Lurker765

I don't believe this is a true statement. Given that the ballistic path of a bullets and shells are tracked the soldier that is laying above the ground in a shell scrape is treated differently than one that is dug into a hole that covers the majority of his body with dirt. I would like to be told I am wrong by Steve though. I would also like to know if the fallback foxholes, etc will be supported in Normandy. And if they can be placed by the defender during setup.

Can you burn the CMBB folder onto a couple CDs and transfer it over that way?

Ahhh...I can't let this train wreck go. It seems I must post one more time. I feel a little better about posting since you asked me a direct question or two in your last post. Since I don't have any long dead computer game review magazines that didn't update their website archives -- no, no I didn't check the print ones that are years old and no longer around even at a library. Since I can't read many different languages besides english and spanish -- no, no I didn't check those mainstream reviews either. I did, however, search the archives. Mostly what I found agreed with my position that the vast majority of gamers and game reviewers did not lampoon CMx1's graphics. Surprisingly I only found a dozen or so threads talking about about CMBB reviews in the archives. But I didn't exert myself since I only have small gaps of time free during the day. In a related note one of my first posts under my new account on this forum was in the thread: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=974313#post974312 This thread has someone else taking my side in on how there is a revisionist history of CMx1's reviews going on around here and he posts: And moving on with our discussion... Why would the forums of gamers that prefer a competitor's product be relevant? A consumer with a preference for another style/type of game would seem to have a bias of some sort and when hosted on a competing forum it would seem that they would, of course, be slanted against CMx1 and towards their existing favorite item. I don't know since I didn't bother searching for the forums (but I'm sure I could find them on the wayback web archive website if needed). Once again I see no proof of this. Sure, here and there a customer might have wanted CMx1 to look like Age of Mythology or something. But that also applies to CMSF and how it does not fare well in most comparisons to RTS and FPS games at this very moment. CMSF has gotten comparatively WORSE reviews than CMx1 did for it's graphics. I can easily find reviews that say 'horrendous', etc for CMSF whereas I cannot for CMx1. What does this have to do with the quotes I have given where you said that almost all of the critics mocked the graphics of CMx1? CMx1 and CMSF are two different games. I thought our entire argument is your statements that CMx1 graphics were roundly ridiculed by the reviewers? That has nothing whatsoever to do with what direction your company chose to take and what games they chose to develop. My entire point in this discussion is that CMx1 was NOT savaged by the vast majority of critics. We have had this discussion before on how many patches CMx1 had (you thought it was buggier than it actually was), how critics first treated CMx1 (you thought they trashed it) and now we are onto the graphics discussion of people's opinions on CMx1. I agree we are at the silly argument stage. I disagree that you "never once said that CMBB's graphics were bad". I have quoted you in prior posts: I haven't found ONE score slaughtering review for CMx1 graphics. I don't particularly see what the relevance of what CMSF needed to do to survive in a competitive market place has to do with what people thought of CMx1 graphics when the game came out years ago. I am just trying to stop the revisionistic history of CMx1. Trying to make CMSF look better by dragging down CMx1 just bothers me. I guess I can reuse my/our line: "What I've objected to is people using a fantasy view of CMx1 to make CMx1 look worse than it is. The only way to correct this unfair and factually flawed argument is to point out where people's perception of what CMx1 was differs from reality so the REAL CMx1 can be remembered." If I post something like a few dozen reviews with evidence and links (including the ones someone else took the effort to look up over a year ago) it seems like my perception of reality is shared by more critics than the one defunct, dutch website review you listed as a counterargument. To make your statement of "almost all of them (even the oens that gave it a very high rating) made critical, even insulting, remarks" you would have to dig up an awful lot of other mainstream websites (almost all > 80% say? and since I posted over 20 of them so you need to come up with perhaps 100 mainstream review sites dishing the graphics in a score slaughtering manner?) OK, this time I'm really done. The defense for CMx1 graphics rests its case in the Favorable_Graphics_Reviews vs Critical_Insulting_Score_Slaughtering trial.

