Paper Tiger

Mark: Look what they did to my boy. A fan of the Godfather perhaps?

Ah, I think the training campaign is called Boot Camp. I'm away from my home computer and can't check it just now. It consists of four simple training missions designed to introduce us to some of the important features of the game; mission 1, move a Stryker platoon through a number of phase lines, deploy and attack a Syrian trench line, mission 2 how to use javelins, mission 3 how to call in artillery/air support, and the last, attack a small village. The last is good fun. I missed this one when I started because I thought the campaigns were for the seasoned players only. The scenario editor in this game is a beauty. With a (serious) commitment of time, you can create some stunning maps. It's a whole other game. Enjoy

Wow, I'm REALLY confused. Who are you Abbott? Are you another incarnation of Dale? If you're not, my 'dumb' questions were addressed to him and not to you so if I've somehow offended you by doing so, I apologize. If you are Dale, please note that 'dumb question' no 1, the most important one was ignored. Also, you have also been attacking another beta tester, Sixxkiller I think, in the Fed Up thread. You seem to find Beta tester's imagined arrogance/swagger offensive. I have no desire to protect Huntarr, he's a tough guy and can look after himself. I would like to point out to you that I am relatively new to these forums and I do not understand the complex nature of the relationships that already exist between the old timers on these boards. So I'm not going to know why you're pissed with somebody else here. I am also probably somewhat older than most of you guys and probably have a different value system from you, not necessarily better, but definitely different. I feel a certain responsibility to Battlefront when posting on their boards not to post anything that might drive away potential customers. And, for that matter, make their forums an unfriendly environment for others. Posting here is a privilige, not an entitlement just because I bought the game. This is not from the intellect but from intuition but it's my FEELING that there are a very small group of people who are so PISSED with Battlefront that they are trying to drive people away from buying or supporting this new product. Perhaps they want to want to hurt Battlefront for not giving them the game they wanted. Or they are disgusted that Battlefront has stated that they are prepared to lose a few of the old timers to go in this new direction and they're not going to let them get away with it. Well, it's up to Battlefront to regulate their own forums. I promised to myself when I came here not to get involved in negative slanging matches with others. Yesterday, I made a mistake and let my feelings show and I slipped. Time to back off and just post hopefully helpful posts again.

acrashb: I'm not going to get drawn into a negative debate with you about this. If you want to riposte what I'm about to post, fine but I'm done. quote: "1) only as crap as the programming; there's no evidence that it need be crap." Have you any idea how long that would take to programme? Let's be realistic here: Battlefront need to have some income to survive. To hold back publication of a title for 6 months+ to develop a frankly unnecessary and massively complex piece of programming is unrealistic. You REALLY need to look at the scenario editor to see how complex it is to qualify your opinion here. Lets see if anybody else jumps in here to back you up on this one. quote: "2) that's part of the point - having to hand-develop an AI plan in some detail is undesirable - but certainly a map generator could also develop an AI plan if that's what it takes." undesirable for you maybe but not for a lot of us. I actually find it an exciting step forward with plenty of potential for more sophistication. And you want to add to this random map generator a planning generator too? No doubt, it would have to be a good plan to to keep you happy. Whew, nobody's going to accuse you of having low expectations. Good luck getting support for that too. quote "3) true, I only have the demo. Having said that, between studying the demo and reading here, it's easy to have a lousy AI plan and game it. It looks like some very well-made scenarios act OK from the strategic perspective, but a lot of them don't. The fact that the game requires an AI plan, rather than being enhanced by them, strikes me as "fundamentally flawed" because of the ripple effect on QB's." Would you care to qualify your statement that a lot of them don't? Which ones? And if some well designed scenarios do work as you admit, then your point is invalid. You're just floundering here. You said at the end of your first post that you would welcome factual correction because you probably needed it. I don't think you want to be corrected at all.

