C'Rogers

I think the issue, which has been brought up before I think, is how we as players use the troops. In an actual battle, to my understanding, engagements are often quick, high intensity, and then one side will back off/take cover. In wargames players are likely to continue to order their men forward and the bullets flying.

Could have sworn I tried that with no success. Thank you muchly, now I feel silly for just not asking earlier.

On that note, it also would be nice if there was an undelete option. It is frustrating to bring a battalion down to company level, play test the scenario, and realize maybe I cut one to many squads. Also a way to select multiple things. If I want different elements within a company to have different stats (ammo, experience, and the like) it would be nice if I could just select multiple things at the same time.

Personally I like to think I can appreciate the differences of the two, and learn to live, and enjoy, both at the same time. But that is only one issue ... the RT/WEGO is a little trickier.

Well I think this is kind of the idea of the module system. We aren't going to hit nearly as many people but we will get the people we have to buy more per series.

Well if you stay around the three/four view then you still get the 1 to 1 graphics pretty well and that is what I generally use. Though I will zoom in for a vehicle occasionally or just to watch the guys fire if no one is moving.

Probably something along the lines of ... "Well then are contract states you owe us X dollars". or "Well, as per our contract, our percentage of sales will increase to X percent". Or some other kind of penalty written into the contract. That said I think in many cases developers also don't mind set release dates. If made for a big game they increase sales and it gives the company a known time when they can move programmers and such to other projects.

You know it seems silly, but the reason I stopped playing WEGO was because of the fact I had to watch the first 60 seconds. I generally ran through the first ten turns in a game of CMx1. Fortunately I didn't have an issue with real time.

Nah, they mentioned real time a long time before the game was released. On the like/hate issue, I don't think it is a WEGO/RT issue per say, though somewhat related. I think it is the level of scope you play. I don't care to do much micromanagement, rarely zoom in (and usually then for only graphics quality), and never pause. I expect people who play like that will tend to enjoy the game more (I also believe that is how Steve said he played).

Well it would probably be the done the old way. People would modify the system in place in CMx1, and then just agree to use that. Of course that was easier because there was some kind of base.

The thing about QBs, points, and why there can't be points ... The engine already picks units in QBs. It must use some kind of criteria to determine what "qualifies" as small/large/etc. for the battles. I don't know if there is any kind of buy system, or if they just choose from a list of acceptable options. But it seems all that needs to be done is open that up to the player. Unless of course it was not even remotely coded that way or what have you. But it must be doing something when it chooses. Just replace the it with the player. That might not get the full extent of options desired from the WWII game, but an improvement.

Dalem (or anyone else who wants to weigh in), Just a question to fill this information vacuum that we are in. Suppose for whatever reason 1) Random maps are impossible. 2) Point based forces are impossible. Is there some other direction/compromise to either of those two points that you would be happy with? [ November 30, 2007, 12:39 AM: Message edited by: C'Rogers ]

Well to go off the subject of CM:SF I don't think your analysis of Civ is correct. Civ 3 tried to get away/improve upon Civ 2 and was a fairly poor game (also, bug ridden much like CM:SF without the limited resource excuse). It improved over patches and two expansion packs. Civ 4 was a game that was very different than Civ 2 but turned out rather well. Maybe due to the experiences of the intervening game they learned which of their new ideas where good and which needed to go. Maybe CMx2 will go in a similar direction. That we will get something very different, but people will be quite happy with.

While I agree that the fundamentals are here to stay why do you list quick battles. That seems like it would be one of the easiest things to change (unless you are looking for random maps I guess).

