meade95

Don't have time for a more verbose answer back - But I think you are off in terms of C3K and his comments / posts - All of his posts have been polite, descriptive, informative and not "attacking" the game / CMSF.....but it asking or suggesting how to make it better. There are definitely issues with the TacAI. There are definitely issues with LOS along with SA of certain soliders at odd times..... I see C3K posts as forward looking and saying if these TacAI and Infantry problems could be addressed (tweaked) CMSF could be a game for the ages..... Simple as that. Nothing about looking at the game half-empty at all....

Again, I appreciate your comments here - I just purchased CMSF (and waiting to see how it plays). Can I ask you - Between CCMT and CMSF - Which do you feel does a better job at allowing for infantry type tactics or simulated MOUT operations? Thanks

Wow. Great looking Mod. New to CMSF - Any chance this newbie can get a quick walk-through about how to install this mod - (My bad! - Just checked page 2 and see where there are full directions). Is version 1.05 the latest version at CMMODS...correct? [ March 31, 2008, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: meade95 ]

Good point - Would like to hear the reasonsing behind this also - Or if it will be adjusted (hopefully so).

Glad this was asked - As a new customer / player of CMSF I wasn't sure myself what to expect next. So basically look for patch 1.8....and then the ad-on (purchase) of the USMC version? Which will bring a whole new element to the current CMSF - Will the USMC take place in Syria as well?

Well said - C3K's ideas, observations and suggestions are what should be...being addressed here -

Because most developers maintain a remote, guarded presence on their fan forums if they don't go screaming from the room and vanish forever. Steve possesses Olympian forbearance. Myself, I'd go raving bonkers. </font>

+1 to such a training regiment / scenario's - Such would be terriffic if anyone (or group) has taken the time to develop such - I know such intensive training was a hallmark back in my days of flying Janes FA/18 -

Well, let's blame Dorosh then Thanks for the clarification. It's a fine line between what you are saying (the game needs some tweaks) vs. Dorosh's hardline "if it isn't perfect, then it's useless" black and white thinking. I'll get into that more when I respond to his post. This is a bit different then what I was talking about with FSW. In FSW they used the terrain they moved to quite well, as Cpl. Steiner pointed out. The problem is that this was a direct result of extremely restrictive modeling of terrain in terms of quantity, variety, and properties. As I said in my post above, a simplistic model means more consistent and predictable results. But it also means a more simplistic game experience. A lot of people like FSW, but I don't think many wargamers were among them. It was a puzzle game, and a highly abstract one at that. This ties in well with your next point... Correct. CMx2 has a much higher level of fidelity of simulation than FSW or CMx1, for example. It also has a much higher level fidelity of the execution of those elements. The issue is that it isn't "perfect 100% of the time" because there are still levels of abstraction inherent in the system. That's going to be with us for decades. The question is do we stop all progress forward, as Dorosh suggests we do, or do we move the bar upwards yet retain some abstraction? For us sticking with a 10 year old system for the next 10 years is not only a bad idea but it is commercial suicide for us. I definitely can see why this happens for you, and others. It's natural to want to see near-perfect execution of your orders and to get frustrated when it doesn't happen that way. To some extent we had a lot of this in CMx1 as well, but it was for different reasons like the TacAI moving to the wrong building after getting shot at, stopping while using a Move to Contact in a bad spot, engaging the "wrong" unit when a better one came into view, etc. People either learned to live with these limitations or tossed the game aside for something else. I think Bodkin put it best: This is my feeling. I find the flawed representation of the real world in CM:SF far more immersive than the more flawed representation of the real world in CMx1. I'm not just talking about the guys doing what you think they should do, but the entire environment. A simulation is a holistic experience and if too much emphasis is put on one element vs. the others then an imbalance, in the mind of the player, can easily be created. In CMx1 one could have got way too focused on the fact that you could (at times) shoot at targets that moved behind buildings, that artillery shells would land after 60 seconds was up in places where your guys shouldn't have been if they had been allowed to keep moving, that buildings could have no terrain around them other than Open, all buildings were 1-2 story boxes, etc. etc. not to mention the extremely simplified graphical representation of soldiers, terrain, and to some extent vehicles. Focusing on these things could easily ruin someone's immersion in the game itself. CM:SF is no different in the sense that the more you focus on the parts you feel are inadequate, the less immersion you'll feel towards the sim as a whole. Since all sims have their shortcomings, flaws, and abstractions it's a matter of personal choice as to where your thresholds for these things break or stay true. Just keep in mind that no matter how many improvements we make to CMx2, you will always be able to break the immersion if your mind goes down that road. We had a lot of people that couldn't get into CMx1 because of the soldier representation too, so again it's all about personal preferences. I don't fault you for having a different threshold for this stuff than a player like Bodkin. At least your not arguing that your perspective is the only one to have, quite unlike Dorosh who feels his view of a "perfect game" is the only one. The worst part about it is he is so convinced of his superior position that he doesn't see it for what it is... a bigoted point of view. Steve </font>

