yapma

I am actually a pretty nice guy. And hardly vicious. I am not a troll either. I think CM:BN is a good game. I think CM:BtB is the best tactical strategy game ever made. If CM:BN had been developed solely as a turn based game, I am pretty sure it would have been great also. Playing it now is an exercise in frustration. Some people like RT. I am just not one of them. Steve says it makes him more money. It's all good. A lot of the old fans think BFC simply sold out. Rock stars do it all the time. Why not game developers?

Please Steve. You engage in more personal attacks then anyone on this board. Go back and read your prior posts in this thread alone. I am just a guy who really liked the first games you made, and find the second version frustrating (are my troops in C&C? Too much trouble to figure it out, and I cannot even tell if it matters. Why can't my tank shoot back at the enemy who is blasting it over and over? Why do my troops hide insist on hiding in the craters behind the buildings? Why can't I see over that wall? Why can't my tank drive over that shrubbery?) I think CM:BN is a good game. It could even be a great game if the frustrations are ever resolved. You are right, I don't like you. I think you are a thin-skinned hypocrite. I also think there are cult like elements at work (you see my followers -- the outsiders, they hate me, and they hate you too). There are plenty of people on this board who can rationally respond to criticisms or impressions. You are just not one of them.

And what are you, the high priest fanbois, who speaks for God when God is too busy?

The leader is clinically disturbed. Witness the bizarre hotkey scheme that his underlings are afraid to discuss anymore for fear of encouraging a full blown freak out. Good luck, Derek.

This board has always reminded me of the emperor with no clothes. I played the demo 3 times. On 2 different occasions my tank got shot repeatedly by a tank on a hill, but could not return fire because it was "reverse slope" for return fire. So my tank just dicked around elevating its gun over and over until it died. And multiple rifle squads kept running out of houses I put them in, so they could hide behind them, then I would tell them to run back in, and then would run out again. I find it hard to believe that I am the only one to notice this. And you guys seriously like the instantaneous movement? I remember people complaining about why driving down a twisty road should not add huge delay, but I hardly recall people demanding troops move immediately upon the ubermind thinking of it. I have no idea whether the C&C is new and super improved. What used to be a simple process to determine whether a unit is within control radius now requires multiple clicks and looks in multiple places. Not an improvement. And your leader thinks the game is not being reviewed because BFC does not spend enough money on advertising? Seriously? Derek Smart ring any bells?

For me, it was the removal of the movement delay. Also, the loss of the C&C indicator lines. And, in the first iteration, I clearly understood from the UI the differences in the capabilities of the troops (who was skilled and who was chaff, and what the particular squads were competent at). Maybe that information is still there somewhere, but I did not see it, and the troops became fungible for me.

I played the hell out of CMx1. Probably the best computer games ever made. Played CMSF, but nowhere near as much. I tried RT, but never did like it, and stuck with turn based. In the past, I would buy BF products just on the basis of their name. After dealing with CMSF and its frustrations, I no longer do that. I looked for some reviews of CMBfN, could not find any. Pretty much zero interest in the product on the internets. So I downloaded the demo. I think the graphics are a huge improvement over those in the first engine. I also thought the photographs used in the game are fantastic. Weapon sounds are fantastic. The game feels real, and is certainly intense. On the downside, the graphics are lousy and laggy when compared to big production RTS titles. I got fed up with graphic representations not corresponding to what the computer sees (i.e., LOS being blocked by a wall that looks 3 feet tall, but the computer seems to treat as being 20 feet tall). I got even more feed up with whatever fluctuation in the space time continuum allows the enemy to have LOS to me, yet me not having reciprocal LOS. And I have no idea why my troopers refuse to stay put inside a building, and insist on running behind the building where they are useless. In sum, I think the game is pretty good. But, it's hardly great in the way CMBO and CM BtB were. It seems schizophrenic to me -- it's either a pretty mediocre RTS that pales in comparison to what the big boys produce, or it's a turn based thinking game with a lot of the depth removed from the first iteration, and a lot of frustration added. I think the game is good try, and I do not begrudge BF for trying to appeal to more gamers. But for me, the game is disappointing.

I played CMSF over the weekend after a several month hiatus. Here are my impressions: 1. It's actually a really good game. I still prefer CMx1, but that is because I prefer turn based games. CMSF is basically RT, with turn based grafted on. I friggin hate not being able to fast forward when nothing is happening. 2. One minute turns are too long for WEGO. They seemed right for WW2, but the modern setting is too deadly, and too much happens in a minute. 3. There is a dearth of good company sized scenarios. I suspect this is because scenarios are harder to make. QB, as implemented, essentially blows. I suspect, but don't know, that the current lack of force selection in QB has a lot more with the work involved in assigning point values than it does with any professed paternalistic concerns about cherry picking. Anyway, I am glad to see other people are enjoying CMSF, and I will probably still play it from time to time, just not nearly as often as I played CMx1.

steve: this is the internet, and you take it way too seriously.

Gibson: Take a chill pill with respect to correcting people posting in a non-native language. Also, if you think search works great on forum postings, you are mistaken.

I am glad to hear the UI is going to be updated. Something should be done to personalize and distinguish the squads, and make it more apparent how one squad differs from another.

I played a QB as Syrians on defense. There were 2 scoring criteria: casualties and occupation. I occupied the territory and both killed and wounded more enemy than I lost, even though I was ludicrously out-gunned. Result was a total loss. Huh? I assumed the Syrians could take much greater losses, and still achieve a victory a la Ho Chi Mihn's statement that he could lose 10 to 1, and still win the war).

This looks very cool. Thank you for your work. I'll see if i can figure out how to use the z folder mods.

Combat Mission: Mortars Included

Well, the owner has spoken, and the owner disagrees, so that is pretty much that. I would only say: (1) doesn't the current system require significant energy and oversight (combing through threads and responding) (or not responding, which makes the customer think the developer does not consider their problems important enough), (2) doesn't the current system, which litters the forum with bug reports, give the impression to the public that the software is crap, and (3) doesn't BFC already have a list of bugs (which I can't imagine is a valuable trade secret) which, with some modification, could be posted. As they say, IMHO.