egamarl

Well, things move on, I suppose - at one time I simply did not understand what was being criticised and why, now I understand a little more, and I don't like what I see. I just have a natural aversion to the abuse of power, and can't help looking around for a stick, I guess .... Besides which clarity is always better than obfuscation, although it might not be anywhere near as comfortable!

Ahhh ... I've just been pointed at a forum (I imagine posting a link to it is a bannable offence, so I daren't) wherein lies the explanation for what I have "done wrong"! Of course, being rebuked by 'admin' had nothing at all to do with being aggressive or having a "completely uncalled for attitude" - it's because I dared to mention that the emperor is, in fact, unadorned by any kind of garment. Thankfully I now know I'm not going completely bonkers .... I read therein that here one is not allowed to compare CM:SF unfavourably to CMx1, and it seems, even praising CMx1 in BFs own forum is nowadays somewhat risky in this Orwellian world. I didn't realise I was poking at a very painful open wound in this way - I'd only just returned to the forum after finding CM:SF to be ... errr ... not to my taste, and I didn't know of the Stalinist purges and the relentless patrolling of the Thought Police. Now I do. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

Well, hardly two ACTIVE accounts: apparently an account last used in 2007 was still 'active' in "here". Who knew? Not me. That was 2 PCs and a couple of brain-farts ago .... It's not as if I made a secret of having 're-registered' here in a post above ... I can't remember much of last week, let alone 2-odd years ago. Anyway, thanks for helping me keep my head together - I didn't think I'd been aggressive or said anything uncalled for, and I'm really grateful to see that other folks think the same. I find it very confusing when folks (especially those with power) criticise what I write when I simply can't see what they are referring to. It messes with what's left of a once-fine brain. It strikes me as odd that one can be criticised for being aggressive (except perhaps following an ad hominem* attack) in a forum devoted to war games (war is surely the ultimate act of aggression, whereas highlighting shortcomings in someone's argument or style of argument is ... errr .... part and parcel of debate. Consider the origin of the word 'forum' - "a public meeting or assembly for open discussion"). Hmmm ..... It's all the more incongruous to be criticised for being 'aggressive' when discussing a 'title' which provides movie playback in ever-higher fidelity of the means of wreaking death upon ones foes .... But there we are: objectivity is often the first casualty of sensitisation ... *ad hominem, in case you're not familiar with the term means - to use a football or rugby metaphor - "going for the man, not the ball": something which the laws of those games expressly forbid. It means attacking the person not the person's argument. It is generally deprecated and regarded as the last resort of a beaten scoundrel (or, sadly, the first resort of the same beaten scoundrel with a specific agenda or intent to make mischief and not argue cogently the point of substance ....).

*I* am being ggressive and uncalled for? But the ad hominem attack was on me! I believe I have focussed cogently on the differences between CMx1 and x2 as experienced by the game player. My rational argument (in the sense of "discussion" and not as some will interpret it: "quarrel") did not deserve some scurrilous attempt to attack my integrity, and for that attack to go unmarked or unrebuked by 'admin' . Well, that's fine - you have to protect your own, and I suppose I shouldn't expect anything else.

Well, that might be a wonderful improvement worth waiting and paying for, but for my part I can't see it being worth the $300 it might cost me to get a set of 'releases' (modules, titles, whatever) that might replicate the breadth and depth of CMx1. Nope, for those who value substance, CMx2 really is currently (and, according to Sgt Joch even after TWO years and several patches and enhancements) a disappointment. Of course, gameplayers are - I imagine - far from BFs main source of income and so it doesn't really matter to them, they dance to a different tune, it's just a disappointment. We should be thankful that CMx1 runs on Vista and apparently will run on Win7.

Ahh .. you invest too little emotional capital in the fate of your pixeltruppen just because they don't LOOK that human. You will make a great general! Seriously though, this is my main issue with CM:SF (and - who knows - CM:Normandy): some folks privilege CMx2-like visual fidelity (which I patronisingly dismiss as eye-candy, and which has nothing to do with improving the simulation, just the representation of it) and some folks privilege the CMx1-like mechanics of combat and depth and breadth of the possible scenarios which can be constructed now and for the next several years, not to say value for money. Although my imagination is not terribly vivid, I am the latter camp and am happy with - I think - all of the abstractions in CMx1. I make a lousy general because I do care about my pixletruppen, even if I can't watch them dance around a bit before getting onto their APVS or replay movies from all different angles to see them killing nasty foreign people in techicolourdolbypanavision. Nope, in the debate of style (CMx2 as is) vs. Substance (CMx1 as is) I am firmly in favour of substance - but that is not the way of the modern world ....

