FaxisAxis

I bought combat mission battle for Normandy and commonwealth. The latter expansion (because come on folks that's all it really was)and it was not cheap. Yet your game is unique but I have never had to pay for a patch with a few minor features. Many of these features should have been in the game to begin with. I have a lot of games from big and small developers that are indie, digital downloads, strategy, 4x, RPG, wargames, many from matrix games and never have I seen this done. Never have I seen them charge their customers for a few extra features, this is not even a "DLC" and for 10 bucks! come on. Couldn't you have at least added a few scenarios? I guess only at battlefront this is done. And you are all so grateful to give your money away for what really is just a patch. Even the critics in there reviews said of CMFI that the extra features added to the engine didn't make that big a difference to the series. Would be nice if there were a feature like every war and strategy game out there has where you could hit a hot key to go to specific unit types or squads on the map. (Don't say this isn't needed for real wargamers that's totally irrelevant to the purpose and function of its convenience. For one, it would make keeping an eye on your units a lot easier especially in real time not too mention the the camera is a mess.(yes, fanboy, I know which keys to use to control the camera and yes I am used to it, but lets face it, its still a mess to control.) Also, I love how we are almost threatened into that fact that "you can only download" a total of what 5 times with no after 365 days! I sometimes wonder it I can reinstall it after so many times and after a year. This is another situation where I never see this happening with other developers big or small. Didn't I pay for it Does no one in this forum have the balls to mention any of this. You all just pay up and say how wonderful it is to get a few features. Maybe, there should be a donation day where you pay a certain amount for nothing after buying and owning your BF games. Nevertheless, CM games 1 and 2 have no competition in the type of strategy, tactical military sim that they are, no other developer puts such detail and accuracy into their games as BF and perhaps for these reasons CM games are among my favorites. And I'm not the only one who feels this way apparently and judging by how many post and thread entries there are in this forum there most be a decent amount of money made from them. So, do you really need to charge us for this patch?

Echo, I don't know how long you've been around nor your little side kick Peter Pan "Duh, I agree hah" what are you "twenty-somethingish" but the fact of the mater is games and software are quite different than cars and most games these days offer very little support. As I've already stated. They could have left you to hang and started there next game like every other game developer out there. I know the game was buggy, but look how far its come if they where any other game developer they would have given up on it and there fan base long ago in favor of making a new game and to get new customers or claim that everything in the new game was going to fixed what was broken in the previous and offer a whole lot more. And forget about getting you money back you don't go to a restaurant and have the cook rewarm you soup and add whatever else you wanted in it and then ask for you money back. I know the game should have been better than it was but you two come off as a couple of spolt punks. Go to the STALKER forum and sulk.

Quite amazing and quite a surprise. I've never seen customer support this good. Most game developers would have given up on there game and their fan base long ago. Usually in about two months of the game being out, after releasing one or two small insignificant patches (1.01 and 1.02) would move on to announce their new game which they have in the works or an expansion and start working on promotional trailers and screen shots, like some fly by night company. A patch this big in two weeks that's unheard of.

From a technical standpoint CM:SF is only the beginning of CMx2, just as CMBO was for CMx1. [/QB]

It's playable right now for me actually. Are you on medication? </font>

And when they are all fixed every itsy bitsy one of them according to you're delusional liking you'll still be whining, like an idiot. Its never going to be "playable" for you guys. yeah, I know it needs fixing, and its had a lot of problems, but your nitpicky fixations into grey areas as to "should this be" is never going to end. What a depressing, disappointing forum this has become.

I had no problem moving infantry through that breach...This is clear from the screen shots...I ordered them to assault those buildings in the barracks complex and they charged right on through. You will notice, however, that I did not order any Strykers through the breach in the wall. When playing other scenarios, I have had difficulty moving armored vehicles through breaches, but since I did not attempt it in this scenario it was not a problem for me. </font>

"Also, some AI passive some experienced are due to a poor scenario design, and designers are fixing the scenario too." Yeah, what I mean though is decent AI in quick battles where there is no scenario just a need for the unit to stay alive and defend the army it is fighting with using reasonable tactics. Scenarios are fine I just want to be able to have a quick battle now and then without having to rely on a scenario I have to create or by someone else or scripted event to trigger certain defensive behaviors-a lot of people have already requested this in this forum. I like them am hoping to one day play good quick battles independent of scenarios in SF just as in CMBB or CCAK where given what kind of tactics I use the enemy will react approprietly and at least attempt to defend or even attack my platoon in a reasonable way. I want this army to think on its own strickly in the name of self preservation. Even when playing real time multiplayer against another human player, units need to be able to take care of themselve to some degree while temporarily left alone, as everyone is saying here you can't micro manage every unit all the time. This is what I am asking will it ever be as good or better in quick battles in this respect as it was in CMx1. Its a shame because a lot of forum members seem to believe this is not possible and I can't say they are wrong. I also remember Steve saying when asked about the AI that in CM that CMx2 tactics depend pretty much on a scenario were and motivated by it where as CMx1 was better at quick battles and for the most part ignorant of what it needed to do in the scenario and would just defended itself.

