GSX
-
Posts
938 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by GSX
-
-
Wow--I was tired of this game after two multiplayer battles. Game has been out for 6 months and it still doesn't work as the numerous bug threads all (correctly) point out.Originally posted by Nemesis Lead:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Duke d'Aquitaine:
Anyway guys, I just felt I needed to vent my opinion after lurking for years here since my last post. I just never tire of this game..
If I remember the URL of one of the CMSF fan websites and multiplayer ladders, I will send you the link.
Oh wait--there aren't any. Why would that be? CMSF is the best wargame ever, isn't it? </font>
-
Id go with the anthology too if you can lay your hands on it.
Of course for CMAK there are a ton of Westfront Mods worth getting too.
-
So what's changed since the 21st September? Then you said:Originally posted by Melnibone:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GSX:
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. Nothing whatesoever in a Marine Module will make me buy it.
http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=003023;p=3#000059 </font>Totally agree. The game is OK for what it is. BF never said it would be any more. I simplu played it and moved on as I suspect its meant to be. I will see what the next module has to offer and maybe play that too.Lighten up and enjoy it for what it is and stop crying about what it isnt. If I can get round this fact anyone can, believe me.....
-
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. Nothing whatesoever in a Marine Module will make me buy it.
Looking forward to a WW2 version, however, a word to BFC. Youve used up your reputation on me with this game and so you wont be getting an automatic sale. I will try the demo and read the reviews and if it has improved I will buy it.
Word 2, get your act together and get that right Mouse button working instead of all those stupid hotkeys [which I never use anyway].
Cheers for the game. Looking forward to your next one.
GSX
-
OK, after re-installing and playing thru a few campaign games again I am very satisfied by the improvements. This is what maybe should have been released in time for xmas. Thanks to BF for sticking in there, though its not perfect it is now actually playable as a game, rather than a sim.
Still a few niggles with commands and menus and hot keys that make RT play a chore at times but I think I can now recommend a game that plays.
Low wall LOS blocking is a pain but on the whole, well done.
-
Sounds like the other Strykers didn't spot the T-72 before they were killed, therefore they didn't react. This is working as intended. Let me explain what I mean by that before anybody thinks the wrong thingOriginally posted by Battlefront.com:Thewood,
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I am still not getting Strykers to react at all to being slaughtered by tanks. I have six Strykers sitting behind some woods. A T-72 comes up on them 400 meters away and proceeds to plug each one over a two turns (two minutes) with only one Stryker crew going to nervous when its the last Stryker alive. No smoke, no evasion, no retreat, no anything. 5 of the Strykers were dead before the first turn ended.
There is a big difference between a unit sensing danger to itself directly and indirectly. Directly covers a range of things such as getting plinked, seeing a threat before it does something, etc. Indirectly is perceiving a threat based on a threat to someone else. They are two entirely different things.
CMx1 and CMx2 only have "direct" threat assessment, neither have "indirect" threat assessment. This is because indirect is a HUGE ball of wax with tons of potential problems that would have to be coded around. For example, one Stryker sees a Stryker killed by an RPG hit. Should it bugger off or stand its ground? Should it even know that what sort of enemy may be responsible, or should it just presume the worst and take off? Or maybe it knows it is in a safe spot and doesn't have to worry about the threat at the moment as long as it stays still? And if it does move, where should it move? I mean, if it doesn't see the thing that shot at the Stryker, how can it intelligently avoid getting shot at? It just keeps going on and on and on like that. Even worse, what if the vehicle indirectly sensing danger is an Abrams and the vehicle shot up is a Stryker? Now danger has to be relative to what possible damage may result from acting/not acting.
In short, indirect threat assessment is not an easy thing to code successfully. Which is why in 10 years we've never even tried to do anything about it
Will we do something in the future? I wouldn't rule it out, but it isn't on the front burner.Steve </font>
-
SO the patch is downloading onto my HD right now. We shall see......
I must say though that for a 6 month old game the list of fixes seems somewhat embarrassing.
Let you all know soon as I plan to re-install the game to test it out again.
-
Wow, I came over here for a bit of peace from the SF Forums and guess what. Its real guys talking about the mechanics of a great game.
Keep it up! Its refreshing.
-
Dave there you go youve made me break my word in 2 hours.
Flawed means that I cant play it right now. Flawed means that when I tell a vehicle to go somewhere it doesnt. Flawed means that 3 conscript Syrians who in real life couldnt hit a Cows Arse with a Banjo, suddenly kill my whole Squad from 200 yards thru 20 feet of hill. Flawed means that when I order a Squad out of a Stryker and into a door 5 yards away, they dont run all the way round the Block. Flawed means that when I use tried and tested infantry tactics straight out of the manual of infantry tactics my Squad will do as they are told and not cower in the open. Flawed means that when a Stryker turns a corner and spots a T-72 it does not stop to admire the sleek lines of the Tank but moves its arse rapidly backwards.
