monkeezgob

Someone expressed concern a page or so ago at how low the rating was. There has been concern expressed elsewhere on the forum that poor reviews will kill battlefront altogether. My response is - who cares? It's just some guy with a blog looking for some notoriety. "Hey, look at me - I rated CM:SF lower than anyone else!" </font>

I haven't read it, so I can't disagree with it, hold an opinion on how well written it is, or call it dishonest. Please don't put words in my mouth. I can certainly dismiss it as trivial based on its source, and would do so if it was a rave review, too. </font>

With respect Michael, and it has already been said by others, the review is thoughtful, detailed, well reserached and I think it's a fair account of the game's current state. It's clearly written by a fan of the series, I don't how anyone could charge it with being dishonest, sensationalist or craving attention. The review is just an opinion of the game that you don't happen to agree with.

Seconded. It seems arrogant and prejudiced in the extreme to dismiss an opinion, simply because of a site/blog name. Sorry Michael, but in its current state WEGO is poorly implemented in CM:SF.

Except by Battlefront themselves, which somehow seems relevant. So try not to present speculation as fact. It's misleading and untruthful. </font>

I think the review at arsgeek.com more than fully highlights the limitations of the way WEGO is implemented in CM:SF.

Except by Battlefront themselves, which somehow seems relevant. So try not to present speculation as fact. It's misleading and untruthful. </font>

No, you can't check back on other parts of the battlefield and check out what has happend in the last seconds on the other points of action. A battlefield has many points of action, but people have only one attention. For many wargamer this is like blindness. Other games with RTS aspect - for example Close Combat - shows you the big picture and expand very, very slow ... So it's better controllable </font>

my thoughts exactly. </font>

First review is very disenchanted by the implementation of WEGO in this game and I have to say I'm with him on that. As has been said before RTS is definitely the way BFC wants to go. I'm presuming it's to broaden the commercial appeal of the product. However, personally, as an old-time table-top grog, I don't like the click-fest approach to wargaming, where your speed with a mouse and familiarity with a hotkey is more important than the tactics you employ. I'd always loved the BFC developed titles in the past because they were striving to be different and were pursuing something that wasn't on offer for dedicated wargamers. I have to say that it now feels like BFC are becoming just another developer of RTS titles. Although CM:SF is now off the the HD, I will see what developments future patches bring. Meanwhile there's still CMBO and CMBB, which I still play, and which still represent the peak of BFC contribution to the genre.

Yes, got to admit I'm increasingly disappointed with this. Personally, I find the UI ungainly for RTS and it simply becomes a question of who has fastest clicking finger. A wargame/ strategy game shouldn't be a click-fest. Had quite enough of that with TOW (shudder!) Problems with the AI are well documented, so no need to repeat those. Disappointed this far, but at least there's always CMBB!

Review seems pretty much spot on to me. Can't claim to be a big fan of RTS in CM:SF either - too much like a click fest (unless the UI is streamlined). But it seems for better or worse RTS is the way Steve wants to go. Shame, for me, it just makes the product less distinctive.

CMSF wihout dount. It has some problems that need ironing out (but BFC will get there), and the graphics are not as pretty as TOW. But (and it's a big but) the scenarios included are not like the TOW, scripted, 'a puzzle to be solved' approach, they have variety, re-playability and require a sound and realistic approach to tactics. (granted some of this still need ironing out) But I prefer it mainly because of the editor. It's immensley powerful and incredibly easy to use. Far more so than TOW. More custom missions have already appeared within a week of CMSF release than have appeared so far with TOW. That gives the title a massive adavantage is extending its shelf life.

Ok, I know they're different, but CMSF, to me is already more complex, playable, and enjoyable than TOW ever was. And then of course there's the questiuon of the mission editor. The scripting meant that TOW was like a puzzle where you simply had to find the right way to beat the scripting, rather than employ sound tactics. CMSF for me, no question.

As far as I remember future add ons such as expanded multiplayer and enterable buildings were only going to be available in expansions you had to pay for.

Spot on Finn. It's a fundamental flaw in the game.

You're right. You're easy to impress. The AI in TOW is certainly not something I'd crow about. At the end of the day if people love the game that's fine, love it, feel it, taste it, lick it. But in my opinion there are simply more realistic, more complete (and older) sim titles out there. You're right, Warfront turning point was atrocious too

I disagree that CM is too different for comparison, The amount of frequent pausing necessary in TOW to ensure none of your units does anything really dumb makes it precisley the same as playing CM and the 'wego' principle. If it's an accurate sim you're looking for then, at the moment, I'd say CM was more realistic. Perhaps that'll change with the patches, but TOW isn't there yet. Tactically CC is also more accurate, things like the ability of troops to use buildings and the manner in which terrain and its features impact on visibility and the combat is, in my opinion, much more developed and realistic than it is in TOW.

Like you I've only played the demo and have been playing the CM series for some years. I thought the demo was avery poor advert for the game, so have decided to hold off making any decison about TOW until a patch is released. But ass the ability for infantry to use buildings and any sort of developed multiplayer will only be avilable in another pay for add on, I don't think it will be someting I'll be purchasing.

This is one of the best???? Have you played the demo? The flaws are painfully obvious. I agree that COH is a bit of a joke, but it never marketed itself as a realistic, tactically accurate WWII sim. The game has potential at the moment, but that's all. There are certainly better, more accurate WWII sims out there on the market.

Too much emphasis on the graphics and presentation and not enough emphasis on complex gameplay. That said, Steel Beasts Pro makes a refreshing change to the current trend of pretty but vapid simulation and strategy titles.

dfritch: That's bad news. For $125 you could have bought Steel Beasts Pro. Best armour sim on the market!

No chance.

No news on the patch. No news why so many European residents are still waiting for their dvds.

Maybe not, but some communication about the nature of the problem might be useful.