[What can we expect from the next patch]

To Taki: Seriously, the cam works, TAC AI and path finding doesn't. You have screwed up priorities.

[Why ignore your beta testers? (too many problems)]

Originally posted by The Louch:

Besides, from a perspective of a rabid-gamer, I can assure you that CMSF is a fantastic release as far as what the Beta teams could’ve picked up on… you should’ve seen MOO3’s launch… Let’s just say that not having a game CTD every time you accidentally press any two keys at the same time is already a blessing

That's a really bad analogy, considering that MOO3 sucks even after patching.

[cant move cover arc off map ... so areas not covered !]

For the time being you could also argue it's something that scenario designers need to take in consideration and not be asses about.

if reinforcments happen to pop into that area

That's what I mean. It's stupid and bad scenario design - you, as a player, should never have to consider the map edges for reinforcements arriving at your 20m overwatch. That's stupid.

[Reading list/links for CMSF.]

^^^ Ooops, didn't se you posted that. Just found this thread. ^^^

All those helped me alot.

[ July 31, 2007, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: Xipe66 ]

[Bringing the Blue Bar back...]

The strategic part of the scenario editor needs more conditionals (yes, time is a conditional) - that way we could make it reactive and a real challenge to human players.

Operation Flashpoint had this, and it worked really well. You could create pretty advanced instructions and conditionals, split the decision tree at serveral places, and basically create a strategic AI that was very lifelike and challenging.

[Understanding MOUT and assymetrical warfare]

I found these interesting and informative.

They were also helpful in better understanding how to take advantage of syrian strengths and exploit US weaknesses when fiddling around in the scenario editor.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-06/chap3.htm#3-1

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-06-11/toc.htm

- http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-06-11/ch4.htm#sec6

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/90-10/toc.htm

[ July 31, 2007, 09:30 AM: Message edited by: Xipe66 ]

[Modding of CMSF]

Sorry, you're impervious to arguments that contradict what you've already set on. No retraction imminent.

[Modding of CMSF]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

Well I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I just don't share it.

Would you care to expound on that?

There are seriously few games, with open modability, where it hasn't exceeded the original game.

I won't push for BF to open up theirs, that's their business, but I would like for you to come up with some arguments other than replying for the sake of replying. (**** post)

[Modding of CMSF]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Who wants to drink ten quarts of curdled catpiss to get to a couple of ounces of cream?

Just imagine how much less bitching we would have had about Úber-StuGs and russian guns' penetration capabilities.

Oh, and the highly popular Maus mod.

Humor aside, I do believe it's good in the long run, though. Cat piss included, as some of it might turn out to be.

[Modding of CMSF]

Siding with Smithy here. And Operation Flashpoint has shown that the cream rises to the top (and it's also your choice wether to use it or not, so it's all good).

The same thing has been true for mod-friendly games before it - moddability is good, both for the game and the sales (Quake being the most notable entry, that also more or less got the trend seriously on the road).

EDIT: Paradox' games and also the Total War-series are also a good examples how this seldom goes wrong.

[How Do You Place Units in Set Up Phase?]

Move command (O) and Face command (K) (in the following command tab).

[Can't buy troops????]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

HQs can be deleted also.

That's true. Though, I've had instances where I kept two platoons, and then the company commander can no longer be deleted - so basically you'd need one company / group of disparate soldiers you wanted to field.

So in certain ways C2 is absolute. But all that calls for is more companies, and that's manageable, I guess.

You'd miss out on higher echelon C2 bonuses though - and this is especially true, and vital, for the Syrians. And I guess that's why Steve is railing against it - the game, on a deeper level, really doesn't support it accurately. (?)

[ July 29, 2007, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: Xipe66 ]

[Can't buy troops????]

Jason, I do belive you can get all those forces if you add Syrian batalions and delete everything that you don't need - but you'll probably get a few extra HQ's.

Hence my previous suggestion to make the TOE moddable. If we can't get rid of the C2 restriction then we might at least get it moddable.

