GSX
-
Posts
938 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by GSX
-
-
I will re-install the game tonight then apply new patch. Sounds very promising.
-
In essence isnt WEGO simply an RT pause that enables you to send an email? Camera minute aside, is WEGO simply this?Originally posted by Steiner14:@Steve/Battlefront,
i think Cid250 makes some very good points about the negative impact of RT on WEGO. You know, WEGO-players want the best possible AI and the highest possible realism.
I understand perfectly, that it is impossible to implement things for WEGO-only, since the engine is RT.
So my idea is the following: could it be a solution, to make a kind of "maximum AI and LOS/LOF" mode, that is optional for the engine itself?
That way, WEGO players would get the highest possible realism with the best Tac- and Strat-AIs possible AND RT-players could use that, too, if they can accept the slowdowns or hickups.
A minute is a long time to leave you guys without any orders as I have seen when testing WEGO Vs RT. When playing the same scenario with both I get much better results in RT as I can pause the RT but of course not have to leave my forces to their own devices for a minute.
Example of this is a Stryker drives up a slope and spots a T-72 on the far hill. In RT, I can pause, order it to reverse and it usually will. In WEGO it gets to the top, dithers around, tries to engage with its puny MG and then its fate is in the lap of the Gods. The AI should slam that baby into reverese surely?
Anyway, if WEGO is a giant pause, why not just have pausable RT with a 1 minute rewind facility? I'm not even sure that this is possible, just thinking of a way around some of the RT to WEGO difficulties.
-
Not really a good thing to have. Preplanned arty is very accurate. So you start your arty, jump your guy into a vehicle and you can use this accurate arty at some future point.
-
Gamey as a Fox!
-
Yeah, go figure! We obviously underestimated your intelligence. Sorry about that, it won't happen againOriginally posted by Battlefront.com:GSX,
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />BF has a reputation of quality. CMx1 was simple, but could be complicated. one of the things that made the learning curve was the ability to play it with the mouse, the people who made SF are the very ones that made CM. Go figure eh?
Nobody playtested CM:SF. We had a monitor on in front of a bunch of lab rats and took notes to see if any died during the experience. Since none did, we figured everything was fine and we figured it was perfect.Also, who playtested this thing?????Did anyone playtest it who had never played CMx1? Did anyone playtest it who had only played RT games?
Yet you doSorry, I dont really mean to come off as negative,
No, that's just the way you wish to perceive it. The way I perceive it is people come into discussions like this with a bad attitude and a big chip on their shoulder. Until that chip is knocked off there can't be a meaningful discussion. The most common chip is "CMx1 was perfect and you screwed it all up". Since it's a big lie that chip needs to come off first before I can take anything that person says seriously. Or if they refuse to let it go, then I know I'm dealing with someone who values his own opinions too highly and therefore is probably someone I can't please no matter what since I can't tailor a game to any one individual person.I just dont understand a lot of things to do with this game amd none of the reasons behind the decisions evr seem to be explained, except the attitude I get that Cmx1 = bad and SF=good and no matter what anyone says to the contrary anyone who doubts this is branded as just not getting it.
They always are. Which is why I need to keep harping on the fact that CMx1 was a dead end and radical change was needed. I'm not saying that we got everything right with CM:SF, or even the underlying CMx2 engine, however we got far more right than wrong. All we need to do is change a few things here and there and I think the majority of critics today will change their tune tomorrow. But donning the thick rose colored glasses and wielding CMx1 as if it is a holy book is going to do nothing productive.At the end of the days I suppose the sales figures will be the bottom line here.As I've said, the CMx2 UI was tailor made for the CMx2 game engine. That's why it doesn't look like CMx1 or any other game. CMx2 shares common features with wargames, RTS, and FPS games. Therefore, any one UI from any one particular game will FAIL in CMx2. It has to be a novel mixture of various elements, therefore we all need to figure out how to get those elements together so the bulk of people can be at least moderately happy with the UI. There will never be full agreement on UI features, and that is about as humbling a position one can find himself in. It would be good for the players to be in this mindset as much as us otherwise compromise will be impossible to find.
Steve </font>
-
Constructive as ever. </font>Originally posted by Melnibone:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GSX:
The UI of SF could have been designed by someone who has never played a PC game before, let alone a wargame.
