panzermartin

Hmm, I'm giving the game a last chance with 1.05. If multiplayer is still problematic I will shelve it for good I'm afraid

Fair points but 5/10 with latest patch? If they mean 1.04 they are way off. Even gamespot gave it a 4.5 when practically CMSF was an unplayable beta. Its a 7/10 for me. Despite some impressive simulation moments, game still seems rather short lived and limited and the TCP multiplayer part that I had hoped it will keep it alive is totally screwed right now.

Well the most serious and most awaited 1.05 fix for me is that for the completely broken multiplayer. It is my major letdown from the start but sadly very few people played and therefore complained about it.It was never really playable but now its not even an option with connection problems, and crashes. It was about time they looked into it. Hopefully the horrible lags and bugs will go away with 1.05. How can a 2007 game can survive without a proper multiplayer function. Dont you people get tired of the scripted single player missions?

Good to see you are working on it. I can confirm those bugs too and I havent even tested 1.04 TCP yet. The unresponsive units, floating passengers and horrible lag were there from the start.

Add me to the list please. I refuse to play CMSF again if it is not for a properly working TCP game. 98% of my CMx1 time was TCP/IP. I expected the same for CMSF not the opposite.

Honestly, for a minute I thought it was in game graphics. I must admit that given their limited capabilities they have done a remarkable job in the visual department. Along with the sounds they are CMSF's strong points. I didnt expect to say that for a CM title.

I think CMSF as it is in 1.04 is a good game. But not properly working, buggy and laggy multiplayer is completely ruining it for me. I didnt buy it to play against scripted AI, I want to play the real thing, human vs human, like I did so many times with CMx1.

There is lag, especially when the map is bigger than "tiny". Could be my connection but I suspect its the very complex calculations of the engine that result in huge data transfer and consequently lag. No RTS or flight sim is near that complex, with LOS/LOF , penetrations, realistic ranges etc. Hope they can do something to improve things.

Has any of you played head to head in TCP/ip? It is barely playable beyond a platoon and a couple of IFVs. While the multi idea sounds great on paper I'm afraid that it will behave more like "CM space Lobsters of Doom" due to the horrid lag.

Any update on this? I'm mainly interested in the red side hardware or some new features/improvements since honestly LAVs and...LAVs dont seem as enough reason to grab it.

Anyway, multiplayer was almost a joke before. This might be the chance to look into it now.

For me a huge improvement is the removal of the regrouping each time you hit cancel for a squad movement order. Now you can immediately stop your men when stepping into an ambush, or adjust their position more accurately, for better LOF, cover etc. Huge step forward. No if they find a way for the squad to adjust formation depending on the terrain (corners/walls/hill crests etc etc) to overcome the half squad hiding/half squad firing issue the game will be a 8+ for me. 9+ if they improve the TCP/IP code and fix the QBs. 10+ when the WW2 title is out

Just ran Allah's fist and its as smooth as a CMAK scenario. Unbelievable boost in performance. Even at "best quality" is quite playable now while before it was just tolerable at fast. Woohoo! Second, I tested the shooting through berms..its gone!!! Thats' it. 1.04 was the turning point. Keep it up!

There was no mentioning of TCP testing for any of the patches. I doubt 1.04 will be different. Guess TCPers are a minority. But how long can you play with the AI?? Its only purpose is to train for the real thing, vs a human opponent. I refuse to play PBEM now that CMSF is RT. Hope they make it work sooner or later

I know it sounds like a half baked solution but I'm not very optimistic about when we will see such impressive improvements to the TacAi. CMSF might never see them and when WW2 is out the syrian squad behaviour will be pretty much history. I guess a command like "move to/follow target" combined with the type of the target can bring to LOF only the appropriate weapons to deal with it, could be a solution but sounds like a lot of work to code and who needs another command anyway? It wont work either when you know there is a tank around the corner but you have no LOS and unit ID to execute the order.

Beyond the Los/Lof problems I think currently splitting at least the AT team of the syrian squads could serve as a temp solution. Its no more micromanagement than zooming to see where is the RPG man positioned and trying with click after click to bring him to the desired spot by repositioning and jeopardizing the whole squad. I would prefer to split the whole squad ala the US ones to assault, LMG and AT teams because with the current system limitations/bugs a syrian squad can actually do less than in RL. So splitting will be a step towards more realism imo. If the TacAi is unable to decide which are the best spots for the squad then the player should take over, the same way we use reverse to get away from threats the AI doesnt do anything about. Let the player decide how much to micromanage while Charles improves things with time.

I find the current limitation less realistic that it was supposed to be. Maybe you can restrict them for how far they can go from their leader and make them unresponsive beyond that. Right now it prohibits something as simple as using your AT weapons without exposing the whole squad.

Ok, I cant use my syrian squads effectively around corners, hill crests, walls etc. You want to fire an RPG at that Bradley sitting on the next corner? You either dont attack, or you get your whole squad killed in the middle of a flat street trying to bring the anti-tank man in LOF. Would it be too much of a realsim drawback if you could also split the syrian squads, in assault, AT-team etc, maybe with a bigger hit in morale/HQ link or some other distance restriction? Its frustrating to have a 9man squad killed when the only one you want to use and expose is the RPG man.

IIRC Steve once said that CMx1 wasnt designed to be fun but fun accidentally emerged on the way. Well now, they did manage to not have this accident happen again but the result is a more restricted and less entertaining game, despite the impressive engine. Its concept is just more complex than an average game should be and fun was lost while pursuing ultimate realism. We got an almost perfect 1:1 simulation, weapons model, morale model but a soulless game, if you can say something like that for a piece of software. Maybe some more lively infantry or improved QBs would make it a much better experience. Time will tell, I personaly count a lot on the WW2 title.

Same here. Maybe on of the reasons we dont see bigger scenarios too. Beyond 1x1km scrolling is painful.

Basically BFC is touring the states with the play "Charles in a jar and friends" to help promote the CMx2 series. There is simply no room for an extra guy in Madmatt's station wagon.

Abbot, I disagree about CMSF being more of an RTS. You obviously havent played one lately because CMSF is a tactical nightmare compared to these things. CMSF is all about decisions. Fast clicks will bring you more losses. The problem with CMSF lies partly in the interface, not the philosophy of the game. Move, target, rotate could be one click like in those games, while retaining the same hotkeys system for the more special commands. It wont hurt its tactical side, rather save time and focus for more thinking and planning.

Yeah, Command & Conquer did it right! </font>

Al Huqf is the only battle I have played almost flawlessly so far. All the others, besides the passenger bugs etc, were like WEGO in RealTime only you had to wait more than one minute to see the ordered unit responding.

Thanks for the help but I'm pretty sure I tried that already. Clicked ready really quick as guest and it was above a minute before the host was ready. Same results I think BFC said there is no problem with their multiplayer testing but seems like people still cant play smoothly. Unfortunately for some of us, head to head is the only way to really enjoy the game. [ September 27, 2007, 05:26 AM: Message edited by: Ali-Baba ]