Lurker765

That is entirely possible and I just haven't gotten 'unlucky' and had one of my soldiers hit by friendly small arms fire. I haven't played the game much since 1.04 so my sample size is pretty small. Although, from what I can tell other people have shared my experiences. ie: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=002982#000011 http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=71;t=000160#000000

My guess would be abstracted. I just base that on the fact infantry units can fire into a building that has other friendly units and the bullets won't hit them. My impression would be that if each individual bullet had a flight path you would have more friendly casualties caused by small arms. But I'm just guessing.

I remember I checked the CMSF manual for things like ATGM ranges, meanings of icons (pre-tooltips), etc since I couldn't find that information in-game. Some of those things are creeping into the game now so it becomes less of a concern. In any event, I prefer PDFs for searching. I truly prefer not having to access a manual at all and just relying on in-game things to drive learning. As a counterpoint to MD's point about why get worked up about printing a manual -- why is BFC so dead set against someone being able to print it? At this point I would think the goodwill outweighs the possible piracy concerns. I didn't see the argument where a printed manual prevents piracy enough for other companies otherwise we would still be using those key wheel thingies in every game. I can't imagine BFC makes oodles of money on manuals -- I would think they would prefer everyone to just use a PDF and print it themselves rather than run up their own printing bill and getting stuck with a bunch of outdated manuals in storage.

From what the thread on the Paradox manual says it appears that it is only 40 pages long. Perhaps BFC could enable a manual only purchase if they are looking to make a profit on the manual while also letting their customers have a printed copy? I don't know if S&H plus printing costs make this a worthwhile thing, but if the Paradox customers were told they had a manual and it turns out over one hundred pages are missing and unable to be printed it doesn't seem quite right.

I personally did purchase it from BFC. I want all my money to go to the developers of the game rather than distribution partners. I didn't care what the cost difference was since I am trying to support the people who make the games I like to play rather than middlemen. I am not even sure what the deal is with the Paradox manual since I have never seen one. I am just trusting that the original poster stated his case correctly and that he never had the opportunity to have a full manual. I can't see how someone in a retail store would see CMSF on the shelves in a box with a note saying it had a manual and thinking that they should hold off and wait until they get home to order it so that they get the full and complete manual. If that is the case for retail or Paradox then the original poster should have some means to print out the missing parts of the manual. If the original poster was incorrect and he had the option to buy a fancy full manual then I apologize. I can't imagine anyone trying to save a couple bucks by printing out a couple hundred pages of PDF though -- toner, paper, etc cost money too.

If BFC did not want the responsibility of picking up the pieces then they should not have partnered with Paradox or whoever. You want the benefits of signing with a distribution partner then you take the risk of being responsible for their actions. It is BFC's product in the end. They are where the buck stops.

Since I have no clue what the Paradox version is like -- is it exactly the same as the BFC version? Did the Paradox customers have a chance to purchase the full manual or choose not to?

MikeyD, Did you read the initial post by CptWasp that started this thread? "I own the Paradox version of CMSF, and the printed manual covers only the first part of the pdf manual. So I would like to print the second part on my own" Some people would like to have a printed copy of the PDF (or a manual) so that they can refer to it as needed. I personally prefer to have a PDF that I can do a search in, but others like to have a hard copy. Why are you so harsh? The support you showed for BFC was great until you took the opportunity to slam the poster with the last two sentences. If you get mad at people for bashing BFC and showing negativity then you should also withhold unnecessary negativity when supporting BFC, IMHO.

The door to my house is one of those security doors as well so I guess we can't get into a house in any method.

Just a quick question -- How is entering a building through a window unrealistic? I can understand assaulting a building through a window might be non-SOP and unrealistic, but let's say you are in an alley and the only doors in the building are facing a street (or two) that is populated with enemy troops. But you have some windows available on your side of the empty building. You want to get in the building and then fire on the enemy from the concealment/cover of the house. Why is it unrealistic to bust out a window, climb through and move to attack? This tactic was used by me many, many, many times in CMx1. I used a building as cover and entered it from a side that was not under fire from the enemy.