-
Heres what I think. The CMx1 UI was surely better for RT play???? After all it could be played very quickly just by using the Mouse and occassionaly the spacebar.
The UI of SF could have been designed by someone who has never played a PC game before, let alone a wargame.
No amount of CM-1 bashing by its makers will convince me that this game has actually brought anything new gameplay wise to the genre [sure graphics are way slicker and I can play RT].
This UI for me[and for all of my friends] is a definite step backwards.
Maybe someone should produce one of those cards you get with flight sims that fit over the keyboard so that you can use it to learn all of the hot keys?
-
Id be interested to know what things never will get into the game. You obviously have a good idea right now, so to stop me and others bitchin for ever about it, can you tell us now.
Cheers.
At the very very least Id like the right click on a unit bring up some kind of menu as to what that unit can do. This would be a real cool addition, is this a possibility?
-
I'm in the Steve Camp for liking a challenge. But I like it within context so I dont get too excited for Blue Vs Blue, although it would make for the perfect balance in a QB.
One thing that may be fun though was if my M1's appeared to the enemy as say T-80s and my US troops appeared as Red ones. I think the concept was introduced in the game Americas Army where you played as the US but saw your enemey as OPFOR! I dont know how easy that is to represent but would keep some realism.
-
Well I have only played SF in RT. Tried WEGO for PBEM play and never got a game going really as it wasnt very good. I dont think theres much point in WEGO for single play as the pause button is there, plus a reduced scale would totally avoid what McIvan is on about as you would see all of your force.
Controlling 30-50 men and a few vehicles would be much more satisfying I think than trying to control 300 men in RT, which, if playing IP, is just not feasible to do properly.
Having an RT IP pause just wouldnt work in my opinion for the reasons others have stated. I dont see the problem that a reduced scale would take away any of the simulation aspect of the game, if anything I think it may add to it. You can focus on your force to hand and use tried and tested tactics to complate a mission without the bother of Arty or Air, I know some guys like them but the majority I speak to would prefer manageable gameplay instead.
-
Not so.
I would love a game that I described, very tactical and with the ability to control all the forces I see in Real time. I think it would play great and the reduced scale would give most PCs the ability to play it.
I'd rather see WEGO dropped for the sake of a much better game.
Im a gamer, and I will play anything that is enjoyable, right now for me, and my friends SF isnt enjoyable. Thats the crux for me. I enjoy Cmx1, Rome TW, COD4, Halo and Warhammer. Right now Warhammer is much more enjoyable that CMx2. But CMx2 has the potential to be something different.
[ January 19, 2008, 01:54 PM: Message edited by: GSX ]
-
Originally posted by H.W. Guderian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GSX:
CM-WW2
Just a suggestion.
Forget WEGO and PBEM. It clearly doesnt work that well and if the game was designed for RT concentrate on this solely.
[snip]
Also if you designed the game around RT dont hobble it to accomodate WEGO [nor try to have a bastardised WEGO just for the sake of it].
How bout this equally (in)valid, selfish, and flippant suggestion?
Forget RT and concentrate on WEGO and everything else that made the CMX1 series such a joy and success?
Just a suggestion.
</font> -
Ooh ladies! Very Catty.Originally posted by Paper Tiger:Wow, you've just finished saying most of this about WEGO and RT in the "My review. CMSF is the best wargame out there" thread claiming that you were misled about the game and you got a solid reply from Steve. You must be very bitter about the perceived (from YOUR viewpoint) lack of support for WEGO to bring up the same thing again.
It's a bit of a shame that ToW doesn't have WEGO. The scale of that game sounds more to your taste but it's RT.
As to your point about QB's being more like the CMx1 experience, you surely MUST have read by now that that's exactly what BFC are planning for WW2. Agree with you about the loss of the right click menu but it's gone man, and we just have to get over it.
I was merely voicing my opinion of the WW2 version and how I would like to see it. Sorry if I have come across as negative. I firmly believe that the suggestions I made would make the game much more playable [for me and perhaps a lot of others].
For instance in RT a Mouse menu would make much more sense. The reduced scale would make it slicker and more enjoyable and dropping WEGO would give the designers a lot less hassle as they have already said its designed in RT mode.
I'm being serious here and not flippant I really do think that if they head for full RT the game will be great.
It would be nice to hear some constructive thoughts instead of girlie comments though.
-
CM-WW2
Just a suggestion.
