dkchapuis

I would like to demo this game, but dont really want to use the beta demo now that the game has been released. I assume a new demo will be coming. Does anybody know when? (I did a quick search but couldnt find the answer)

i miss shift-C.

get a syrian unit (one with no radio), send them out of LOS of all other syrians units. It used to be that they would disappear. according to the manual, you can only select them by tabbing. I didnt know that during the one game I played where that happened. I sent another syrian unit down the road to get LOS, and when I found them they were dead. I think it is a cool functionality.

by lost contact, I mean that friendly units out of contact are invisible even when no unit is selected. I know the game used to do this (back in v 1.07 or so). Havent tested if it still does. But if you read the manual, it would seem that it still does. It says the only way to select them is to tab too them.

not according to the v1.20 manual

I like the friendly unit FOW where you can lose contact with one of your units. However, I dont like the elite-level setting of all friendly units out of LOS disappear when a unit is selected. Anyway else think those would be better as seperate options?

I understand that, and would rather have the game sooner with "stuff to improve" then waiting til everything is perfect... as long as the developers show that are willing to continue to improve it. And they have proved that in my mind, so no complaints about it being on the development schedule.

Ezra and I are having a go at it. Lets see how this goes. Should be lots of things getting blown up, at least on my side. And Now that I am playing again, I think at least some of my dislike is with the setting. I never cared at all for cmak desert maps.

And there seem to be a certain number of posters who think that you should have to learn to 'play' a game the same way you learn to live My point from previous posts - and what I think this guy is saying - is not to go back to hexes. It is that the game doesnt provide enough info to the user, e.g. I just spent at least an hour searching this forum trying to find out what the +/X symbols mean in teh fire control panel. Takes a lot out of the fun. I understand the concept of prioritizing development, and I can live with that as a reason for lack of a large portion of info. and I understand that what was valid for Cmx1 doesnt mean it is valid for this game. But there are a h3ll of a lot of UI elements that a new user doesnt have a clue what they mean. and it seems difficult for me to believe that adding a dozen more pop-ups to the UI would require more than something that could be done pretty easily. But dont say that people that want more info also want to go back to boardgames - that is ridiculous.

Leto has gifts???? Is long-winded rambling a gift????

yes that is it. thanks so much

Around 1990 I owned a PC game (probably DOS based). I cannot remember the name of it, and I would really like to try to find a copy. Here are the details that I remember: - It was a game about dragons, magic, dragon eggs, and ruling villages - You could control a dragon in real time combat with a top-down view. Usually you would torch villages when doing this - You had various dragon eggs in "incubators". The longer you let the egg cook the stronger the dragon was. - (My favorite part of the game), you could create potions by mixing various chemicals/herbs together. These potions could be used on dragon eggs. I think they could also be used on villages. - While mixing the potions, the chemicals would bubble. The object would be to make the potion as strong as possible, but if you added too much the potio would explode. - I also think that you could make villages loyal to you, and they would pay you tribute. - I also seem to remember that game came with a big "chemical sheet", or something like that, that described what various elements of the potion would do.

And I just want to say that I hope you dont take what I said as a complaint. But for some reason I havent been able to latch on to CMSF like I did the before - even though I really want to.

Well that isnt what I said. I said: It took months of play to learn all the fancy game mechanics of CMx1 that would allow you to really be a master. That isnt what I am hoping for at this point. I want to be able to play the game and know that my tactics and generalship - or lack thereof - make the difference in the lives of my pixeltroops. For CMx1, reading Fionns AARs showed me how to do that, and that is when I was "hooked". CMx1 in-game-helps are one tool that makes it easier to have feedback on your generalship. But CMx1 helps arent required for the game to be fun. One could argue to get rid of those and to just "play a lot more" to learn how close to get in heavy trees before your can spot something. But the helps are good because they match the level of abstraction. CMx2 still has abstraction and game mechanics. Some helps that match CMx2 level of abstraction and game mechanics would make for a better game. I dont really see how that is debatable. The question is, where does it fit in the development priority list? For people that played CMx1 on view level 1 and only tabbed to different units, they probably dont care too much about in-game helps. for people like me and Walpurgis who like to know if you can throw satchel charges 29.5m or 30m, they are pretty important. But that doesnt mean that I want the 3-man squad abstraction and FP rating back.