Well....thanks for the kudos on my trying to prove my point that at the time CMBB came out the graphics were lauded by the majority of the critics (and players). Why can't we let this die? My supporting quotes and links were not limited and self selective. I went to two major game ranking web sites that scour the major game review sites and aggregate their scores. I then picked the first few links that worked and quoted from them. If you have a better idea of how to find evidence that mainstream reviewers liked the game and graphics I am open to suggestions. Your stance was that: and also that: When I asked you to defend this you posted one link to a Dutch website that is no longer in business and based on your selected quotes the reviewer doesn't even know how to play a war game. And you call my links "limited and self selective"? Anyway, here we go...I went to gamerankings.com and Metacritic to find their aggregate critical reviews and followed the links that still worked. ugo.com: http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/launchreview.asp?reviewid=130131 "The graphics of CMBB have ramped up the look with both sharpness and detail. The tanks, in particular, look fantastic. As they rumble along, you can see the detail in the treads, as well as the decals on the side. Soldiers themselves feature a ton of detailed items as well as crisper textures. Buildings look grimier, with splotches of caked-on dirt on some of them, and even elegrant brick and marble on some of the gaudier houses. Most improved is the foliage, which now looks authentic, and no longer like it was built out of Lego blocks. The game now also features neat effects, especially that of smoke. You can tell you've done something good when you can see a pillar of black, translucent smoke emitting from where you were firing your artillery. There is also a ton of weather as well, from a clear morning day to a nighttime blizzard, all nicely rendered." gwn.com http://www.gwn.com/reviews/gamereview.php/id/346/p/0/title/Combat_Mission_Barbarossa_to_Berlin.html "Unit graphics are improved as well. The tanks are absolutely gorgeous...Getting back to the graphics, you'll notice an appreciable difference over the previous game in that you'll see better explosions, dirt fragments from near misses and realistic craters from artillery blasts. I do think the overall terrain needs to be smoothed out a little as it seems too blocky. It makes line of sight targeting overly laborious." gamespy.com http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/launchreview.asp?reviewid=121353 "Don't let the great sounds and graphics fool you into thinking that this is an arcade game, or simply an RTS dressed in WWII clothing." gamespot.com http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/launchreview.asp?reviewid=234156 "The graphics are much improved since the first game's quaint in-house-artist look, which was more concerned with fidelity than flair. They were the kind of graphics only a crotchety old wargame veteran could love. But this time around, the foliage is more complex, the textures are sharper, the special effects like fire and smoke don't look so homegrown, and the vehicle models feature more detail and animation. You'll spend more time getting in close to study the replays just because they look so good. With the possible exception of its stiff little infantry models, Combat Mission now looks like a big-budget game." gameplanet.com http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/launchreview.asp?reviewid=112206 "All in all the graphics are realistic and effective and are a trade off for the ability to zoom and view form any angle." dailygame.net http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/launchreview.asp?reviewid=299955 "Graphically, CMII might not be the prettiest girl at the prom, but she’s certainly the most accurate. For example, the troops move like something out of "Stick Figure Theater," yet their helmets, uniforms and weapons are absolutely perfect matches for the real thing. A tank may look chunky and funky to you, but there won’t be a single incorrect marking, railing or weapon mount on it. Attention to detail is what captures the heart of hardcore wargamers, and the exacting level of detail applied to every unit in the game will guarantee CMII a place in every wargamer’s heart." Graphics Rating was 7.5 out of 10. ign.com http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/launchreview.asp?reviewid=114662 "In fact, the entire graphics palette has undergone a much-needed rehaul. It still fails to compete with the big names in 3D strategy (titles like Age of Myth or Warcraft III) but, for what it is, it's fantastic. The environments are much better rendered this time around with believable trees, time of day effects and realistically dense cities. While the vehicles look great, the soldiers are still a bit cartoony and suffer from stuttering animations. While it's not as impressive as a lot of recent RTS games, the scope of what's been accomplished in terms of variety is commendable." gamezone.com http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/launchreview.asp?reviewid=108163 "Graphics: 7.5 (out of 10) Combat Mission is not the best looking tactical simulator