C'Rogers

On a somewhat related note: The way I was working it with friends for balanced scenarios was this. One person creates a scenario anyway he wants. Other player chooses which side to play. Forces the creator to think from both sides and make something balanced. But time consuming if you haven't made scenarios before.

So would the AI thus in addition to calculating tank threats have to determine whether that threats could adequately be suppressed? This is where it starts getting hard to program. The main point is that every "action" that a player can take, which the TacAI takes on his part, necessitates the TacAI understanding what the player wants to happen (or what a unit would in "real life" do reflexively). Now if it is something like auto popping smoke, yeah I probably want that to happen. Sure the smoke might block a valuable unit's line of vision thus making the situation worse for the player, but the chances are low. Retreating is again an example of what I would likely want the unit to do, even if it ends up in directions I don't want. However for the TacAI choosing to dismount infantry, equip them, and have them target something seems to be going to far. I was just trying to list some of the many possible examples were the TacAI could make an incorrect interpretation.

Hard to program, probably not, but there are a lot of things that could cause frustation. For example a tank is spotted and a javelin team is released, right next to a squad of enemy infantry that had not been dangerous. They now shoot up the infantry. A player only has one javelin team and is faced with a multitude of light armor threats and a few heavy's. The player was hoping to use the javelins for the heavies (or building or whatever) but the AI uses it before he wants. A tank appears, fires, misses, and retreats. AI deploys, then remounts the infantry. Precious time is wasted when the player wanted them to move somewhere. The point is the player could have a multitude of ideas what he wants the infantry/styker to be doing. Sitting there is by no means ideal, but asking for a complex procedure could easily lead to frustration as the TacAI fights against your wishes.

From the manual "Slow is the equivalent of a crawl". It makes your units hard to spot but is absolutely exhausting.

Well I think what you just said was "I don't get it". Yes the asymmetrical setup is something very different and some people just won't like it. Personally the asymmetricalness is one of the things that allow me to just look past the flaws because I find it so enjoyable and challenging.

I thought this was more just do to a lack of grog level of knowledge of modern warfare in comparison to WWII.

Well it is a fact that they did have to release it when it was released. That has been discussed as part of the deal they signed with Paradox a few years back.

There was a discussion on this a good while before CM:SF came out. May answer the question, personally I feel CM:SF hit the fatigue model pretty well but haven't done any kind of tests. Tiring Thread

It is, but is suppose to be realistic under a very, very narrow set of circumstances. And I think what they are going for involves actual engagement of a relatively small number of troops with artillery in a supporting role. I don't know if the current objectives, as much an improvement as they are, and map sizes is enough to make that work out.

3) Actually if you look in the bar in the lower left corner, where it says "spotting", "firing", etc., it says something like casualty for units that have been knocked out.

I do think Steve brought this up a little bit long ago. I think the reason is that if the US could call in artillery without spotting what they are targeting, any type of balance between sides would be thrown out the window. Maps would need either much less artillery or much harsher penalties for destruction.

How about: BFC has made so much money off this game they don't need to work. After all the bad threads they decided it wasn't worth it anymore. Skunkworks is so busy because they are making huge vacation plans. I don't have any evidence for that of course but it based off as much proof as the current theory.

Well being we don't have a content estimate either there is a lot of ifs and maybes for the questions. As someone who really likes the game there are things the module could do that I wouldn't care to pick up. If it just adds new units I won't care to spend a lot of money (some will), new terrains/weather conditions though would get me to shell out pretty quickly. I do agree with the original poster that the module will kind of be a benchmark but depending on a couple of things what a "good" percent would be is tough to say.

Personally I expect that the modules will only get about half the people who enjoy it to purchase, many may already be played out, some may not see the benefit in putting out more money. While it depends how much time and resources they put into I would guess (without any real knowledge) that a sale rate of 25% or higher should be considered a success.

Before CM:SF I would have been in the same camp as you In fact I was ready to chuck the game after my first quick battle. Now playing scenarios and designing my own having as much fun as I did with CMx1 (and far more if only single player is considered). To the original posters Reasons you would probably like the game 1) You like the idea of having a huge deal of options in scenarios. 2) You enjoy modern/asymmetric warfare. 3) You like the idea of real time. Reasons you probably wouldn't like the game 1) You need TC/IP multiplayer 2) You would become upset if you want to be able to place squads in exact positions (trying to place along corners or move along walls). 3) You would highly dislike occasionally seeing impossible shots (through walls). Personally I really enjoy the game. I can't express enough how much I appreciate the ability to continually change the battle nature. One battle I can do an even armor engagement, next can be an infantry on mechanized with the mechanized being unable to take any real casualties, and then I could make an infantry on infantry, where one team is assaulting but must also protect its headquarters at all costs. No more just fighting for flags has made the game a huge leap, in my eyes at least, obviously there are huge disagreements. There are still bugs so if you wish to wait feel free, but I am glad I preordered it.

