[First impressions of 1.06]

Originally posted by Other Means: I've never actually seen that yet. Maybe I'm playing the wrong battles, but everything seems to go nicely for me.

Have a play around and see if you can repeat it, and how.

Fire up any number of scenarios. 'Rescue on the Outskirts', for example. Place a Syrian squad on the roof of a bldg, adjoining another identical bldg. Plot a movement from one roof to the other. The squad will exit their current bldg, and climb the stairs of the contiguous one rather than step over the tiny, shin-high wall separating them. Renders urban combat rather farcical, methinks.

[First impressions of 1.06]

Originally posted by MarkEzra:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Childress:

I see that the crossing contiguous buildings bug is still festering:

//www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=003468;p=1#000000

While a great deal of work was done on the interior door and movement orders, I don't believe the roof top jump was addressed with this patch...I'm making a note of this for my 107 wish list. It may be more difficult to do without creating a situation where troops can be ordered (inadvertently) to jump off roofs. </font>

[First impressions of 1.06]

I see that the crossing contiguous buildings bug is still festering:

//www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=003468;p=1#000000

[Buglist thread]

Surrendering troops added some atmosphere and charm to the original series, yes. But, in practice, the whole process was, IMO, kind of goofy and unconvincing; marching that solitary enemy unit, maybe herded by a solitary, tankless crew, off the map edge. But you have a point, in a modern war with Arab armies there seems to be a whole lot of surrenderin' going on.

Would anyone be happy with simply abstracting the POWs out of the game along with a to-be-designated friendly guard?

[Strategic Command 3]

How about a provision to stack different unit types? For example, an armoured corps with an AT formation or combining a land unit with an air wing on a strategic location- like, I dunno, Guadalcanal. I think this preserves the game's lean simplicity and adds flexibility.

[Global CAMPAIGN!]

One hopes that some of the new features will rectify some of the engine shortcomings discussed in the Malta thread. Right?

[Mystery of Malta]

I'm with xwormwood, too. It's about taking Malta the *right* way. :; There are higher principles involved.

[Clearing buildings, arduously]

A squad is on the roof a multi-level building adjoining an identical multi-level building.

Sargeant: Ok, men, this building is clear. Let's step over this knee high wall and work our way down the through the next one!

Private: Can't do that, Sarge!

Sargeant: Hmmm, I see. Ok, we'll retrace our steps down the 5 floors we just cleared, exit out through the door, look out for enemy fire!, and march up to the roof of this here adjoining building!

Maybe there are some abstractions going on that I'm missing but has anyone run across this situation?

[Things I still miss from earlier CM Games]

21- Terrain indicated as tree terrain when trees have been removed (alt-t).

[Mystery of Malta]

Originally posted by Timskorn:

I think this falls under the "why can't I attack with 2 or more units at a single time?" design question as well.

Seemingly minor design changes could affect how the entire game feels and plays, despite how logical it may sound in theory.

Yes, be careful what you ask for you may get it. The concept of attacking a single unit at a time doesn't bear scrutiny, lol, but the depth and realism of a game like SCWAW lies at the strategic level. From reading the forum, it appears to do this quite well.

But to do do justice to a situation like Malta (or Iwo Jima or Dieppe) you really need a way to invade from a non-land square. Also, limited stacking of, say air and ground units. Problem with Malta, is, that to really do it right you 'd need to stack a land unit, a fighter unit and a bomber unit. SCIII?

[Thinking of buying CM:SF]

IMHO the mammoth 1.05 patch represents a major step up, but frankly, compared to the earlier series I still find the 'it' factor largely AWOL. There's still a lot of missing stuff- too numerous to list- that made the charm and addictive quality of CM 1-3. Also the modern, assymetrical setting seems to be an acquired taste for some. It's an ambitious project with flashes of brilliance but I tend to fire up a scenario and lose interest. CMBO after a few patches (there were 12) was more fun and finished feeling- for me. YMMV.

But the developers seems dedicated to ongoing improvements. I'd wait until 1.07- 1.06 is apparently going to be a quick fix.

[Could the soviet method of war have been successful ?]

Agreed. One suspects, in the case of the Arab-Israeli wars, that if the weaponry had been reversed the results would have been the same.