out there with it’s rather odd looking characters but the grandeur of the environments are really something to behold. Just moving the mouse across the field reveals the environment be it a massive field or towns. The characters don’t look quite right with their misshapen head (but they do have great facial features) and awkwardly hilarious movements (when they run, you’ll swear you’re watching an episode of South Park)." entdepot.com (entertainment depot) http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/launchreview.asp?reviewid=132820 " Graphics: 8/10 A quick peek at the screenshots might lead one to wonder what all the fuss is about with regards to Combat Mission's graphics. After all, compared to such big-name RTS titles as Age of Mythology, it can seem less than impressive. However, in wargaming terms, Combat Mission is easily the best-looking title in the genre, even more so than its predecessor. The graphics have been noticeably improved, and now look decidedly more professional, with stronger textures, better effects, and a more fleshed-out environment. The soldier animations are still a bit off-putting at times, but when you consider the sheer scope of the game and that so much of it is represented in-game - and rather nicely at that - it's easily overlooked." firingsquad.com http://www.firingsquad.com/games/cmbbreview/ "The graphics may be limited, and the sound might not get enough chances to showcase itself, but both are good enough to let players suspend all disbelief and get totally sucked in. Although it would be a stretch to say that CMBB fell from the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down, it would be fair to suggest that it got more than its fair share. Keeping in mind that ugly nowadays is far better than pretty was a scant 4 years ago. The sting is softened when we consider just how many models are in the game, done to scale and function rather flawlessly across so many different terrains. There are other mitigating circumstances, like the game having to run anywhere from ten to over a hundred units at a time. While it won’t win any awards, the graphics engine does manage to impress at times. It is difficult to think of a specific effect, but there are moments where the game comes together and provides a very immersive experience." pgnx.net http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/launchreview.asp?reviewid=109517 "The game's graphics are obviously not its strong point. The graphics won't make you want to play the game, but if you get into it, they won't want you to stop neither. The battlefield, soldiers and vehicles look decent and are modeled after actual WWII counterparts." Graphics score 6 out of 10. OK. That was ten minutes of copy/paste that seems to prove my point that the critical reviews were not "almost all of them making critical, even insulting, remarks about the state of the graphics" and even the few that did not praise the graphics gave CMBB good points on the graphic ratings with the lowest score a 6 out of 10. That was EVERY link that still worked (I didn't search archives because I have already wasted enough time on this) including the ones that were at the bottom of the reviews for CMBB. Is that less limited and selective? The revisionism is not mine on the rating of CMBB and its state of the graphics when it came out. CM:SF needed to improve the graphics to compete in today's world -- there is no denying that. The question is how much and at what cost to other game play features and mechanics. My only point in this whole argument is to quit rewriting the history of CMx1 coming out as critically slammed and buggy. It was not. What I've objected to is people using a fantasy view of CMx1 to make CMx1 look worse than it is. The only way to correct this unfair and factually flawed argument is to point out where people's perception of what CMx1 was differs from reality so the REAL CMx1 can be remembered. I am sure that somewhere in da interweb a reviewer trashed CMBB's graphics. Every single game will have a detractor out there that doesn't like it. Although, I did not find any such review at the two major review aggregate sites I looked at. My point is that BY FAR most reviewers LOVED the game and at the least thought the graphics were good for the niche and at best thought the graphics were great for the times. You have mentioned in the past year how buggy CMBO was with twelve patches (it was only 8 and many of those did not correct bugs but actually added free gameplay such as TCP/IP play) and also how ill-treated CMBO was in the press (I disagree and present the above links as proof). These seem to be revisionist viewpoints based on all evidence that I can find. It just irks me to watch you slam a game that was great for its time with unsupported attacks. Even when presented with factual counter arguments it seems this topic can't die and you try to dismiss my presentation of every reviewer (not cherry picked) I could find in a quick search. I guess I'm done. I won't post in this thread again since there doesn't really seem to be a point anymore. I don't think anyone besides me really cares about this anymore, and I think I have burned out my last feeling on this revisionistic history of CMx1.

