C'Rogers

Aren't the members of BFC scattered in a lot of different time zones? I can't remember whether Steve is on the east or west coast. 13:00 out here on the west at the moment ... I'd been hoping for a release this morning as well.

Many a person predicted that modern combat would be the death of BFC. Turns out, there was a lot of people who were interested in it so we'll be getting more. Anyway, SF was a good game.

Obviously you need to buy a new copy . It should reset, if not, contact tech support.

Also, the list of titles presented here focuses around two settings, modern and WWII. If BFC goes into another theater, things like east front could be pushed back. At one point the plan was to do that, but not sure if they are going to stray outside those two areas anymore. At one point though I'm pretty sure BFC said they would not do a modern game in a temperate setting between equal forces (Nato vs Warsaw) because they didn't want to do unrealistic or totally fictional scenarios. There was such strong support for the idea though that the plan changed and we'll get CM:SF2.

I'm pretty sure I've heard units before I can't see on higher difficulty levels (tanks). I think the 'you' refers to players. There needs to be a unit to hear the sound, but that is just my experience.

While people do tend to go over the line, a lot of the time what people think is an opinion is a factual assertion. For example, whether or not there is a large group of people who would buy this game if it had TCIP WeGo. BFC has said there isn't. Either they are wrong, or they are intentionally sabotaging their product. They probably though took time to weigh the cost/benefits. Saying you want the game to have TCIP WeGo is fine. Saying that you won't play it without is fine as well. BFC said when SF came out they realized they made decisions that would make some people not like the game. That happens and they were/are okay with it. I don't about everyone else, but I was hoping for a release today so I kept the page open which led to a lot more comment then normal.

Likely they've done market research of which this forum may have been a (small) part. They certainly know how many copies have been sold. Even if the online groups that are known are a small percentage, it can even give them a rough idea. They've also been in the war gaming business for a long time and likely interacted with a lot of war gamers. They could also just see what has happened with other war gaming companies and how people have, in general, played war games. Most importantly though: Why would they lie?

I'm just glad that we get to relive the launch of CM:SF all over again. Its nice to fight the same battles again. Any news on bren tripods while we're at it?

Nox and others pushing the multiplayer equals huge crowds for CM:SF, one question. Why didn't CMx1 sell better? I mean, it had TCIP WeGO. Shouldn't people have been going crazy for it? I mean this was before the better graphics, before the real time options, before SP campaigns, so why is BFC happy with the sales of CMx2 if these things shouldn't matter? And again, if they wanted to push multiplayer, shouldn't the addition of real time MP be more important than no TCIP WeGo? I don't think MP games that last 2-4 hours are ever going to be a big seller. I enjoy them, and look forward to their eventual inclusion, but I doubt the mass market appeal. Nox sites IL a couple times and its continued group of 500 players. That's nice, but even if that is 500 new people buying it every year, it won't come close to covering the costs of making a game.

Being people are throwing out their personal experiences, here's mine. I've pitched Combat Mission to seven people, all who played more 'serious' games (simulations), if not wargames. Only two of those seven actually kept playing the game. Main complaint from the others? Too slow. So for all the arguments that BFC needs to appeal to the multiplayer crowd; they did. Just not the way you want, but a way that is in their opinion best for sales and also best for the game.

Alright, we've had a number of answers in other threads that said; it's like this in CM:SF. Well, here is a slightly different one. It's like this in CMx1. At least from what I remember. Armor was blind then and, to my understanding, should usually have highly impaired vision.

Originally planned to be in game (CM:SF) where you could review the entire battle (with a God view, and then view from each side). Proved to be technically unfeasible from what I remember. Unfortunate, was one of the biggest upgrades that I was looking forward to when game was in the design stage.

One squad can now fire at multiple targets (I believe). Wouldn't it be too cluttered if every unit had multiple red arrows going from them? Generally, if I click on a unit and they can see the enemy and they are firing, it is pretty easy to tell who they are firing at. This is on elite though were units spots are pretty low.

Out of curiosity, this would interest me as well. Beyond that though, I don't see how it matters. Either they can do it, or they can't. Doesn't matter whether it is impossible or simple lack of ability, if they say something can't be done that's pretty much it. I suppose another programmer (or lay person even) could point out a flaw in their thinking, I just find that highly unlikely.