A series of points I would like to touch on. 1) For the fed up people, have you never had a game disappoint you before? I certainly have. You make your comments, you see if they are going to change direction, and then you part ways. Come back in a couple months to see if there was a change (or a mod sometimes). Not to trying to chase anyone away, just saying if you don't like the model you probably won't as BFC is pretty committed to the model (as a software company they probably financially have to be). If it is only bugs that bother you (and I am always shocked that the bugs bother people so much they can't play the game) then by all means wait for the patch. 2) Serial code vs. Activation - I think we would all prefer the slightly easier serial code. However, for piracy reasons I guess, many companies are looking for alternatives. It really is not difficult, takes a couple minutes at most. 3) thewood said I don't think anyone says there aren't problems, the issue is how much they affect what you in particular are looking for. QBs are still pretty awful (to the best of my knowledge I haven't heard anyone say 'hey I like the new model better'), the documentation is not very good, and there are bugs. I have just stopped playing QBs, would like better documentation but don't need it, and never notice the bugs. It seems some people encounter a bug every couple minutes, I will play a few games and never have any problems. 4) Customer service - BFC is a small independent company. One of the key reasons people like going into business for themselves is they get to decide how to run things. If Steve thinks people are being jerks/stupid he is free to say so, it is his sales to gain/lose. For whatever purpose, whether it be productivity, enjoyment, or plain old spite, Steve has moved away from the forum. If that is what it takes for them to work harder on the patch than so be it. Outside that though BFC has provided excellent customer service. They work very hard on patches and have always been prompt (with me at least) on emails. 5) Done with it is done - Before the game was released their was people on the board begging for it, pleading for every little update imaginable. That got us 1.01. Let's just get back to the done when it is done idea.

I had a fairly angry post to make but it seems silly to do so after the calm tone used by Phillip. Geez, great going, what is this a discussion board or something?

Honestly as someone who is really looking forward to 1.05 I doubt it will change many people's opinions. I think a lot of people have a problem with the direction BFC has gone and it isn't like the core will change. With the level of some peoples complaints I doubt there is any way they will come out liking it. Personally since about 1.02 I have thought the game blew away CMx1 in terms of what I am looking for in a wargame. But I think the love it/hate it comparison threads have already run their course.

I think this all boils down to the the turn calculations. We can all say we don't care about the graphics or real time, but as I believe Steve has said those aren't critical issues to the game in terms of calculations. I think people just use them as an excuse. People (including Steve) wanted the engine to do certain things. Like have an incredibly detailed spotting system (if still buggy). Problem is there needs to be trade offs for anything. Computers may be more advanced than during CMx1 but apparently not enough to get the new features and the same resolution. We can go around in circles and say "such and such feature that I don't like is ruining the game". It is much harder to say "such and such feature I do like is ruining the game". Which goes back to the crux of the original point, was it worth it to go to 1 to 1? Personally I don't think so, but I think there are arguments for it that aren't immediately apparent.. Really I think there are three ways to explain the game. 1) The game is doing the best job it can to simulate very difficult things. 2) The game is is doing the best it can but there are still considerable workarounds/improvements that can be made. 3) 1 to 1 can be done, but BFC lacks the resources/brains to do it. I doubt the third, the question then is how far can they run with the current engine. Seeing the improvements they have made sense initial release I still think a long way.

I think this goes back to the "abstractness/imagination" issue. For example, unit darts between two houses. In Cmx1 you could say "well maybe it suffered a ton of casualties from entering the building" or "well it looks like I had a good shot but maybe the guys jumped through the window or something and I didn't get anybody". No matter what happened your mind could explain it because the unit/building was not suppose to be an exact representation. Maybe the unit in CMx1 did in fact screw up but how could we tell? Now we see a unit running around the house and circles and we slap our heads in frustration.

I was playing the game very regularly after 1.04 and then the idea seemed to go from 1.05 being a minor patch to a huge one that I just figured I would wait it out. Talking with a friend last night I threw together a quick scenario that was suppose to be easy to give him an idea of the tactics, ended up spending a couple hours playing it (and getting beat at my "easy scenario") and had a wonderful time.

Then they would have to work double time on fixing it so units could surrender. (j/k of course)

Well I guess this may also be the first post in favor of the "benefits" of the real time engine for turn based, the things ending a turn in air. Nice pic.

Well if you missed him before being banned, you can type LoneSyrian into the search field. Some of his earlier posts were interesting.

It would be somewhat amusing, and disheartening for those looking forward to the module, if they replied "Really ... ok then I guess, off to work on our other games."

Well in multiplayer I think balanced means "the better player will more often win". Or, it is all a matter of skill. To be fair I got the idea from the board game San Marco (not a war game at all, but interesting mechanisms).