[Improvements over Shock Force?]

Aside from these very subtle changes I find it hard to tell much difference in "feel." But, then I played a lot of Red side CMSF. So, it seems all very familiar. I wonder if most players never played the Red side before CM:Afghanistan.

I agree with this point. But I find it much more forgiving when it comes to fire and movement.

Alhtough it has been argued that you may be able to Mod this game when NATO arrives, if it has the same features, Im not convinced anyone would have done it.

What I like:

Tanks going through low walls, very nice addition and if back ported in NATO, or side ported or whatever will actually make going back and playing CMSF scenarios again more interesting (although shooting the walls down works OK most of the time).

Less lethality enables your forces to move about a bit more and you dont have to worry about that ATGM etc killing you the minute it sees you.

As stated above, I like the dirtied up building models although I would liked to have seen building more representative of Afghan compounds etc.

The new air and arty options.

What I dont like:

Same old infantry model, though I appreciate that will be there for a while.

Hating the bridges though, bridges they are not and the water is just a grey thing that you cant ford as it appears to be impassible.

Feels like a Mod though, but as I said who would have if Snowball hadnt?

[HQs in CM:Normandy]

Thinking about the command thing, for Normandy, as I agree with others that modern troops, especially Blue have very good comms.

Would it be possible to have the floating unit Icon change colour, say gray out, when the unit is out of command for Normandy? This would give an obvious on screen unit reference for all of your units at once. This would be very handy for RT play as you often have other things to worry aboutinstead of clicking on each unit. I see it working as the coloured lines in the CM-1 games.

[PBEMy Awesomeness]

Until recently I had played a total of two PBEMs, one in CMBO and one in CMAK. They were ok, but really didn't do much for me. A couple days after release Elvis invited me to play one in CM:A (it's on hold at the moment)...and Dietrich and I started one (CMSF) the other night. Man, you talk about a blast. What an entirely different experience a human makes. Matching wits with you...the sneakiness, the shifting of forces, the little surprises that pop up and make you crap your diaper...it is wicked.

You ever have that thing going on, where you are away from the comp, probably talking to your squeeze or listening to your boss run his chops about something...and your mind starts shifting to thoughts of how you are gonna take out that MG position, or how great it's gonna be when the arty strike you called on turn five shows up and flattens some punks hiding in a building? Well, when you are fighting another human and not just the AI...it's even worse...I am in a constant state of CMDD...waiting for that next turn and devising ways in my head of how I am gonna separate my enemy from his internal organs.

I know there's a lot of dudes here (posters and lurkers) that play single player exclusively...I was one of them, but I have to urge you, if you've never done it, try a PBEM...at least once. It'll change the whole game for you. And if you were a CMX1 PBEMer but haven't tried it yet...TRY IT...it's ten times better.

Mord.

Well I keep bigging up another site Im on that has a healthy if small PBEM ladder.

http://worldatwar.eu/index.php?esid=e813e098c6c6bee42957f18de002a10c〈=3&refcode=0&location=intro

Youll get a game and even if your not into ladders its a good way to keep a record of the games youve played.

[CM:N Safe to say 2011?]

Id agree with the Bone...... Anything really, just to show that something has happened in the last 9 months. A few US infantrymen jumping a low wall. An AT gun in full swing. Something 1-1 would be nice.

[Weather]

I seem to remember that no hand to hand may be because of the animations involved? And not something thats just not possible due to code limitations etc. Again, weather in Afghanistan would be nice, as Afghanistan does have weather sometimes.

Once more I dont know the difficulties of implementing weather and what effect this may have on frame rates etc. Even on higher spec PCs a lot of on screen clutter seems to slow the game down.

To be honest, Id rather not see weather and have the CQB animations if there were a choice.

[CM:N Safe to say 2011?]

The one "simple thing" I mentioned is not something that will run into technical issues. It's just at the end of our ToDo List. The significant coding work is wrapped up as of next week. No doubt a few more "simple things" will slip in before and after we ship, but for the most part what we have to do is debug and tweak what is in the game instead of putting in big new stuff.

Steve

Is the campaign done?

[CM:N Safe to say 2011?]

Yup! After less than 1.5 weeks on sale we've got to about 50% of our expected sales of CM: Afghanistan for its entire lifetime. This pleases us

Preorder sales of NATO are quite strong as well, especially since we expect the majority of sales from NATO to be download only (which can't be preordered).

There are a handful of people that actively want Battlefront to fail for their own extremely selfish, and convoluted, reasons. Every time we say something positive about our sales they say we're lying and we're just a stone's throw away from going out of business. The fact they've been repeating this for 3 years doesn't seem to phase them. The fact that we've actually expanded our full time staff since then is also apparently yet more evidence, in their eyes, that our sales are crap and we're on our last gasp.