The important part, "...I experienced massive levels of frustration because the game wouldn't allow me to interact with the terrain as I wanted to and, according to the visuals, I should have been able to do..." Hmm, this describes CMSF for me. In CMSF, as I form my unit for an attack, I have high expectations. When I give a "slow" command to creep up to the top of a crest because the enemy is firing from the far side and I need more guns on the line, I don't lose the immersive feeling that I'm actually there if an RPG lands on my men. I do get frustrated when my men STAND UP and then got shot. (Note: savegame Al Amarah 008c 004.) When I've finally positioned a team in a great location, in shellholes on top of a road, and they are blind because the LOS is drawn from beneath them, that is frustrating. Nothing about those frustrations is due to the overall design choices in CMSF. It is due to the execution of those design choices. A more detailed design requires higher fidelity modelling. The points where it fails to achieve that higher fidelity are more obvious. In CMSF you have modelled men at 1:1. (Quite nicely, too.) When they don't do the "right" thing, not necessarily what I ordered, the game's immersion falls apart. This is not a critique on design choices. It is not a wish for the golden days of CMx1. It is not a complaint about the theater, the scale, the opponents, or the timeframe. This is one customer's observations of what makes games addictive, fun, and replayable and how that feeling, once formed, evaporates suddenly in the midst of a CMSF scenario. Thanks, Ken [/QB]</font>

Thanks for info - (and yes, I should have put this in the Tech forum - My bad).

I have a new computer coming (Dell 720 series) that is pretty maxed out - However, CMSF isn't set to run with widescreen monitors....is this correct? And what exactly does that mean? Is it a show-stopper if you have a widescreen? (this will be the first widescreen LCD monitor I have owned). Or can you still play CMSF on a widescreen....it simply won't be optimited to take full advantage of such a monitor? Thanks

Agree completely - Having said options for units prior to entering a house would be excellent - Hopefully possible within a patch - As another pointed out - If the current TacAI can't handle building entry using the stock commands then it would be a great option (tweak) to allow for a special command that triggers a whole load of scripted SOP for units to follow -

In that case, you should have a look here , and take it from there. Gimme a shout if you have any questions. I played those games too, as well as CM. I'd say CM prolly fits nicely into your game tastes. </font>

Great examples. This kind of thing kills interest for me, because as Ken says, it makes it painfully obvious that I'm just struggling to manipulate complex code to get it to do what I want rather than participating in a "battle". [/QB]</font>

Excellent post - Great explanation to problems and concerns - Hopefully BFC is reading your posts of late - As a person who justed purchased CMSF (and is waiting for it to arrive...along with my new Rig)....It is posts and concerns like yours...that I know will be mine as well. Hopefully the TacAI can be tweaked and upgraded via patches in the coming weeks/months -

Thanks for this comparision - Appreciate it -

Thanks for all the great feedback - I definitley plan to purcahse CMSF witout a doubt - The more I learn / read about it the more interested I become. I am an old TOAW player along with some of the HPS SIMs - As well as an old-school R6 / GR (though the newer versions are simply arcadish and I can't bother with them)... Thanks again - Just curious anyone here play the Close Combat seriers? - The new CCMT (Modern Tactics).

What exactly is WEGO? (thanks). Yes, plan to play the DEMO - But waiting for new computer to arrive (purcahsed already) before I can do so -

I have never played a CM game before - Very interested in purchasing CMSF - Though I'm interested in how exactly does it play? It is squad based......and both / either turned based or real-time (correct). What exactly are these "1-minute" movies I read about?

Regarding small arms fire.....Just curious will there be differing versions (with adjusted ratings/values) of the same base weapon systems. The M4 for example. Will there be several versions of the M4 within CM/SF?

Regarding squads / units within CM-SF - Each will be rated in the following - (correct) Experience Training Morale Suppression Condition Fitness And our each of these avaliable to be *edited* when creating new scenarios / missions.....When putting units on to the map...

Thanks for the well written & clarifying post - I'm hoping then that CM2 does allow for the adjusting of a units make-up / weapons load-outs....This itself would be very helpful for future customer driven /created scenarios... Along with the continued ability to adjust units morale and experience....