Forget WEGO and PBEM. It clearly doesnt work that well and if the game was designed for RT concentrate on this solely.
Concentrate the focus more. Instead of Coy based make it Plt based with a few add ons [uS Ard Inf platoon with say 3 Shermans Vs a dug in German Plt] Little or no off-board Arty, make it very tactical. Soldiers not only have 1-1 representation but they are modelled to have individual LOS/LOF.
Upgrade the UI, make it Mouse based so that right clicking on a unit brings up a main menu and highlighting a main command brings up a sub menu.
Make a QB more akin to the CM-1 experience.
Games could be played where you control your whole force in view, no more pausing every 30 secs to find out what your other platoons are up to and IP games would be less weildy, and perhaps, more fun.
I really do think that the scale in SF takes a lot of the enjoyment out of it and reducing this scale would go a long way to improving the RT experience. Also if you designed the game around RT dont hobble it to accomodate WEGO [nor try to have a bastardised WEGO just for the sake of it].
[ January 18, 2008, 02:17 AM: Message edited by: GSX ]
-
Surely to participate in a ladder you would need the game installed. On 21st December (3 whole weeks ago)you said:Originally posted by Melnibone:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GSX:
....I wouldn't mind joining an SF ladder with more than 6 guys on it.
Did you get a bigger hard drive for Christmas? </font>Well Ive yet again uninstalled this game from my PC. No more installations for me now. After 6 months I just cant be arsed with it anymore to be honest. -
OK mate. You got me there, I forgot the party line is SF is unpopular because its not ww2.Originally posted by rune:gsx,
Being on the beta team, I have played more multiplayer then anyone else, both pbem and tcp/ip on my home network. So to answer, yes I HAVE played multiple times pbem. That 2 games on mainly WWII sites have been played doesn't surprise me. How many players are there on the web sites for CMSF?
Rune
Please give me the links to all of the SF sites that you have as I wouldn't mind joining an SF ladder with more than 6 guys on it.
Cheers
-
My point being this; if you were up front from the inception of CMSF that it was designed primarily as an RTS game and had stated that in the first post of the first thread, wouldnt that have been better.First off, CMx2 has nothing in common with RTS games, nor does it have anything in common with FPS games. So I'm not sure where to go with your question because it doesn't make any sense. Well, except for the second part. We did create a new Forum for CM:SF, which is the one you are posting in now When we start discussing WW2 we'll create a new Forum for that one as well.Steve
Now, I dont consider myself biased either way. I enjoy RTS games, ww2 games, ww3 games, 2d games and even FPS games. Basically I'm easy to plaese as long as the gameplay is there. Sure if given a choice of wargame I will probably migrate to ww2 but its not paramount.
To state that SF has nothing in common with other RTS games cannot be entirely true as the very fact that it is RTS gives it instant commonality. Now where it differs vastly is obvious, there is no traditional mining for resources and building up a force of units and 25 infantrymen can shoot at a tank all day and they wont kill it.
Instead in SF you have to concoct a plan and execute it with the available forces to achieve your given objective within a fixed timescale. Its still real time though and because its much more complicated than other RTS games requires much more micro management.
My whole point is, why didnt you mention this at the start, why did I have to find out after I'd bought the game that the game wasnt built around WEGO?
Which leads me straight into a reply to Rune:
In theory you may be right, however, have you tried to PBEM the game? As far as Im aware less than ten games have been completed in 2 seperate communities so far, thats after 6 months. Personally I havent been able to play this against an opponent so far and no one I know has either.And amazingly, I see a multi-player option in CMSF. So where did single player rts come from?Rune
Anyway, the point I'm making here isnt about game playability or game bashing, its simply this:
At some point BF knew that they were designing an RT game and at no point before its release did I see any mention of this whatever, please feel free to correct me if I am wrong though and I will apologise.
-
Except, in a game that is aimed at single player RTS you would only be cheating yourself surely.Originally posted by rune:Yes it would be a problem, as eventually CMX1 ran into it when one supposedly cracked the file and would cheat to win on ladder games. It would be worse if everyone could go in and change the stats. I remember a lot of the early fps that ran into the same problems with people cheating with weapons, enhancing range and etc. Why do you think games went to punkbuster? Punkbuster is a pain in the butt, but necessary for a lot of people.
If people can cheat, they will cheat.
