Bahger

Hmm, well maybe I'll separate the stock QB maps from the user-made ones, but having added them all together I'm wondering how to separate them. Maybe the file details will be sortable by date, maybe not; any suggestions? Has anyone experienced inactive AI on stock QB maps post-1.07?

Just d/l-ed the first batch and I have what is probably a slightly goofy question: Is there any way after a QB battle loads that I can tell whether it's a stock map or one of yours?

Well, the QB ME I tried was on a "stock" village map and, yes, the Red AI enemy was not exactly successful in its attempts to maneuver. I got lucky in that I positioned tanks on my right flank that decimated an entire column of enemy transports attempting to move into the center of the map by T3. I did not attribute my easy victory to lack of enemy mobility as to it being M1A1s vs T-62s. However, I was struck by a certain lack of determination on OPFOR's part to taking ground in a meeting engagement. I'd be interested in knowing which of the Mark Ezra QB maps I should download and play on. There are four sets of them and I'm not sure where to start.

Thanks a lot, Cameroon, I will try your suggestions starting with "The Curve". I prefer WEGO, too. I like to relax during the execution phase and observe the unravelling of my plan at leisure.

Nope, give me some credit, I carefully plotted routes for all the vehicles around the berm after I discovered that the "gap" in the berm was a mirage. Each time, they found the top of the berm and drove along it until they got picked off. That was 1.01, though; I now have cautious grounds for optimism.

Well, my interest in the game continues to reassert itself with 1.07. Having all but abandoned CMSF shortly after its initial release, I'm happy to see BFC roll up their sleeves and correct an enormous litany of game-busting problems. I did a fairly small meeting engagement yesterday in the much-improved QB module and was relieved. Vehicles went where I sent them except where the terrain was impassable, vehicle defensive behavior was much more acceptable, troops exhibited far greater battlefield situational awareness and I was able to execute a movement to contact that was jeopardised only by my own occasional carelessness instead of being at the mercy of glitchiness and TacAI problems. I'm wondering how to proceed. Well, I'm looking to find the most productive way into the game's deeper pleasures without wasting any more time. To this end, I have a couple of questions: - I gave up on the Campaign after Mission 01 when vehicles repeatedly skylined themselves on a berm, uncommanded, and got destroyed. This was a total immersion-spoiler for me. Should I try the Campaign one more time in the hope of never seeing this kind of ugliness again? - Mission design in the Campaign is said to be of inconsistent quality. I'm interested in high-fidelity tactical engagements of all shapes and sizes but feel that in this game in particular, one is at the mercy of the designer. Would I be better off with user-designed scenarios at CMMods and, if so, can anyone point me at a way to refine my search for good-quality scenarios that emphasize movement and fire (not necessarily MOUT)? - Are many of you playing Blue vs Blue scenarios, or Blue vs Red scenarios that are not quite as asymmetrical as the game's core concept seems to promise? If so, which do you recommend? - Is there any tool in-game that I might have missed that enables the player to position units in hull-down positions? I seem to recall a useful virtual FOV tool in earlier CM games. I find it difficult to assess undulating terrain without such a tool and am not sure if, in SF, defilade is left to the TacAI to assess and not the player... I apologise to those who may have read a similar post to this one from me after 1.06. Finding good, replayable scenarios is going to be crucial to maintaining and building upon my renewed interest in the game because I'm still a little skeptical. I have never experienced such appalling pathfinding and TacAI in any serious wargame as manifested itself in the very first Campaign mission of v1.01 and as much as I want to see the glass as half full, I'm unlikely to persevere with CMSF if I witness such Keystone Kops antics again. I'd like to experiment with the kind of well-designed, replayable scenarios that can combine with the much-improved game code to provide me with that "aha!" moment which will make a me a permanent convert. Apologies for the lengthy post and thanks in anticipation for all assistance.

"Tactical Plan you have to Follow not to Blood Seeping Hollywood Gameplay." Ah, well, that's the holy grail for me, *tactical fidelity*. I can find Hollywood gameplay elsewhere (COD4). If there is a scenario location for tac-geeks, I'd certainly appreciate knowing about it.

