moneymaxx

I think he is referring to the TacAI that controlled unit behavior in CMx1, e.g. a light tank popped smoke and retreated if confronted with a far superior enemy. At least in the demo a Stryker facing a T72 does nothing, just stands there and sometimes decides to attack the T72 with 0,50 cal. (with obvious results). The TacAI was a strength of CMx1. Yes, it produced undesired results in some cases, therefore I expected improvements in CMx2. Not only because I wanted it but because even before the launch I was convinced that in a RT environment only a good TacAI can prevent micromanagement. It just comes a such a big surprise that they left out many great features of CMx1 that worked perfectly and that many people loved. There were so many threads about features we wanted for CMx2, who would have thought that threads about what we wanted to keep from CMx1 would have been more appropriate. I give them the benefit of doubt that they'll improve CMSF. But unless they improve it a lot I'd have preferred an improved CMx1 engine with up to date graphics.

It hurts RT commanders like me as well, since I now have to babysit all the units.

Same here. In the demo I wanted to see a Javelin kill. So I stopped my tanks and tried it. 5 missiles against a T72, no hit.

Funny I wanted to use the same argument against your position. I learned driving 20 years ago in a Volkswagen Golf and though todays VW Golf are far more advanced, generally the controls and buttons are mostly the same, work the same and are at the same place. I own a SEAT Ibiza (Volkswagen group as well) and yep, same controls. Well, this thread explains quite well what I mean Some CMx1 things I miss

More then nice, if not extremely important. This happened to me in the demo: A Stryker sees a T72, I unmount the inf. equipped with javelins just to find out that they only see a "?". Happened to me too. 5 javelins for 1 T-72, 4 misses and one flew of the map.

I played the demo and I really like playing real time. It's curious though that CMx1 offered a lot of functions suited for RT (though not needed) that have been left out in CMx2 where there are necessary to play time-efficiently in those "hectic" moments. Many of them have been mentioned before and are all present in cmx1. User Interface: - Lack of independent hotkeys e.g. M for move. Clicking through submenus is too slow for RT. A right click pop-up menu even with submenus would have been much more efficient. - Keyboard scrolling doesn't work. I can use the mouse but than I can't give orders at the same time. - No adjustable waypoints. Quick accessible info: - "ENTER" to get weapons and unit info - No info while giving a move button where my inf is moving into (open terrain, crater, trees...). Even if they arrive no info about concealment, cover etc. - No info while giving target commands. What am I targeting? (a tank crew or an inf squad), can I kill it?, is it located in a trench? Should I therefore use indirect fire? - Target lines - Movement lines - If the TacAI chooses a target for a unit, there is no indication what the target is, not even a red line. Analyzing/learning tools: - No after battle kill info for units and arty. There is no way I can tell if my tactics where effective or who killed what. I could think that my arty usage was good but in reality it was totally useless and some other unit was responsible. - It's especially sad that there is no pause-replay function in RT. It was such an important tool of learning in CM. Replaying one minute over and over again to see who did what, why and how, not to mention those "WOW" moments that made CM great (shooting with a 150 mm inf gun at the corner of a 2 story building to destroy an open topped TD out of LOS). It's important for bug hunting as well. In the demo I shot 5 javelins at a T72, no kill, bug or feature? Graphic representation: - Transparent buildings To name just a few .

Well, they shouldn't be. There are IMHO to many functions assigned to the mouse. To use your flight sim example, imagine a flight sim with nearly all important functions assigned to the joystick e.g. to retract the landing gear push button 3, 4 and 5 at the same time and move the joystick up. That's the reason why especially flight sims heavily rely on keyboard input.

It's really quite simple. If I use the mouse to scroll the map I cant give orders at the same time with the mouse. I like to play CMSF in RT mode (only the demo so far) and even though it's not as fast paced as C&C it can get hectic from time to time and in those moments I'd like to have keyboard controls for map scrolling and hotkeys. BTW, judging from the demo at least a 3 (expected it to be 5).

