RedDevil

I don't own the game anymore..

Well you won't have to ban me.. I'm leaving on my own now that I've reached an agreement with BF. Good luck with SF all.

Cancel that Offer, Dave

Refund my money and I will leave. You don't need my money to develop this any further. That's about as constructive as any post here.

Please, could someone ban this person? Patience is a virtue, but accepting that kind of attiude is already close to masochism. I don't know how much from his barely 30 posts are nothing else than extremely stupid, destructive whining without showing any will and respect to the efforts already taken. </font>

Refund my money and I will leave. You don't need my money to develop this any further. That's about as constructive as any post here.

Everyone can have their doubts on just an opinion, it's like wiping your ass.. did you get it all or do you need 1 more sheet? A sheet costs you mere 10ths of a cent to waste.. A game like this cost $50 and can't deliver as much as the sheet can, although it gives what the sheet taketh. The parody of this whole new gaming system is that it can't decide what it wants to be, a RTS or a simulation or a wargame.. at this point in time it's a Bug fest and the ass kissing thread jumpers who damn anyone who makes a slight comment about the shortcomings of the deal, makes kiddie school playground fight pale in comparison. There are glaring issues, anyone who says there are none, is not playing this game. I mean if they can't even spell the folder names right just what kind of QA went into the testing of the game mechanics prior to release? based on the AI deficiency and path finding posts.. not much. End of story. Get it fixed or give me back my money and I leave. I shouldn't have to wait weeks for the fix either, I paid to play the day it released, so if I can't have that, then I have the right to "whine", I PAID for it.

Dev's tips for Enjoying CM -SF Exit the game Start up CM AK Enjoy...

CoH is utterly unfullfilling. Either way, CoH is not a wargame. </font>

Battlefront.com Home of superior WAR and STRATEGY games.. Somewhere along the line of SF, I think they forgot their roots and their company logo. With more Bugs than Starship troopers on release, one wonders just how much time was spent finding BUGS rather than oohhing and ahhing over the pretty pixels.. I'm waiting on the NDA form to arrive so I can be an official BETA buddie along with everyone else who bought this game.. I'm also hoping the credit for 50 bucks will show soon on my Card as play testers and beta buddies get free copies of the games in most companies. Sadly the more I play this game the more I wonder how can anyone actually say it's got potential to be anything close to resembling of a rewarding gaming experience.

LOL sure thing Dave send over something

Steve, I'm part of the group that expected this to be a super Combat Mission x1 with all the great characteristics of the originals and some sorely need additions. I might be bitching up a storm on BF forums, and you darn well deserve to hear some bitching, but I'm still trying to sort out this CM-SF game to the point of actually making it work for me. At this time, my biggest regret is pre-ordering under the assumption it was a modernized CM. The whole game is a completely different animal with only the Combat mission name in front of shock force. Even more disappointing to me however was to find that it's really a real time shooter style simulation of a war, with a VERY clunky UI and mucho AI deficiencies. Coupled with numerous QA issues like missing maps, generic sounds and even misspelled folder entries upon installs, while petty and insignificant, these minor details bring forth a questionable degree of quality for the expense. Surely, you wouldn't like your new Mercedes to to have the emblem off set by a bit would you? The shining example of workmanship should equal the luster of the polish. Many of the bugs can and will be fixed in the future, I'm sure, but will I be playing this as long as the original CMs? Probably not, especially when BF comes out with add on MODs that cost money to get, and ones which might be on the same level of Quality as the initial product? Regrettably at this point in time, I've lost my confidence in BF's ability to deliver a quality wargame, let alone a RT sim, but time will tell. I'm sure you'll strive to prove your efforts are genuine. Sure, I got some of the BF guys looking at the bugs and quirks I've found so far but have my doubts on the replay value of the game even after it's patched up to a suitable level of playability. There's some neat and cool stuff, but I really wanted meat with my potatoes, not soybeans and rice cakes. Wargames are are tiny niche market, I can understand BF's efforts to reach a larger market to survive, the company has to make money. However, I do wish that you had NOT used the CM name brand to market something that's completely off the mark from the original series and lead me to believe I was getting something similar, but improved upon in the series of CMx1 games. I am trying to forget all I know and wanted improved in CMx1, while playing this new game and give it a chance to grow on me, but it's so hard when it was "branded" into my mind that I was getting a CM wargame. At least I'm glad to have garnered a response from you after all, that means you're reading, and being aggravated just as much. Thanks for taking the time to bitch back.

It's not too hard for me to play, it's just not something I wanted to BUY. Deceptive marketing of the Combat Mission namesake to further a new and innovative bundle of simulation is also provoking my ire. I can get BETTER RTS games than this in the 1st place, and secondly I did expect a bit more quality in a product that took 4 years to build/test. Looking over things, there's an obvious black hole of QA residing in this project. It might please the clickie whores and graphics gazers up to this point, but a wargamer like myself, who is looking for the wargame aspect of this whole deal, can't find the answer in this bundle of joy here. The whole abstraction and simulation idea is a cool idea, but it sucks for wargames. I like to see my targets and kill them. I like to see my AI troopers kill the enemy when they see them w/o my need to hold their hands and pull their triggers. I like to be able to confidently acknowledge that my armor will keep it's front to the enemy and shoot at the enemy, if it sees them. I like to flank the enemy and not watch my armor drive back and forth over the same ditch until a RPG hits it and ends my misery. Unlike you, I want to play a wargame, not a poorly made RTS. So why don't yop go respond to someone who likes your kiddie talk approach and stop contributing absolutely nothing to my thread. cheers!

