JOGR

Why ArmA is so much more then just another wargame. It's a living breathing and military cunning community. http://dslyecxi.com/armattp.html Recommend taking a look at the YouTube hosted trailer at the beginning. Total bonerfuel Also, Chain of Command MOD is nearly done for ArmA. Battalion level tactics enabled Also..

AI can't use it anymore? It has to be scripted now? Can't find any info on this.

Not to mention. AI inf crawls in the open instead of running from cover to cover. Even when close to solid cover AI still prefers to crawl taking fire along the way (eventually getting obliterated). What's up with the vehicle crews playing heroes after bailing out? Too often I see crew inf continuing on towards overwhelming enemy positions. Simply crawling to their deaths. It's both annoying and time consuming to watch.

One of our testers has intimate knowledge of VBS2 from a development standpoint. I can't say much, but I can say that I think he would disagree with almost everything you've said so far. BTW, many of the things you listed that VBS2 has are irrelevant to CM since it isn't a first person shooter (which VBS2 is). The stuff that you listed that is relevant we do as well for the most part. And if the various Armies of this world want to give us tens of millions of Dollars, we do some amazing things (right before retiring for life ). Steve </font>

No military in the world uses Armed Assault. So your point is, again? That a $55 game should do more than a $1800 game? Or that ArmA is a better simulation than CMSF? Both ideas are laughable. </font>

Come on, Armed Assault (nor VBS) is no Steel Beasts when it comes to simulating the systems. ArmA is a FPS with emphasis on combined arms, and that's its value. But it or OFP has never been a real simulation. Medics give instant heal, to begin with. No foxholes or artillery. And how often in ArmA can you engage other tanks at over a kilometer range? Even if you were able to see a target the sights would be too poor to hit anything, especially since there is no targetting computer, laser sight or anything. Not that the claim that you need the maximum range of a modern MBT maingun to do combat holds true, anyway. It may be true for desert tank battles, but I rather think that desert tank duels between M1A2's and T-72's are not the most exciting thing in town (nor the one that a sensible defender would aim at, seeing how well it worked in 1991 and 2003). And in an urban environment it's very short ranges. What is the ArmA terrain grid anyway? 25m x 25m? Not that it matters since there is no terrain editor. Buildings collapse once their hitpoints are gone, and no deformable terrain either - I guess Sahrani soil is solid steel. CMx2 might be more complex than you thought. </font>

Well the militaries and home defences of many countries would disagree with you. ArmA Strykers don't have birdcages. No missing textures on my install (version 1.08). M136 sight is a bit goofed, I usually aim with the crosshair. Don't get me started on the lack of realism in CM:SF as I have nothing against it. But just to name something: To simulate modern combat (especially at Battalion level) you need pretty large maps. Modern tanks can engage targets from miles away and most maps in CM:SF are less then 1km x 1km. Fact is, trying to make a map bigger then that in the editor bogs my system (Dell XPSm1710) down to a crawl. I think the main island in ArmA is 400 sq km and fully rendered with 2 km view distance. Just to compare. EDIT: And it runs smoothly in 1900x1200 on High 8xAnisotropic and 4xAA on my laptop, large battles regardless. [ August 02, 2007, 04:04 PM: Message edited by: jogr ]

Right so that's the reason to why the US, Canada and Australian military have been using VBS for years and not CM:SF? Get the facts straight. Recommend taking a look at this video: VBS2 features Sure the pricetag is insane but then VBS2 isn't a game. I bought SBProPE for $150 but $1500 is asking too much when you get ArmA for $37.99 and it's practically the same thing xpt for a few units and the commercial (gamey) presentation. But to be fair. VBS2/ArmA is a military training simulation and not just another game for us armchair generals.