If we're on a road to failure with CMx2, as the doomsayers keep saying, then I for one hope to continue on this path to ruin because it's better than the road we were on with CMx1. Much, much better Which is important since we have now the largest full time staff we've ever had plus third party partners. It's not like we have other jobs to make ends meet, so this whole gaming thing we do is rather important for our lifestyles

Steve

Anyways, back to the thread starters question, will I be playing CM ww2 set in France in 1944 this year or not?

[NATO module content - some info]

Is the reason that the campaigns take so long to get right the fact that the Modules are delayed so long?

I think it was mentioned about a year ago now that NATO was almost ready? So here we are, full of anticipation, but, a year later.

If the modules are so slowed up by the Campaign, then why not relaease the Module before the campaign? Or simply admit defeat and let guys design their own campaigns or offer the BF one for $5?

I would certainly buy a CMN without any campaign and since its ben playtesting for 2 years now Im wondering, is it a campaign thing?

[Dissapointed with the research that went into this]

Animations seem to be one of the biggest drawbacks, or pluses depending on what side of the abstraction perspective you come from.

If you choose to go 1-1 or represention, then you should try and get those animations right.

Definitely, if you decide a Company HQ has 2 pistols, then you should represent it. No reason not to really.

As an aside, there are plenty times when I have been issued a side arm where I though a proper rifle would be better, Kosova for one.... But the powers that be decided I didnt need it... So, if we folow TOE for Soviets, then its side arms for Coy HQ, never mind what anyone else says...

Cheers

[Weather]

Hmm, why have them in a game when its not viable? I thought CMA was a teatre in a box?

[Dissapointed with the research that went into this]

I noticed that certain command units have a rifle and 2 pistols. In CMSF the pistol representation didn't much bother me, but in CMA it becomes a bit more irksome to see a pistol armed company command represented with AKs. Is this ever going to be changed? Or is modelling a pistol just too difficult in this game where it seemed easy in cm1 games?

[Unlicence]

First, thanks for the quick reply to my ticket submission.

This whole elicence thing seems to become a pain in the arse when you want to switch the games around, think you've unlicensed the game and reformat your previous PC. I'm grateful that not many companies use this system as between my family I think I had about 30 games on one of my PCs and doing this that many times, well tedious is not the word I'd use.

The situation seems to be, unlicensed CMSF and it also unlicences the Brit module. But not Marines. Why would you need to unlicensed separate modules that can't be played without the base game after they have been installed?

I think you need to simply do what companies like Matrix do, I had no trouble installing their games on my new PC as all I needed was the original codes.

However, I do appreciate the very quick response.

Thanks.

[Unlicence]

A follow up to the above.....

You dont have to unlicence each module and the game do you? I only unlicenced the game. This seems to have unlicenced CMSF base and Brits but not Marines.

Cheers

[Unlicence]

Ah the old Licence problem.

I now have a licence problem. I just bought a new pc and in anticipation I un-licenced my CMSF.

Ive got all the licence keys for Marines and Brits. It takes the Brit licence OK, but refuses to admit I unlicenced the Marines Module. So now I have a working CMSF, a working Brit Module and blacked out Marine content.

Why does it recognise Ive unlicensed Brits but not Marines?

Do I submit a ticket? I have the Marines licence key?

[First impressions]

It's a little ironic to brush something off as more of the same then follow it up with the statement that you prefer it over modern!. Of course it is the same engine under the hood, with the same 'game mechanics' further refined in this iteration. I believe that was the whole intent of going forward with this engine - you will see this engine again, contrary to the ramblings in NeverNever Land.

The 'feel' is different because of the weapons systems, squad/platoon organization and vehicle hardware, among other factors. I have played Red vs Red in CMSF as well; there are similarities but it is not the same. CMA feels and plays different in a very tangible way, further commented on by others here.

I played the Counter Ambush scenario for the second time last night and still had a blast using 'meat and potato' tactics to overcome the Muj. In a pbem of Desperate Crossing, and I am opening my turns with a sense of trepidation I can't recall having since the early days of CM. If Normandy is this times X then whoa!

Your opinion, my opinion. I don't find it ironic at all that I like the game so far, after all, I always did like CMSF on the whole.

It's all about what it's always been about, firepower, suppression, movement and sound tactics. And of course learning the foibles of the actual game mechanics. I just happen to think that older periods can provide more fun as the weapon lethality is a wee bit more forgiving. I expect the Normandy game will be more like CMA than CMSF in this respect.

Cheers

[First impressions]

I suspect a large proportion of the games 'feeling similar' is because they're being commanded by the same general!

A late war BMP-2 infantry squad is only 4 men (last time I looked) carrying 1 of each weapon type. If playing those guys feels the same as playing a full body-armored 13 man Marine squad then I don't know what would feel different!

