably more (haven't tried), I can run them in RT w/o problem and lag. Indeed, the bottleneck is my graphic card which is allready dated. Is a matter of processing power obviously, I think in a couple years the average computer will be able to run the engine w/o problems at huge maps and huge forces. Anyway these monster battles only would be playable in WeGo and would take huge time, so the playabality is low. As Pete says, this game is NOT though for that kind of battles, the player can't handle it even if the computer could (not right now, but yes in the future, maybe top cpus can run it allready don't know). That at least until some kind of multi-coop is done, if ever.

one question, can this piece of code made available "on click" via options for n-vidia users? it seems like an huge push fordward in performance for us n-vidia users. note that i don't have any problems as i don't own a 8800, but any improvement is wellcome.

LOL yeah, prove it haha (watch out i think the husband is registered ) back on topic, nice cheerleading hehe. i think espectations were set to high for some people there was a nice post about that, i think it was written by thewood, not long ago, but a big part of the mess is due to the premature release. i seriously think than when the game is FINISHED it will be an awesome game.

to be an RTS it looks good, no infinite units so the clickfest should be reduced & strategic thinking enlighted

Yes same point made in scenario forum. Is difficult to get the mixed map & force size you want. Ie. Large map & small armoured force. There is no need for a point system to do that (that will be done in the future, but not now), just add a new parameter to QB: Force size.

well, it may be a matter that your computer is not able to run it lol

$5 for a cup of coffee!?! now, if $40 is a lot for CMSF, 5 ucks for a cup of coffee is for millionaries

.01 was release version, I think. anyway, it would be anmy different if they had wait 4 weeks and released 1.02 and 1.03 combined? do you prefer one big patch after 3 months kaifer? that would be anymore good to us? no, is preferable to have small solid patches and gettting the playabality faster rather than wait months for a damn patch like the average game. what does matter is the number of issues fixed. and IMO, BF is doing quite well post-release compared to average developer in terms of fixing things and doing it fast. 1.5 months is nothing compared to 3-4 years developing time. back on topic, we want 1.04! [ September 18, 2007, 07:18 AM: Message edited by: KNac ]

3 patches (or 2, as 1.01 didn't count), is "many patches"? the obvious answer to your question Pinetree is "No"

If you liked Nascar, then bought tickets to a race called "Nascar:Shock Force", and found out that it was not like Nascar but more like, I don't know, camel racing... you might do just that in the hope of influencing the next version of Nascar. </font>

i think force type should (maybe allready does) influence in force sizes. not same ifnantry battles than armoured. IMO, the game should add an other player controlled parameter that is that, Force Size. Maybe I want to play in a huge mountain/open map with just a couple of tank platoons per side. If I select huge I may get an huge force hehe. Well, don't wnat to hijack your thread, first the CTDs, now this.

Yes, bugs were the fundamental critic by reviewers. Other problems like TacAI and pathfinding, are not cause of fundamental changes in the game, well, they are cause due to better resolution (1:1, 8x8m grid, etc.), but that does not mean in the future these things can be tuned and improved to function to an optimal level. The UI, I don't find it being criticized so much in reviews in reality.

come on, just answer a simple "yeah, will be done"

well, you will have to wait for quantum computers. so yes, will have to wait a couple decades AT LEAST until soemthing usable for average people is there. the other question if this is a potential project for a game developer given the huge resources in terms of programmers and work that would be needed to make it work fine. specially for niche market like wargames.

are 360 degree cover arcs. try this: shift + cover arc

YES, have been said a zillion times. If you have a program which is made to calculate rests, you can't ask it to do divisions, no matter your computer is 100mhz or 3Ghz. If the computer cn't handle so much isntructions in RT, it will slow down, but WON'T stop executing any instruction. So, AI is not dependant of proccessing power, but on the complexity of programmed instructions. With time that will get better (more programming time devoted to it). There are a lot of singularities and combinations that have to be programmed into the AI, as well as some existing oens that can be tunned to perform better.