Sorry. I must have gotten confused in the patch readme for 1.05 with the line "One of the many new features added with the latest v1.05 patch were all new Dynamic Lighting effects." And if you did the bulk of the graphics for CMBB I'd like to say I appreciated your work. I modded things quite a bit, but the out of the box CMBB graphics were good. Anyway, thanks for the replies Kwazydog. Take care.

Kwazydog, I agree with your statements. This small tempest began because I disagreed with the quote: There is a big difference between 'score slaughtering' and 'insulting' and not state of the art or top of the line. I think CMBB graphics were very good for the war gaming niche and adequate for the general gaming world at the time and I believe that the vast majority of critical reviews agree with that statement. You mentioned dynamic lighting not being in CMBB despite IL-2 having it years ago as an important issue in the sub-par graphics of CMBB. Wasn't dynamic lighting only added to CM:SF in the patch 1.05? Anyway, I think I will go back to occasional lurking. I think my quota of posts for the year has been met.

Steve, I liked your last post much better. I agree with almost all of it. I can't tell what the Dutch review blasted CMBB for since I don't read that language. My searches were limited to english speaking countries so my ten minutes of searching did not include foreign (to me) languages. Although I can't understand the ratings it gave for the english summary either (atmosphere 11%?, Multiplayer for a two person game seemed sweet to me even six years later -- what more could they want?). That link you provided was funny. People arguing and trying to get you to push the envelope and write to a 64 MB video card! My laptop has 512 MB and it sucks nowadays. I understand that graphics for the game were starting to get long in the tooth by CMAK. CMBB was great, CMAK not so much for the times. If you were planning on doing another game you had to update. That is how I quit doing computer game programming for my own small company -- I was the only programmer and if you wanted to have good presentation you needed more artists and programmers to compete with Everquest, etc (our main competition at the time). Once you choose to compete with the graphics you have moved to the big pond. One developer has to spend most of his time coding graphics and can't afford to do even simple things like making delete save game screens. Fancy graphics take a lot of time to do correctly and bugs are obvious to the user. Simple things like labels for pinned units that only take a few hours of coding drop to the back burner once you commit to trying to compete on looks with the large programming staffs. That is why grogs tolerate sub optimum graphics since they understand that something has to give in the smaller companies. It is good to hear you are happy with BFC sales. Small, local, home grown businesses are great. I like that in my neighborhood and I like that in the wild and woolly internet as well. My real life job is to change with the times. I created multiplayer games designed for 300 baud modems connecting to BBS systems when I started. I recently wrote software for internet companies processing millions of web page hits for financial firms and now I write code for GPS systems using satellite technology that didn't exist when I started my career. I have no problems with change, and being called a CC2 nut by you followed by the next post calling me a CM zombie is strange. I would think I was one or the other based on your logic. Just, please, stop slamming CMx1 to make CMSF look better. I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of my posts are something similar to the ones in this thread. I don't post often until something pushes my buttons. Here is an even more comprehensive review site for CMBB to add to the metacritic site I posted earlier: http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages4/522049.asp 21 of the biggest review sites. They LOVED CMBB. The few sites that didn't particularly like it are now out of business and even they liked it better than the average CMSF review score. I'm not trying to tell you what to do in the future with your company. But it is tough stopping by and watching you flame the product that built your company despite written evidence to the contrary of the history you are spinning.

Well...I guess I am in the position of defending a game to its creator who treats it as being awful. Since you couldn't find any reviews that were negative on your own I guess we can agree to talk about the one that 'slams' CMBB by comparing it to South Park. What were the graphics review by GameZone for that review? 7.5 out of 10. That doesn't seem too bad. And like you said, the lowest score of 70 was on that page. That LOWEST critic score review for CMBB would be well above average for CM:SF reviews listed on Metacritic. I put the links up to the reviews so that you can read all you want about the reviews. NONE of them were graphics 'score slaughtering'. If you can find one we could discuss it, but otherwise we are limited to the ones I provided I guess. Since you couldn't find the link for the lowest ranking review of CMBB here it is: http://web.archive.org/web/20021231060130/http://pc.totalgames.net/reviews/reviewsfull.epml?reviews.REF=2802&import.REF=1&format.REF=8&gameType.REF=3 It's main complaint is that CMBB is WEGO (instead of turn based) and not overhead based. I think we can both agree this reviewer was not on board with the revolution in war games that CMx1 became and instead preferred the classic board game style. I did not cherry pick any comments. I provided the links for the reviews since I can't legally post entire articles. If you would like you can go through any reviews you want and find out where they slam the graphics of CMBB more than they praise it. Let's compare reviews and see what the true picture of the critics was for the release of CMBB. If we want to just do the graphic ratings we can rummage through the reviews and compare them and I bet I'll 'win'. No. My point is that slamming CMx1 in an attempt to make CM:SF look better is not truthful. I don't know why you persist in saying that CMx1 was hated by critics who hated the graphics and how bug infested it's releases were (also not true). Really? You have no basis for that conclusion, BTW, but you're entitled to an opinion no matter how wildly speculative, uninformed, and pointless as it might be. How do you know what I was thinking in 1997-1999? How do you know what kind of games I play today? I was one of the Steel Panther / Close Combat 2 fanatics that continued to play those games even as I played CMx1. I like good games that give you good tactical choices to make. I don't see why you think just because someone liked SP or CC2 they wouldn't like CMx1 either. Some people were no doubt displeased, but apparently the critics and fans that helped create a market for BFC games were not. I was among those people that bought every CMx1 game you put out as well as buying CM:SF on preorder. Paper Tiger, I think you are for the most part getting your wish. Most of the old timers aren't posting here anymore and I stop by whenever I check the CMx1 forums. I usually have five minute intervals available in my day and if I have the time I check the CMSF forums as well to see if there are any new patches out, what the future of fortifications FOW, etc will be. How many posts do I have in the last six months? Maybe eight posts including the ones in this thread? Does that amount seem excessive? It is just when I poke my head in and see Steve rewriting the critical reviews that are still posted on the game websites it seems reasonable to note that. Honestly, I don't understand why CMx1 needs to be trampled upon to make CM:SF look better. CM:SF should stand on its own two feet well over a year over its release.