Yes, see, I don't want to try the campaign again until 1.07, as Steve has stated that they are looking into a problem in 1.06. I will take the advice offered here and find a stand-alone scenario to test out the improvements, which I'm thrilled to hear are significant. Is it necessary to limit my search to scenarios built for 1.06, or will there be full 1.06 functionality in scenarios built for previous versions of the game?

Thanks, guys. Pandur, I appreciate your concerns and don't want to sound too demanding. I'd be happy to try a Red vs Red scenario if it showcases the upgraded game effectively.

OK, point well taken, can you suggest a company-sized scenario and maybe a smaller one without too many bells and whistles so I can test basic fire and maneuver?

I know that my time available for gaming combined with my extremely negative opinion of 1.01 will make my test of 1.06 a "do or die" moment for the game. My biggest beefs were Keystone Kops pathfinding, hopeless MOUT and now I've read here that there are problems with unit placement in Campaign missions with 1.06. I would so like to embrace this game. Can anyone guide me to a scenario that really showcases it in all its post-1.06 glory? I'm interested in playing Blue, force size should probably be small-ish for acclimatization purposes, I'd like to test all (or most) indirect fire/support options, there should be vehicles, of course (tanks plus ATMs if possible) and no MOUT unless it plays like MOUT and not Spring Break. Thanks guys. It's good to be back, even while still in suspense. I haven't played it since abandoning it at 1.01.

Matt (or anyone), can you specify a particular mirror whose patch content does not have to be modified as directed in the 1.06 Readme?

Hey guys. I'm going to dive back into this now but wonder what the patch protocol is, as there has been talk of reinstallation before patching. I downloaded the game as a preorder, then got my disk in the mail. (By then, I was so dismayed I didn't open it). I may have applied one patch, but probably not. Is a game reinstall necessary and what do you recommend the best procedure is to get from the original retail build (not Paradox) to 1.06? Many thanks.

Interesting thread. For me, there is a simple test one can apply to all high-fidelity war games and tac-sims regardless of scale and it is this: Can the player mount a realistic flanking maneuver, with effective suppression, good use of cover, coordinated ROE/movement/fire orders against realistic, adaptable enemy AI? It's amazing how many sophisticated tactical games fail to meet this simple test: - In ArmA squad AI is painfully inadequate and loses every rock, paper, scissors confrontation with razor-sharp enemy AI marksmanship and the interface does not allow for sufficient coordinated remote control of fire teams. - In GRAW 2 you can pull it off but only in the limited areas where the game does not channel you down one path but instead provides tactical alternatives for an flanking assault. And the implementation of stealth/assault ROE is still not quite reliable. - In CMSF the pathfinding and tacAI has been far too unpredictable for the player to be able to run a basic maneuver like this with any reasonable expectation of success; all too often the vehicles won't go where you want or they will attack the wrong threat, the dismounts will choose to enter a building from the side that is exposed to enemy fire rather than through a window on the other side, etc. and a very basic maneuver becomes a total mess through no fault of the player's tactics (Note: I have not yet had the chance to play 1.03). The games which can handle this simple task beautifully are the Brothers in Arms series but that is because gameplay is basically built around this one maneuver, almost to the exclusion of anything else; progressing through the scenarios consists of a series of find, fix, fire and flank tactics. Any game which does not have good enough tacAI to enable the player to run a basic flanking maneuver, possibly with arty support but with at least two teams of assaulting infantry approaching along different axes is either a work in progress or a total failure and CMSF is no exception.

...or arty cancel? Any progress with non-functional group-select features? Am I correct in assuming that these are all Ati card related problems? I intended to fire up 1.03 over the long weekend but it got so insanely hot here in Los Angeles that, without air-conditioning, my PC sounded like a 747 on takeoff, my DSL modem tripped its thermostat and rolled over and more than an hour of gaming, even after dark, would have killed my computer, I reckon.

Very funny. Provocative and mischievous but funny. And not entirely untrue.

I'll tell you exactly, Elmar, using the quote you supply: The vast majority of those who feel let down by the game are neither "predisposed to disliking the game" nor do they not "get it". The former implies bias, the latter stupidity. Most of the negative comment comes from those with legitimate grievances that are mistakenly dismissed by Steve as "a matter of opinion". I'm saying that the game is broken and that is a matter of fact. Having said that, I follow your contributions to this board closely and find your input to be really valuable and it's not my intention to irritate either of you, okay? I'm just making a case here according to the way I see the facts.