To what extent can TacAI be fixed and improved particularly in single player quick battles given the engines design limitations; if patched or tweaked in another game or expansion, can it be as good or better than CMx1? This 1.1 limitations theory that is going around in this forum seems a little presumptuous: how can anyone who hasn't designed the engine here say that it can't be done without so much abstraction-such as each soldier at least taking cover for himself. For one thing I've seen it in a lot of other RTS games where each soldier is acting independently -though with not as much realism complexity-and given the power of today CPUs with their mulicore processors and multi threading capabilities maybe it is possible. I want to read it from someone who actually knows the engine first hand someone at BF, maybe Steve and not someone in the forum here who is just spewing out hypothetical hubris where they don't even have the technical details. [ August 18, 2007, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: FaxisAxis ]

Normal Dude, are you the monitor around here who decides what's right and what's wrong, what is proper. Normal Dude, We haven't had a thread like this asking if we like it overall, after its been out long enough for us to form an opinion-we really don't need you to moderate this forum And another thing I've been curious about: do you really think you're the only one who's normal here(or anywhere for that matter). Are you always trying to be? If so that's not really a good sign- (psychos are usually quite abnormally normal till some one discovers what they're really all about). Ever see the tee shirt "normal people scare me." Is normal what society intends you to be: a do-right that is shallow and commonly dull. A normal person is one who mindlessly follows the heard. So called normal is one of the reasons why the world is in such a state of decline and getting only worse and if there were only normal people in this world their wouldn't be any great innovations or discoveries. In short normal people suck! But, maybe you're just being sarcastic "normal dude". Am I enjoying it yes; for how long I don't know. I wish it were a lot better than it is. I was hoping it would be at least as good as CCBB or CCAK which it is not. Good quick battles and tacAI would have helped tremendously, add china, russion, world war III, cold war anything would have been more interesting then just america and some middle eastern country.

What I find most pathetic in this implementation - and I trust it is not irredeemable - is the complete absence of any Tac AI. This is what I worry about the most: But is it redeemable and how much so?

I also have a Geforce 8800 GTX and am having no problems with performance and stability, none at all everything is up high 1280 x 900 and it is running at about 40-50 frames a second average. I also have a quad core intel No problems with my multi-core, I'm on XP as are most who are having so called "the 8800 problems". So some of the people with problems may want to consider a few things about the way have their system are configured and what kind of programs they have running and drivers installed or maybe you just have a corrupt file somewhere. AA and AF are set quite high on mine so these aren't an issue-I've also tryed without them and had zero problems. To say the the Geforce 8800 series are having problems is evidently wrong, even if it is some one from BF who says so. Yes if the forceware drivers were better it could probably run a little faster, but no lag on my end in fact it runs quite sooth and I don't believe it runs slow for many who have the 8800 GTX. [ August 16, 2007, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: FaxisAxis ]

You are an idiot. </font>

You are an idiot. </font>

Boo hoo, Yeah I guess we are all so disappointed-I knew this was going to happen way before it was released-, and the game is just no good until all the patches in the future fix some of these problems..etc include talking grandiloquently out of your asses. (you know how many times I've read this crap-for one thing all the patches and support in the world aren't going to make the game the way you you want it to be- you'll see. So just move on or back I should say and go play some more CMx1.

Watch it. Not to brag but. I have a Geforce 8800 GTX and I dare say I'm probably running it better than anyone here. I've had no problems, no crashes, no lockups no artifacts, and it runs smooth. The setting are for the most part all on their highest. I can run it with or without antialiasing and 16x filtering, vertal sync. And to talk about multicore processors-for most this means dual core- I have an intel quad-core if multi core processor were such a problem four cores should really be causing me major problems-yeah sure you're going to assume its maybe only with AMD. I just don't understand about these serious game stopping bugs with multi-core and 8800 GTX- maybe its only the GTS thats having problems.I have pretty much the same OS same version same drivers and setup up as the people who are who are having these problems. I've even tryed different settings- oh, I don't download porn and crap videos and I know how to debug if I need to. But I've been running this game since I got it and there has been no problems-other than QB AI and interface, bad path finding etc. But then ever forum I go to that has the same game as me, there are numerous people complaining and demanding a patch for all the major crash problems they are having and they have the same video card the same processor some OS. I know BF feels it is incumbent apon them to help these poor souls-regardless if they don't know how to configure their systems to get it to work right or uninstall some programs that my be interfering-but don't isolate the problem to the Geforce 8800 series it simply is not the case if it is working for me on what most have -should have- for an OS which is winXP with SP2. Nevertheless, I will not complain though if a patch could make it so that the game would better utilize my multicore processor or optimize the git to run even high frame rates when using forceware drivers.

