cow_cookie

Gotta agree here. WEGO seems nearly identical. I think it may be getting blamed for other things that aren't WEGO's fault, per se. It can exacerbate some problems (pathfinding) because of the loss of control for that time. But that's hardly WEGO's fault.

I'm getting in on the discusssion late, but I'm going to split the difference between the reviewer and CM:SF defenders. Things I disagree with: 1) Graphics: Not bad looking in my opinion. I wonder if it's the way things disappear when you zoom out that's pissing them off. I can't see terrain features very well, though, and would like some contour lines or something else. 2) Interface: If they liked CMx1 games, I don't understand what the problem is. The difficulty seems comparable. The interface is close enough to earlier games that I haven't had to read the PDF manual all that much to get the hang of it - although some things did seem counterintuitive. Why when I want a javelin to fire on a specific building must I use area fire. The decision to use the same hot key for different commands, depending on the menue, does seem pretty dumb. But I don't use hot keys all that much. 3) Modern warfare problems: The era doesn't seem to be prohibitive in my mind. I'm glad to at last have a CM game with modern equipment. I know it better and can relate to it more, so it cuts down on the learning curve - especially important since I'm a working man now, unlike when the series first came out. 4) Campaign: Works for me. Maybe it's not as dynamic as it could be, but I'm not complaining. Things I agree with: 1) Pathfinding: It sucks. Period. BFC has all but conceded this in previous threads, why should the reviewer not point it out? Any suggestion that it in some way reflects the confusion of war is bogus. It's a mistake. And that whole stop and rally at every waypoint deal? BS, plain and simple. 2) Tac AI: Hard to separate this from the bad pathfinding, in my mind, but not so hot. 3) Hardware problems: At any given time, starting a mission can result in anything from smooth-as-silk framerates to choppy frame rates. This is true even when we're talking about the same mission. It's hard for me to get too mad at this, though, as I see this on nearly every game that comes out if you don't have the latest hardware. And if the reviewer can't figure out how to get the game running smooth, how likely do you think the average gamer is to do that? I certainly thought we were past the days of mucking about with the OS to get our game of choice running. In all fairness, though, my problems haven't been bad enough to force me to do that. 4) Expectations: Sure, it's not fair but I consider the game's problems a bit more severe considering my expectations for it. I didn't play CM:BO at release, so I can't compare to that launch. But I do recall the various versions I did play over the years, and this experience just isn't as polished. Notice, I didn't say it doesn't have my feature of choice. I said it wasn't as polished. I think that's a problem any way you look at it. 5) UNCONS: I don't have a big problem with them, but I think they could be left out and nothing would be lost - except for the IEDs. It seems to me any civilian running around outside in a bombed-out city would be pretty suspicious. And let me add one of my own: 1) Morale: I've never seen either my men or my enemies rout. Ever. The game does show a combat modifier, but the dedicated little troopers stay in place until they die. All in all, I think the score is a bit harsh. I'd have put it more in the 5s or maybe low 6s. But I don't base my purchases on scores; I base them on comments. I think the reviewer's comments are right much more often than not, and the times that I think he's off are perfectly defensible.

I use my infantry as really high powered tank decoys. They'll scout around for tanks with an M1 lurking behind. When they find one, they can usually get off a javelin in time to kill it. Meanwhile, the M1 will roll up to finish off any remaining tanks since Syrian tanks tend to roam in packs.

Coming into the game graphics were one of my biggest excitements and my biggest worries. While I thought the graphics upgrades looked extremely cool, I was worried the laptop I play on wouldn't be up to the task. Fortunately, the situation has turned out even better than I could have expected. My computer has proved capable of managing reasonably high settings. However, I spend so much time zoomed out that I don't even notice. Consequently, I cranked the settings down and the game moves smooth as silk - like playing CMBO on a modern computer.

Coming into the game graphics were one of my biggest excitements and my biggest worries. While I thought the graphics upgrades looked extremely cool, I was worried the laptop I play on wouldn't be up to the task. Fortunately, the situation has turned out even better than I could have expected. My computer has proved capable of managing reasonably high settings. However, I spend so much time zoomed out that I don't even notice. Consequently, I cranked the settings down and the game moves smooth as silk - like playing CMBO on a modern computer. Best of both worlds, I'd say.

Despite my complaints, I should note that I've never regretted my decision to purchase. I'm having a blast even with the pathfinding complaints I've detailed here. The core concept is awesome. Plus, I enjoy simulations of modern warfare much more than World War II (blasphemy, Iknow). I just know more about modern warfare and equipment, so I find it easier to get into. easily spent six hours playing the game on my day off. If any of you out there are sitting on the fence, let me give you a push: The game is worth it - quirks and all.

@Battlefront: Thanks for the response and your promises to look into it. That's really all I wanted to hear. I realize coding is incredibly complicated (certainly beyond me), and I know problems come up. I'm more than willing to hang around while y'all try to fix them because the core concept is awesome. I'm still curious if there are any complete newbies who tested the product. Employees at the company where I work, for example, can roughly be divided into the specialists who produce the actual product that the customer sees and the support staff who enable us to get that product to the customer. Us specialists may appreciate a particularly elegant solution to a technical problem. However, our customers are more like our support staff - they don't care about solutions to complex problems, they just want an enjoyable end product. Consequently, we often ask our support staff to give us a rundown on what works and what doesn't. They can be brutal, but it helps us take a step back from work that we can be extremely invested in personally. Something I may appreciate may actually drive away the customer I'm working for. Kind of off topic, but is there a way to tell your guys which way to disembark. The game always seems to just pick a spot. It's never been a big problem for me, but a little more control could be nice.