I think the problem is that the CMSF-engine isn't deterministic but relies heavily on probabilities (e.g. spotting). Even though I'am not a programmer I'd think that the outcome of spotting for example is determined by generating random numbers several times a second for each unit. E.g. if a friendly unit has a x percent chance of spotting an enemy, that could mean that it spots that enemy in the first few seconds of the game, not at all or after 5 minutes. That means that with the same user input the outcome varies, or in other words recalculating doesn't work. Therefore you would have to create a log file during game play, something like this: unit 1 at timestamp 1000 moves from 12,125 to 12,127, unit 1 at timepstamp 1001 shoots at ..... Obviously that would create a huge amount of information since you'd have to track not only units but all things that can be seen, even the gear on the vehicles that can be shot of (sandbag 135 hit at timestamp 1243, flying in direction x,y,z at a speed of .......). Just for the records: I started writing before Steve posted

Maybe not deaf but just one shot can, if your ear is close enough, cause an "acoustic trauma" that may result in a chronic hearing impairment. Acoustic trauma When I worked as a first aid soldier in the German army, it happened quite a few times that someone forgot to use ear protection and fired his G3 with his ear in close vicinity. Those soldiers had to be taken to a doctor to receive treatment.

2 to say "hi mom".

Right, but IIRC in CM1x MGs of squads, haltracks and tanks never jammed, only the ones of the MG teams, quite unbalanced if I think about it now (or I didn't pay enough attention and the others do jam as well )

Yes, unfortunately that's the way game development works today. Most companies will only look at the volume of games they might sell and bend reality to such a point where it isn't recognizable anymore just to maximize the amount of money they can make. For some it might not seem that important if the ranges are changed, they might even think that it's a minor sacrifice to ensure a balanced MP game. It's not. Lowering the range for a tiger changes totally what a tiger is all about, a weapon that dominates the battlefield from a distance, it's slow turret for example isn't very useful in close battles (unless you want to change the turret speed as well). But know that you changed the turret speed and range it's still quite slow and too vulnerable at close range considering it's "point value", why not change speed and armour as well. Why not change the polygons as well so that the tiger looks like an orc and call the game Warcraft? If someone is looking for a balanced MP game why not buy "Warcraft" in the first place then? I don't really see the need for a game in which WWII is just scenery for yet another RTS (like Blitzkrieg). [ September 02, 2006, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: moneymaxx ]

Exactly, I loved Dune II, Command & Conquer and of course Starcraft. But after more then a decade of using the basic principles of Dune II it's getting boring. For me that is, but most probably not for the kiddies for whom Warcraft III is the same experience as Dune II was for me. So we might see clones of Dune II for the next couple of decades if not centuries since there will be new player generations who will want to play and more important buy games like Warcraft XXV. Though the above games are usually described as RTS that doesn't mean that ALL RTS have to be that way. I consider Harpoon an RTS and that was hardly a click fest. The Close Comabt series as well was RT and I liked the time pressure and the partial loss of control when things started to get a little hectic (Megakill said that ToW will be more like CC). Therefore the fact that ToW will be RT doesn't say much about it's quality. There are hundreds of aspects that are more important which we can't judge until we see the demo. The TacAI (just to name one) will be crucial. E.g. What do the units do when they are not player controlled and a new threat appears, do they react according to the threat (retreating, hiding, consider it a minor threat and go on as planned etc.) or do they just wait for the player input, maybe even getting killed in the meantime. This is one aspect that CM did so well, while most other RTS doesn't even seem to have a TacAI. In an RT based game a well done TacAI would considerably reduce the workload of the player trying to micromanage everything, would make "clicking" less important and therefore would free time to control and plan. I think there is still hope in RTS and maybe ToW becomes my new love . [ August 10, 2006, 07:33 PM: Message edited by: moneymaxx ]

Some more videos, I like the one of the tunguska-m. www.aviation.ru/www.rusarm.ru/video/

I'am glad you liked it. I didn't know that those pictures were rare and even wondered if I should post it or not . BTW, the quality is low because it's streaming video, like this one. YouTube s300

A 3:29 min video about the s300, the last 40sec show it in use (in russian). Yahoo video S300

I hope this thread doesn't evolve into a flame war . Merry Christmas!