You guys, you constructive criticizers who complain about it because you care so much (think you know so much) about the game: give me a break! Half you are uninstalling it from your hard drive or just refusing to play it...until the magic patch comes out to make Quick battles to your liking, Perfect AI and more, prefect vehicle path finding in all situations, WEGO with a little blue bar, a candy cane, right click pop up menu for commands... What else did I miss? (bunch of picky old women in a grocery store) You are all so predictable, you're in every game forum. I know that when the patch comes out you will be here saying: "I wanted you to do this and you didn't" or "its still not working right, nope didn't fix maybe it'll be in the next patch" or you'll say "steve you where going to make this way for us, why why why didn't you do that!" "what do you mean you can't, its easy enough, I know, I write code "I'M a PROGRAMMER." "Is that all that patch does? when or will they ever give us the special control feature we requested?" Lets face it patches aren't going to transform the game into what you wanted it to be. Patches can only do so much and for people who want everything just forget it. Oh, and here's one I've read all over this forum: something along the lines of: that the RT is at the core of the engine, that WEGO is just tacked on for those who still want it and that the AI is scripted to plan and use only real time tactics-dumbed down- and that's why it would never work well in "true" turn-based WEGO. Others complain that it is no better than your typical commercial RT but with a bad control interface, that it is like COH. This does not sound like you have any hope at all for the game turning out better or that you think it has any potential. [ August 08, 2007, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: FaxisAxis ]

ahh, poor stirling doesn't like the game, because he can't get it running right and its not realistic enough for him. Then go shoot yourself in the foot punk! [ August 07, 2007, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: FaxisAxis ]

Dogface, the only problem I have is you don't say much to begin with and your ugly dog face ! "Uh...GHH (to borrow some of your expressions) come to think of it Ghhh I don't have to see you wretched dogface-thank God!

I agree, looks like a technical issues forum. Its depressing. Like I said in another post there are people like this in every game forum- especially lately- who will whine and complain that the game is hopeless no matter what, even if it meets their expectations. They can not wait for the game to come out so they can play it a short while or finish the whole thing cursorily and in a hurry so that they can arrogantly throw it aside and come to the forum pick at it and declare why its not good enough for them and how therefore they know so much more about war tactics and what a real wargame should play like, more than those who can get the most out of it and develop a deeper understanding and actually have fun playing it-it is after all a game. And above all they seem to know more then the people who made it; that's how knolledgeable and meticulous they are. I think some of them actually believe they could do better. I understand it isn't perfect-I still have this hope that it can be fixed in future patches. But I know before as soon as I heard about it that I probably wouldn't care for the fact that it was a modern war theme with US far over powering and technically advanced against the middle east who have very few decent weapons to defend themselves with let alone attack with. But I knew dam well what to expect before I preordered it. And I as well as most who are enjoying it are well aware of the mouse/key command issues, the lack of certain behavioral commands and poor AI tactics in quick battles, path finding (which realistically could be worse, I've seen far worse in many other games) and anything else which they could find to not like about it or rather to make it not be good enough for them. Go play CMx1 or a board game if you don't like this! I don't think the former has much over Shock force as far as realism and how tactically involved you can get. Sure I'd prefer a WWII setting but I also like being able to play something different yet the same type of game. And if you think its no better than RTS titles like "Faces of war" or "Codename Panzers", then go play them and compare, see how realistic they are see how long it take before you get bore with the same simple rush tactics it takes to win every battle.