Ah, then we are talking about 2 distinctive things. You are talking about the effect of playing with different weapons systems and squad make up. I'm talking about the general feeling of the game mechanics.

Some guys have said it feels different and is a lot darker, I don't see this at all. Perhaps they never played Red v Red, or played very little of it in CMSF.

So for me it's the same game, though I have to admit to liking the music a lot better and the interface looks better too. Not liking the water at all, I thought it was supposed to flow?

Anyway, yes, the equipment plays different, the game plays like a CMSF module though. I actually think I prefer it to modern.

[First impressions]

OK, bought the game, mainly due to Mr Elvis I think. Apart from the fact that units DO see through walls, at time up to 200 meters, the game is very interesting so far.

I don't really see it as being a whole new experience though, more like playing Red v Red in CMSF. The possible answer for guys mentioning this is maybe they always played Blue v Red in CMSF.

Still, compared to CMSF it is really more forgiving. However, it really is just CMSF in a different guise. Not a new game at all, merely a different aspect of the same engine.

[First impressions]

I am quite aware of the abstractions in the game having played it for 3 years. However, this specific 'bug' allows soldiers to shoot through building walls where there are no doors or windows.

I dont get the simulated cracks in walls idea unless this means all walls are cracked all the time.

[First impressions]

Wengart, is there a door on the side of the window-less wall they are firing through? If not than there may be a problem and we can look into it.

But we need a savegame or a replay that can allow us to reproduce the problem.

If you or anyone can provide them please email them to me at (dimastep at gmail , com)

Hi mate

You don't need a save game file. Just play the Demo mission as Mujhd. There are no doors. Small arms and RPG fire through the walls. Seemingly where windows would have been in CMSF.

Unhide you forces and watch the fun. It's so glaringly obvious I can't imagine why it wasn't spotted pre-release.

[First impressions]

Has anyone else noticed a tendency for men to fire through walls from positions where there would normally be windows?

I noticed this myself on the Demo mission with the Shilka when playing as Soviet. I also noticed that there are less windows in CMA. I replayed the mission as Mujhd and when I unhid guys in buildings who were behind walls where windows may have been in CMSF buildings, they were killed by Sov forces.

Is there a chance that although the windows aren't represented in the game, they are remembered by the code? It's not just small arms by the way, RPGs were also fired through walls.

I also had Soviet troops on that scenario walk through the Walls of the Mosque but I understand that this is also in CMSF, though I've never seen it happen personally.

Overall, I like the look and feel of CMA, infantry is more survivable and the terrain and buildings look much better. I'm sure that a quick fix to this firing through walls bug will be implemented. Once that takes place I'm thinking of buying it. The no instant lethality thing makes me think that CMN will be much better to play.

[New laptop; Marines + Brit Won't Install]

OK, heres another weird thing. I started the game tonight and all the modules appear to be there again. I have done nothing different though. Hopefully it will be OK from no in, but thank you for your quick response.

[New laptop; Marines + Brit Won't Install]

OK, my problem is similar enough to bring it here and not start a new thread.

About ten minutes ago I received a CMSF PBEM. I started up my Laptop and booted up the game.

I have all of the modules and was playing the game 3 days ago. Today I can only see the base game.

I can see the battles for Marines and Brits but it tells me I need to install these Modules before playing the scenarios.

Mt laptop version was 1.2 as the game Im playing is in that version.

So where on earth have my modules gone. I have done nothing to my Laptop except install a Garmin device yesterday and this was done on its own, no CMSF was running.

Any advice on this mystery is most welcome.

[Holiday Bones, Norman Style]

GSX, there is a reason why the über cranks are over there and not over here. Simply put, they aren't mature or rational enough. They took themselves out of the discussions here because, quite simply, they couldn't hack an environment where being dishonest, obtuse, clueless, and downright nasty aren't tolerated. Their presence here is not missed because they have nothing of value to add.

Steve, thats absolute bollocks and you know it! You are the one who does not alloow the kind of discussions that are had at GS. Namely, open criticism where its due. Questioning aspects of your game.

I can understand why they cant do that here as its not good advertising for you. But to call them all cranks etc is plain wrong, especially when a lot of them are posters here too, guy like Elvis and Sgt Joch, who I believe are even testers of the games.

Me, Im tired with your sillyness over this. I'll come back when CMN arrives sometime in mid to late 2010, hopefully it will be as fantastic as you say it will.

Happy holidays to all.

[Holiday Bones, Norman Style]

heh... I knew SOMEONE would have to post something negative about the tester comment. I knew that before I even posted it. Thankfully, we have GSX here to be overtly negative and a right prat sometimes

Yep, I can be a right prat at times, youll get no arguments from me about that. However, everything cant be the rose tinted picture all the time. Not that I dont appreciate the time all of those testers put in, but at the same time surely someone noticed a lot of the things that were broken before release dates etc?