Ahhh .. [rant] the one bit I didn't enjoy THAT much about Fallout 3 were (some of the) the 'quests' that had you apparently aimlessly going from one place to another place to talk to this person then back to the first person who - inexplicably - wasn't where they last were and had to be found by aimlessly running around again ..... only to be sent to talk to someone else of unknown whereabouts in a building of unnecessarily complex layout! That and the constraints of the dialogue choices and uncertainly about the consequences of them (you had to know how the programmer understands and uses the English language plus his/her intentions for each variation) added unpredicatibale randmoness that I wasn't comfortable with. [/rant] The concept of the 'quest' forcing you to explore parts of the map you might not otherwise have visited is good, but I was frustrated by the impenetrability of the interactions and the fact that several of them could only be solved by a shotgun blast to the head, no matter which path you took! I fear I'd be frustrated in the Elder Scrolls world too, given that I use the English language in a very particular manner (ie literally, sometimes verging on the autistically so)! I might see if there's a demo knocking around, thanks for the tip!

I'm sure you know exactly who I am (or at least you should), since I told the fellow who runs BoB (and one otehr BoBber) some days ago: I have made no secret of it. Sorry to prick your bubble but knowing who I am when I've told your chums is not THAT significant an achievement. Ad hominem from you again though: not terribly edifying. Perhaps you find the substance of argument much harder than making mischief.

What on EARTH has my registation date here got to do with anyhting? (Actually it's a re-registration. If you had actually taken the trouble to rad the thread before seeking to undermine valid argument through scurrilous ad hominem argument, you'd know that I was playing CMx1 3 years ago and had only just picked it up again, after becoming disillusioned quickly with the demo of CM:SF). Ad hominem attacks tend to weaken the overall arc of an argument, and tend to be used in desperation. They are to be deprecated. Is your paranoia a result of trying to defend a currently weak product (too long in development, currently too underdeveloped, actualization of potential only after more time and much more expense) compared to CMx1, perhaps? That you see the need to deploy ad hominem argument at all leads me to conclude that - as a beta-tester no doubt having invested countless hours and lots of effort so far - you have let your sensitivity about what I perceive to be the current shortcomings of CMSF vs CMx1 both in gameplay (scope, depth' breadth) and cost (value for money) interfere with your ability to remain objective. Please read carefully and see where I have used words like "currently". I am not talking about what CM:SF might be in 'n' more years costing $300, but what it is today, costing nearly $100. Your argument appears to be about what CM:SF has "under the hood" that might be available in 'n' years at a cost of several hundred dollars. Apples and oranges. As you say, CM:SF has been out for two years and it's still nowhere near as deap and broad as its predecessor.

Oops .... silly me. This is CM:BB vs. CM:AK, not CMx1 vs CMx2. Sorry. As for BB vs AK: Get both!