The difference here is whether something is 'broken' or fails to do what is advertised. If you expect a product to do something it wasn't intended to do, then your chance of a refund is drastically lower. A person is of course entitled to their opinion. My opinion is that BFC made the right decision in their priorities. We have as much right to criticize your criticisms to indicate to BFC that we like the direction they're going. Would the game be better with TC/IP WeGo? Yes. Is it more important than other changes (multi-multiplayer for instance)? No. Not even close.

Hey, anybody remember when BFC had that posts in the early development stage that CMx2 might not be compatible with PBEM? Remember all the people who said that PBEM was the only way to "really" play the game and that you might as well not have multiplayer at all without PBEM? If I remember correctly, there were even avocations for making a worse game so it could have smaller file sizes to keep PBEM feasible. Ah, if I could go back in time and tell those people that one day there would be complaints that PBEM was the only way to play the game. From everything I've heard, this is an either/or issue. We can have a very in depth game, or we can have multiplayer WEGO. I'd much rather have the better game, but I've adjusted to real time. I had a similar reaction to the OP, I felt betrayed when CM:SF came out with TC/IP WeGo, but the vast quantity of improvements more than compensated. Maybe the size of the game precludes TC/IP, maybe Charles just suddenly lost his excellent programming capability, but it is not something that will happen to my understanding. Pausable real time maybe (hopefully). While I'd like more MP options, I'm pretty sure there switch to real time was the best method to increase sales.

Ah, I enjoyed the intense arguments about how things were displayed in the game, before the game was ever released! Those were the ... um, less then ideal days.

Alright everyone, we need to learn a lesson here. Next time a demo comes out fill the forum with 'it's perfect, no flaws here' posts. Then when the full version comes out, let the complaints fly.

If I'm reading you right, send the file back to him. I'm not sure why, but there are a few more 'blank' screens of turns then in CMx1. I think it has something to do with getting the turns in line, but that is just my experience from playing a few PBEMs.

Cans of compressed air are the best way to clean a computer. Do it outside, preferably with a fan blowing stuff away from you and the house (I suppose a vacuum cleaner would work as well). With the compressed air you really don't have to worry about what parts you blow against (or if there is, I've never found one). Adore the game. Looking forward to the full release.

I don't think there will be a release announcement (ie, it will be out tomorrow). I think, hope, at this point when its ready the game will be released (which would be nice if it was today, but would be surprised if it was later then early next week).

There's a number of obvious ones (QBs, water), and the graphics seem a lot better, but I don't know if there were that many actual improvements over CM:SF that don't relate to WWII (ie mortars). What I mean is, I don't think there are that many changes in the game (play wise, not appearance or game set up) that are now "missing" from CM:SF. Surrendering seems like the only clear one that could be applied to CM:SF (and global morale if it isn't in, can't remember), but that is more of an adjustment over the routing system that had been in. I think the game feels so very different because BFC did a very good job. Modern warfare and WWII should feel very different. BFC has created two very different wargames that are very good with the same engine (God, I hope I didn't jinx my experience with the actual release). Edit to add: Not an improvement, really, but I do love how machine guns now displayed 'Not Deployed'. I've got an ongoing PBEM in CM:A and find myself always double checking the units.

If I remember the discussions from when CM:SF came out, direct hotkeys were not BFCs idea on how they expected people to play. They thought the numpad system (u,i,o etc) and using the F keys to switch between tabs would be ideal. Which I adapted to after awhile, but many people don't like. The solution BFC put in was the manual edit. Either the engine is too hard to adjust, or they just don't think enough people are using direct hotkeys to justify the time to change it.

I was also in the Win 64 bit group. Game ran fine, then crashed on exit, then wouldn't run again. Use the task manager to shut down the process and all was fine.

I don't want to sidetrack the thread, but did want to answer a question from the OP that I don't think ever got addressed. The vertical scale is set at 1m because larger than that would be too intense of a drain on the system. Individual height raises though are tracked to the millimeter (if you were to do a 1m raise across an entire map as people pointed out). I think, but could be wrong as couldn't find a source, that is a similar reason for the 4x4 km map cap.