Rune
-
I suppose one could argue that this was bound to happen on a CM-1 forum which was dedicated to ww2 games and populated by gamers who liked the genre. After all for many years they were your core customer.Look back when we made the announcement that CMx2's first game was to be Modern, then look at the years of droning on and on about how boring it would be, not fun, unchallenging, lopsided, stupid, etc. Tons of threads about this stuff. Inevitably, those posters also tried to convince us of the inherent superiority of the WW2 setting.Possibly it may have been a better idea to start a whole new forum from the conception of CMSF, have stated your intent to make it primarily RTS and made it available to those that had no primary interest in ww2.
A sort of bottom up approach?
-
Thats why Call of Duty 4 is doing so piss poor at the moment.Is it?Originally posted by gautrek:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
From our perspective we figured the community invo
1. The subject matter. There is a cult like worshiping of WWII vehicles, uniforms, and just about everything else. The ones who "worshiped" WWII the most are likely to be the most active doing things like mods and scenarios. They are also the ones least likely to have an interest in playing CM:SF. Modern combat doesn't have "cult status" and therefore fewer people are inherently interested in spending all their free time on one game.
Steve
Oh no wait a minute its selling millions of units world wide.
I got this for my lad on his new X box and am thinking of buying it for my PC.Yet i'm one who you say worships WWII stuff. </font>
-
Thanks for the frank answers Steve, although I have to say that reduced community right now means non-existent. However I still have high hopes for future games and hope for the return of a few Mouse menus.......... You never know........ I can dream.......
-
Hmm, intriguing...... The Crew are spotted by a high flying US F15-E who immediately relay the information by live TV link to the Commanders Humvee, he watches the crew and the tanks then calls up his 120mm mortar team with the co-ordinates for a couple of rounds. Alternatively he authorises his FAC to give the F15 the go ahead to drop a JDAM from 20000 feet. Just as the crew starts to mount its tank the weapon hits. The US commander turns from his TV screen and mumbles 'fools'.
Modern war is a bugger!
[ January 09, 2008, 10:34 AM: Message edited by: GSX ]
-
That sums me up mate. I think you may have hit the nail on the head, its a chore to play and the interface seems stuck between one designed for RTS and one designed for PBEM. I like my RTS games as simple as they come so that I can react instantly to changing situations. Perhaps future iterations may make a lot more use of the Mouse.Originally posted by c3k:As for me, I find it is WORK to play this game.
I blame some of that on the GUI. Sure, you can invest a lot of time into it, but I don't have/want to put that much time into learning the GUI.
Part is also the SIMULATION aspect.
I am a former active duty member and current reservist. I keep up on military matters. Yet, I find that the icons, weapons, interactions and uses of the various weapons and inventory items is hard to learn. For example, how do I get my guys NOT to use their AT-4's? Why don't Javelins get used? What are the timing issues involved in MOVE for a Stryker, combined with UNLOAD and ASSAULT? Etc.
Implementation of a tactical idea is hard. This revolves around coordination.
I like WEGO. This game is real-time with a fudge to implement WEGO.
There is a dearth of battles and true campaigns.
Quick battles is broken when compared to the QB system is CMx1.
There are a lot of quirks and bugs.
Yet, I still WANT this to be a good GAME.
Hoping for v1.06,
Ken
Over at the World at War website we have only had 2 games completed in the 6 months since the game came out and asking around for community opinions garnered the fact that they just didnt like the way the game played or the way that it was published with so many Bugs.
Its a real shame as this game is potentially very innovative, if a little dull.
-
Yes. Leading to a question, not just for you.
Why hasnt CM SF caught on in the communities that you would have expected it to thrive in?
What is the fundemental reason that it just hasnt caught on I wonder!
First impressions of 1.06
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Well so far so good. That spacebar is amazing, just think, all the commands at a touch of a button.
Just think a few short days ago there wasnt going to be a menu of commands because the hotkeys were freekin ace. Well the spacebar beats the hotkeys hands down, probably the best improvement for me in the whole patch. That and the fact that a Stryker saw a T-72 and actually reversed pronto.
I really hope its not too late for the game though, 7 months later it plays quite well now. I would recommend it to anyone, especially at £15 here in the UK. Now thats a bargain.....
Next I shall try a human opponent. Thats the big test for me as Ive never completed one yet...