<grabs some popcorn and beer and sits down>

And my apologies to Cpl Steiner for somewhat hijacking your thread. I did try to tie it back in to the reviewers since you mentioned plopping it back on their desks again. Good hunting everyone

Steve, Probably my final post in this thread, but I don't think we are that far apart. The potential for this game is there, it is just a question of when it arrives and what the journey to that point is like. When you say that CMSF has a physics model and CMx1 does not I initially agreed. Then I played CMSF and saw rockets go through berms and hit my tanks. When that was questioned people were shouted down by posters on the board and told that you can easily shoot and kill tanks through berms and it happened all the time in the Gulf War, etc. Then, eventually the LOS routines are changed to prevent shooting through ridges and trenches. It makes it difficult to believe that the physics model makes a good difference if the only evidence I saw were bullets and shells going through solid earth and killing tanks and people. So, when someone in the beginning questions what they are seeing and then being told that it is much better than the non-physics CMx1 it is difficult to agree with. Especially when you get piled on by the true believers and even more especially when the entire mechanics end up changing to prevent this 'feature' at a later date. The same applies to the doors/windows. In CMx1 you could sneak into houses from all directions since they were abstracted. In CMSF I see the windows, but I can't break in one and climb through it. Instead my men have to run around the street to the door. I can't see the benefit from that. You say you listen to your customers. We (or, I guess, I) agree, but the process of getting there hasn't been a pretty one. I mean, even getting the spacebar GUI change put in was like pulling teeth and you already had the code in the system and just needed to uncomment it and recompile. Why has this become such an antagonistic relationship? In any event, it appears that your hard work is finally paying off. I just hope that reviewers like Tom Chick (just to name one at random) haven't been totally soured on the experience of getting to this point and that they will give your next game/module an unbiased review. [ February 26, 2008, 12:55 PM: Message edited by: Lurker765 ]

Slowmotion, Thanks for the note, but I was referring to the mid-game arty. In real life (or CMx1) you can call in arty to a grid location (or non-LOS) and get more inaccurate results (in CMx1). It is nice to be able to call in arty without LOS in the setup phase, but I have often times used non-LOS smoke arty to cover an advance in an emergency and I miss that kind of feature.

permanent666, I think this is probably the core of the problem. You haven't played CMx1 and came in with no expectations. I think v1.07 is mostly a good and fun game. The problem is the old guard who enjoyed CMx1 and expected CMSF to retain all the fun things of CMx1 and build on them to create an even more fun and modern game. Waiting years for a release that doesn't support many of the features that existed in the older game was inevitably a let down, and combined with the initial slew of bugs caused much frustration. I would have had my expectations at a different level if I had known that quick battles wouldn't be supported in this release rather than having the promise of them and the expectation of the prior quick battles in CMx1. I don't want a representation of reality since that isn't possible. I would like a game that has the tactical possibilities of the prior incarnation (putting fortifications where I want them, etc). I'm also pretty sure if I join the army and go to Iraq they won't let me command multiple tanks and aircraft so it won't be quite the same. I also want to say thank you to battlefront for all their hard work. I, too, am looking forward to the upcoming patches and modules. They are my best hope at making a game that will replace CMx1 on my harddrive and I wish them the best at doing so.