Now I enjoyed SF for what it was/is, a neat little throw away game to be played in RT with modern US forces. But simulation it isnt, I for one have never in my whole military life witnessed any of the things I stated above.
I will re-load the game when the majority of guys here tell me it plays without the above flaws, then I will come back to this once great forum and say 'hey BF, I was wrong and youve got it right'.
BTW, the car analogy was only there as Steve is very fond of his car analogies to describe how we 'Dont get it'.
Cheers and I hope I have answered some of your questions as this time I am gone until SF is playable[FOR ME].
-
Yeah, but who said we didn't fix the things you are most concerned about? All I said was we don't want to release the patch when we know there is a significant problem because (based on prior experience) some "loyal customers" are too eager to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Currently the problem we're trying to fix doesn't have anything to do with major issues, but it would likely become a major issue if we didn't fix it for v1.05.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:If I don't say anything about the patch some people get upset and unpleasant. If I start talking about the patch some people get upset and unpleasant. And some people wonder why I didn't want to post until v1.05 was out the door
GSX,
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Im sorry Steve but thats the kind of Bollocks talk that puts me off coming here. If you fix 60 things but dont fix the most important one, the whiners as you call them, loyal customers to some, will still not be pleased.
BTW, I do not consider people that personally abuse me, CM, or Battlefront to be "loyal customers". Just because someone pays some money for CM doesn't mean they have the right to be insulting or abusive. I don't expect loyal customers to be kiss asses, but I also don't expect them to go out of their way to be unpleasant. People that go ballistic on us are just "customers".
I'm not insulting the customer base, just those who insist on being unnecessarily pissy when they don't get EXACTLY what they want out of a patch. Bad attitudes are never helpful. If you don't have a bad attitude remember there are a few people on this Forum, so chances are I'm speaking about someone other than you.So it would be nice if instead of insulting your customer base you just fixed the bloody game I paid you for.Steve </font>
-
Im sorry Steve but thats the kind of Bollocks talk that puts me off coming here. If you fix 60 things but dont fix the most important one, the whiners as you call them, loyal customers to some, will still not be pleased.It gets the whiners cranked up because the 60 things we fixed aren't good enough because of the 1 thing that isn't fixed.So it would be nice if instead of insulting your customer base you just fixed the bloody game I paid you for.
Cheers.....
-
Crawl of Death [CoD] would be one of mine. That and running 4 block to enter a building that has a doorway 3ft from the Stryker. Also LOS/LOF problems. Fix those three and you have the makings of a nifty little game. Then get Strykers to haul ass when confronted by a T-something and not fire little bullets at it and your on the way to a winner.
Fix none of the above and just do some more peripherals and it wont be any better what so ever.
Hopefully we will see the former and I will re-install the game on my HD becuase until they are fixed the game will remain unplayable and more to the point mal-simulated.
-
Hmm, mental note, be more specific.... I meant that in CMSF there is NO water, no ponds, rivers, bridges, beaches, waterfalls, sprinklers, I think your get the drift..... So how do you simulate a beach assault without the amphibs etc. If not what you are left with is much the same as a Stryker unit isnt it?Originally posted by YankeeDog:You need to recheck your geography there, my friend. Syria actually has a substantial amount of water. The Euphrates River runs through Northern Syria, and it also has a substantial chunk of Mediterranean seacoast. In fact, it has more seacoast relative to its total area that Iraq does, and the Marines were intimately involved in both Iraq invasions.
A amphibious assault element to a hypothetical invasion of Syria is not only possible, I would submit that it is quite likely.
Cheers,
YD
As I understand it the Marines have much the same weaponry and equipment, an LAV is essentially a Stryker. A Cobra is essentially an Apache [for CM purposes] and they all call in similar air [Harrier excluded]. A Marine squad is slighly bigger but the infantry weaponry is the same.
So, what benefit and addition to gameplay would the addition of what is essentially a Marine Mod without the amphibs, hovercraft and beach landings bring.
Before buying it I certainly would like my question answered.
-
Not trying to sound deliberately pessemistic, but what if anything will a Marine Module actually bring to the game?
The equipment of the Marines is not so different from the Army that I'm not sure it will be worth the bother to purchase. I'm not even sure realistically that they would be involved in the War fighting part of a mission into Syria. Well, as there is no water in Syria in SF, theyre definately not going to assault from the sea!
[ December 09, 2007, 07:34 AM: Message edited by: GSX ]
-
Just wonder if you think its a fair representation of your countries armed forces. Also wondering if you think its fair to paint you as the bad guys here.
-
I dont see a non US module any time soon (within the next 2 years). The revenue would be very limited for BFC. The bad choice of game setting doesnt really add to anything by including French etc.
Actually, they would have been better fixing this thing in Afghanistan, a lot of NATO is there and it would have been a better representation of modern insurgency warfare.
-
Any ideas on what the Marines will bring? If its just a few vehicles that are vaguely the same I dont think you should waste your time. If the game isnt fixed, no one is going to buy the Module.