Dalem: "They are part of BFC's customer service model whether any of us like it or not." Er, no, they are not and saying it forcefully can never make that true. Why are you so angry? What are you trying to accomplish in this forum? How does attacking Huntarr contribute anything to a positive discussion about the game? If you don't own the game, why are you posting in a thread about what's going to be fixed in the next patch? If you haven't paid for the game, you have no right to be angry about it at all.

Hi Rick I like your reasoning and your analogy. I think most of the people who come here would agree with you that it is indeed a good GAME and that we can tolerate the bugs, confident that most of them will be ironed out at some point in the future. As Hoolaman's list shows, just look how much they've fixed already. Nice list man, and there's so much more to come. I don't think CMSF is going to win any awards but I wouldn't be surprised if it blows people away when WW2 arrives. And that's definitely where this game is going. I'm happy to have something really cool to play around with until WW2 comes in the summer next year.

Hi RockinHarry, welcome to the boards. Have you tried the training campaign yet? It's not perfect but it will introduce a newbie to the basics of CMSF. It's a bit boring until you reach he last mission which gets very exciting very quickly. The less you know the better. Like you, I'm REALLY looking forward to the arrival of the WW2 module sometime later next year. The maps are going to be spectacular! As it happens, a desert map doesn't have to look pale and dull. I felt that way when I started too but after designing a cuple, I've grown to really like them. The current ground texture for grass is a bit washed out looking for Europe but that wll be different when WW2 comes out.

Sirocco is right. Steve has already stated that players will be able to cherry pick forces for WW2 just like in CM1. I can understand Steve's reasoning for not having it in the modern era but nevertheless, the existing system still gives you some very bizarre forces, especially if you pick smaller battles. But there's no reason to believe that this won't be changed later. I really don't understand why people are complaining so much about the lack of random maps though. (Yes, acrashb, I followed your link and read your web site) Have you guys played around with the scenario editor? Have you any idea how CRAP a random map would be? What about it's AI plan? Never mind the flavour objects. Just try randomly throwing a few objects onto a board in the editor, raise and lower the elevations randomly, stick a wall here, a palm tree there, a mosque there. What an enormous pile of sh@te! If Battlefront gave us randomly generated maps , you'd be complaining about how crap they were and shouting angrily in this forum for them to fix this 'broken' feature. It's not like you have to make them yourselves, there are plenty available to be downloaded free of charge because some people actually enjoy designing them. Now, I'd really like the facility to pick the map I want to play on instead of having one randomly assigned to me. I imagine we'll get that faily soon, patch or module, I don't care. Finally, acrashb, while I might agree with you about some things on your web site, your remarks about the Strategic AI are completely wrong. Since you don't have the game, I suppose you can't explore it for yourself and are just relying on what you read here for your info. There are no phase lines or trigger points (we wish!). It is actually a very good system and a vast improvement over the AI in CM1. But it's still limited. No matter how elaborate it becomes, some people will still complain about it because it can't play like a human player.

Pete: your maps are real beauties. Unfortunately, I get seconds per frame when I try to use them . Maybe I'll have to cut them down a bit. I insist on running the game with all the graphics settings at max which certainly doesn't help

MarkEzra: thanks for that link. I'll investigate that later. By the way, I was following your argument in the 'Fed up' thread in the main forum. I was tempted to wade in there but I just can't be bothered debating with some of the a@*holes that post in those threads. Nice try though mate. Michael: your book looks terrific. It's a real shame I don't have ASL anymore. Looking at those pics makes me nostalgic. I'm not sure what you mean when you say 'it's not difficult guys' though. Are you referring to the elevations or the 80m wide roads? Do you just stick with the ASL levels where a level 2 hill is appx the same height as a level 2 building? How do you do that? The spirit of the map or as close to ASL as is possible?