Good info, but I can't help to wonder. What's so massively complex about this engine? "This" is a massively complex engine: http://www.vbs2.com/site/images/gz3.jpg http://www.vbs2.com/site/images/insurgent_1.jpg http://www.vbs2.com/site/images/ukimv.jpg Got to admit VBS2 and ArmA is pretty impressive considering how well it actually works with it's massive environments, thousands of A.I. troops engaged in combat with group A.I leaders that fully utilize squad tactics. All that with FPS precision and not some 8x8m degradation of the simulation resolution

Wow the graphics are cute, and pretty good considering you can randomize an unlimited number of maps. Plenty of scenery variety as well. TacAI is superb! This is how the CM series should have been designed IMO. OK it's not fair to compare 2D vs 3D but it is however comparable to TacOps. My point is: Design smart and don't focus too much on fancy 3D graphics. It's very unlike small dev teams to prioritize pretty graphics above gameplay quality.

This Sean O'Connor must be a freaking genius. Do you need to activate the games online? I'm seconds away from ordering both Firefight and Mother Of All Battles. Love these kind of intelligently designed games. BFC should hire him to make the TacAI for CMx2 WW2

Can one man make the wargame of your dreams? This one got it all... ... except 3D graphics Firefight review 20 Apr 2007

Sell your copy on Ebay and get this www.companyofheroesgame.com

Actually print screen don't work with CM:SF. At least not in Vista. You will need this www.fraps.com

Take a friggin brake. A few weeks vacation without touching another line of code. Only the most unthankful of whiners would disapprove. Getting burnt-out is a bigger threat to business then getting a patch a out a few weeks later.

All I can say is that, to get something even close to that, the person had to have either a)done it entirely on purpose, or hasn't a clue on how to play the game or maneuver forces. Take your pick, because I have a feeling both may be true... </font>

You're right, the whole lot us (including the EuroGamer reviewer) must have just been imagining it all this time. That's shown us </font>

The AI in Shock Force is very heavily scripted too for that matter, you only need to check the scenario editor to see exactly the level of scripting going on there. It might branch some more, but it's still heavily pre-written. </font>

AI in BIA, just like in CoD, is heavily scripted, and for those games I personally found quite difficult to consider the AI just like.....AI! In other games like OFP, ArmA and (I guess) CM:SF AI behaviour is handled in a completely different manner: the developers tried to give both OPFOR and BLUEFOR their own "indipendent and flexible intelligence", attempting to make the AI more challenging and realistic. Guys, this is a real hard duty for any programmer. </font>

Wow you have been waiting for the wrong game then. I love the AI in BiA myself. Big fan actually and I'm also looking fw to Hells Highway. Good quality games and the best firefights ever to grace the PC. Historically accurate too. I would however still prefer CM:SF over BiA in the long run. Totally different concepts and I prefer battalion size tactics over 3 men squad tactics. </font>

Wow you have been waiting for the wrong game then. I love the AI in BiA myself. Big fan actually and I'm also looking fw to Hells Highway. Good quality games and the best firefights ever to grace the PC. Historically accurate too. I would however still prefer CM:SF over BiA in the long run. Totally different concepts and I prefer battalion size tactics over 3 men squad tactics.

I can assure you it's not. I just got my ass whooped in my own experimental scenario on a huge map. CM:SF works just as I expected. Sure it has a few glitches here and there, but nothing that will stop me from enjoying it.

It was supposed to be provocative. No way you can compare them for real. Maybe the title should have been: The drawback of pretty graphics? Seriously. People locking the cam on units following them around during battle are prone to see some strange **** happen. However this is mentioned in the manual "The Reality of Reality, a foreword". You have been warned.

Just a thought about graphics and it's effect on people. The beautiful graphics in CM:SF can be deceiving. Just because units have excellent graphical detail doesnt make CM:SF a game with FPS accuracy. This is not GRAW2. The CM series have always been about tactical wargaming and units could just as well have been 2D sprites on maps and still fulfill it's primary function. CM just happens to have detailed 3D units and this is what made the series stand out in the first place. This is also why you can see things happen visually that doesn't make any sense. My point is. Don't expect individual soldiers to behave realistically in every situation. There are lots of numbers crunched under the surface that doesnt have any unit animations. It has nothing to do with bad AI or whatever you may think. This is not ArmA the über soldier simulation. This is CM:SF the über tactical simulation of modern combat See the difference?

That depends entirely on the scenario and how large the mission areas are in the AI plan. You can for example have the AI "Assault area" as large as the entire map if you want. At least CMSF got hardcoded tactical AI that can improvise. Most games have AI that only follow paths.