You really do try to get under people's skin for no other reason than to irritate, don't you? So what you're saying is that the people who have helped make CM:SF what is is today, including all the post release patches, have done a terrible job and it's through sheer luck that the game is in the state that it's in now?

No, trolling isnt something Im into. I base my statements purely on what I read on these forums.

The worst type of feedback we could possibly get is from the sort you deal with over at the other website. Complete utter negativity with zero objectivity, intellectually dishonest, lack perspective, and have no clue what the average gamer wants.

The other website being Gamesquad? I dunno there, I think the Game Squad site can be very positive towards CMSF at times and very negative at others. Its not owned by BFC after all. In fact there is a wide variety of posters there ranging from very onboard to absolute hate and I think some of the conversations are far better than they are or can be here for this very reason. So I happen to think that your statement above is plain wrong. I think anyone reading the threads at GS will judge for themselves on this.

There are limitations in terms of time. We've worked through some of the bottlenecks, but some of them will remain until after Afghanistan and NATO are complete because major code changes were made that are not backwards compatible.

Thanks for the info there. However, I didnt know that you had to stop work on the NATO module, maybe I missed your announcement there.

Egads... did you get some bad eggnog yesterday? Of course I know EXACTLY what is going on because I live this every day of my life. I can tell you the exact status of everything that is going on right now. That doesn't mean I have the magical ability to make everything happen exactly as we would like them to be. Reality is a fickle bitch, in case you weren't aware of it.

Yes Im fully aware of reality, but I still feel like some more honest information is better for me the customer. If NATO is on hold for a reason, why not just tell me. Any information is better than none.

There have been NO contradictory statements. Slipstreaming doesn't mean we're working on everything all at the same time every day of the week. NATO is quite far along already, it's just that the bottleneck that is holding it up took months to work around. All development going forward will avoid these bottlenecks. I've mentioned this many times already, so it shouldn't come as a shock.

Again, thanks for the info, it would have been nice to know beforehand though.

Of course you are entitled to your opinions, but if we had such a completely negative and dour outlook on life we'd have closed up shop years ago. Probably during CMBO development when people like you said we couldn't pull it off.

Let me stress, I never once said you couldnt do anything, although I will freeley admit that you seem to have tried to run before you could walk with the CM-2 system. Thats not to say I dont wish you success with it, because I do. I enjoy your games for the most part and am fairly confident and have said so many times that CMN will be another good game.

Modern and WW2 combat appeal to both common and specialized groups of players. There are some WW2 players that will never play modern, no matter what. There are some modern players that will not play WW2, no matter what. Game features have less to do with the appeal than the content itself. We've always understood this and our experiences thus far with CM:SF have completely reinforced that notion.

No arguments from me there, I completely agree.

Finally, for what its worth, I understand that the journey hasnt been easy for your company and CMSF today is nothing like the CMSF of 2.5 years ago. I also understand that you have to be positive at all times as this is your living. Perhaps I should restrict any negativity to that other site and only be positive here?

Anyway, have a good Hogmanay when it comes!

[Holiday Bones, Norman Style]

We had no REAL idea how the testers would react to CM: Normandy in its current state. Sure, we figured they would enjoy the new setting and have fun playing with the new features. We would have been perfectly happy with that since all current testers are grizzled testing veterans. So imagine our smiles when we actually got huge, positive emotional reactions to all kinds of stuff! We weren't expecting half the reaction we got. That's a good sign that the basics are already in place for exactly the game you guys expect from us.

Hmm, inference is a weird tool......

I take it these are mostly the same testers that have 'loved' everything you have put out so far. And of course the same testers that are quick to shout down a naysayer on these boards if they dont like the game.

Ive come to understand that these testers may not be the best set of guys to actually give you good feedback...... Of course maybe everything is rosey in the land of CM....

What I fund more interesting in your post however is this:

NATO has been on hold for the last few months as we have been focused on CM: Normandy and CM: Afghanistan.

This is indeed something new to me as you have always stated that the great beauty of cm-2 was that you can work concurrently on many projects. What your saying now is that you obviously cant and a Module has been sacrificed for a game, or 2 games.

I get the feeling from what you say that you might not even know yourself whats going on? Far too many contradictory statements have been made regarding the CM-2 family of games. Now NATO may not be out for another six months?

So far everything seems to be taking at least twice as long as your stating. Your postponing and almost abandoning CMSF content to play catch up on CMN and CMAfg. When the NATO module appears it will more than likely have been a year from the UK module, which was a year from the Marines. Im not even sure you should complete the NATO one to be honest as I dont think anyone will want it after CMN arrives. In fact, if CMN IS as good as the testers say it is, I predict that no one will want to play with CMSF as it will be redundant because of the new features added to CMN.