Hi wengart. Just to clarify what I meant: 1) SF QB system will not offer the variety of meant and equipment nor the subtle 'point based' system we have come to enjoy in CMx1 for some time to come. It offers what it offers, and if that's OK with the player, then that;'s OK with the player: I am just contrasting it with CMx1 for the possible enlightenment of those for whom the purchase price of SF is a stretch. From what I read in (or rather infer from) BFs 'updates' the QB system won't even include all the 'reasonably to be expected' range of equipment in the Normandy time frame. Why? Not enough resources to do the artwork (which, I allow, is enormous). (Obviously almost all of the unit data is available per CMxq1 databases). If the artwork weren't privileged over abstracted representations adequately but not gloriously represented on-screen then this would not be such a big issue for the developers. I'm sure SF will eventually get a good QB system if the title survives well enough - but until then the limitation on TOE will be a PITA after a while, IMO. 2) Timeframe: what I meant is not the limitations of a Syrian conflict (with which I have no issue at all) but the lengthy growth of the breadth of coverage of CM2 WW2 - all the modules you list (and many more) having to be bought over an extended timeframe to get close to the coverage of the existing CMx1 titles. You say graphic improvements were necessary to sell the game - and that may indeed, sadly be so. It won't be the first time content has been sacrificed to commercial pressures. The eye-candy might indeed eventually contribute to a superior product - but not for a while and not for anything near the same price you can pick up BB & AK and have a damn good time! You say 1:1 modelling has improved the simulation. I doubt that very much - that'd be the engine, if anything (and actually I don't know if the simulation has or has not been improved)! It has improved the visual representation of the simulation. The simulation takes place in the 'innards' of the engine. What I lament is the focus on the eye-candy rather than the guts of the game: but as you say, the commercial assessment is 'eye-candy sells". And indeed it does. But for those who want a good, broad, deep game NOW for very few £££, CMx1 is it. Comparing and contrasting CMx1 and CMx2 today on a value-for-money basis, CMx1 has it hands-down IMO. On a VFM basis for the enthusiast, CMx1 might always win out: for the MTV generation where eye-candy is necessary for enjoyment, CMx2 will win through, for sure. For a bit of fun for someone for whom $70 is the cost of a Friday night out in the pub, CMx2 is OK. I have nothing against CM:SF at all, either ideologically or as a potentially good and maybe great game. I just don't like it enough to buy it for the eye candy: for that I bought Fallout3 (That was the first new game I'd played in YEARS - you can call me shallow but having been first exposed to that type of computer games via Doom, Descent and suchlke I was blown-away by Fallout 3 (literally and metaphorically). MY recommendation that if one is after eye-candy with limited re-playability RIGHT NOW (as opposed to some-when after a lengthy development cycle and parting with cash for each relatively minor increment in the overall scheme of things*) go and get Fallout 3! If you're interested in damn-fine game play - broad and deep - go for CMx1. I'm just not sure where CMx2 sits right now - it's neither fish nor fowl in that regard. Not for the gamer, anyway - maybe it's pulling-in military and mercenary ("contractor") $$$ already .... * I don't know the answer to this question, so I don't know whether it is good or bad news, but what is the estimated cost to the customer and time-scale of getting a CMx2 WW2 version as broad and deep as CMAK+BB? Perhaps $300 and 3-5 years? (I get to $300 by saying - roughly - $45 for base game, $35 each for three 'families', $25 each for 6 modules. No idea at all how realistic that is, but it's already $45 for SF+Marines. + $25 for British ($70) and that's just in Syria! By the way: just as a matter of interest, I do wonder from time to time why is there no 'Far East' content in CMx2? Indeed, why was there no 'Far East' content in CMx1? It seems too large and important a theatre to ignore. It might simply be that jungle warfare isn't much fun for the player, and certainly not for the PBI!

It's actually an anagram, or palindrome, or anagrammic palindrome or palindrommic anagram or somesuch . I don't know if I would qualify as "dearly" departed: I left because I wouldn't tolerate being shouted at in 14" high letters by "the luddite representatives of management" I hadn't played CM again until recently.

Unlikely: my BB .exe file is called "Barbarossa to Berlin.exe" (it is 1.03 - unpatched) running perfectly happily on Vista 64bit . My AK .exe is called "CM Afrika Corps.exe" fwiw.

Crazy: yes. My Vista 64bit system runs BB perfectly without the patch and AK (nearly) perfectly WITH it. The difference I note is with my dual-monitor setup: with BB (1.03) I can simply move the mouse from monitor 1 to monitor 2 to check emails or deal with PBEMs or whatever; with AK (1.04) I have to alt-tab (the mouse is 'locked' in the AK screen boundary - i.e. Monitor 1). I prefer the BB (1.03) behaviour so I plan to downgrade AK to 1.03 to see what happens then but I fear I'll get in a tangle with the eLicence thing so I'll need to make sure I try it during BF working hours! The ONLY problem I've had (patch or no patch) is with the apparently well-known Radeon white text on white background issue: why oh why isn't this prominently referenced on the BF website and included in the readme for all new downloads of 1.03 or - especially - the Vista patch? Some folks read readme files ... most every program I use has a readme file with "known issues" somewhere prominent: if this Radeon problem isn't a "known issue" I don't know what is!

Emmm ... all of what you need is freely available on the many great war-gaming sites that really support the CMx1 titles. Or at least I expect it is. What I mean by that is I haven't shelled out $15 (more than the game - although not on D2D where they are charging a bewildering $35) to know what is in the strategy guide, but I DO know that a) the CM manuals were very good (objectively, as well as compared to the dross one gets today) and the amount of info (tactics/strategy/data) available is vast .... Google is your friend in that regard. This (http://users.erols.com/chare/cm/) is a GREAT resource for data tables ..... from here http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=4069&page=3 One quirk: text doesn't display in the XLS - select entire sheet and set font colour to e.g. black.