Cheeba

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

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.

That's all well and good, but that's not what the majority of people are complaining about. The main issue is that even with the best-planned waypoints in the world, the AI is still capable of staggering stupidity, doing things that are not just impractical and inefficient, but quite often completely suicidal. And considering how widely reported it's been by quite a few experienced players, I'm not the only one getting this on a regular basis.

This game uses that too. Use '/' and '*' to cycle tabs, and the relative number keys on the numpad to select orders, far as I recall.

The developers have certainly stated that at least a couple of patches are on the way, one for more urgent fixes and later ones for less high-priority ones and possibly some added features. No word on a timeframe, but the first one won't be too far away. Just don't expect miracles, these things have to be tested first before they're released into the wild. Rest assured they won't forget about us

Agreed, this really needs to be there. Especially with the 'creative' pathing system, you have to be pretty bloody sure that vehicles' waypoints aren't overlapping at certain points, for example. At the moment it's a minor headache trying to get all the WPs arranged properly, reselecting units to check movement paths etc.

Oh my various Gods yes.

Straying off-topic a bit here, but nice work on Spoonbot, mate. Back when I was on dialup I had loads of fun playing Tribes offline with that, nicely done

Quite a few RT games have time compression. It's a whole different subject from the WEGO debate, as it's related to moving through ingame actions quicker, not rewinding to view again, and hence doesn't involve storing data the way the WEGO system does. It would probably only be applicable to RT games though, as WEGO has to store all the turn data anyway. That said, I'm not sure how practical it would be to implement such a system in this engine.

Exactly. An ounce of tact goes a long, long way. (and yes...my responses lacked tact, and I regret losing my temper...lately I do a lot more drafting of posts, then hitting refresh rather than post, but this one slipped by my filters.) </font>

EXACTLY! And you wouldn't go around calling CC a "run of the mill C&C-clone", now would you? </font>

You could make the exact same argument about Close Combat, to be fair.

Yeah, just like in Close Combat! Or Ground Control! No, hang on... RTS - Real Time Strategy. I'm not sure where you're getting all that resource-gathering crap from, that's just an additional aspect that SOME RTS games have. CMx2 is a strategy game that takes place in real time, hence it's an RTS.

I'm not sure how good an indicator that is exactly. I've been playing Combat Mission games since the CMBO days, and the only reason I never came here was, well, I never had any reason to, I was too busy getting stuck into playing it Anyway, good job on the game guys, I just know it's gonna keep getting better.

I'd like to second this as a great idea, I could see it being a great help for all kinds of play.

Well I've said it before elsewhere, but this is definitely one my my most wanted features. Proper command queuing would be a huge improvement.

The problem with the AI seems to be that effectively there seems to be very little of it. Scripting is not something I'd call true AI at all, and it's obvious from QB's and the like that the unit AI can't think on its feet at even a basic level. Good scripting should help to provide more realistic tactics, but it shouldn't be the be-all and end-all. Wholly in agreement about the interface too. If they really want it to be an RT game, the interface simply has to be more streamlined. RTS interface design is down to a fine art these days, and your average Joe public rts gamer wouldn't stand for what's included here. Thankfully that's a moot point for me, being an exclusively turn-based strategy fan, but then the tacAI issues start to get really troublesome again. And obviously the devs and testers are going to prefer RT if they never bothered testing and developing WEGO to a properly functional level. And it's obvious from even a cursory playthrough that absolutely essential turn-based functionality is missing. I don't even mean the extra luxuries like shoot n' scoot or hull down commands, I'd even be relatively content with properly editable waypoints and (this is the biggie here) truly stackable orders. Stacking waypoints is fine, but what about providing functionality where for example an MG team can move to waypoint, move to next waypoint, deploy weapon and then change facing (Instead of changing facing and THEN moving, regardless of the order commands were given in)?

That's happened to me once or twice. My own fault of cause, but that didn't stop an impressive display of swearing or two

Oh, I'm not so sure about that. The game certainly pushes a lot of high detail objects around, but there's plenty of other games out there that push a hell of a lot more. Maybe it couldn't keep the ultra-fine closeup object detail at a distance, but I'm sure quite a few machines out there could handle a little more than the considerable loss of detail it reverts to now. Oh, and I'm angry at all, as it happens. It's not like the game isn't going to get better, and as good starts go, it's pretty solid . I might gripe and moan a bit around here, but I'm just trying to help out.

Surely it's a little early to be even thinking about additional modules at this stage? There's still quite a few kinks to be ironed out it seems, and all people are doing is trying to offering suggestions as to what they'd consider key features they'd like included in the game. I don't see what you're getting so riled up about. I think building as solid and expansive a foundation as possible would be the right way to go. A 'unit shopping' system might be seen as overkill or unnecessary by quite a few members now, but you'd be mad to think that people won't be absolutely screaming for one in CMx2 WWII, so why not consider working on it sometime in the near future? That way they'll always have it to use again in future modules. Just a thought. I can understand perfectly how it's not a priority, for all the reasons mentioned, but I'd be a little disappointed if it never made a showing.

I think it's a fair compromise, as it looks like using the full WEGO system in TCP/IP play simply isn't going to be practical. Another potential plus would be that it's going to make for speedier games, as you're not going to get people looking through their replays with a fine-tooth comb before making their next move. Whether you like that or not's a matter of personal taste, but I'd certainly be a lot happier having a system like that in place compared with what we have now.

Seriously, some kind of easily printable quickstart/quick reference sheet would be an enormous help to newcomers. Or do we not want people to buy this? I've played quite a lot of CM before and I still found it a little obtuse. (EDIT: Yes, I know they're in the manual, but white text on dark green isn't terribly printer-friendly)

Good point. Considering there's been mention in here of beta testers largely preferring to play in RT, maybe that's a factor in WEGO getting such a raw deal. Most of the issues mentioned (along with things like fully editable waypoints) are close to essential for WEGO, but much less of a priority when you can change orders on the fly.

I've had this happen a couple of times too, when moving units between the high floors of buildings in one of the ambush scenarios. At first I thought my eyes were playing tricks on me . Sadly didn't keep a save as it was only my second or third mission after installing it, so that stuff didn't seem a priority. I'll keep an eye out to see if it happens again.

I'm really enjoying this so far. It's far from perfect, but then what release-day title ever is? There's still plenty to get stuck into, minor niggles be damned. The one real problem I have is what Ryan and Exel mentioned regarding the softening/simplifying of terrain as the viewing distance increases. Currently it seems far too aggressive, with trenches turning into a series of indistinct blobs from not very far away. Configurable settings for this would certainly be appreciated. There's not much point having an engine that looks gorgeous at unit level when you spent most of the game looking at a blurry, indistinct zoomed-out map as you plan your tactics. [ July 28, 2007, 09:44 AM: Message edited by: Cheeba ]