Oh come on, Steve, this is nothing but denial and evasion. You sound like George W. Bush when asked if he has made any mistakes. I'm going to give CMSF another shot with 1.03 but you cannot go unchallenged with this guff re. bad reviews being about reviewers who "didn't get" the game. Quite obviously, this kind of stubborn, defensive insularity is partly responsible for the lamentable state of the product at the moment. Look, you got bad reviews (and, I regret to say, you deserved them) because: - The game was unfinished When will you understand that it doesn't matter which version the critics played? 1.00 and 1.01 were both critically sub-par for a "finished" retail product. - Advertised features were not implemented. - Preordered hard goods have still not shipped for many people, a month after the game's release date. - The quality of both pathfinding and tacAI were, and still are, absolutely dismal. This is not a matter of opinion. It's a fact. The only variable is the extent to which the player is prepared to work around it. Those with a greater level of tolerance for this are likely to enjoy the game more. That fact doesn't mean BFC does not deserve all the criticism it's been getting for terrible tacAI and pathfinding. Please don't call me out for arrogance again because this is "only my opinion". It's essentially a slightly evolved version of schoolyard rhetoric ("Yeah? Says who?") and I think you are too smart to hide behind this kind of defensive bluster. Of course it's only my opinion; but it is an educated opinion, shared by many and I think it may even be the consensus. The truth is that, with tacAI and pathfinding in the state they are, the game, like many of the reviewers have correctly claimed, cannot be taken seriously. What can you possibly expect when you release a game in which vehicles charge into the enemy FLOT, uncommanded, and/or target a group of infantry a hundred yards away when a T-72 is attacking at fifty yards? Seriously, I think BFC is a valuable independent component of an otherwise corporatized game-design landscape, and I realise that too much negative buzz will have a greater impact on you guys than on a big company that can roll with the punches. However, BFC screwed the pooch in a very big way with this product: you made some bad design decisions, put way too much faith in the capabilities of your tacAI, your laudable desire to eliminate certain abstractions did not enhance gameplay sufficiently, advertised features were not implemented, the game was broken on release, and a combination of all the above with a clunky GUI, hobbled WEGO and feature-stripped QBs merely offers a big fat morsel to the critics. None of the above has anything to do with expectations on my part that everything in CM1 would find its way into CM2. I didn't have any such expectations but how can you be surprised when, having released CMSF in its present state, many if not most CM vets accuse you of throwing the baby out with the bathwater? If the game worked on its own terms there would be no such criticism. Most of the negative points made in the reviews are fully justified from a consumer standpoint and not a function of "not getting it". Again, that argument is both an evasion and a form of head-in-the-sand denial. The game is every bit as flawed as these reviewers point out and the Tom vs Bruce piece was, sadly, right on the money, too. These people do not wish you any harm; it's merely their job to point out the failings of your product and you served up a rich feast. We trust you guys to do your very best to fix it; but please do not insult our intelligence by telling us that it isn't broke or the critics "don't get it". They do. The only difference is that they didn't pay $70 for it. I did, and I'm sticking with it. But I'd be happier if you admitted to having made mistakes instead of merely telling us to "stay the course"; I've heard that before.

Is arty adjust fixed in 1.03?

Hmm, Steve, if you were to solicit a list of what is considered broken from every member of this board with cause for complaint, you'd get much more of a consensus than you think... I'm looking forward to 1.03. If it plays, I'll be the first to do a big mea culpa right here. But it will have to have fixed more than "technical" issues. BTW, I really like the materials I received in my special edition package which arrived today.

I think this is an unnecessarily irritable response to a cogent and well-argued post. I'm with Sandy a hundred per cent and I do not believe he is posting in order to assert that "his opinion means more than anyone else's". I believe that, whatever the difficulties with the earlier releases of CMx1 games, BFC always had a very clear conceptual vision. In the case of CMSF, however, I believe that there is a disconnect between the vision and the level of execution needed to realise that vision. In other words, the game cannot live up to its basic concept yet, and nothing in 1.02 disproves this. It is wishful thinking on BFC's part to assume that, with pathfinding and tacAI in their current, lamentable condition, the game can be a decent representation of modern-day MOUT. As I've argued here before, a certain level of imprecision in pathing, tacAI and the following of orders can be imagined away in a WW2 theater as "fog of war", but in modern assymetrical warfare where Bluefor's greatest asset is speed, effective comms and precision of movement and fire, effective tacAI and pathfinding become very, very conspicuous by their absence. I've said it before: BFC should wipe the slate clean and admit to having failed in this respect so that consumer confidence can be rebuilt on a baseline of credibility. Saying "well it has its weaknesses, we admit that, but, really, you guys are expecting too much and/or a different game" is an understandable but stubborn and wrongheaded move by the developers. The game is broken and cannot live up to its stated conceptual goals. For all its teething problems, CMBO did not fail in quite the same way. I understand Steve's argument when it comes to features that consumers expected to be implemented differently, such as WEGO and quick battles, yet, again, there is an atmosphere of denial and spin here: People complain about the implementation of WEGO and QBs not because they are different from what they might be used to but because they are not nearly as much fun or as well executed. WEGO in CMSF is a kludge. I am hoping the game will become playable with another two or three patches and I know the devs are working hard and that their hearts are in the right place. My biggest fear is this: If they were as totally convinced, as they appeared to be on the eve of release, that their product was basically sound and if they continue to believe that consumer complaints are mainly the result of misplaced expectations rather than legitimate responses to the broken condition of the game, then CMSF will never really be fixed because nobody at BFC is prepared to admit that it's broke. I admire your pride in your work, Steve, but the game is broken.

And is it? I bought it on Mr. Trotter's recommendation but never got around to installing it, I'm ashamed to say. Should I do so now, while waitaing for at least another two patches before trying to play CMSF again?

Is there an ETA for fixing artillery adjust and the click-and-drag selection of units? I understand that technical/hardware compatibility issues have to take precedence but I have never, ever bought a game with such hobbled playability "out of the box". Maybe BFC should hire extra programmers to work 24/7 because if it takes, say, six months to address basic gameplay problems like those mentioned above and the eye-wateringly bad tacAI/pathfinding, I'm not sure there will be anyone left here but the hardest of the hardcore. It has now been three weeks since release and there is no sign of the "special edition" of the game I preordered two months ago. This just twists the knife in an already suppurating wound. BFC's intentions are good but I think it's time they admitted responsibility for a truly disastrous initial version of their product and a release so chaotic that it included chumming the critical waters with a Beta dressed up as a "finished" game. And 1.01 was only marginally better. They should fess up, wipe the slate clean and announce a patch schedule that would give us some idea of when we might expect the game to be playable. I don't want to sound harsh, as Steve has been nothing but courteous and helpful, but a baseline of credibility needs to be established in order to maintain consumer confidence. Naively, I once had the same expectation of President Bush but I still have more confidence in BFC. Come on, guys, just admit that the TacAI is at about 40% of the minimum acceptable standard (with pathing at 20% at best) and give us an estimation of both the expected level of enhancement and the timetable for achieving it. I would stick with the game and wait patiently for patches if some undertaking were made to get both of the above to, say, 70% fully optimal. That's not an unreasonable demand, is it? [ August 17, 2007, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: Bahger ]

Superb post, IMO. It seemed to me at first that Tom Chick must have some kind of axe to grind but after getting the game I was distressed to discover that he's basically right in almost every detail; this is a woefully crippled piece of software whose deficiencies are so enormous that I can only assume that the good people at BFC succumbed not only to market pressures to get the game out on time but also to a form of mass denial; they seemed genuinely to believe that the game could measure up to the standard set by CMBO (even in its initial release). I think CMSF is on life-support. Like Lurker765, I trust BFC to come through in the end, or at least make a very significant effort. Right now the only thing preventing me from writing off the $70 (I went for the special edition, which of course I have not received) and never buying another product from this company is my genuine admiration for their values, notwithstanding a catastrophic product release this time around.

There is a pathfinding issue for as long as any vehicle gets up on the berm uncommanded. It's beyond dispute, IMO; the pathfinding in this game is disastrous.