Preferrably in text files that in game are displayed as a dropdown. That would allow for experimental settings while still adhering to the C2 restrictions.

[RT and how it has hurt WEGO and single player/AI. (not anti-RT)]

OR perhaps I could shed some light on a few subjects I 'DO' know quite a bit about like software development and testing?

Oh, I wouldn't think it worth your while; your really shouldn't bother, profane e-mails and the shoddy practices and everything you've "communicated" this far. But please do go continue telling us how supremely qualified you are that you don't actually have to contribute for your non-input to constitute value.

EDIT: vvvv You're a ****ing hack, deal with it. vvvv

[ July 29, 2007, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: Xipe66 ]

[RT and how it has hurt WEGO and single player/AI. (not anti-RT)]

Seriously, re-read your own replies and then get off your piedestal and contribute. lol

[Okay I have to ask... ref: Choosing Weapons?]

Take this at face value coming from someone with only 10 hours of gameplay, but in my experience fire on individuals occupying buildings still seem highly abstracted. E.g. what you see isn't necessarily what you get.

While fire on individuals in the open seems less abstracted (and in turn maybe cover isn't abstracted?).

I really have no good answer right now, but firing at targets in buildings is no doubt abstracted - in visuals if nothing else.

EDIT: I am probably as confused as you are.

[ July 29, 2007, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: Xipe66 ]

[Okay I have to ask... ref: Choosing Weapons?]

Originally posted by rlg85:

Does area fire seem to get the best results as far as actually getting the Mk19 to fire?

Yes, in my eperience. Same thing goes for infantry in close building to building fights, they often won't use grenades and grenade launchers until you manually target the building and or opposing squad.

[For Me, If WEGO Goes, I Go]

Originally posted by rlg85:

I reread it, you labeled Tinjaw, who thinks similarly to me (although maybe I might have worded some things differently)as a non-gamer.

...

I take that to mean, that wargamers, such as Tinjaw, who you had previously labeled as a non-gamer, need to "broaden our horizons" which is code for needing to drop our attachment to turn based and join the "revolutionary" new system, as BFC likes to put it.

Stop trolling eachother about who's semantically considered to be a gamer. Also, I liked your coining of "high brow RTS" (no irony or sarcasm ).

[Use of ATGM's against defending infantry - gamey?]

I didn't know that, and thank you for bringing that up SG. I can't seem to find any combat videos though.

I do want a realistic result form the Javelins in game - and right now I belive it's against buildings and personell that the jury is out on rather than against tanks.

[Can't buy troops????]

I think Dorosh made a pretty solid argument concerning the "what if"-aspect of historical/simulation wargaming.

If BF can find a way I do belive selective purchases should be at least an option.

What I'd like to see is for several dynamic "rule sets" regarding TOE, so that you ideally could have anything taken from fantasy, to 1991(ish), to 2003(ish) and to current and future. Ideally these would be in text form, so that the community can update and revise them.

[What was the reasoning about TCP/IP being real time only?]

I'm hoping you were sarcastic there, Steiner.

Seriously, the distribution of turns is not a problem to anyone living in the western world in the 21st century.

The fact that you have to quit to menu and then reload the scenario when you get your turn is a problem as far as a comparisons to WEGO under TCP/IP goes.

[Can't buy troops????]

It's because of the C2 limitations that the core of the game relies on and imposes. A more dynamic C2-format where you create your own line of command might be in line with the core game design though; although I don't know how costly that would be in development hours.

[Modding of CMSF]

Wow, that's awesome. And you're awesome for making an extraction tool less than 48 hours after release! Please share it once you think it's working properly.

Hopefully someone privy to various 3D file formats can have a stab at the .mdr files.

[Modding of CMSF]

That's the way BF rolls, for better or worse. All logic and unit/weapon/armor values have always been hard coded in the CM games. Textures and sounds have been the only things you can mod.

BTW - Are you saying the 3D models are moddable?

[Replays for RealTime]

Yes.

...and, even when I do see all of the action, being able to see a cool or defining moment again would be extremely nice and rewarding.