I also miss sound contacts, mis-IDing enemy units, placeable fortifications that have FOW, etc. It sounds like some of those things might eventually make it back in which would make me happy. CMx1 struck a great balance between graphics and game play while it seems that the vast majority of development time on CM:SF went into graphics. Your question of: could be turned around to ask -- if so much dev time had not been expended into trying to get close to good graphics how much could the gameplay, mechanics, feedback, etc been improved. Would reviewers and gamers alike think of CM:SF if the graphics were not as emphasized but instead the other issues were in the game instead? How many people wanted a right click menu? Kill lists? Quick battles? WEGO TCP? All the things that were in CMx1 that made commanding fun (for me) seemed to have not made it into the initial release of CM:SF and I only see years of development for mainly graphic improvements (that I don't really even notice much at the levels I play at, especially if in RT with no replay available). There is a price for trying to keep up on the graphics front. You are apparently happy with that decision, and it is your call to make. Your question is not as lopsided as you made it appear though -- of course everyone would prefer Crysis style graphics (if their machines could run it). But the cost to get to that point means that gameplay topics get put on the back burner for years. I loved CMx1 for it's game play along with good enough graphics. Maybe your new batch of customers prefer the graphics and can tolerate the lesser game play better than I can -- in which case BFC is on the right path and I move off into the curmudgeonly past.

I did not selectively quote any reviews. I went to MetaCritic: http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/combatmissionbarbarossa/ and grabbed the first couple reviews I could find about CMBB. I could have quoted: "and counting in well-drawn graphics and outstanding sound" from Pregaming.com or a more 'mainstream' review: "Combat Mission is not the best looking tactical simulator out there with it’s rather odd looking characters but the grandeur of the environments are really something to behold." from GameZone.com or "Don't let the great sounds and graphics fool you into thinking that this is an arcade game, or simply an RTS dressed in WWII clothing." from GameSpy.com etc. CMx1 was loved by critics. I honestly don't know where these 'mainstream' reviews that you keep bringing up (without any links) are. Every place I have looked for reviews of CMBB has given it a higher score than CMSF and not one was "score slaughtering" on the graphics. I don't understand where this bashing of your own game comes from? As far as I can tell you do have selective memory on this topic. I think this is a strawman argument. I haven't found ONE web site that slammed CMBB for it's graphics. Some thought they weren't stellar, but even those praised it for raising the bar in the niche it was in. Others praised it without any conditions. CMAK is probably a different story, but then again that is always the case when a computer game doesn't update graphics much as years go by. Of course CMSF would have been slammed if you had not updated the graphics just as if Quake was released again in this environment everyone would scorn it. For the times however, CMBB graphics were better than CMSF is and I think the reviews have reflected that. I think the "if I don't believe this" question should be more along the lines of "if I don't believe this I should be able to find one review that slams the graphics". Instead I find and link several that are of the opposite opinion and at worst lukewarm. For me, I usually play at view levels 3-5 with occasional zooming in for replays to level 1-2. For these view levels on my system I actually prefer the graphics of CMx1. The buildings and terrain are better looking and I can see my supersized units better rather than just an icon that doesn't give me much status info. If I played at level 1-2 the graphics would matter more to me, but from the higher elevations the LOD becomes muddy and drab. And I completely agree with Other Means on the lack of information at the higher elevations. I certainly miss the labels from CMx1 that let me know when my men were under fire, panicked, etc. And the targetting lines for all units showing, command lines, etc. IMHO.