-
Effing good point. Why complicate what was really simple before. I have no answer and seemingly BFC has no answer as well.Originally posted by Spindry69:I only use the mouse and that is really irritating with the present menu system. I wish BFC would bring back the CMx1 right click and scroll menu.
Mouse menus are the way to go in RTS. If this is supposed to be a good RTS then you should be able to play it just with a Mouse.
-
Seems strange to me that Mr Dorosh was one of the field testers for this game, and even he seems to have disappeared from this site, maybe he has fallen on his sword?
-
Yes BFC is being clever. Whatever their definition of that is.
Probably too late for that game saving patch. They are all likely in the Caribbean spending the money they raked in. Good luck to them too. Mines a Baccardi!
-
It all boils down to perspective.
If your on the side of the IED bomber then its perfectly reasonable and fulfilling to blow the **** out of your enemy, even though this means a few civilians get blown as well, its all for the cause anyway and those civilians that are on your side will understand.
One guys freedom fighter has always been another guys insurgent/terrorist/whatever. I suppose the French Resistance never killed any French Civilians when they blew up a train in WW2? Or that Allied bombers never killed any non Germans either, I'm sure they did plenty.
Assymetrical warfare has been around since the dawn of warfare, we just like to think that we in the West have a monoploly on deciding whats done and what shouldnt be.
War is Pants.........
-
I dont see it like that at all. What all people want is a game that is playable out of the box. A game that builds on the great reputation of CM games gone before. A game that is simple and intuitive to play, with easy 1 click controls and readily playable using just the mouse and a couple of keys. Hmm, thats what CM 1 was and I thought it would be imporved upon. How the heck didnt they just put in sub menus on the mouse right click button? RTS guys traditionally play with just the Mouse alone.Originally posted by flamingknives:What some people want is actually CM:SF in WW2 with ten years of bughunting and modifications.
What we have with this game is a strange hybrid that tries to be everything and ends up doing nothing well. Its not RTS or WEGO and is dammned hard to PBEM. To use a Steve analogy;
'Its like designing a new car. You have to stick to the approved car design format, no one is going to live with the sudden idea that the steering wheel should be in the back seat. And when they are sitting in the back seat trying to drive, no amount of telling them that the product is great and they are just resisting change is going to work.
However, if it drives great from the front, no one cares what the engine is doing under the hood.'
The game is neither 'Fish nor Fowl' and I think that this [in addition to the bugs which I am confident will go away] is what turns a lot of people from both the traditional WEGO and the traditional RTS Camps off it.
So I agree with Zemke too. Seems like most CMers on various CM sites do too and I dont hear any buzz about it on RTS sites either. The only place I see it talked about is here and sadly for all the wrong reasons. I'd much rather be reading about the best way to assault a building than the latest LOS failure or how the interface is weildy and a step backward.
I may add that the game was enjoyable for a while, but I have long since removed it from my HD and wont be buying any modules for it. I will also wait a long time before buying any CM-2 Engined game, I'm not convinced that it really is the best thing to drive from the back seat.
-
That's actually a good question. I consider myself a die-hard CM fan.Originally posted by ParaBellum:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dalem:
Who is playing this game?
-dale
When I got CM:SF I was really thrilled about all the new features and possibilities. Started playing the campaign but quickly switched to creating maps and scenarios. Run into lots of problems with the AI and got frustrated. Tried to continue the campaign, but honestly, playing the AI has always been kinda boring for me. Unfortunately I got quickly fed up with multiplayer due to me missing all the fun in Realtime mode, and WeGo being a royal pain in the butt compared to the perfect game system in CMx1. And then there's still the "US vs Syria"-thing that doesn't really interest me...
During the development of CM:SF I really hoped that BFC wouldn't fix the things that were already working fine in CMx1. Above all I hoped that they would not "overcomplicate" the game. The moment I saw the GUI I knew my worst fears had come true...
So, where am I right now? I don't consider CM:SF a bad game. Not at all. But compared to the fun I had (and still have) with CMx1 it's simply a collosal disappointment at the moment. I actually haven't touched the game for the last two weeks.
</font> -
If all a Marine Module does is add a few similar US units then no sale here.
This game has been lying idle on my PC for months now, I dont even have the inclination to fire it up as I know that 1/2 way into any scenario I will be bored with it.
The initial excitement of firing of my Javelin has long since dwindled into another also ran game.
I liken CM-1 to Bat Out of Hell. Meatloaf never quite got there with subsequent albums. BF could do anything for you, but they wont do CM etc....
</font>
My review: CM:SF is the best wargame out there
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Confused here, are you agreeing with the Wood in being dissapointed that the game hasnt been good enough to get a following in the established CM community or are you disapointed that the CM community as a whole has appeared to be dissatisfied with the game and not taken to it.
Surely the worth of a game should be reflected in the community that embraces it? Then again, maybe I dont get it and the game is solely meant for single play?
Answers on a Post Card!