Sigh...I've been trying not to post, but I couldn't let the "oh Please" comment earlier in this thread go by and now I am in the middle of this and can't stop myself. Anyway, I would agree that CMSF's artillery has the potential to be better than CMx1,but it isn't right now. The AI can't use it against you in the middle of a battle so if you play blue vs blue or blue (AI) vs Red it is far worse than CMx1. In addition, there are no on map mortar teams and no artillery smoke in the game in CMSF and for some reason you can't call in arty in a non-LOS spot in CMSF either. I don't understand how you missed the Unit Encyclopedia in CMx1. You can click on a unit and see the stats for it. Can you do that in CMSF? No. What are the penetration/armor values for a unit -- or what special equipment is it carrying? I believe that range values for ATGMs are finally in the game, but they weren't until just recently. The stuff in the manual is nice, but it isn't much fun trying to toggle back into the manual while the game is running and printing out the PDF sucks due to the piracy protection system. CMSF has "Far more detailed terrain and tons more terrain combinations"? Really? It has water? Snow? Rain? Deep Mud? Terrain impassable to vehicles but not soldiers? I agree that you can place the number of trees in a tile, but that isn't as good as having a bridge or a river in my opinion. From what I can tell many people think the terrain in CMSF is not as good as CMx1, but I could be wrong. "Soldiers have individual equipment, weight, and the stuff that goes along with that" -- does that stuff include carrying more ammo than they could physically move with? Or sending soldiers back for ammo pick ups while leaving the rest of the squad in position? Or sharing ammo with another squad? Or dropping ammo? I agree that in theory this sounds great, but as it is currently implemented it doesn't seem like THAT great of an improvement over CMx1 and the weapons held within a given squad in that system. Once the CMSF system gets fully realized it will be much better, but as it sits today it doesn't really help me enjoy the game much more. The CMSF separation of Morale and Suppression is true. But I actually liked it when soldiers surrendered in CMx1. I actually think the morale/suppression system in CMx1 worked better, but perhaps that is just me. I see CMSF and think the morale/suppression system still needs work. I don't understand the knock on CMx1 pre-battle briefings? CMx1 did have pre-battle briefings. CMSF does have deformable terrain, but it doesn't have foxholes. And the WEGO replays with the terrain take the immersion factor out of the game for me. The graphic display of deformation isn't as important to me as having fortifications that I could place where I wanted to in the setup. I don't think you were EXTREMELY honest about CMSF. I think you were somewhat honest, but given the WEGO TCP/IP on the box, the lack of quick battle support, etc I don't think you can claim total honesty. And while it doesn't really matter, since you asked. I have done software for multiple companies over the last few decades. Some have six month long development cycles, my last one had weekly builds with releases into the wild every Tuesday (internet website). I understand short development cycles and the pressure it creates. My software has included everything from computer games through GPS satellites (not brain surgery, but rocket science) with a lot of stuff in between working in companies from 5 to 3000 people. I still do not understand how you could discover a bug that would detrimentally impact almost every game played and still release it. That is the point of having a small company where you ship when it's ready -- you can stop the process at any time. I understand your aggravation with us customers bitching, but your comments about us giving you two hours slack isn't true. I personally purchased five copies of your games, not one $45, did not get mad after two hours (still not truly mad yet), and the issues present in CMSF haven't been around for only a couple months (7 so far and still have CTD bugs for multiplayer). I understand you think you gave us too much with CMx1. I agree with you. But that is part of the honesty. If you thought you gave us too much then why include a non-working QB system in CMSF rather than saying it would be fully implemented in a later module that I could buy. Instead it is tease that is guaranteed to annoy people who bought the game thinking they could do quick battles against another person and not have the units start the game in the same setup zone. Or have the computer AI actually move and try to accomplish a victory condition in a quick battle? I don't see how we can both read the same links and come to opposite conclusions. The first one I provided still has not received an answer to his problem, the second link has another poster agree with the original and also talking about additional problems, the third link has another poster agreeing with the original (and no answers), and the final one is the one I talked about in my earlier post. How is this the "opposite" of what I claimed? I think this is out of my system for a while again. It is just tough to watch someone heckle another poster when that original poster actually listed legitimate gripes. The spin on this is still tough to watch. I would be a happy camper if v1.08 worked and I could play another human in an enjoyable CMSF game. I don't want to complain about these things. My post count is low since I never complained about CMx1 despite being in on the ground floor and living through every one of it's patches.