Paper Tiger, No one is calling for the game to look more like CMBO. The argument is that CMx1 graphics were fine for their time. CMSF graphics are not as fine for their time comparitively since the competition is much tougher in this area. Reviewers have mentioned this in complaints about murky views from higher levels as well as frame rate problems. The argument is that trenches, foxholes, etc were able to be placed by the defender where they wished and not spotted on turn 1 by the attacker. Much better options for strategy and tactics. This is why there was some outcry about sandbags in CMx1 that were spotted at the start and not able to be moved -- a precursor of things to come I guess. Given the choice of better looking sandbags that could not be moved or hidden vs mediocre looking trenches that could be placed anywhere and hidden by FOW guess what almost all scenario designers and players chose? I don't particularly enjoy defending in positions that someone else chooses for me in spots that are known to the attacker from the very beginning of the game. It takes the fun out of the experience of being a commander. But, maybe that is just me and I can only vote with my pocketbook. Make a game I like and I'll support it. Make one that isn't fun for me and I won't.

CMx1 got great reviews for it's graphics. For example: http://archive.gamespy.com/reviews/november02/combatmissionbbpc/ "Here, the units are beautiful 3D depictions of the actual vehicles and infantry being represented, moving and fighting on a 3D map. This is the first area in which the improvements in Barbarossa to Berlin are evident." or from http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/combatmissionbtb/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;read-review "the foliage is more complex, the textures are sharper, the special effects like fire and smoke don't look so homegrown, and the vehicle models feature more detail and animation. You'll spend more time getting in close to study the replays just because they look so good. With the possible exception of its stiff little infantry models, Combat Mission now looks like a big-budget game." or Computer Gaming world's: "With a superb game system, unrivaled detail, great graphics for the genre, and outstanding multiplayer, CMBB is more than enough to please any wargamer." etc. CMx1 was not reviewed anywhere nearly as bad as you remember. It was LOVED by the critics and fans and the graphics were praised for the time. CMAK graphics did not get as good a review, but that is because they didn't change much from CMBB despite time going by.

As a related note to the bars on the windows. In my experience almost every place that has bars on the window has a security door as well that is much harder to pry off than the windows. When I have removed bars from windows with a crowbar it takes a couple minutes per window, but the door itself requires special tools and is not an easy task. The door cannot be kicked in either. I think the bars on the window argument is a red herring. If the building has bars on the window then the doors are even tougher to get into and there are pretty good odds they are locked to prevent looting during a war.

the windows question was discussed a long time ago with an official response from Steve as the last post in the thread: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=75723&highlight=window&page=9

Coverup? You mean like when I mentioned months ago (November?) that TCP/IP wasn't working and was told that it was working great and that only a handful of people were having problems with it? This feature appears to be working much better now, but was certainly shoveled under the rug and spun for quite a while. Or when there were numerous complaints about LOS/LOF issues with missiles and shells going through mounds of dirt and knocking out tanks and being told that this was normal behavior and happened all the time in real life? Only to be later fixed with the new and improved LOS routines. Or that WEGO TCP/IP support was implied on the advertising only to have the descriptions on the BFC website itself quietly changed without any apologies to the folks that bought the game on that premise? My original retail box as well as several non-BFC websites still show that information. Or that quick battles were working great and as designed? Despite numerous bugs existing in them until it has finally been admitted that they aren't working and will be entirely redone for the next version of CM2 (but not fixed in the current version despite earlier hints that older CMSF executables would be patched up to current ones). I honestly don't think there is a deliberate campaign to mislead customers, but when the Marines release has a somewhat botched campaign and the entire premise of the module is campaign/scenario/new units then those should be pretty bug free. Especially if there is no Paradox type deadline to meet. If GSX indeed had a US Total victory in the preceding battle then it seems odd that he would start with no soldiers in the next mission. Even IF this was the intent of the campaign it would seem that getting a notification that you are starting with no soldiers would be best for most users of the game rather than to leave them wondering what just happened and what they should do for the remainder of the scenario. Mistakes happen in business and software. It is what you do to react and rectify those mistakes that customers form their bond with a company. So far these attacks or spins against customers are not making me want to purchase more products from this company. I would love to see that change, but after lurking here for quite a while I'm just slowly drifting away and stopping by here less and less. I think it is great that BFC is working hard on patching the core game, but they have to. This is their future. They can't leave bugs in it and move on to their next game like many software companies do. The bugs in many games are left since the companies move on to other projects while BFC have invested years into this one and cannot easily abandon it and move to something different. They MUST fix the core game or they go out of business. Thus, they don't get any special kudos from me for busting their butts to get the game into the shape it currently is in since that is what all small businesses with a single specialty must do to survive. I love it that they are dedicated and driven, but please, please stop the attacks on customers who report legitimate bugs. If you have Beta Tester in your title you also represent the company since the only way you become one is if the powers that be add you to their secret cabal and share information that only insiders can get. Thus, they trust you. Part of that trust is to treat their customers right. Feel free to jump on me too though if it makes you feel better.