Wow, I stepped away for a few days and the thread got interesting. Anyway... There is no doubt that to become a "master" of the game one would need to play it a lot more to understand how it works. That isnt really my issue. The problem for me is how do I get hooked on CMSF - which is obviouly EXTREMELY subjective. But to suggest that I have to play a lot more to get hooked is the wrong answer for me. I was hooked on CMx1 way before I had a mastery of it - in fact while I was still an absolute noob (note - if somebody asks me how to get hooked on CMx1 games, I will tell them to read Fionn's AARs and immediately play PBEM). I brought up the cover/concealment values not because I want to go back to die rolls and hexes, but as an example of how, IMO, CMx1 provides better information to the player than CMx2 does. Obviously CMx2 is much more complex, so "stay 29.5m away from the edge of heavy woods" will never be an option. But that doesnt mean that CMx2 games couldnt improve (right now, the only "info" you get is to know that sand provides less than bushes, which provides less than trees which provides less than walls). And I hope that is something that the developers recognize, rather than just saying "looking at the map is the answer". Nevertheless, would this one change fix my problem? no. but i believe it is somehow related. So I guess I'll try to fix my "not-hooked" problem based on my CMx1 experiences - namely, to read/watch a few more AARs and try out another pbem game.

Another vote for this. The pause button just doesnt take the place of an automatic stop like tcp/ip we-go.

I have tried a few video AAR's and didnt find them too engaging. And I do understand it is a completely different game, and the CMx1 FP ratings and exposure values arent relevant. But that doesnt mean in-game help, so that a player can better understand a units exposure (as an example) wouldnt be a valuable tool. And I also recognize that tactics are completely different. But what is lacking - for me - is the ability to look at the map and objectives, develop a plan of action, and feel like I was able to lead my pixeltroops in a way that accomplishes something in a manner that doesnt feel like I am playing call of duty. And I dont really want to read real world manuals. Game helps, yes. Real world manuals, no. So I dont think I take all the blame. I feel that the game is at least a little lacking in providing me - the user - information, and I hope BFC recognizes this and has some ideas to improve this.

I was reading the v. 1.21 wish-list thread and it made me want to discuss a different “problem” with the game. I consider myself a CMx1 "super-user" (does that need explanation?), but I have not been able to get immersed in CMx2. I have tried on three different occasions – as late as a few weeks ago on version 1.20, but instead of finishing a game and craving another… I feel like I had little effect on what happened, and I don’t really know what I could do different to improve. To be fair, when I bought CMBO my initial experience was the similar: I played it for about a month yet couldn’t really get into the game. But I stumbled upon the classic Fionn AAR, and immediately I was hooked. That was 2001, and I played non-stop for 7 years (finally quit due to family reasons). So the biggest “problem” I have with the game is I cannot get into like CMx1, and I really want to. I like the graphics, the 1-to-1 representation, the lighting, better realism … but something is missing for me. Now I’m sure that part of it is me trying to get up to speed on the game - perhaps all I need is another good AAR to show me how to play. But I don’t think that is all that is missing. In CMx1, even at the beginning when I didn’t have a clue about the different armor types, I still felt like every 60 seconds I could analyze where my troops were in the battle and make an educated plan about how to win. But in CMSF I’m just clueless. “should I leave my troops shooting from the bushes, or would they be better behind that 1 tree???” “Should I just sit here in this building and engage the enemy from 200m, or is that a losing engagement?” In CMx1, one really had to be judicious about when to use firepower, when to reveal tanks, when to fire zooks/schreks. In CMx2, the best results I have had comes from just blasting the enemy with everything I can as soon as I see them. I don’t really have ideas on how to fix this. One item that seems missing in CMx2 is in-game help items. Those were so helpful in learning how to play so that one felt like they could wisely effect the fate of their troops. I do understand the CMx2 tiles and FP are completely different, but that is a big loss from my point of view. Also, finding online opponents is much more difficult than it used to be with CMx1. Some help from BFC in that area could strengthen playing experience, because AI just doesn’t provide a fun playing experience. I’m also curious as to how some of the die-hard CMx1 players were able to make the transition. Maybe that could help me.

and dont forget...

your use of the english language is fatally flawed "im just saying"