Dirtweasel: quote The two main things I get hung up on are; 1. AI scripting and design - I was concerned this might be more than I was up for, and so far that has been proved right. 2. Contour lines - This seems like it ought to simple, trace a line and snap the delta in but damned if I am doing it right. Why don't you start your own thread and ask for help with these things. There are plenty of us out here who are happy to help with that. It looks like Webwing has made good with his promise of a video tutorial for you. There's also a thread in the Scenario Designers forum about elevations that hasn't been fleshed out yet. The scenario editor is WELL worth the effort to get to know.

Cpl Steiner: sweet map man. Keep up the good work! Like you, I'm an old ASL grog and I'd love to redo some old ASL scenarios for CMSF. Hill 621 is the ultimate and I'd love to do that one but as you said, it would require one massive suspension of disbelief. I have an idea how it could be done but I don't have the original maps anymore. Unfortunately, when I moved broad 4 years ago, I had to sell all my ASL stuff but, because I could run CMBB on my laptop, I really didn't miss it. However, it's nice to see a piccy of board 3 again. Is there a web site where I can see photos of the original boards? If you don't mind, I'd like to share some of my experience of converting ASL boards to CM. I'm just sharing, not saying that my idea is better or any of that crap. It's a very good topic for a productive discussion. I redid boards 2 and 5 for CMBB when I made version of the ASL scenario 'The Borders are Burning', boards 5 and 3 for 'The Niscemi Biscarii (!) Highway' for CMBO and 'Guryev's HQ' from DASL board 1. Beacause it's a board game ASL has to handle elevations in a very simple way. When converting boards for CMBB, I had to add a lot of small undulations to the map otherwise it was billiard table flat. There's nothing wrong with leaving them that way but it doesn't feel realistic to me. Europe just isn't like that. 'We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto'. I remember playing someones conversion of an ASL scenario (can't remember the name but it was a Cross of Iron scenario with Germans and Rumanians attacking a Russian held village. The board was flat but it really felt like ASL. That was a nice job. For obvious reasons, there were very few elevation levels in ASL, (4 or 5 if I remember)but there are a lot more in CMBB. So, when doing the hills, I really increased the elevation dramatically otherwise, ASL board hills appeared as minor undulations. I always imagined hill 621 to be a massive feature and when I translated it for CMBB, I was surprised how puny it was. So I dramtically upped the elevations to make them more impressive. By the time I'd finished, I had something that was in the spirit of the board but not the board itself. I wish I knew how to post screenshots and pictures here in the forum and I'd show you how I'd make hill 621 look. I'm currently working on two hills maps, one for QBs, the other for a scenario. The QB map has a hill labelled 621 and that's how I think it should look in CMSF. It's MASSIVE man! The scenario map has another interpretation that's even bigger. Anyway, that' all for now. Look forward to seeing more of your work later.

Tankibanki: hey man, don't worry about it. I posted something wrong and I got corrected. So what, I learned something and that's why I come to visit this forum. Mark: thanks for that. Unfortunately (!) I've been on an extended end of contract holiday in the UK (it's bloody freezing here!) and I had to stop work on my new scenarios. I get back to Indonesia next week so I hope to have a new one out before Xmas.

Sgt Goody: Good topic. I have had a lot of fun creating maps with the scenario editor and the elevation system is a beauty. The advice you've received so far is excellent. I'm a little sloppier when I design maps and the real problems arise when you change things or expand the map boundaries (especially the latter ) I start out like the other guys and then think, 'Wouldn't it be cool if there was another hill between hill A and hill B' Then I look at the 3D preview and see wht my changes have done and then return to the editor and correct anything shocking. This randomness has led to some stunning features appearing on my maps, entirely unintentional. Things like gullies, depressions and I see them and think 'woo hoo, I'm keeping that!' For me the absolutely most important thing to do is to get rid of the pyramids at the peak of hills. This is easy enough to do but on a large map, it can take a very long time to whack all these mole hills. Oops, don't have time to write more, I have to go shopping with the wife... maybe later...

Tankibanki: since I bought the game and until after 1.03, most of my game time was spent in the game editor creating maps for QBs and future scenarios. I never once baked anything and so this was outside my game experience. Because I design primarily for myself, I play my own scenarios over and over again and, as far as possible, I like the experience each time I play it to be different. Therefore, I ruled out baking quite early on as it is very final. We really should be able to acquire in the scenario editor OR the AI should be adjusted to acquire these weapons if they are set up in their vehicles.

This is not the only game forum I visit regularly and I suspect that's true for you guys too. We are spoiled rotten here by the attention we get from the game developers from time to time. Hell, even Charles posts here occassionally. How often do you see this happen on other sites? Having said that, I understand your frustration mate. I'm 'lucky' because I'm on a long holiday in the UK and have been away from my computer for a month now and won't be back for another week so it matters not if the patch doesn't come out this weekend. I probably will feel your pain too in a couple of weeks time...

Okay, I stand corrected. I shouldn't have said 'no way to do it'. But you 'baked' the scenario. My understanding is that when you bake it, the scenario has already started and therefore, there can only be one AI plan and you also prevent the human player from setting up as s/he sees fit. That's fine if you want to design scenarios with only one AI plan but it doesn't help the QB problem.

Cpl Steiner: I have to agree with you here. I too, love the CMx1 games but after playing CM:SF for a few months I find that I can't go back to playing them either. I would be surprised if most of you haven't at least seen Aegod's American Civil War game. It is a real board wargame and the graphics are simply stunning. After playing the demo a couple of times, I find the older 'board' wargames lack appeal because the graphics are lacking. Other examples could include EU2 and EU3, Civ3 and Civ4 etc... the latter versions not necessarily better games but they sure make them look bad. Good graphics are important but they are FAR from my first priority in playing a game. The graphics benchmark for a good board wargame has now been raised and it's hard to play something that's not so pretty. The same goes for the CM series, at least for me... BTW, I bought and played CMBO when it was released without any of the patches and enjoyed it immensely, so much so that I eagerly grabbed CMBB when it came out. It was only after a few months that I visited the Battlefront website and found patches for the game. So, for a long time, I got a huge amount of pleasure from playing the out-of-the-box versions of these two games without any complaints. CM:SF wasn't pretty out of the box and definitely needed patching to make it playable. I'm quite happy to wait as long as it takes to get a really good 1.05 patch because CM:SF 1.04 is very playable just now.

I'm afraid there's no way to acquire Javelins when designing a scenario. I've tried many times with no success. It's a real problem because it makes it difficult to design scenarios that are meant to be played Red v Blue AI. The US squads never acquire their javelins even when set up inside their Strykers. It makes US Infantry without armour support very vulnerable to Syrian armour. If the AI is tweeked so that units will acquire javelins when available, it will make QB's more playable as the red side too. I've occassionally played as red and received some t-72s against US Stryker infantry and have SLAUGHTERED them. When this happens I actually find it quite disturbing and it spoils the game for me. Although there is an enormous silence about the next patch content, I'd be surprised if this isn't on their 'fix' list but that's just 100% pure speculation.

Wow. Well done sir. Splitting the AT teams from the main squad is a good idea. Before I started doing that, my squads usually got pasted by overwatch fire. The rooves of Orange and Yellow are very good spots for AT teams. I too was surprised by the in-game modelling of US Infantry firepower. In this situation, a single US platoon with two ATGM vehicles takes out an entire reinforced Syrian company.