Steve, In answer to your request to make a list of the stuff CMSF does vs CMx1. I could do that and see which works. I could also compare CMSF to Half Life and I bet I know which one comes out on the short end as well. A hint, CMSF isn't on the cutting edge and doesn't have a staff of dozens of talented programmers to realize fancy graphics and physics modelling. But, to carry this point in the correct direction -- CMx1 did things that made the game much, much more fun for me to play for years and years. CMSF might do this one day, but it is certainly not close to that now in my opinion. In any case, I just stumbled across someone else's list on this very subject that I quite agree with: -------------------------------------------- What I liked most about CM1 that made it different from the competition, then and now: 1) The non 2-D, hex format, although you could play it that way, if you liked. 2) attention to historical detail 3) PBEM and TCP option 4) broad scope and good scale 5) good infantry and morale model (I know some people will blow a gasket, but not many games out there do it better, especially with improvements in CMBB and CMAK) 6) Scenario builder 7) Quick Battles and random battle generator 8) the hybrid RT/Turn-based model (known as WEGO) 9) excellent TacAI in comparison to other games 10) Condition of game on release 11) Unit encyclopedia 12) turn replay Now we can compare that to CMSF: 1) Yes, can do 2) Yes 3) PBEM still somewhat buggy and no TCP after 6 months 4) pretty limited terrain and equipment 5) In some ways better, but in some ways worse. Can't tell if its bugs or design 6) Much more powerful editor, but also much more complex. Missing some key features to really get the community going. 7) Not really...some kind of kludged together thing that required community support to come close to being playable 8) Once again a pretty kludged together version 9) TacAI is coming along, but still pretty lacking in comparison to CM1. There isn't even a way to really ambush something in CMSF. 10) Not even close 11) Not even close again 12) No, once again, not even close Now what has CMSF got that CM1 doesn't: 1) 1:1 representation of soldiers in squad, some good things about the theory, but poorly implemented. Hopefully 1.06 or 1.07 will get it there. 2) No more borg spotting, same as above, great theory, but hard to tell what the benefits are 3) better theoretical C2 system, but pretty much neutered as implemented. Does have a lot of potential. 4) Better graphics 5) Incredibly powerful Scenario editor, but no strat AI, so SP games are dependent on timing set up for AI strat plan. If timing is off or if the player does something unexpected, the scenario becomes a disaster 6) Ability for squads to acquire ammo and other support equipment. But be careful, once acquired, you can't drop. 7) More detailed buildings, but seems to cause more problems than solve 8) More detailed unit damage, including wounded 9) RT mode 10) Better chaining of commands, although it took hue and cry from players to get it implemented in patches 11) night vision and overall detailed sighting equipment detail 12) ATGM and great armor models (I think) 13) a pretty good theoretical MOUT model (doesn't really work consistently) 14) Dynamic lighting (after last patch) I am sure there are others. What can someone draw from this? In theory CMSF should blow CM1 away. Two main reasons it doesn't: 1) Poorly implemented features, both bugs and design and 2) lack of longevity...crappy QB, limited scope, limited number of scenarios, complex scenaio builder. Notice I didn't mention modern. I actually like the modern aspect of it. I don't like the poor implementation and paying $60 US to be on the beta team. -------------------------------------------- Well...since you don't believe me about the TCP/IP still having some problems maybe you can check the links: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=000593#000000 http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=003885#000000 http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=000582#000000 http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=003643#000001 This last link you replied to claiming that since it works for the majority of people it isn't the CMSF code. Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't. Who knows? There isn't a way for the customers to find out since we don't have access to the code and can't debug it or attach to one of the running processes or check a core dump. I'd suspect one of the root problems is that the machine is overloaded on the CPU and can't keep up with in game stuff as well as TCP/IP requirements and along the way artifacts such as inability to order units about, etc start happening. But I can't dig into this problem, only you can. And if you choose not to that leaves me stuck with an unstable product whether you think it is your fault or not. Speaking of which, who is doing the quality assurance? The latest WEGO PBEM problem was discovered within a day of the code being released. The low wall bug was discovered within a day of the code release. I understand you are a small shop, but if I released code like this I would be crucified by my clients and my company. Bugs are a certainty in software, but finding them before release in obvious cases should not be this hard. And, really, CMSF multiplayer is not your department? Who's department is it to get players together to play your game? How many other companies offer at least a modicum of support to get people to enjoy their product and perhaps buy more modules at a later date? And you believe it isn't your department? Honestly, most of these things wouldn't bother me if you had just been more honest with us from the beginning about what CMSF was trying to accomplish and what the priorities would be and what the state of the game was upon the early release. If I had been told that WEGO PBEM would not be working for the first eight months after release I would have happily waited for a module that did support it and avoided all this grief and frustration trying to play this game against another person. You had an awful lot of goodwill built up from me for the great work you did in CMx1 and supporting it. It is a shame watching it all go down in a slow bitter drain over time as the spin on this game continues. If I were to bet I would think that you will get this engine working reasonably well soon, but it has been a tough, tough ride for me since the release in July. If someone had asked me back then what it would take to get me to give up on BFC I would have laughed at them. Now, it actually is beginning to seem possible and that is a sad feeling for me.