It is amazing that the link lists a whole bunch of gripes and doesn't even mention any of my pet peeves such as the defender being unable to place foxholes, trenches, barbed wire, etc in the location that the defender (as opposed to scenario designer) wishes to. I am 99% sure that while some of the terrain will improve for the Normandy module we still will not be able to place our own fortifications or defensive positions.

CMx1 also had unit labels that were displayed like the icons in CMSF. The labels would have descriptions (pinned, panic, etc) letting you know the status of a unit at a glance without having to supersize the units. I also play most computer games with the sound off. I have a laptop that I use on the couch while my wife watches TV, works on her computer or reads. We can thus chat while I work on a PBEM turn for a couple minutes before going back to reading or such. Having to rely on sound cues is no replacement for visual clues that can be seen at a glance for me.

I found the labels above the units showing their status from any view level in CMx1 very, very useful. Knowing a unit was being pinned, suppressed, etc made the game much more enjoyable for me. I miss that feature in CMSF.

CMBO -- released June 1, 2000 CMBB -- released October 29, 2002 CMAK -- released December 3, 2003 I'm not sure how much faster modules are getting cranked out under the new system (given how many more people are actually working on the game) compared to the old days. I would guess that they need to crank out modules faster than once every nine months to meet their goals. How long can the graphics be considered current before it must be revamped to keep up with competing graphics engines? If they take too long per module then the expiration date will hit for the graphics and people will think CMSF looks as cartoonish as they consider CMx1 now.

Just try the demo too see if you like it. If you want to see the latest and greatest patch then wait for the Marines module since they should update the CMSF demo at that time.

I understand your point, but I can't understand why you are arguing that a manual is: a) fine even though it was outdated on the day it was printed if somehow needed online access only is good enough c) no search utility is needed in the 150 page (or so) manual for checking for terms like 'toggle' (can/how do you toggle smoke? unit bases?) d) the work for the PDF is already finished but BFC withholds it from customers that already bought the game forcing them to visit a website and unable to do a search (as far as I can tell, no one ever answered that question). Once again, no big deal since it will arrive eventually with the patch as pointed out earlier in the thread. It just boggles my mind that we are arguing that I shouldn't need to have a free PDF (that is already finished) that I can do quick searches in. The bandwidth is even less if I download it once rather than go to the online one and scroll through it every time I need it. In this case I was looking forward to downloading the PDF and reading through it while I ate lunch. No big deal, but I just can't understand why it isn't available. I guess if BFC doesn't want to host downloads, but only web pages for some reason. Moon's response of saying I can save it one page at a time (with a smiley) just seemed strange.

I only posted in this thread so that I could download the PDF and read it at my leisure at lunch (no wireless in the restaurant). During the day I get chunks of five minute periods free so that I can check this board, but never long enough to actually read through a manual in one pass. Anyway, as long as it eventually finds its way to my hard drive via the patch I am happy.

That's great then. When I read Moon's reply I was under the impression that you had to get the Marine's module. If I can download the PDF with the patch for the base CMSF then I am a happy camper.

Alright...it appears that I am out of luck for getting a current copy of the rules for the game that has been massively patched without spending more money. Can I do a search in the online manual if I am looking for a specific word/term? I don't see that functionality supported on the web page. That was my most used function when looking through the PDF of the rules whenever I had a question about something.

The manual I got on the CD is the old 1.01 one. It would be nice to have the current one so that I could do searches in it if I have a question about the rules/equipment/etc. How do I get a current PDF of the rules for the game I pre-ordered and that has changed over time? One of the things I liked about CMSF was that all future changes were going to be incorporated into the game engine for people who bought the original game and it would be nice to be able to see what those changes are in a PDF that I can search through. Are you saying that you plan on never letting the older customers have a new copy of the rules? From what I recall you cannot purchase a hard copy version of the manual and you now cannot download a PDF copy either? Can I do a search in the online manual if I am looking for a specific word/term?