Yeah, there are a lot of problems with force selection with quick battles. At the moment, there ONLY way to get Infantry on Infantry action is to have two Red forces battle it out and that's not for everybody. I guess Battlefront want the QB force selector to generate realistic formations only. Of course, sometimes, especially with small forces, it does give you some WEIRD formations. I once got a force of Stryker Gun vehicles and nothing else. I would imagine that the Syrians have some purely infantry forces (with trucks but they're not in the game yet). But the US without vehicles? I'm sure the real Gropo's on this forum can tell you how often that happens outside of MOUT. For Blue force, selecting Stryker Infantry will give you the best results. The Stryker option will give you infantry with their Strykers and works for QBs of any size against any Syrian force as long as YOU are playing Blue. AI US infantry can't use javelins and so it's easy to slaughter a Stryker force with just a couple of T-55s.

I was working with the scenario editor yesterday and I found the zoom command and I was really impressed with it. But it's largely a redundent feature because I can just pause and scroll to any point on the map and see what's going on. (I sometimes like to Tab an enemy unit and watch it approaching my positions) Anyway, I thought that it would be a very good way to play the game if, after setting up, we could only have the camera attached to one of our units. You could still climb up as high as you wanted to help plot those longer moves but not scroll away from that units perspective. Then the Zoom option would be really useful. I am aware that I can choose to play like this right now but occassionally, I'm going to forget or accidentally move the camera. It'll probably never happen but it would be fun to have this as an option above Elite.

CMBB is one of my all-time favourite games. With exception of the Civ family of games, I haven't played any other game as long as this one. Unfortunately (!), my new computer has the Vista 64 bit operating system and I can't get CMBB to load on it but it still works on my laptop with XP and I play it once a week. I like CMBB SO much that I was briefly tempted to change operating systems but I really like Vista. CMSF is WAY superior in almost every respect except perhaps the astonishing variety of forces available to the player in CMBB. Play as Germans, Finns, Rumanians etc with all their equipment. AWESOME. CMSF is a bit restricted in that respect.

Frenchy: I'm afraid, as it stands that there's no way for you to choose the particular map that you want to play one except by moving all the other maps of the same type into a back-up folder. I would hope that the ability to choose the map to play on will become a feature in a future module or even a patch. Most of the maps that came with the game are 'broken' so you should definitely move these out. The QBG maps all have QBG in the titles so you shouldn't have a problem seperating them. However, there is one stock city map that's a real beauty and I changed the AI plans myself to make it a really challenging map. One way to get a good challenge is to make an attack map but give the attacking side a defensive AI plan and then attack them with the 'defending' force. That's hard! Unless you're playing in closed terrain, ie city, defending in a village, forest etc, don't pick Syrian Infantry, choose the mech infantry or the Republican Guard units. Be careful if playing as Red with these same forces that you don't pick Stryker infantry as an opponent as the AI infantry can't use their javelins and you can win very easily with just one or two tanks. Been there, done that a couple of times and I hated it. You can still have a lot of fun with the QBs as they stand and making your own maps is a good way to learn about the scenario editor and programming the AI. The scenario editor is like a game in itself.

SoColdInWinter: Yup, you lost those Stryker ATGMs too quickly. You're stuffed if you lose them too quickly as they are excellent infantry killers. (hint hint) Law&Order: Last week I started a thread titled "Not so scary javelins" because I was seeing this happen in this scenario. Were those T-72s in the trees? Because I noticed that vehicles in tree cover occassionally survived multiple javelin strikes, even the BMPs. Vehicles caught out in the open didn't survive. This was especially lethal because the tank would often return fire and take out the AT asset that was attacking it before it could get off a second shot. You really need to micromanage your ATGM assets in this one. When I got my wins, I was letting the infantry do their thing while I managed those AT Teams and Strykers like crazy. Fire, pop smoke, get the hell out of there, find a new position, repeat. I was actually surprised when I got the win because I was SO focussed on those AT assets and didn't notice the time pass. (I play RT and try not to pause too often) As it happens, I did originally give Blue force a couple of Apache Helicopters but they were doing more damage to my forces than the Red forces. And yes, they were being guided in by a JTAC crew. "Kobayashi Maru" LOL. Do what Kirk did. Open up the scenario editor and cheat. Thanks for the feedback guys.