To narrow down the key point of costard's post: Giving no quarter would likely make your own troops less inclined to fight. IE. I'm a solider, not a murderer.

Really? Wow, I gave CMx1 maybe ten tries single player and only a single time found it somewhat enjoyable. On the other hand CM:SF single player I have found excellent.

They have discussed implementing this as an option. Last I (vaguely) recall they were hoping to get it in later down the road (post WWII), but haven't heard anything in awhile.

Can't say I do. Went back and tried a multiplayer game and was surprised how much I disliked it.

Going to bump my own thread with some more ideas, again things I don't think have come up much. And again, no programming knowledge, so not sure on how difficult they would be. Baked Scenarios Allow the deploying of smoke. Creating an already going on battle would be helped by the ability to put down some potential cover. Also, and this may make the file sizes to big, would it possible that a scenario could be played hotseat by its creator and then made a bake at some point. This would allow bullets to actually be flying when the player takes over. Scenario Victory Conditions Casualty Parameters - There are a few different ways I think this could be done that would make some more improvement to an already good system (the thresholds). 1) Allow the creation of multiple threshold. 10% a certain number of points, 30% another, 70% another or whatever. This way a player could be penalized for low causalities and then hit with higher and higher amounts. At the moment in creating scenarios I run into situations where I want to say "command is willing to accept a 10% loss rate, 25% is bearable, 45% will be very bad, and 60% will mean that the battle is almost guarnteed to be considerd a loss. 2) A more simple approach that could also be useful would be to allow points to be awarded/subtracted multiple points a threshold is hit. For example 100 points are awarded for every 5% of the enemy force as casualty. This would be useful for scenarios were wiping out any portion of the enemy force is considered useful, or for even fight scenarios (red v red). This could be used for ammo as well (every five percent of your ammo you extend takes 25 points) Ammo The ability to specify certain types of ammo as more valuable than others (ie javelins) when calculating ammo totals for points. Destroy/Preserve For destroy and preserve objectives allow some way to specify how much/how little damage needs to be done. If a US is attacking a city there might be reasons they can't shoot up a mosque and an empty school. Well if the school is left standing then that probably meets the objective, but one stray bullet into a mosque might be enough to consider the battle a loss Withdraw The old withdraw option could be useful. In some scenarios the red players main objective is to inflict casualties. If they succeed they may just wish to withdraw. Purchasing Being able to purchase a selected unit out of a larger option in the purchase screen would be nice. Because most purchases are done by battalion there is often a lot of deleting. So instead of buying the battalion, opening it up, and deleting every thing but one company, it would be nice to open it up in the purchase screen and just buy the company there. Not a game issue but a time saver. Just some ideas. Not necessarily the most critical and all scenario related, but things that I believe haven't come up and could be nice improvements over an already nice system.

Without a doubt, however it a perception issue. On the CMC boards many of the players had always played two player, and thus always talked to people who only played two player. Thus it seems like the whole world played like them.

Um ... I may be off but wasn't WEGO not included in TC/IP due to technical reasons. They have said since the beginning they want to get something in, however they are still working on what exactly they can do. If they didn't think WEGO had any merit they wouldn't have bothered coding it at all. Personally I have only played real time. I have never had a desire to play games of more than a company size (even in CMx1 WEGO). I find it quicker and don't think I have ever paused for a reason besides getting up for a drink.

To make the game near perfect there are probably hundreds of commands we are missing (probably ten to twenty have been requested on the forum). Problem is that move did work correctly in this situation, the units spread out and assume they won't come under fire (a valid move command). There is a lack of any command between a speed of 'don't hurry', an expectation of 'possible danger' and a formation of 'stick together'.

When I first played the game I had totally forgotten that their was a dedicated place button. I just presumed, I guess like BFC, to use a movement command to move them around the setup zone. Seemed obvious to me, but more than one person has been thrown off.

I find this amusing in relation to the thread on CMC from awhile back how single player was not necessary.