I just don't see how most of this stuff can be considered anything other than a bug. Like an earlier poster said, I'm not expecting to plop down a way point in the distance and have a unit navigate there unerringly. I'm not even expecting formation commands since I can manage those on my own, and I can understand the complexity in that. I just want my units to go through a gap I can see quite clearly is there. I want them to go inside a building like they've been instructed, not run laps around it first. I want my Stryker to move 10 feet, not charge the enemy at full speed for several hundred meters. We know there's a breaching bug that is causing pathfinding issues (units won't go through a hole that has been blown). That is a problem that the company has conceded and promised to look into. With that one pathfinding problem known, why should it be any more of a surprise that pathfinding is a problem in other situations? I don't have near the problems with the game that the original poster did. But it's getting old hearing that it's the gamer's fault. Put more waypoints? Check. Still getting erratic behavion. Micromanage? Check. Still having units run off on their own during the WEGO phase. There's not much else that we as gamers can do.

Just in the first campaign mission I have seen: - A Stryker charge full speed into two enemy bunkers when it chose not to go through a gap in the wall dividing the highway. - A gap in the wall dividing the highway that vehicles mysteriously won't go through, whether they're Abrams or Strykers. - Multiple Strykers enter the compound through the main road when I set their waypoints through a gap that had been blown in the wall. - Infantry units unable to climb the berm to get a better view of the battlefiled. They always try to walk around the entire berm instead. While I understand why an Abrams can't just climb a berm, it shouldn't be impossible for infantrymen. - Infantry units that insist on entering a building through a door when artillery has already leveled a section of the building and left massive holes on one side of the building. I'm kind of having a love-hate relationship with the game. There are so many things I think are cool. I love that it's modern warfare, and I love the faster, more unforgiving pace that that type of warfare has. There are numerous cool features, too. But I find myself cursing my units for stupid mistakes just as often. I'm not going to abandon the game, but I'm now playing the game like an FPS: Save after every turn in case a mass of units manage to get themselves killed in a spectacularly stupid fashion. I don't know why the testers or Battlefront didn't catch this, although I suspect it's because the testing process is not objective enough. Next time, there need to be some testers who don't know much about Combat Mission and who don't give a flip about whether it succeeds or not. It's too easy to love something if you've already decided you want to love something. Someone less invested in a project would be more likely to step back and ask "is this the best way to do this" and "does this work as intended" - although I admit I may be wrong and they may have done this.

Are these quick battles or campaign? I've only played the campaign at Veteran. Getting used to the exceptionally lethal nature of modern combat has made the game quite a challenge for me, albeit a challenge I'm enjoying. Maybe the campaign just has more challenging scripting or maybe I just suck.

Enjoying the game, and there are already a ton of units to mess around with, including many that I've never seen modeled in a game before. But I just wouldn't be a wargamer (most would say I'm still not) without a wish list of units I'd love to see added. HIMARS: Sure, they'd be off map. But our state's National Guard just switched from 155s to rockets, and I'd love to pretend some Powder River Cowboys were backing me up. UAVs: Imagine if you could call up a UAV just like an artillery fire mission to give you a momentarily glimps of the battlefield. Perhaps only certain units would have access to that information or the UAV might only be able to see certain units, but it would still be cool. FASAMS: Every since I've learned what these are, I've wanted to play them in a game. Of course, if you're going to have FASCAMS, you'd have to have a MICLIC. BASTARDIZED HUMVEES: Hopefully, we'll be better prepared for the next war than we were for this one. But I'd love to see some hummers rolling around the desert in hillbilly armor. Perhaps there could even be a defense penalty due to the improvised nature of the armor. JSTARS: I've read some gripping accounts of OIF I where JSTARS alerted vulnerable soldiers that enemy armor was on the way. Imagine getting a message on your screen warning that a column of T-72s was approaching.

Don't mind the tabs too much myself. I find it easier to click on a unit, scroll down the map and look around and then finally decide what I want to do. Just personal preference, but I rely almost exclusively on mouse and so don't have the problem of hitting the 'k' key when I'm in the wrong tab. I do miss not having the lines extend out before you pick where to move. Don't really know why. I also wish I could drag waypoints around like in the first game. Maybe there's a way. But the manual hasn't arrived in the mail yet, and I hate alt-tabbing.

Good game overall. No regrets whatsoever. But here are my minor annoyances, some that people have said before: 1) I understand the reasoning for not being able to select the exact weapon to fire, but I just don't think it works well in practice. If you really need command approval to fire a javelin, and I'm the commander, well, I don't see why I can't tell my men to use a javelin. 2) I HATE having to wait through the full minute of gameplay in the early stages of the scenario. We should be able to skip past that. The artillery training missions were extremely boring solely because of this. 3) Why is it sometimes impossible for me to do area fire when I'm able to target an enemy directly? I wouldn't normally care, but I can't seem to get my MK19s going unless I do area fire. Again, if we could just direct the guys to use certain special weapons, it would resolve the problem. 4) I say this with absolutely no background, but does a single javelin really collapse three-story buildings? Eliminating insurgents certainly doesn't get any easier. 5) I'm still trying to get used to the waypoint system. The facing, in particular, is taking some getting used to. In CMBB, I could move a vehicle to a point on the map and then have them face in a certain direction. In CM:SO the facing seems to only be oriented on where the vehicle is at the time I'm giving the orders, not where it ends up. I'm sure I'm missing something, but it's not intuitive. Not seeing any hardware issues, bad AI, etc. Like I said, still pleased with what I got.

Michael Dorosh: I wasn't really saying anything with that post. I just found it amusing that a reviewer who's review is under review suggests that the rewiewing process needs some review. Although it's a preview in that specific instance.

From one of Chick's Shoot Club columns on E3: