bartleby

Hi bartleby, I have read that one from cover to cover and I can assure it will bore you to death. [/QB]</font>

Sure. I like to play WeGo too, and ideally CM:SF would have both options available. I just object to the notion that real time is a lesser option.

Is that necessarily so? WeGo does let you maximize your planning and study the situation in depth, but is that something that "serious wargamers" must have? I like real time because it forces me to economize my attention and treats thought as a scarcity. The UI needs some work to be up to that, sure, but that can be fixed. It's not a worse style of wargaming, just different.

Yeah, I didn't mean to ignore those, I just haven't done much from the Syrian side so I can't say. Conscripts shouldn't be that effective period, but a player can at least attempt some maneuver instead of "realistically" being shot in place.

Most of the discussion here is going to be hypothetical or anecdotal, simply because we lack the marketing information. That said, I think you look too coldly on "the RTS crowd." RTSs are plenty complex; if anything, CM:SF simplifies by eliminating base management or economics. Most gamers aren't stupid and are surprisingly open to new things. I don't think any specific design decision in CM:SF would outright make it untenable for mass success. It comes down to marketing at that point, and I won't comment on that since I don't know about it. On the other hand, BFC did manage to avoid some things that could have - namely infantry abstraction and a total lack of real time. As an experiment, try to think of the last major hex-based title that was a mainstream success. It was probably something like Panzer General, and that was about a decade ago. I don't think games like Civilization or Axis & Allies count because they're not trying to be tactical simulators. What kinds of games have taken their place? Well, ironically, games like CMx1 are a decent guess. Hex-based games are dead. There is an increasing expectation of at least the form of realism, and BFC have to respond to that reality. Dorosh made some excellent points in his design thread that I agree with about designing for effect, but I that's a different subject. While gamers aren't stupid, as a group we often look at forms instead of content (see what I said about anecdotal?). Even if 1 to 1 leads to less realistic outcomes at times, the alternative is seen as worse. While I wish WeGo was an option for multiplayer, I must admit to loving real time. One of the things I'm most interested in is time in battle and from turn-based to WeGo to real time was a natural progression. It's a totally different experience from CMx1. Nah, I think most of the grumbling is a synergistic effect from being skeptical about modern war and annoyed about bugs. If the pathing and TacAI were better, this place would be a lot quieter. I can't see people having conniptions if the only problem was the lack of WeGo in multiplayer.

Could this partly be due to that the player is effectively providing junior leadership in CM:SF? That's the biggest thing Arab forces have missed historically.

That was actually a pretty funny article. http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/813/813168p1.html

I'd love if BFC added one or two "legacy" vehicles like the M-60 or Centurion so one could model older conflicts. Most of the older Soviet equipment is in there, but Blue's too up to date, heh.

I agree, I'm having some fun with the editor. Anyone know if modding will allow any editing of models or just textures? [ August 15, 2007, 10:29 PM: Message edited by: bartleby ]

I don't know why some people feel the need to express their disappointment so loudly and aggressively. Seems sort of perverse to me. I think it would be nice if everyone tried to ask himself what he hoped to accomplish before pressing post. It's not the end of the world, the game will be patched and almost every issue will be sorted out. If the only thing people had to complain about was the lack of old-style WeGo, nobody would be telling BFC to do some "soul-searching" or telling them how to run their business (a strangely presumptuous suggestion, as it is). It's a natural reaction after a long anticipation, sure, but it's an overreaction. I hope everyone can keep some class. Then the question becomes "is reviewing unfair" instead of "is [this] review unfair" - and I think the answer is yes. Especially with games, where patching is so expected and easy. What would it mean for film criticism if new cuts were released every few weeks? Reviewing once and forgetting about is a negative influence on gaming, in my opinion. It supports the graphical planned obsolescence that's currently turning most games into engine demos. It's also a strange throwback to print media considering how much game reviewing is done on the internet. [ August 12, 2007, 04:40 AM: Message edited by: bartleby ]

I think the issue is that BFC have stated that they would not do an IDF module without a very good reason. Israel giving them a nice contract to do so would be such a reason. I can certainly understand why they feel that way. As much as I would love to see the IDF in CMSF, anything with Israel has the potential to become politicized, and throw in a conflict with Syria and the internet and you get some problems.

i had 3 T72 turms shooting up 5 or 6 bradles yesterday with 8HE/2HEAT out of 10 fired. was a QB. EDIT: i played quiet some tank engagements on RED side now, i NEVER ever saw reportedly a RED tank using his APFSDS rounds, not a single one. </font>

Hmm, will depict an amphibious assault? I certainly can't claim to have researched all of Steve's posts, but has there ever been anything more definite than: </font>

The next release will be the Marines and will depict an amphibious assault, so it will most likely include water.

Who can blame you? Fifty-Cal fire seems like a ping-pong ball launcher when used against buildings. Also, I rarely get kills with small arms fire. The Stryker .50's can get kills against completely exposed infantry as long as you set it to "auto-hose" and go have dinner. After you get back, there is at least a good chance it might have wiped out the enemy squad....... </font>