Yes, but if you happen to not be looking at them when they disappear/rout. I guess that adds to the list-- labels showing unit status that you can see from the god view (3 and above). I also forgot step damage indications for buildings when replying to MikeyD. All things present in that other game years ago that make play fun.

Um...yes, I have tried playing it. And I didn't notice any on map mortar teams, visibly routing troops, surrenders, casualty tallies, artillery smoke, aircraft noises, etc. Like that other game did years ago. Like a poster in this thread said, it still seems unfinished. I want to play this game head to head against a human opponent and can't. WEGO TCP/IP doesn't exist. RT TCP/IP exists, but seems unstable for medium sized battles. And WEGO PBEM still has crashes (that are now supposed to be fixed in v1.08). Plus, the community support for multiplayer fell apart once it took months for the game to become somewhat stable. Can you point me to a website that supports multiplayer matchups? I'll try it again when I can play a human without frustration occurring due to crashes/bugs every game.

Steve, Thanks for the excellant reply. You mentioned being confused by my comment about the upfront nature of the RT vs WEGO. After pre-ordering the game I learned most of the changes. Based on the website text concerning the game I was under the impression that WEGO TCP/IP was in. I also thought that the "play any way you like" text about WEGO meant that CMSF had the same WEGO play I had grown to know and love from CMx1. I was absolutely stunned the first time my Strykers went toe to toe with a tank and didn't back up to behind a building right next to them. With one minute WEGO turns and unit TacAI that seems to be worse than what I had years ago in CMx1 it makes the game nearly unplayable for me in WEGO. I guess by the letter of the law it has WEGO, but if your units don't make reasonable decisions I either scream at the screen or have to play RT. Definitely not what I was expecting from the "play any way you like" advertisements. While I agree that the WEGO playback bugs do not effect the overall outcome of a game they do have an impact on my enjoyment of it. Watching the replays is something I liked in CMx1. I also learned how the game worked by checking what type of ammo was used per shot, etc. All this has gone away with the replay bugs. Also, I don't understand how the game would be unplayable from different turn length slices. If the two individuals in the game (or one in solo play) choose a WEGO time slice that they agree on wouldn't that by definition make it more playable for them? If they didn't like that time length they wouldn't use it. Anyway, it is great hearing your thoughts on these matters. I come back to this forum to get thoughts on the game industry and design, and it is nice when the signal outweighs the noise. [ January 15, 2008, 07:42 AM: Message edited by: Lurker765 ]

I would love to see the low wall bug and berm problems go away. Hopefully my Pentium M Centrino 1.7 GHz with 1 GB of RAM with a 128 MB Video Card can handle it. Any idea what the new minimum/recomended hardware specs are?