That's a load of rubbish You didn't learn much from years of playing CMx1, did you? I'd take redundancy (and reliability, which we are simulating this time round), superior numbers, and superior mobility over a static force with a few toys any day of the year.</font>

Well, I didn't expect massive tank battles but at least the occasional encounter. I think other did as well, just look at this link: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=000301 I share the view of fytinghellfish that tanks are everyone's favorite (ok maybe not your's ). But thanks for your reply, it kind of confirms what I was already suspecting that the scenarios will be mostly "pure infantry fights where no real threats to the supporting Stryker vehicles are present". Doesn't sound too interesting but time will tell.

I have to admit that I'am a little bit puzzled. After reading some information about the Stryker it became quite clear that it was designed around the concept of rapid deployment around the globe. For that purpose weight, essentially armour, had to be reduced. Therefore some articles claim, like this one http://www.sbct.army.mil/news/TribnetArticle.html, that Strykers are only intended for low intensity conflicts. Just a few quotes: The Army acknowledges the Strykers can't take a hit like the much heavier Abrams and Bradley vehicles. The Army says the Stryker's infantrymen have the anti-armor missiles to fight enemy tanks, but the unit is really built for lower-intensity missions like Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti and Somalia. Stryker brigade officers say the vehicles are meant to carry infantrymen rapidly over great distances. They're supposed to stay concealed or out of rocket-propelled grenade range, but close to enough to provide cover fire. Misunderstandings about the Stryker's role are not confined to civilian critics. Even as late as the final training tune-up last month, senior commanders were chiding their juniors for driving the Strykers too deep into a mock city before troops on the ground had a chance to clear the buildings. It will be a constant concern of the brigade's leaders that the vehicles aren't used like tanks. "It's not a fighting vehicle. It's a carrier vehicle," said Maj. Chuck Hodges, executive officer of one of the brigade's three infantry battalions. "This vehicle is not designed to be leading with its chin through cities." While these opinions sound quite logical IMHO given the weapon's design I ask myself what kind of missions will be presented in CM:SF. Syria doesn't look like a low intensity conflict and even if the army manages to deliver a working MGS (Mobile Gun System), I can't imagine a Stryker brigade in much more than a patrol or police role or in pure infantry fights where no real threats to the supporting Stryker vehicles are present. Anybody knows how they were used in Iraq? Were there cases in which the brigade took part in a fighting role (I mean deliberately, not in an ambush)? How do you think the much anticipated tank battles will be represented since the Stryker isn't really meant for such battles?

Actually youd probably be surpsied what info is available on such topics if you look....in some ways its actually easier to find accurate info on modern gear than on certain WW2 weapons and vehicles. For instance we already have documents on exactly the above topic from real world combat situations (from publically available sources too). Most problems with the Stryker were actually proposed before it went into combat. Its been in combat for about a year now I believe, and crews have been very happy all round with the vehicles capabilities and survivability. Dan </font>

Quite disappointed I'am afraid and not only because it's not going to be WWII. Most reasons have already been mentioned (asymmetric force strength, very limited OOB) but I want to add one more: If you play a future conflict you can't compare the game results with RL. I recall that this was one of the reasons why CM improved so much, especially from CMBO to CMBB. Just remember the heated discussions about MG and bazooka effectiveness. It doesn't help neither that the CM:SF will be built around what looks like a quite controversial and new weapon system, the Stryker (thanks for the links). It seems that even the US army doesn't know exactly if and when improvements of the amour protection will be apllied but that is of vital importance to the game (can a RPG destroy it or not and under which circumstances? I think the army won't tell BFC). Reading the links it became quite obvious that more issues are not yet resolved, e.g. the off-road ability. Since the Stryker is not standing on a road it just might be that the soldiers on the screenshot are waiting for a recovery vehicle . Since it is not really clear what a Stryker brigade is capable of, the results of CM:SF will be quite hypothetical. I think that other settings would have avoided that kind of problem (Israel/Egypt, Korea, etc.)

18 months military service in the German Bundeswehr, 12 months compulsory and 6 months voluntarily (to get a better pay), Luftwaffenausbildungsregiment, Sanitätsstafel. I´am more an office guy so the army wasn’t really the ideal place for me. Quote of one of my superiors during training on the obstacle course “if you can’t climb that wall why don’t you walk around it”. No combat experience, obviously, but taking several hundred urine samples on one day is quite an experience . [ October 07, 2005, 07:51 PM: Message edited by: moneymaxx ]