C'Rogers

This is a particularly apt example. As you said there are many people trying to write children's book. Yet the Harry Potter series has far outsold all of them. Why? Many people wish they could easily connect the dots and replicate the success, but the customer isn't so clear about what they want.

Well the men doing crazy things have been taken care of from what I have played, the other things you may have to wait a long time for.

Alright, I actually think this is an idea that has never been mentioned before (though it may be getting somewhat close to how Steve plans to do QB unit selection in the future without points). One of the complaints about the game from some crowds is the lack of unit control and variability. For those who rarely played anything but CMx1 QBs this does seem to be a dramatic change to someone else choosing you units. Here is what I see as a new option without getting into a QB discussion over points. For scenarios at the moment we have a variety of AI plans. Well why not a variety of unit selection plans. A scenario designer could create multiple unit selections that could emphasize different tactics and matchup possibilities. It would be especially nice if the player was given the ability to choose which group of units he wanted to use. It also has the value of just making the AI in scenarios even more unpredictable and give good scenarios much more playability. The main problem with this is that it would be more difficult to use the 'unit victory condition'. Not necessarily impossible, but it would require juggling. I also have no real programming knowledge so don't know how hard it would be, but seems an easier solution than some of overhauls proposed.

Yeah this has been mentioned pretty much since game release. Not sure on the time of first mention but it is in Winecape's synopsis thread from two years ago. They always have planned to put in as, they term it at times, multi-multiplayer. Just hopefully by the since title release. Do a find for multiplayer

All of them?

The argument seems to be you didn't actually like CMx1, you were just tricked into liking it. The things you didn't like just weren't noticeable. Now there are less of those things that you shouldn't like (abstractions) but they are more evident because of the increases in realism.

I might be wrong, and this is a thread from years ago so the chance is likely, but I recall Steve mentioning one of the benefits of 1:1 to was engine flexibility in scope. That they could use the same engine to make any variation of company based (squad control)/battalion based (platoon control)/platoon (individual control). Maybe that was an idea that has long since disappeared. Or maybe it was just a long day at work and thinking of things that were never mentioned. BFC should then reconsider any marketing to militaries and instead look to Disney. "CM, a tool for expanding the imagination!"

Read where?

This has been brought up many times before and Steve has always said it can't be done given the nature of the game, and that comparing it to games that can is irrelevant because they are a totally different creature. For a long time it was planned (years before release it was mentioned), so they wanted to get it in without a doubt. This means one of two things. 1) Under the current/any budget it is not possible. 2) They just don't know how to do it. Personally I imagine it is the former, but either way it won't be coming up soon. But as it was one of the few features that I requested back when CMx2 was just being mentioned I wished it would. The one minute back in time for real time I haven't heard them say anything about, so maybe there.

Nothing like the miracle of aging .

Wow, I guess everyone has their own unique problems. I often feel way to overpowered as the US in terms of capability to blow stuff down.

Well there is the disclaimer encouraging everyone to try the demo before buying. As for the release date, I have a feeling the choice may have been release or be sued for breech of contract and likely put out of business (than no CMx2 ever).

Well I think NASCAR fans are the only one "get it", the rest of us don't.

Interesting. Does anyone know how BFC ended up having to sign such a contract (where Paradox tells them when CMSF will be released and not vice versa)? I imagine distributors of computer games, if they are like any kind of distributor, need time to set up things. It isn't like you can tell them the game is done and have them expect them to send it out the door the next day. BFC signed the contract well in advance, they have even said they tried to get too much in by release date. That said I really enjoyed the initial release version. This idea sounds like the "did piracy kill CMx1" thread. An idea is presented, which might be potentially feasible, but otherwise there is zero evidence of its existence.

Yeah with 5 planned games at the moment, of which 2 are suppose to be WWII, I doubt they will do WWII back to back. I imagine the fifth game, when the sales have likely lost the casual gamer anyway, will go to Eastern Front. I expect Space Lobsters before pre-20th, but those are what I expect the two after WWII to be.

If you want to design scenarios then the game has been ready since it was released. If you want to play scenarios real time then I would say the game is ready. If you want to play scenarios wego it sounds like you should wait one more patch. It you want to play quick battles then I don't know when they will have improved it (I believe they said months down the road). All just my opinion of course.

Alright just a did a quick test, 9 Syrian tanks in static position, 2 Apcahes, 1 HQ team to spot. I gave one Apache an order to point attack ground near the tanks, another to area target about 6 of the tanks. The point target came in, cannoned the ground and left with no kills. The area target heli came in, blew up a tank and continued to circle until all the tanks in his area were destroyed (a total of 8 times cause he shot two tanks twice). I then ordered a second point target, this time directly on one of the surviving tank. It destroyed it, then came around twice more but did not destroy any of the remaining tanks in the area (and they were within 50 meters). It may have been shooting at fleeing crew infantry that I couldn't see. Not a very through test but from what I saw area target works a lot better if you want the Apache circling and going after multiple targets.

I have seen Apaches take out tanks without a problem, though they will usually only do two runs (2 tanks) and seen them attack outside there area (though nothing to far). What scenario are you playing? Perhaps the helicopters were given a slim supply or equipment loadout.

Never really, no WWII module. Title on the other hand ...

I can't speak for how it might actually go in combat but I did participate in a grenade throwing contest once with members of the military (ah, the wonders of college). I was pretty amazed with their accuracy from the craziest of angles. So to answer the questions, yeah I would say that is normal from my experiences.

He was replying to Berlichtingen. Edit to add: How is it not btw? I would like to answer this as I don't have any major gripes with the new UI but would like to know what you find to be the biggest problems before I randomly start mentioning things. [ September 06, 2007, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: C'Rogers ]

In addition to the problems mentioned (why customers request things they don't like) is that on this forum we have thousands of people making requests. I never personally requested 1 to 1 detail, but a lot of people did. I personally do not find it a huge addition, a lot of people do. The thing is the people who will make the most statements are those who are not happy. I never started a post saying "Quick battle point selections are awesome, even if unrealistic, they are a huge factor in my enjoyment of the game and should never go away." Why would I? I am happy with what is in it, until I am faced with the alternative I have no judge. On the other hand if I didn't like the quick battle system I would certainly make mention "This game is so close to perfect, if only you could do something more realistic than a point selection." I might even make a post like that every month. Which in the net result means it is easy for those disgruntled with an aspect of the game to have their voice overrepresented, because they are the ones most likely to speak out. Which is, as someone who really enjoys CM:SF despites some of my disagreements with their choices, what has happened on this forum I think. I am happy with the game, and thus less inclined to post telling people how much fun I am having, what good will that do? On the other hand if there is something I am dissatisfied with I probably would make mention in the slight hope that my "improvement" can make it into the game.

For the most part I think it may be just you. But I think the names of the Modules may be misleading people a little. From what I have read (and as always, may be misinterpreting BFC) there will be a variety of things in the module. Units, terrain, weather, who knows what else. The "units" however are probably the most important part, and also the best name. That said I am sure there are hundreds of eager marketing gurus just salivating over the though of selling a product with an awesome name like "deciduous trees module".

I have given up WEGO vs. AI, whether I will make the same decision for multiplayer I don't know.

I made a map the other day with my first experience of knocking out walls. I had no problem having multiple buildings touching to make one large building that units could run through. If my experience was atypical I will look into it more to see if I did something special or just saw incorrectly.