If WEGO were truly the focus for CMSF then I'm pretty sure they would have found a way around these problems. Why is the turn still one minute long rather than a variable length that the participants could agree on? Or 30 seconds? That would solve the problems of file size and modern being too time compressed. If WEGO were truly the focus for CMSF then the WEGO playback would not have zombies, wrong ammo counts, etc. Relative spotting doesn't impact whether a unit backs away from a threat. Once a Stryker opens up with it's .50 cal however it spotted the enemy tank doesn't matter -- it should back up. I am not saying BFC were wrong to choose RT as their primary focus (I like WEGO better, but they might have needed to reach a larger market of customers), but I am agreeing with the prior poster that RT was their main goal and WEGO was included as long as it didn't have a large time impact on their release. Anything that might take a wee bit too much dev time or would negatively impact RT was either dropped or relatively ignored. Thus, many CMx1 customers were somewhat mislead into thinking CMSF inherited more from CMx1 than it truly did. Rune's statement about multiplayer being an option is also true. But the reality is that multiplayer did not work until patch 1.05 which was released months after the game was initially available. If multiplayer were truly the focus then that feature would have been working correctly out of the box and would have also received more attention with every patch release to make sure it was still executing correctly. I guess my main point out of all this was to agree with the poster that said RT single player was what BFC was trying to make sure worked. The other aspects of the game were given secondary attention. To many CMx1 players WEGO and multiplayer (and multiplayer WEGO) were defining features of CMx1. When CMSF did not have these defining features and they discovered this after they had purchased the game they were upset.

It is primarily RT. Steve and the beta testers have stated numerous times that they pretty much only play RT. If the designers and testers play pretty much only one way then that is probably what the game is focused upon. Steve has also stated that they were perfectly willing to drop PBEM if needed. PBEM is WEGO. No WEGO currently exists in multiplayer. Ergo, WEGO is not the focus. Also, the WEGO stuff has even more bugs than the RT did at release. That also implies that it is not the primary focus of the game. Even now the WEGO playback is incorrect and leaving your men up to their own devices for one minute will end up with a lot of dead Strykers when they bump into one Syrian tank since the Strykers won't attempt to get out of harm's way. I'm not saying that RT is bad. I am saying that BFC was not up front about this from the beginning and contrary to the prior statement in this thread they did not make this clear to the old customers before they purchased the game. And while it does indeed have a multiplayer option, that option has not even come close to actually working until patch 1.05 (maybe 1.04, I can't remember). I haven't tried it in 1.05 myself since the low wall bug has stopped my playing again. Anyway, I am just waiting for a version of the game that I can play that is mostly bug free. The game is close to that point, and then I will be able to see if the future of this series is something that would be fun to play. I immensely enjoyed CMx1 and I hope to have equal amounts of fun with CMSF, but so far it has been a whole lot of frustration.

It seems that the "psychotic attacks" line is a bit much. For people that couldn't run the game on their system at all due to the initial problems of the incredibly buggy release. Or the WEGO TCP/IP promise present on the copy of the retail box that has now been removed. Or the onboard mortar teams that never made it in despite pictures of them cycled through the media. Or quick battles that don't work (both sides setting up in the same zone). I would say this did not make it so many customers went in to CMSF with their eyes wide open. I would also say this particular post by Steve has a lot of revisionism in it. For example, Steve mentioned quite a few times how horribly reviewed CMBO was upon it's initial release but that was not the case at all. Reviewers loved it, as did user reviews on all the major sites. Or the famous "you don't get it" comments directed at people in the early days when they were trying to play through the bugs that haunt this game due to the early release. That old thread does have quite a bit of interesting reading in it though. I come back here for some of the game design discussions since I used to make computer games myself, but often the level of vitriol from both sides makes this a tough place. I think many of the current problems could have been prevented with either a release of the game at a v1.06 level rather than the one six months ago, or if the game didn't have the words Combat Mission in it. Just naming it something different would have changed expectations. Lastly, I completely agree with Dorosh's comments. [ January 10, 2008, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: Lurker765 ]

Downloading the patch now. Thanks for the hard work. Woot! I didn't see anything in the README about WEGO playback showing the correct ammo/ craters impacts/ etc when doing a replay. Was that fixed? With the building fix is there now an indicator on how damaged a building is? It was impossible to tell if one was about to collapse before. Are there targetting lines available as a Hotkey now? I couldn't tell what unit my guys were targetting before and couldn't find a hotkey to turn on all targetting lines.