Add me as well, it still has the CM spirit all the way and it is a true wargame. At first I was a little doubtful and even tryed putting it to the test to see if I could win successfully playing it like a typical RTS you know very light on tactics just rushing out all the big guns to overwhelm the enemy and after quicking loosing I was glad to see I needed to be more careful about my decisions. As I said in another thread much of the old basic universal strategies and tactics used for CMBB and other good wargames apply here as well as some that are entirely different given the new equipment and conditions. It's no less difficult than CMBB. And above all it is the same deep interest of :look-what's-happening!; what-I've-got-to-do fun. Now I am talking about the campaign and scenario missions and yes I still hope the QBs -can be improved-in the way of AI tactics- those add a long never ending replay value and for me I've got to have a good single play I can fire up when I have the time. There are a few other mostly minor things that I think are either missing or not working well but this is not the place to niggle like so many are doing in the forum- I think no matter even if it came out the way they expected it to be they would still have to whine and be disappointed- some have thrown their little arms up before they've even finished the first mission-or after they've lost it.

I agree with Louch, This game though not having the same easy to control interface and missing some of the commands-some I feel are unnecessary in this game- that CMx1 had is still the same game at its core; just a newer version it feels and plays the same with a different turn base WEGO that I don't care for either but its still Combat Mission to me. How on earth can anyone compare it to games like company of heros, Come on, wake up! Have you really played that game? And how much CMx1 did you play? Building tank factories and taking fuel points on the battlefield. It has very little in the way of tactics and as for the AI which is suppose to be so wonderful, so wonderful: Once I saw enemy soldiers with RPGS attacking one of my tanks and my tank turned to defend itself against a squad of rifle men which were shooting at it near by-this is how the AI in COH is on hard (which is suppose to be more realistic I guess). These games are just spam as many units as possible, gather all the resources for the most powerful weapons, lasso a bunch of nearby units-a good garden variety- and throw them at the enemy with a simple "attack" as soon as they come out of the oven. I've got to say that though the AI in SF quick battles can be almost non-existent, it can be just as challenging and plausibly realistic in some cases better in the scenarios than CCBB was in quick battles. After playing enough quick battles in CMBB I got familiar and confident enough where I could pretty much win consistantly regardless of conditions, but with shock forces campaigns I'll admit I'm stuggling once again and finding it quite challenging to beat the first time off and there is going to have to be a new approach to this game with some different tactics for combat situations of which I'm going to have to think differently about, though I still find that some of the basic approaches as used in all good wargames are pertinent. For the most part this game needs as much careful deployment and realistic deliberation as did CMx1 games did though in real time :eek: . Yeah, it is easier for me to do it WEGO (WEGO as in CMx1 which I believe was much superior to SF WEGO) but hey close combat is real time and can be arguably just as tactically challenging and realistic as CM. Some would argue that for it to playable in RT it must have to be dumb down or simplified, that the AI has to be not as intelligent and more quantitative and frantic. Well I don't know about that but after playing some of the campaign it feels pretty realistic and if I try using the same strategies I used to win some of the missions of COH, I loose all my men quite quickly and wastefully. [ August 05, 2007, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: FaxisAxis ]

As for frame rates jumping up and down lets say from anywhere between 11-60 while in full action and moving the camera to different parts of the map thats not unusual- this is what I had with 4x antialiasing and 16 aniso filtering vertical sinc on everything tex on high res at 1280 x 960 or whatever. I ran fraps today and this is what I got but 11 was rare and I had on a quick battle where there were more units than I could count and all kinds of stuff happening I even left it on and it was rather hot this morning where I live. But no artifacts, no lockups and no crashes. Frame rates jumping up and down especially in an over the top RTS with all kind of battles going on and smoke and dust this is typical. AS far as temporary freezes go well, friend, I haven't any to report and if I wanted it to run faster with the lowest being say 15 or 20 I might be able to by just turning the settings down a bit. True the game itself could use some optimizing but most every game when it comes out needs a patch to make it run faster. I take into concideration how much is going on in this game how many commmands: which by the way my slow downs-alot of this is CPU intense in the case where you have several different battles going on with AI thinking out ever question and answer and what to execute in each different situation. And Shock Force doesn't seem to take advantage of multicore processing or does it? No, don't say that! There are in fact more than a few games out now that use multiple threads and multi core processing and its going to become more and more the norm with games in the very near future. But, yeah, if it locks up could be all the dust being rendered from the explosions or something a video card problem- maybe you've got mortar and desert dust clogging up your GPU fan ! Tell Steve at once and avoid explosions or keep the camera away! wow, this game is so real! Friend I am proud of the game you made- by yourself? and can see it took a lot of time and hard work, really. And you are right, my friend, it is true there are so many different hardware setups and configurations some will work well with some games others that are fine with most will have problems with certain games. I hope I have problems in the future-would serve me right! I haven't had a good problem to think about in a long, long time. Its frustrating when you do everything you can and still the same problem just when you think you have it solved... crash!!! That is the fun of computers.