As was claimed of the the late NFL coach, Bum Phillips and his coaching staff: 'He can take hiz'n and beat your'n, or he can take your'n and beat hiz'n'.

[Mystery of Malta]

Originally posted by xwormwood:

Solution would be a "retreat" battle result, which does not exist in SC2 / WAW.

Maybe also some provision for integrating land and air units in the same square. After all, Malta as an airbase dominated supply lanes as a source of interdiction. I suspect the game provides rules to recreate this, but in a wonky, work-around fashion.

This opens up the 'stacking' can of worms but one wonders that if the game allowed 2 units per square new possibilities would open up without violating the simplicity the games aspires to. As well as a retreat provision, as you mentioned, or sea based invasion squares.

[ December 16, 2007, 07:58 AM: Message edited by: Childress ]

[Mystery of Malta]

Question: If single square islands cannot be directly invaded how does the game handle the island hopping in the Pacific? Just curious, I don't own the game.

[Hand to Hand Combat]

It seems sensible that when you have troops that have closed to close proximity, especially if there is a disparity in numbers, a surrender occurs. This is an event that CMSF, at least in the current version, sorely lacks.

[Will vehicles be able to reverse for self preservation behaviour?]

Well, you can do it manually. This won't help you if you favour WEGO, however.

[Infantry, trenches, waypoints & cover]

Giving them a limted cover arc, maybe?

[At what difficulty do you play CMSF and why?]

Veteran, though Elite will be mandatory if co-op multiplayer ever sees the light of day.

[If you are discouraged, try this]

Yes the US is overpowered vis-a-vis a 3rd world country like Iraq,er, I mean Syria. But we have to remember that, in terms of military planning, a closely contested battle is often a *mistake*. Even in WW2. The desirable 3-1 attacker/defender odds from the hoary board games of the past was there for a reason.

[First Impressions of 1.04]

Originally posted by thewood:

That is a good point about reversing AFVs. I have yet to see that.

LOL. As it stands now, a T55 will stand toe to toe with an Abrams and duke it out. Syrians tankers seem to be missing that useful self-preservation gene. Or it could be sheer chutzpah.

Fewer bugs, better performance but version 1.04 is still missing a lot the *stuff* that contributed to the fun, realism and (not least of all) immersion factor evident in the older games. 1.05 could be the magic number- but it will have to be a meaty download, imo.

[Did the Infantry Finally Get Glasses?]

Calvin, you sent me surfing with your allusion to SLA Marshall. His 'findings', with which I was vaguely aware, are controversial to put it mildly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.L.A._Marshall

(Among other sources)

[First Impressions of 1.04]

Yes, CMSF is starting to resemble fun. I actually started reading the imposing manual. Soon after release, I predicted on another forum that version 1.05 would be the keeper. Looks pretty right on, now.

I still miss some of the flavor of the older titles like:

*actual mortar teams

*self-reversing tanks

*surrendering troops (Arab armies do a lot of that)

*aircraft sounds and shadows

*and, maybe above all, appropriate underlying tree terrain when using alt-t

[WW2 title. What to expect.]

Some flavor objects that appear, IIRC, awol in the game are stationery/abandonned private vehicles-cars and trucks- usable for cover. CMSF aspires to re-create urban warfare, after all.

[i think my enjoyment of CMSF is starting to drop]

I don't know how much work BFC put into ToW, but maybe not having that distraction would have enabled them to get CMSF further along by Paradox's deadline.

Or all the extra time devoted to including WEGO *and* RT? Frankly, personally, I would have been happy with either environment. With a few(?) months extra development time we'd have a release version in our hands instead of a .75 beta (IMHO ).

[Why don't my troops follow my orders? (the fluffy version)]

Sarge: Okay, is everybody here?

Squad: Yes Sarge!

Sarge: How far did we move?

Squad: 10 meters Sarge!

Sarge: Excellent. Now everybody mill about for a bit while I get a head count and consult the map for our next objective.

Squad: Don'cha think that we should do something about that machine gun blazing away at us?

Sarge: Sure, I guess we could do that. Okay when I count to 5 I want everyone to turn to face the enemy.

Lol, not bad, GalacticCmdr. It's funny 'cause it's true. What WERE they (meaning BFC) thinking?

The old system with a delay at the beginning of the plot seems more plausible.

[ September 21, 2007, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: Childress ]