LMAO minor glitch? perhaps you should put your bottle down and quit sucking up to the splendor of being duped yourself. I pre-ordered on the basis that this was combat mission, not a RT kiddie clickie fest game.. shows how much trust I put into BFC and serves me right for taking a chance huh?

resent

Email enroute

the whole concept of this new radical warfare design is you're not supposed to shoot at them, only near them, so nobody gets hurt This helps the Diplomatic and United Nations referendum calculations deep within the programming to give us the ultimate simulation of real world combat. Only the Syrians are allowed to kill themselves, but only if they implode within 20 feet of a known US target. ( this of course is subject to verification, as my Syrians didn't seem to want to die for Allah and only moseyed around a bit among a platoon of Strykers) I'm sure there's a logical answer, but this one makes more sense...

I am watching a PBEM turn where it appears both sides set up in the SAME zones.. No biggee... we'll just have a close up fight.. BUT.. as the clock ticks down neither side shoots at each other.. in plain sight of each other, my Syrians simply watch the strykers blast away at the buildings in town instead of lighting up the entire platoon of them with RPGs, many at less than 30 meters away.. Am I supposed to believe my Muhammad seeking Jihad warriors are simply going to ignore US troops right next to them and swap camel humping stories with each other over cinnamon sticks and tea? I suppose this is that realistic asymmetrical combat paradigm that I'm supposed to accept as state of the art modern warfare gaming? I will gladly send my game file and password to anyone who does not believe me or wishes to tell me I'm just whining or to fix the game myself.

I'm playing a few small ones myself and the files sizes are 2.7 MB right now The Upchucking comes from the 1 MB file size just to send a password file back and forth, PRIOR to even starting the game. Well I guess we can always hope Matrix Games will buy the CMx1 Source codes and make it better

RD- That's a little paranoid, don'tcha think? The minute the PBEM discussion erupted, Steve warned us fair and square that one of the big issues HE saw with it was that the file sizes would be huge. We made our noise and said that didn't matter, put 'em in anyway. And he/they did. So we have 'em, and they're huge. What's the problem? -dale </font>

duplicate

All this talk about comparing the price/value of units based on the rod, stroke and bore of the engine over how many teeth the transmission main drive gear has is BS. BF didn't do this type of comparing in the CMx1 games did they? Are you telling me you spent hours deciding the value of a 20mm AA gun, over the 105 Artillery? I find this a chuckle and some real POOR PR commenting from the professionals at BF. If you can't comment without calling people smartasses or telling them to do it themselves in every response, you should STFU IMO. I paid money for the product, I think I should get something worth paying for. You playtesters got it for free and think you can harp all you want on the greatness of this and that and how everything the PAYING customers want or suggest is crap? You're being paid to do the work, not me or joe or tom and if you're going to do it, at least have the courtesy do it right or at least something close to resembling right.. As of now this whole deceiving cover up of using the Combat Mission name to sell a RTS that's NOTHING like the original concept game is a petty rip off imitation marketing ploy that has cost many of us devout Combat Mission gamers hard earned money. We trusted BF to produce a great CM addition but, We've been mislead and WE paid for it.

I get it.. See CMSF is not Combat Mission in any way other then NAME. BF has used a popular marketing technique to gain an edge in sales, notably pre orders, to make some money before all the combat mission fans find out the real deal. It's shame really that for 4 years development, BF gives us a clunky interface that doesn't bode well for a RTS clickie fest, a PBEM system that makes HUGE files, to deter players from using it, a vanilla QB system that can't get kit picks decent enough to make a game out of, and a camera sighting system that make a kaleidescope look normal. All for the sake of realism.. Where is the wargame we waited so long for? It's not going to happen, the market for wargamers is too small a niche to pay for all the programming and effort put into this game, therefore it must be marketed to the young and twitchy gamers to make any sort of profit. Outside of some fancy eye candy. Which, BTW we won't be able to enjoy, as the click fest to stay alive during a multiplayer game will be enough of a distraction let alone trying to sort thru the keys and get the right one, the game we all thought would be awesome has left a bitter taste. I can't wait for my CD to ship, it will go right on Ebay for some twichy click fest gamer to enjoy for a few weeks until he's bored of the vanilla, or sick of the UI. I am disappointed in the fact that I was expecting a wargame, not a "Sims with tanks" wanna be. I would have gladly paid $50 US dollars for a CMBO/CMBB make over to bring them up to CMAK levels and even add a few years of war to the tables (IE: korea) and some eye candy graphics. It wouldn't have taken 4 years to get it done. Thousands would be happy with the results, and BF execs would be getting bonus'. The direction BF has taken in response to the wargaming market is going to be their downfall. Trying to compete with RTS and FPS companies that have lots of reserve funds and can absorb a poor game release or 2 is a recipe for failure. They couldn't make what BF could, and didn't bother, yet BF had to try and make something that the others are superb at, and this is the result. I'm even wondering what's next.. A $30 add on pack to get 5 more scenarios and some Jordan army units & some Marine formations? What's the betting line on these add ons being free? LOL I came to think BF was the next great wargame company, now I'm $50 bucks shy of a wargame and have a clickie fest asymmetrical simulation to pawn off.

Well said Geordie, I think this sums up a lot of misunderstanding.. I'll go back to playing CMx1 for my CM fix and keep this RTS simcity wanna be for killing time between those turn files until it bores me from too much vanilla.

Are the demo scenarios NOT compatible with the Full game versions? Even with copying the demo scenario files into the full game folders, the scenarios do not show up nor do the PBEM save files show up in the lists for choosing. Is this another one of those improvements? I mean come on.. even in CMx1 you let the full game players mix it up with the demo dudes..